<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Xavier Bestel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xavier.bestel@free.fr">xavier.bestel@free.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 17:36 +0530, Nishit Dave wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Xavier Bestel <<a href="mailto:xavier.bestel@free.fr">xavier.bestel@free.fr</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 16:58 +0530, Nishit Dave wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> > All this discussion does not help if you realize that even<br>
> after<br>
> > placing the FR *next* to the blooming router, you get<br>
> reported a<br>
> > signal strength of 65%. What does the hardware expect,<br>
> building the<br>
> > router *inside* the FR?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Note that interferences may weaken an otherwise perfectly good<br>
> signal.<br>
> So the proximity isn't always synonymous with good signal<br>
> strengh.<br>
><br>
> Xav<br>
><br>
> No?<br>
<br>
</div></div>Well, the closer you are, the better the signal is.<br>
But in my building, there are many other wifi networks. And in the<br>
evening, when they are all in use, I get a worst signal even when near<br>
my AP, whereas e.g. during the night it's better. At least I seem to<br>
have observed that.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div>Have you used Occam's Razor on that?<br></div>