Yep. That is true. I didn't think of that at all! But then, why do current WiFi, etc. work at 2.4GHz, if device speeds aren't at those levels?
I'll try wireless transmissions of files at 10MHz then in the lower frequency regions. Then by replacing hardware, maybe I'll just have to change a single number!
I already use just wired connections but today's extreme use of mobile phones has made securing wireless networks a compulsion!
Thanking you
Sagar Acharya
http://humaaraartha.in <
https://humaaraartha.in>
13 May 2023, 15:20 by dwm_AT_dbrooke.me.uk:
> A simpler alternative to WiFi is to use wires 8-)
>
> Seriously, the radio frequency techniques necessary to provide
> sufficient throughput for today's applications are inevitably complex.
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 05:43:04PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote:
>
>> What I'm trying to find is a simple C program which can be run on Arduino and analog pins connected to an antenna.
>>
>
> The lowest frequency at which WiFi operates is the 2.4GHz band, an
> Arduino (there are many variants, of which some will be faster) is
> likely to be clocked at 10s of MHz so will be unable to generate
> suitable radio frequency signals at its analogue pins.
>
> Back in the '90s I was running TCP/IP over amateur radio at low data
> rates (9600 bps) using KA9Q NOS [1] which was a single C program for
> DOS. It's probably close to the minimum needed for a router, although it
> does typically include some application level features.
>
> These days even embedded systems will likely use an RTOS which may
> include an existing protocol stack, e.g. RTEMS [2] uses a port of the
> FreeBSD stack.
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.ka9q.net/code/ka9qnos/
> [2] https://www.rtems.org/
>
Received on Sat May 13 2023 - 17:18:53 CEST