3 ms·
Well, no, you couldn't, because that's kind of not how it works. Power doesn't make it go faster or further. You can easily go 150km with a few hundred milliw
by ErroneousBosh 3mo ago
Well, no, you couldn't, because that's kind of not how it works.
Power doesn't make it go faster or further.
You can easily go 150km with a few hundred milliwatts and get 322Mbps with a few hundred quid's worth of equipment if you've got good clear line-of-sight, but you need to go to a way higher frequency than 5.8GHz.
Also, don't forget that there's a difference between TX power and EIRP - when I had my amateur radio Foundation licence and was limited to 10 watts, I was running 10W at the antenna port as measured on the terribly expensive Marconi test set - but well over 150W EIRP totally legally by simply using a decent aerial. This also meant that instead of blasting everything around with RF and only hearing fairly close stations, I could hear about as far as I could transmit.
Finally, I think you're grossly underestimating the cost and complexity of something that'll output 1500W on 2.4GHz, which would be incredibly expensive and difficult to operate.
- inigyou 3mo agoPower literally does make it go further and with higher SNR (so faster).
- ErroneousBosh 3mo agoNo, it doesn't, it only does so under certain conditions. For bidirectional communications it is *always* better to use a more efficient aerial. It's interesting that you think "better SNR means faster". How do you think that works? How would you stream a couple of 4K video feeds over say the 40m band? Do you think other limitations might come into play before SNR ever did?