Comment on Lemmings, please give us your info dump.
VivianRixia@piefed.social 1 week agoThanks for the long reply. I was using 20 for 5GHz for the range as on the other side of my home, the signal is quite weak. So I figure its more stable at 20 than using 40, even if 40 would be faster. Actually reading up on it more, the lower bands would be better in my case as they offer better wall penetration, which I think is my problem. I’m currently set to 161, let me try to swap to 36 and see if my signal improves. And I’ll test it out to 40MHz, might as well go for broke.
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
The difference between high and low ranges in the 5 GHz band shouldn’t be significant. My understanding of the rule with penetration is that the signal will be attenuated by something that is half of the wavelength in thickness. Which for 5 GHz frequencies with a wavelength between 50 and 60 mm. Anything thicker than 25mm will impact performance. The lower end, channel 36 will be closer to 30mm
5mm isn’t significant enough to worry too much about. Certainly worth testing either way.
By comparison 2.4ghz has a wavelength of ~125mm.
For wall penetration 2.4 GHz is better, but you’ll suffer on speed. I think the phy rate caps out around 150mbps on 20mhz wide channels. I can double check that, but I don’t think it’s far off. I think you could get up to ~300mbps? But I’m pretty sure that was 40mhz wide… So as far as I’m concerned that’s not valid.
Good luck. Test, document it, see what’s what. Remember, the difference between science and fucking around is writing it down.