Wireless Setup on Floating Height
Hi,
I want to place a camera at a floating height (say on a hot air balloon) and view live transmission on a computer placed on the ground. Say i need a wireless coverage of about 1.5 - 2 km .... how do i go about it .... tried researching it on the net .... but couldnt get any concrete results .... so tell me what all will i require, what kind of long range router devices should i be using ... how can i increase the range of wifi and stuff like that ....
I want to place a camera at a floating height (say on a hot air balloon) and view live transmission on a computer placed on the ground. Say i need a wireless coverage of about 1.5 - 2 km .... how do i go about it .... tried researching it on the net .... but couldnt get any concrete results .... so tell me what all will i require, what kind of long range router devices should i be using ... how can i increase the range of wifi and stuff like that ....
Aaron Tomosky
Directional antenna. Use a constant stream so it not waiting for a response. I buy my antennas and adapters from l-com.com.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I wouldn't even do ip. Too much overhead. There are wireless video cameras that run analog wireless signals.
>I wouldn't even do ip. Too much overhead. There are wireless video cameras that run analog wireless signals.
Please elaborate.
Yes, there are video camers that do wireless, but the devices do not have the capability to operate in a environment such as what the author has in mind. You need to consider the output power, receiver sensitivty, foilage, and other variables for a solid transmission. Actually, with the overhead that IP has is actually more efficient that traditional analog; it allows better compression ratio, megapixal data transfer, and in most cases, allows digital processing right at the camera. Obviously bandwidth has to be considered; however, coupled with 802.11and IP, you have an overall system that will out perform an analog system. Analog systems will be a thing of the past, whereas IP systems will be a norm. I can not rememeber the last time a customer has requested an analog system; all my designs are based on IP systems that were requested by a customer.
Billy
Please elaborate.
Yes, there are video camers that do wireless, but the devices do not have the capability to operate in a environment such as what the author has in mind. You need to consider the output power, receiver sensitivty, foilage, and other variables for a solid transmission. Actually, with the overhead that IP has is actually more efficient that traditional analog; it allows better compression ratio, megapixal data transfer, and in most cases, allows digital processing right at the camera. Obviously bandwidth has to be considered; however, coupled with 802.11and IP, you have an overall system that will out perform an analog system. Analog systems will be a thing of the past, whereas IP systems will be a norm. I can not rememeber the last time a customer has requested an analog system; all my designs are based on IP systems that were requested by a customer.
Billy
I just thought that at 2km it would be easier for a device to just stream a video signal. With ip you would have to see the network, stay connected, resend packets etc...
I will admit I don't know mutch about analogue as I don't ever use it either. I just know that keeping a LAN connected at that distance is hard enough without it moving.
I will admit I don't know mutch about analogue as I don't ever use it either. I just know that keeping a LAN connected at that distance is hard enough without it moving.
Well in that case I would agree with you; however, the link connectivity is at layer 1 and 2, not layer 3; so I thought I would ask that you elaborate a bit. Depending on what the user requirements are; who is receiving, is this going to be streamed via the interest, is this going to be recorded, etc. Your solution would be a viable solution depending on how the author was going to utilizing received the transmission. If you were thinking of direct FM transmission, vs BPSK or OFDM, you could use a 900 Mhz transmitter allowing the reception utilizing a receiver:
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=24
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=35_21&products_id=219
and 2 omni directional antennas so that you do not have to worry about the directivity, but utilizing an omni directional antenna, you are wasting db gain in the directions that you are not receiving. If there is not a sole at the earth station, then an Omni is the way to go.
http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=20583
with an 8dB gain antenna coupled with a 500mW transmitter, that puts you around 35dBm EIRP and still withing FCC regulation.
Billy
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=24
http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=35_21&products_id=219
and 2 omni directional antennas so that you do not have to worry about the directivity, but utilizing an omni directional antenna, you are wasting db gain in the directions that you are not receiving. If there is not a sole at the earth station, then an Omni is the way to go.
http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=20583
with an 8dB gain antenna coupled with a 500mW transmitter, that puts you around 35dBm EIRP and still withing FCC regulation.
Billy