> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.uok42atv4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
>> I tend to have just enough WAPs to cover every area, and have found that
>> if they are close, I
>> need a difference of only TWO channels (eg use channel 3 and 5), and if
>> they are only just visible
>> from one point, then a gap of 1 is enough (eg using channel 4 and 5).
>
> They may seem to work but you can still loose signal.  You are loosing the
> signal "width" because the overlapped part is "lost", or more accuartely,
> "destroyed".  The width of the signal takes up more than one channel.  They
> need to be separated by 5.
>
> ----Channel Options in overlaping areas----
> Single WAP = any channel
> Two WAPs = 1,6  or  2,7  or  3,8  or  4,9  or  5,10 or 6,11
> Three WAPs = 1,6,11   This is the only option, no other options

> Four WAPs = none available for 4 WAPs unless using roaming
>

> Phillip Windell wrote:
>> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.uok42atv4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
>>> I tend to have just enough WAPs to cover every area, and have found that
>>> if they are close, I
>>> need a difference of only TWO channels (eg use channel 3 and 5), and if
>>> they are only just visible
>>> from one point, then a gap of 1 is enough (eg using channel 4 and 5).
>>
>> They may seem to work but you can still loose signal.  You are loosing the
>> signal "width" because the overlapped part is "lost", or more accuartely,
>> "destroyed".  The width of the signal takes up more than one channel.  They
>> need to be separated by 5.
>>
>> ----Channel Options in overlaping areas----
>> Single WAP = any channel
>> Two WAPs = 1,6  or  2,7  or  3,8  or  4,9  or  5,10 or 6,11
>> Three WAPs = 1,6,11   This is the only option, no other options
>
> This being "uk.comp.   ", what's wrong with 7,12 and 8,13
>   2,7,12 and 3,8,13 ?

>
> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.uok9jzr24buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
>>> This being "uk.comp.   ", what's wrong with 7,12 and 8,13
>>>   2,7,12 and 3,8,13 ?
>>
>> I assume you're referring to his lack of channel 12 and 13.  Does only the
>> UK do 12 and 13?
>
> Yes, I believe that is the case.  We have too much "stuff" flying around in
> the air over here, so in some situations we don't have as much available for
> certain things.  I think some of that stuff is going to get shifted around
> some more after all the TV Stations switch from analog to digital which is
> going to free up some room in some places  (BTW - we are an NBC Affiliated
> TV Station).

>
> There are regional differences in electonic equipment.  Heck even TV is
> different,...with analog TV the UK is the PAL standard,..the US uses NTSC.
> I'n not sure with Dgital TV what happens.
>

> ----Channel Options in overlaping areas----
> Single WAP = any channel
> Two WAPs = 1,6  or  2,7  or  3,8  or  4,9  or  5,10 or 6,11
> Three WAPs = 1,6,11   This is the only option, no other options
> Four WAPs = none available for 4 WAPs unless using roaming
>
>>
>> What annoys me is they (mostly Belkins) have an "Auto" setting which
>> simply does not work.  I
>> put them all on auto and they all chose channel 1 and killed each other.
>> When they detect
>> something else on the same channel they seem to just shut down,
>> permanently (until I power
>> cycle them).
>
> Home user products,.....home user quality.
>
> Home-User WAPS = $50 - $80
> Commercial quality WAPS = $200 - $1500 (and maybe more)

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm.  One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it.  Is this possible??  It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power.  The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped.  Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets.  PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors?  Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you?  Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?
>>>
>> 1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
>> but you don't really know what it is.  If it really is a "PIR" then by
>> definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
>> receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive").  And yes, a PIR
>> is typically used as a motion detector:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor
>
> It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about.  I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones.  Those don't cause problems with wireless.
>
>> 2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
>> *all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
>> Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
>> compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
>> wired and wireless detectors.
>
> The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically).  The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.
>
>> 3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
>> sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?
>
> He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem.  When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that".  I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.
>
>> (AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,
>
> Yes, UK.
>
>> wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
>> know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
>> transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
>> band of 802.11G.
>
> I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz.  That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.
>

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm.  One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it.  Is this possible??  It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power.  The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped.  Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets.  PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors?  Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you?  Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?
>>>>
>>> 1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
>>> but you don't really know what it is.  If it really is a "PIR" then by
>>> definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
>>> receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive").  And yes, a PIR
>>> is typically used as a motion detector:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor
>>
>> It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about.  I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones.  Those don't cause problems with wireless.
>>
>>> 2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
>>> *all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
>>> Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
>>> compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
>>> wired and wireless detectors.
>>
>> The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically).  The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.
>>
>>> 3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
>>> sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?
>>
>> He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem.  When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that".  I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.
>>
>>> (AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,
>>
>> Yes, UK.
>>
>>> wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
>>> know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
>>> transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
>>> band of 802.11G.
>>
>> I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz.  That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.
>>
>
> If it is difficult to remove that PIR, then just cover it up with
> something made of iron or copper or tin to present a shield between the
> PIR and the wireless laptops.

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:14:31 -0000, Bob Willard <BobwB***@trashthis.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>> We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm.  One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it.  Is this possible??  It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power.  The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped.  Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets.  PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors?  Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you?  Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?
>>>>>
>>>> 1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
>>>> but you don't really know what it is.  If it really is a "PIR" then by
>>>> definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
>>>> receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive").  And yes, a PIR
>>>> is typically used as a motion detector:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor
>>> It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about.  I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones.  Those don't cause problems with wireless.
>>>
>>>> 2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
>>>> *all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
>>>> Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
>>>> compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
>>>> wired and wireless detectors.
>>> The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically).  The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.
>>>
>>>> 3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
>>>> sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?
>>> He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem.  When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that".  I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.
>>>
>>>> (AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,
>>> Yes, UK.
>>>
>>>> wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
>>>> know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
>>>> transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
>>>> band of 802.11G.
>>> I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz.  That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.
>>>
>> If it is difficult to remove that PIR, then just cover it up with
>> something made of iron or copper or tin to present a shield between the
>> PIR and the wireless laptops.
>
> Aha!  Wish I'd thought of that!  So it has to be iron copper or tin?  Not just any metal?  The first metal thing I can think of that would be to hand is the lid of a tin of chocolates.  Cadbury's Roses I think, not sure what they use.
>

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:14:31 -0000, Bob Willard <BobwB***@trashthis.comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:37:05 -0000, Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>> We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm.  One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it.  Is this possible??  It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power.  The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped.  Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets.  PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors?  Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you?  Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1. You have a device on the wall that works with your security system
>>>>> but you don't really know what it is.  If it really is a "PIR" then by
>>>>> definition, it is a "Passive InfraRed" detector, which means that it
>>>>> receives signals but doesn't send them out ("passive").  And yes, a PIR
>>>>> is typically used as a motion detector:
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor
>>>> It looks cheap and cheerful with one red LED coming on when I walk about.  I've seen others (in our temporary huts) with THREE different coloured LEDs that come on seperately when I walk in different directions, which I assume are multi-detection ones.  Those don't cause problems with wireless.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Just because the installers left some cable behind doesn't mean that
>>>>> *all* of the devices they installed are wired to the alarm electronics.
>>>>> Very often, a security system installed in an already-built location (as
>>>>> compared to one installed during construction) will be a combination of
>>>>> wired and wireless detectors.
>>>> The building is being completely refurbished (everything except the main supporting walls basically).  The section with the problem is an extension, a completely new building.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Ask the company that installed the security system. Are some of the
>>>>> sensors wireless, and if so, what frequency band do they use?
>>>> He wasn't there when I was testing, but he was when the user noticed a problem.  When she asked him if the PIR he'd installed could have caused the problem, he said "don't be rediculous, they don't do that".  I've told the project manager to get him to disconnect it for the time being, so I'll see.
>>>>
>>>>> (AFAIK, if you're in the UK, as suggested by one of the groups you posted to,
>>>> Yes, UK.
>>>>
>>>>> wireless security systems are *supposed* to use 868 MHz, but you never
>>>>> know). Even if the devices are nominally supposed to use 868 MHz, their
>>>>> transmitters may be poorly designed and cause interference in the 2.4GHz
>>>>> band of 802.11G.
>>>> I once bought a wireless video camera which stated it used 2.4GHz.  That had channel settings and only interfered with wireless if on the same channel as the wireless access point.
>>>>
>>> If it is difficult to remove that PIR, then just cover it up with
>>> something made of iron or copper or tin to present a shield between the
>>> PIR and the wireless laptops.
>>
>> Aha!  Wish I'd thought of that!  So it has to be iron copper or tin?  Not just any metal?  The first metal thing I can think of that would be to hand is the lid of a tin of chocolates.  Cadbury's Roses I think, not sure what they use.
>>
> Covering the sensor with the Cadbury's lid (mainly, the shield needs to
> be made of an electrically conductive material; copper works best
> (unless you want to use silver); aluminum foil would probably work just
> as well) may help your wifi problem, but it will also make it rather
> useless for the security system.  If you can find the main control box
> for the security system, perhaps there is make/model info there that
> will help you determine if some of its sensors are wireless and if so,
> on what frequency.

> "Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.uoqtg9b84buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
>>> If the remedies suggested in the other post don't work consider changing
>>> to the homeplug system.
>>
>> Sorted anyway, but what is homeplug?
>
> Ethernet over mains wiring: one device is connected by Ethernet to the
> router and plugged into the mains. Another device is plugged into mains
> wiring some distance away (eg in another room) and connected by Ethernet to
> a PC (or to several nearby PCs via a hub/switch).
>
> It is used as an alternative to wireless for carrying network traffic over a
> distance which it is difficult to span by Cat 5 cable.
>
> You can even connect a wireless access point to a remote Homeplug device to
> create a local wireless network beyond the rnage of a router's own wireless
> access point.

> In message <op.uok1gktq4bu***@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker
> <none@spam.com> writes
>>We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill
>>since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm.  One of them in
>>particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to
>>it.  Is this possible??  It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I
>>can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10
>>cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the
>>signal aswell as power.
> They will likely be 'dual-tech' detectors, they use RADAR and PIR to
> detect intruders and only when both detect movement is the alarm
> triggered. It's to prevent falsing, the combination of both types is a
> quite neat solution to draughty rooms or rooms which have RADAR
> transparent walls.
>
> Don't know what band the RADAR usually uses but it would not surprise me
> in the slightest if they were 2.4GHz or some frequency that has
> harmonics in the 2.4GHz range.