<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM, David McLaughlin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thorgrim@imaginarytower.org">thorgrim@imaginarytower.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I've had much better luck with range by placing the router as high as<br>
possible within the house.<br></blockquote></div><br clear="all">That's because the newer wifi signals are actually slightly heavier than air so they fall down gradually after they're broadcast. Kind of like the branches of a willow tree.<br>
<br>It works good for streaming video, which is download heavy, but if you're actually sending a lot of packets you'll want your router to be below the sending machine since it takes more strength to get the weighty packets up to the router at a reasonable rate.<br>
<br>This is also why it's taken so long to get Internet access on airplanes. It takes an incredible amount of energy to get the packets up that high.<br><br>There's also been evidence that some packets are heavier than others. For example, twitter and web comic packets seem to have better range than, for example, a web page from the Mayo Clinic or the Wall Street Journal.<br>
<br>;-)<br><br>-- <br>Matthew Nuzum<br>newz2000 on freenode, skype, linkedin, <a href="http://identi.ca">identi.ca</a> and twitter<br>