On 10/07/2019 20:13, druck wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 22:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/07/2019 19:50, druck wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2019 09:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2019 09:00, druck wrote:
>>>>> Or have a number of access points in the places WiFi is used most,
>>>>> all set to minimum power, so it is easy for the client to pick the
>>>>> the strongest signal. In places equidistant, it will probably be
>>>>> worse than one high power access point, but its never going to be
>>>>> perfect.
>>>>>
>>>> My understanding of RF theory sugggests that messing with the power
>>>> levels isnt really going to help much. It will just change the point
>>>> at which  one WAP becomes preferable to another.
>>>
>>> Exactly - the aim is to make the signals from the access points in
>>> other rooms much weaker than the one in the current room, so it is
>>> used in preference.
>>>
>> But then when you go into the other rooms, you will use the one from
>> the fisrt room when you shouldnt be..
>>
>> As I said, it moves the boundary, that's all.
>
> Whoosh, whoosh and thrice whoosh.
>
> You are not going to get perfect reception in every room with a house
> like that. There are probably two or three places in the house that you
> use your phone/tablet/laptop the most, and those should have a lower
> power access points. In those places the nearest access point will
> dominate and give a fairly decent rate, elsewhere your mileage will vary.
>
> ---druck
>
As I said. it just moves the boundary

4xwhoosh


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05