Grounding an Appliance

[Harry Bloomfield]

I don't think that connection speed is an issue. Basically, the wireless connection will either 'work' or not work - and if it 'works', then you will get the full connection speed available from the network.

Connection speed would only be impacted if the signal strength were so marginal (very low) that the system had to repeatedly re-send packets because of errors, but that's very unlikley to be an issue with a fixed antenna that usually 'works'.

My own experience, limited to using mobile data whilst away with my tourer caravan, is that mobile data can be quite variable even when in a fixed position. Sometimes I would have decent speeds, sometimes nothing at all - such a connection didn't matter too much and was acceptably better than nothing for a temporary period whilst away for a holiday, but as my only connection it would have been annoying. The OP needs a reliable connection if he is to use it as his only connection, so worth his while experimenting with antennas to obtain that.

 

[JohnW2]

My own experience, limited to using mobile data whilst away with my tourer caravan, is that mobile data can be quite variable even when in a fixed position. Sometimes I would have decent speeds, sometimes nothing at all ...

Indeed - exactly the same happens when using a (not moving) mobile phone for a data connection. However, I doubt (but, as always, may be wrong!) that, in a situation like the OPs, that is going to have anything to do with the signal strength of the wireless signal being received/sent.

I think that some of the issues are probably related to the non-ideal nature of mobile phone networks for real-time continuous data transfer, but it sounds as if the OP has no choice other than that or satellite (which is not known for its reliability).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Indeed - exactly the same happens when using a (not moving) mobile phone for a data connection. However, I doubt (but, as always, may be wrong!) that, in a situation like the OPs, that is going to have anything to do with the signal strength of the wireless signal being received/sent.

I think that some of the issues are probably related to the non-deal nature of mobile phone networks for real-time continuous data transfer, but it sounds as if the OP has no choice other than that or satellite (which is not known for its reliability).

Kind Regards, John

Why do you reckon it's not reliable? When deploying our portable satelite kit we've never experienced any problems at all and will use it in preference to mobile phone for:
Reliability.
Availability.
Consistant capacity.

 

[JohnW2]

Why do you reckon it's not reliable? When deploying our portable satelite kit we've never experienced any problems at all and will use it in preference to mobile phone for: Reliability, Availability, Consistant capacity.

I have zero personal experience, but I am forever hearing moans from people who use, or have used, it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I have zero personal experience, but I am forever hearing moans from people who use, or have used, it.

Kind Regards, John

I have no idea why it should be, other than path issues like trees blowing in the wind, snow, exceptionally heavy rain etc.
I know of 3 people who have migrated their phone and internet from very long overhead phone lines to a communal Satelite system and never looked back. with 3 of them sharing, it's not silly money.

 

[bernardgreen]

One method of "selective door operation" for train doors INFO did not operate well in rain or thick fog. It too frequently refused to allow doors to be opened and a complex manual over-ride process was necessary to allow passengers to get on and off the trains affected. ( I cannot locate the article that described the failures ).

 

[winston1]

I'm guessing for a mobile mast that will be horizontal, so your antenna's elements need to be horizontal to match.

I'm guessing you are wrong. Mobile aerials on cars (when they had them) were always vertical.

10 degrees is well within the reception width of your directional antenna - you will find it quite difficult to even align the direction of the antenna that accurately.

Really. I can align a satellite dish on a radiator 23,000 miles away, and that requires an accuracy of less than one degree.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm guessing for a mobile mast that will be horizontal, so your antenna's elements need to be horizontal to match.

I'm guessing you are wrong. Mobile aerials on cars (when they had them) were always vertical.

I think you're probably both guessing wrong. As I understand it, virtually all GSM/LTE networks are neither vertically nor horizontally polarised, but actually 'cross-polarised' ('X-polarised') - i.e. ±45° .

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I'm guessing you are wrong. Mobile aerials on cars (when they had them) were always vertical.


Really. I can align a satellite dish on a radiator 23,000 miles away, and that requires an accuracy of less than one degree.

Don't you talk some absolute cr@p?

A vertical helical antenna on a car is horizontally polarised, but I accept as John suggested it is 45 degrees.

The accuracy needed for a sat dish, is much tighter than that of a simple Yagi and the signal from a sat is much weaker. Even then, the accuracy needed depends on the size of the dish - the larger the dish, the more accurately it needs to be aimed at the sat.

I don't understand why you seem to be bragging about how clever you are at aiming a satellite dish, because it couldn't really be simpler - I use sat exclusively in my caravan, to provide TV reception. I set it up several times per year when I pitch the caravan on arrival. I use nothing more than a compass and a crude inclinometer. I set the stand up, with the dish on top, plug the F-plug into the socket, then align roughly, then fine tune the alignment - it takes me just 5 minutes start to finish.

 

[winston1]

Don't you talk some absolute cr@p?

NO. Don't be so insulting.

A vertical helical antenna on a car is horizontally polarised,

Please provide proof of this statement.

Anyway, who said anything about a helical antenna.

The accuracy needed for a sat dish, is much tighter than that of a simple Yagi and the signal from a sat is much weaker. Even then, the accuracy needed depends on the size of the dish - the larger the dish, the more accurately it needs to be aimed at the sat.

I don't understand why you seem to be bragging about how clever you are at aiming a satellite dish, because it couldn't really be simpler - I use sat exclusively in my caravan, to provide TV reception. I set it up several times per year when I pitch the caravan on arrival. I use nothing more than a compass and a crude inclinometer. I set the stand up, with the dish on top, plug the F-plug into the socket, then align roughly, then fine tune the alignment - it takes me just 5 minutes start to finish.

So why do you have so much difficulty aligning a yagi with around 10˚ beamwidth?

"10 degrees is well within the reception width of your directional antenna - you will find it quite difficult to even align the direction of the antenna that accurately."

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

NO. Don't be so insulting.

Leave yourself so wide open and I will insult you.

Bye, bye...

Another one to ignore.

 

[JohnW2]

Is it possible that i could point a directional antenna at the two masts that are within 10 degrees of each other in the horizontal plane and get the benefit of both?

10 degrees is well within the reception width of your directional antenna - you will find it quite difficult to even align the direction of the antenna that accurately. Does this equipment support multiple sims, so you can access different providers at the same time?

So why do you have so much difficulty aligning a yagi with around 10˚ beamwidth?

It always helps if one makes at least some effort to understand what one is reading before one attempts to criticise something, and I'm far from convinced that you have achieved that here.

I don't think anyone has suggested that it would be "difficult to align a yagi with around 10° bandwidth". My understanding is that the OP has a number of masts within a 10° horizontal spread from his location and that Harry was saying that it would be difficult to align an antenna (which, in practice is likely to have a horizonal (3dB) 'bandwidth' much greater than 10°) explicitly at one of those masts since, over quite a range of 'pointing directions' of the antenna, the antenna would more-or-less equally well communicate with all of the masts.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It always helps if one makes at least some effort to understand what one is reading before one attempts to criticise something, and I'm far from convinced that you have achieved that here.

I don't think anyone has suggested that it would be "difficult to align a yagi with around 10° bandwidth". My understanding is that the OP has a number of masts within a 10° horizontal spread from his location and that Harry was saying that it would be difficult to align an antenna (which, in practice is likely to have a horizonal (3dB) 'bandwidth' much greater than 10°) explicitly at one of those masts since, over quite a range of 'pointing directions' of the antenna, the antenna would more-or-less equally well communicate with all of the masts.

Sorry John (and the Irish), but that reads a bit 'Irish'... Maybe my original post was a bit 'Irish'.

I think what I said was being misinterpreted - the 10 degrees was the difference in angle, at the OP's suggested location, between his likely mobile masts. I said a Yaggi antenna would reasonably easily accommodate that 10 degrees, between the masts. I said nothing about the how wide the beam width was of the antenna itself, other than that it would work and possibly better than something less directional. I didn't suggest that alignment would be difficult, all it needs is a compass and a direction to aim for.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry John (and the Irish), but that reads a bit 'Irish'... Maybe my original post was a bit 'Irish'.

I will not relay your comments to my (Irish) wife Maybe neither of us were as clear as we could/should have been, but I think we are both saying essentially the same thing - and that it is winston who is 'out on a limb'

I think what I said was being misinterpreted - the 10 degrees was the difference in angle, at the OP's suggested location, between his likely mobile masts.

Indeed, and that was mirrored by me when I wrote:

... My understanding is that the OP has a number of masts within a 10° horizontal spread from his location ...

I said a Yaggi antenna would reasonably easily accommodate that 10 degrees, between the masts.

.. and, again, I was (at least trying to) essentially mirror that when I wrote ...

... and that Harry was saying that it would be difficult to align an antenna (which, in practice is likely to have a horizonal (3dB) 'bandwidth' much greater than 10°) explicitly at one of those masts since, over quite a range of 'pointing directions' of the antenna, the antenna would more-or-less equally well communicate with all of the masts.

My wording was perhaps a little contorted but, as below, I was trying to accommodate the fact that you had used the word "difficult" in what you wrote - but the intent and spirit of my comments was the same as yours - that the antenna would, in practice, have more than enough beam width to accommodate all of the masts simultaneously and that it would be 'difficult' (other than, I suppose, 'visually'), as well as unnecessary, to attempt to point the antenna exactly at any one of the masts.

I said nothing about the how wide the beam width was of the antenna itself, other than that it would work and possibly better than something less directional.

You didn't mention the beam width as explicitly as I did ("in practice ... much greater than 10° ") but it was surely implicit in your saying that it would be adequate to cover all of the OP's masts?

I didn't suggest that alignment would be difficult, all it needs is a compass and a direction to aim for.

As above, you did (I would say rather confusingly) use the word 'difficult' in what you originally wrote, namely ...

... 10 degrees is well within the reception width of your directional antenna - you will find it quite difficult to even align the direction of the antenna that accurately.

... which is why I tried to use wording which reflected that.

So, as I said, I think that you and I are both singing from the same sheet (although we have both written some potentially confusing things!) and that it is winston who has (maybe 'by choice') not understood.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Sorry John (and the Irish), but that reads a bit 'Irish'... Maybe my original post was a bit 'Irish'.

I think what I said was being misinterpreted - the 10 degrees was the difference in angle, at the OP's suggested location, between his likely mobile masts. I said a Yaggi antenna would reasonably easily accommodate that 10 degrees, between the masts. I said nothing about the how wide the beam width was of the antenna itself, other than that it would work and possibly better than something less directional. I didn't suggest that alignment would be difficult, all it needs is a compass and a direction to aim for.

It doesn't even need that as OP says the masts are LOS.

When I replaced my TV aerial I looked along the boom and did the nut up, packed the ladder away then put the plug on the end of the new feeder.

As it happens I understood the meaning of your post without any difficulty but then I'm experienced in the process and anyone with a modicum of similar experience will had had equally little difficulty understanding. So the fact that Winston didn't understand is a bit worrying as he claims to have vast experience in that part of the industry... oh perhaps his books on the subject are on the shelf with his lecky regs?