RE: Real world 802.11x distances

["Hawes,Timothy Edward \(GEG\)" <haweste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David,

This is interesting as Kingspan / Celotex are often cited as wireless
killers. I haven't tested with either of these materials directly, but
have done a similar sort of test with "b" kit (Fuji with gold
Orinoco
card and Linksys WAP11).

At work we have metal storage lockers above the desk in each cubicle.
These lockers are at around chest height and made from approx. 1mm steel
sheet. We put the WAP11 on top of the locker and wandered away until the
signal disappeared. This was around one corner (cast concrete wall with
rebar) and about 25m away. Next we put the AP inside the locker and
closed the cover. The distance before drop-out then reduced to about 20m
or so. These distances are approx, but the key point is that we didn't
see a great deal of difference between the two tests.

What I find interesting is that the metal sides of the locker are much
thicker than the foil on Kingspan etc. yet we saw only a ~10% drop in
range.  Now I don't disbelieve people when they state they get poor WiFi
and GSM reception in foil-insulated buildings - I'm just trying to
understand what's different between the insulation scenario and a
completely enclosed steel box.

Can anyone explain the difference?

Thanks,

Tim.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Chapman
>
> As the house is only
> part built I'm able to check different types of materials,
> dense concrete block is worse than brick but what kills it
> totally is Kingspan. Kingspan is a foil coated foam that is
> used extensively in new build houses. It works very well as
> insulation but you can imagine what it does to radio signals
> when the room is effectively metal lined.