XPost: alt.home.repair, sci.electronics.repair   
   From: _arlen.george@halder.edu   
      
   On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 17:46:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:   
      
   > I think I'll just call _both_ these things, "nano's"...   
   >     
      
   Hi Dan Purgert,   
      
   One more thing, which surprised me just now, is that when I log into the   
   device that I've been calling a "PowerBeam" but which is labeled as a   
   "NanoBeam M2", the router firmware shows up everywhere as "PowerBeam".   
       
      
   Specifically PowerBeam M2 or PowerBeam M2 400   
       
      
   Since it's unlikely I flashed the firmware, it could be that it came that   
   way, which would agree with the fact I've always thought it was a PowerBeam   
   from the day I had opened the box (as I recall, I think it was sent to me   
   by my WISP to replace a NanoBridge I had prior lent out to replace a bad   
   NanoBridge in the days we were swapping out NanoBridges due to its many   
   failures in the field).   
      
   Based on the references I already quoted, others had problems with the   
   NanoBridges that they didn't have with the PowerBeams, so again, I'd   
   recommend, for pjp, he start with the PowerBeams and work down from there.   
      
   Even so, a kilometer for WiFi is utter child's play for these CPE devices.   
   o Hence, for pjp to attain a puny kilometer over Wi-Fi is a given.   
      
   All pjp needs is to be able to "see" the antenna, where a bit of foliage is   
   OK (there are tons of references of people pushing through foliage despite   
   that there were a few trolls here who claimed it's not possible).   
      
   The signal strength is attenuated - but that's why you want the most   
   powerful equipment that fits the application, not the most anemic.   
      
   --   
   Bringing useful ideas to share on the public Usenet potluck for decades.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)