regarding the use of more than 3 channels-non vs. overlaping

[lanebob]

Hi,

I have a vague understanding of the problems associated with the 11 FCC channels available, but the actuality of the true nature of the beast. I do understand the physics of the nature of how there are only 3 channels really.

But what about a strategy where no matter the channels used, a shema to only send on given channels in a non-overlaping way?

Supposing that is were possible to let star-os provide scheduling of packets in a way to only be making use of frequencies which will not overlap? Presently I would like to have 5 radios at my primary tower, and I believe that some sort of layer could be added to better accomodate this type of need, provided that all the radios are in the same machine, or if seperate machines, some way of communicating between machines.

What do you think star-guys?

[georgew]

I believe that the 2.4ghz frequencies are async only.

Using sychronous devices you could get much more out of the available bandwidth with more sensitivity and thruput. The 5.8ghz equipment is allowed to be syncronous.

It would be a good thing to coordinate bitclocks and transmit timeslots, but it would push up the complexity and cost of the radios.

A polled mode would work and be legal. It wouldn't be as good as syncronous TDM (which is how digital cellphones work).

[Bossman]

From what I understood during my time and nightmarish experience with the wilan radios, they used a type of polling and they did quite well for distance.

Arthur

[WISP]

Polarization... Channels 1, 3, and 11 vertical and Channels 4 and 8 horizonal. Or a combination there of.