From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F0E63B2A4 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 17:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id n2so11892894wrm.0 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:57:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hanekom-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=54rSBI4ZYH+3gCHbRg/cNxGYRqxu7IDT62u8zrYeLj4=; b=PaUCZM+vtvdzDaUhPUGUhU2zXZN9xDQ8CBaFSrCvZsC/phBP4bkWbYgXiAvu1Xjb60 /gVn0zJIe9KPsJJiaUdP1pqjdjngcGPH0QLcdGNVjfhlS+OZBO7duC//6OCkiR0O7WYd 7JS9dZ1/HEWYaYvaebrLh+tOI4mSyFFUHjOx5iAJVx8Tb72DgBADrjhIivS7R8/Rgcum iHbc/1AuGyqEf0CPLpWaC02lqPltu2gMdpR6g39epdnONjjPVwq+pvmfrIX6JI20sdBU QDHdSStVMnYm/pz+O/Dn099ob9vEmTns5RJhy2jVRifV2ByvI/b2G27+XLES81fXNQmu Jnzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=54rSBI4ZYH+3gCHbRg/cNxGYRqxu7IDT62u8zrYeLj4=; b=FFwHZRbj9RCYzjN1VDQHt7BPHPBSH4Bc0OR++5ToPOs9HsjV90uJiOVow0swlt1oan cf9keJhtFLdWHhP63xmOLxuKtMLTCvlmQqZ2speVofswqsYRlIo4flM6jGhlP2nAyo/k 1wHoIlvsJga3IpOzcKwDrjHjU3OMAAOXeTcIDOIod/Vk9AdVEu3zkY8kiod0yJvjKozT HnQUYhhIX2qhCYJsgdjMalF8iW8imysE01kws/5fgLkS4VHOSJoNgM9bOCS21r1jbfeT 4zrM3QpRcggMiecYIo5vAucqkawIKiuPqF+m3UC08RcbJYewgeUfSD9j3MFK+f9ob+eU jE/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339q0IGC58Vpgi0MYPrBf4qNFeJmpF6JtLVzhKPWDhLJM9MF/+m RIyHMjdi53SZe+Y236Qgd7AhtA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYtRf0ecTJ9eEA8hs6E4dYwrmTJGcHPmT+pyeVt7gHiFSKl1/8yrk0Baodj8CVseKj2lWMyw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1368:: with SMTP id q8mr9851220wrz.342.1621375062153; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WCPTL313C ([192.145.146.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v10sm26296933wrq.0.2021.05.18.14.57.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 May 2021 14:57:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jannie Hanekom" To: "'Bob McMahon'" Cc: "'Make-Wifi-fast'" References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 23:57:38 +0200 Message-ID: <011601d74c30$d2bea690$783bf3b0$@hanekom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0117_01D74C41.964AD1F0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQJrZtwfY1HGap3zwZxp4FPDWZckg6nBk2VA Content-Language: af X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 May 2021 05:04:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] 2.4Ghz hybrid wiring for nest protects X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 21:57:43 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01D74C41.964AD1F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (This contribution is probably drifting a bit off topic significantly. = Apologies for that.) =20 I have to acknowledge: As someone who lacks the expert-level technical = knowledge most contributors on this list have, what I say = doesn=E2=80=99t carry much weight. I=E2=80=99m here mostly because I = enjoy the content. But, I have a few concerns I=E2=80=99d like to = raise, mostly related to safety=E2=80=A6=20 * Fire is a serious matter. As well-intentioned as it may be, using a = prosumer-grade fire alerting product in an commercial or high-density = residential setting may not be appropriate. It=E2=80=99s one thing for = the occupant of a residential unit to install their own device. = It=E2=80=99s something quite different to use it as part of the services = a building offers to its tenants. * Creating a building-sized 2.4Ghz antenna sounds like an interesting = experiment, but wouldn=E2=80=99t the noise-floor being prohibitively = high? * Supporting such an environment on your day off would be a challenge. = That=E2=80=99s important considering the functionality the solution has = to deliver. * Something I=E2=80=99ve learnt about loops and other redundant systems = is that their reliability benefits are only as good as the processes = that monitor them for failures. Passive cable is really hard to = monitor. =20 Then, as someone occasionally involved in deployments of commercial = off-the-shelf solutions through my $dayjob, I=E2=80=99d argue that the = =E2=80=9Ctraditional=E2=80=9D route of installing a bunch of CAT6 and = one or more APs per unit (if the solution *had* to be Nest Protects) = would likely score higher on availability, performance and = supportability. (If you=E2=80=99re talking Zigbee not WiFi then = I=E2=80=99m even further out of my depth, but I=E2=80=99d argue the same = points still apply.) =20 Jannie =20 =20 Van: Make-wifi-fast = Namens Bob McMahon via Make-wifi-fast Gestuur: Maandag 17 Mei 2021 20:09 Aan: Make-Wifi-fast Onderwerp: [Make-wifi-fast] 2.4Ghz hybrid wiring for nest protects =20 Hi All, There is a historic building that has 5 floors and no fire alerting = associated with the rear fire escape ladder. I'm considering installing = nest protects in each unit near the rear egress to alert of the fire = escape is compromised by fire. My guess is floor to floor wireless = communications may not work too well. =20 I'm thinking about cleaning up the communications runs in the rear of = the building. The cable company did a shoddy job of hanging cable for TV = services in the 80s. It seems a good time to add communications conduit = and run more modern cabling. As part of this, I'm considering running LMR 600 cabling on the exterior = brick wall to act as 2.4Ghz communications wave guides. I was thinking = make a loop but break the loop at each floor with a 2.4Ghz wilkinson = power divider = . Then = bore a hole into each unit and install a 2.4Ghz patch antenna = pm each rear interior wall. Each unit would then install a Nest = protect on the ceiling from the patch antenna. The ring or loop topology = I think gives a bit of redundancy. Thoughts on if this would achieve the goals of supporting nest protect = communications for such a building? Bob ------=_NextPart_000_0117_01D74C41.964AD1F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(This contribution is probably = drifting a bit off topic significantly.=C2=A0 Apologies for = that.)

 

I have to = acknowledge: As someone who lacks the expert-level technical knowledge = most contributors on this list have, what I say doesn=E2=80=99t carry = much weight.=C2=A0 I=E2=80=99m here mostly because I enjoy the = content.=C2=A0 But, I have a few concerns I=E2=80=99d like to raise, = mostly related to safety=E2=80=A6

  • Fire is a serious matter.=C2=A0 As = well-intentioned as it may be, using a prosumer-grade fire alerting = product in an commercial or high-density residential setting may not be = appropriate.=C2=A0 It=E2=80=99s one thing for the occupant of a = residential unit to install their own device.=C2=A0 It=E2=80=99s = something quite different to use it as part of the services a building = offers to its tenants.
  • Creating a = building-sized 2.4Ghz antenna sounds like an interesting experiment, but = wouldn=E2=80=99t the noise-floor being prohibitively = high?
  • Supporting such an environment on = your day off would be a challenge.=C2=A0 That=E2=80=99s important = considering the functionality the solution has to = deliver.
  • Something I=E2=80=99ve learnt about = loops and other redundant systems is that their reliability benefits are = only as good as the processes that monitor them for failures.=C2=A0 = Passive cable is really hard to monitor.

 

Then, as = someone occasionally involved in deployments of commercial off-the-shelf = solutions through my $dayjob, I=E2=80=99d argue that the = =E2=80=9Ctraditional=E2=80=9D route of installing a bunch of CAT6 and = one or more APs per unit (if the solution *had* to be Nest = Protects) would likely score higher on availability, performance and = supportability.=C2=A0 (If you=E2=80=99re talking Zigbee not WiFi then = I=E2=80=99m even further out of my depth, but I=E2=80=99d argue the same = points still apply.)

 

Jannie

 

 

Van: Make-wifi-fast = <make-wifi-fast-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> Namens Bob = McMahon via Make-wifi-fast
Gestuur: Maandag 17 Mei 2021 = 20:09
Aan: Make-Wifi-fast = <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Onderwerp: = [Make-wifi-fast] 2.4Ghz hybrid wiring for nest = protects

 

Hi All,

There is a historic building that has 5 floors and no = fire alerting associated with the rear fire escape ladder. I'm = considering installing nest protects in each unit near the rear egress = to alert of the fire escape is compromised by fire. My guess = is floor to floor wireless communications may not work too = well.

 

I'm thinking about cleaning up the = communications runs in the rear of the building. The cable company did a = shoddy job of hanging cable for TV services in the 80s. It seems a good = time to add communications conduit and run more modern = cabling.

As part of this, I'm considering running LMR 600 cabling = on the exterior brick wall to act as 2.4Ghz communications wave guides. = I was thinking make a loop but break the loop at each floor with a 2.4Ghz wilkinson power divider. Then bore a hole = into each unit and install a 2.4Ghz patch antenna pm each rear interior wall. Each unit = would then install a Nest protect on the ceiling from the patch antenna. = The ring or loop topology I think gives a bit of = redundancy.

Thoughts on if this would achieve the goals of = supporting nest protect communications for such a = building?

Bob

------=_NextPart_000_0117_01D74C41.964AD1F0--