71–80 of 168 posts
The "100x bandwidth" claim needs to be substantiated. There are some significant regulatory issues with the current popular mesh network protocols in the USA, namely that neither MeshCore or Meshtastic are compliant with the actual FCC regulations. 100x bandwidth because you're breaking the rules isn't the same as 100x bandwidth legally. Here is the issue discussing this in the MeshCore repository: https://github.com…
That's just "using lora in the same band as WiFi and Bluetooth" no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are toys. For real work it makes so much more sense to use the internet. With the new satellite tech you can reach the internet everywhere. Mesh radio is a fun way to chat with radio nerds in your area. Not a serious infrastructure.
We may see a day when the internet is not available, or when interacting with it represents an unacceptable risk. It's a good idea to know how to set up your own.
The "100x bandwidth" claim needs to be substantiated. There are some significant regulatory issues with the current popular mesh network protocols in the USA, namely that neither MeshCore or Meshtastic are compliant with the actual FCC regulations. 100x bandwidth because you're breaking the rules isn't the same as 100x bandwidth legally. Here is the issue discussing this in the MeshCore repository: https://github.com…
That's just "using lora in the same band as WiFi and Bluetooth" no?
The "100x bandwidth" claim needs to be substantiated. There are some significant regulatory issues with the current popular mesh network protocols in the USA, namely that neither MeshCore or Meshtastic are compliant with the actual FCC regulations. 100x bandwidth because you're breaking the rules isn't the same as 100x bandwidth legally. Here is the issue discussing this in the MeshCore repository: https://github.com…
The issue you linked to is about MeshCore using channels that are too narrow . A mesh system claiming to offer 100x bandwidth is probably not violating regulations in that particular way.
As far as I know there's not actually anything particular to 2.4 GHz allowing higher throughput for LoRa than that the corresponding Semtech chip happens to support wider bandwidths. (I.e. no legal barrier.)
The tradeoff is less range due to lower link budget. Doubly so because 2.4 GHz has higher free-space path loss. You're not going to get outside your house with these speeds. The primary use (as stated in the original post) is likely through clear space with a directed antenna.
(The 2.4 GHz band is better suited to this use since you can use antennas with higher than 6 dBi gain. If my math is correct, anything higher than 11 dBi is a win even accounting for FSPL and the power derating the FCC imposes.)
(Aside, I am the author of that MeshCore ticket.)
That stuff is good for drone warfare, mesh networks already been used in Ukraine E.g. drones geographically organize themselves into a chain with each of them serving as a mesh-network node, then each of them, including the tip of a chain, can be controlled by operators, and the whole setup is a closed network which works without requiring Internet access
If this was good for drone warfare i think we'd see fewer carpets of fiber optic cable in the ukraine
Depends on the context, I guess. Distance, jamming probability, availability of relays, etc.
Fiber-optics are close-range.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't surprise me. This is a deep networking problem and very few CS people know anything about networking or how to design clean, fast, low-overhead network protocols and systems. If IP were designed today the packets would have 500+ bytes of plain text JSON as headers and the spec would support hundreds of extensions.
Is there a better designed mesh project like those two getting built that you know of? Reticulum?