Tig98 wrote: » Im away getting a degree and so my input on the home farm is gone way way down. I do feel a degree of guilt about leaving the work up to my father, but at the end of the day Ive to do my own thing too. I was thinking itd be a nice idea to get some calving cameras set up for the spring, itd take some bit of pressure off him if he didn't have to get dressed and go down to check the cows in the small hours. Does anyone have any good recommendations? Theres a good 150 meters between the house and the calving shed, so I don't think WiFi cameras would be much good. Hassle of laying a physical wire that distance though and trying to mind it isnt ideal either.
sob1467 wrote: » I was in a similar boat to you a few months ago. Shed was just a bit too far away from the house to boost the WiFi signal too, despite buying two different boosters on Amazon to see if it would work. After the boosters didn't work I tested a GoMo Sim Card in the shed. There was good 4G coverage there. Bought a 4G Wifi Router .
emaherx wrote: » I went to look for a link to 2 pre configured nanostations that I'd come across previously but couldn't find it. I did however come across this https://www.amazon.co.uk/KuWFi-Wireless-Supports-Transmission-Distance/dp/B07Z4R827X/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1GN0SVN8NP3F1&dchild=1&keywords=point+to+point+wifi&qid=1606133808&sprefix=point+to+%2Caps%2C199&sr=8-3 which seems very cheap but it looks to be a simple solution and claims to cover 1KM
curiousinvestor wrote: » In a similar boat here. 150m line of sight to shed. So I need : 1, Wifi bridge at house connected to router at house. 2. Other wifi bridge at shed connected to a new router. 3.Power supply in shed. To bridge, new router and camera ? 4. Wire/ cable connecting new router to camera. 5. One new ptz camera ? Just trying to get my head in the right place, am I missing anything
emaherx wrote: » 1 yes 2 no need for router in shed (posibly a switch for more than one network device) 3 yes, power in shed, Power for bridge and camera can be supplied over the ethernet cable so one double socket will do for the 2 power supplies. 4 cable direct to bridge device if one network camera or switch if multiple 5 If one PTZ camera will cover you then thats it The only pit fall here with powering over the ethernet cable using POE (Power over ethernet). There are a number of different standards as well as non standard Passive POE. The link I provided for the point to point kit uses passive POE which just injects power from their PSU into otherwise unused wires in 10/100 ethernet networks using 2 network cables that simply pass through the PSU. IEEE 802.3af for example is one of the POE standards used in networking and requires a POE switch or injector which conforms to the same standard in order to work. There is more info here https://www.black-box.de/en-de/page/23894/Resources/Technical-Resources/Black-Box-Explains/lan/PoE-in-Networking it is very important to not mix the POE types as you may cause harm for a start propper POE uses 48V and most Passive POE devices use 12V(or any voltage they feel like), there are other techcnical differences also. CCTV cmaera's may conform to the POE standards but many cheaper ones just use passive POE.
Holly Tree Farm wrote: » Hi sorry for jumping in on this, but we are in the same position as the original poster. I was following most of what was being said, but not been very technically minded, i got lost on your last post about poe standards lol. Would this be adequate for what we would needhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/KuWFi-Wireless-Supports-transmission-application/dp/B07Z4KHHLN/ref=asc_df_B07Z4KHHLN/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310842873031&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4429376369160098959&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=20474&hvtargid=pla-886907281802&th=1
sob1467 wrote: » Great thank you for this.
westlander wrote: » Same boat here want to make use of the WiFi in house to go out to the shed (100 metres away)instead of paying a separate top up bill @ emaherx What’s the difference between this one you post above :https://www.amazon.co.uk/KuWFi-Wireless-Supports-Transmission-Distance/dp/B07Z4R827X/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1GN0SVN8NP3F1&dchild=1&keywords=point+to+point+wifi&qid=1606133808&sprefix=point+to+%2Caps%2C199&sr=8-3 And this one:https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wireless-Waterproof-Installation-Controller-EAP110-Outdoor/dp/B01N4EGN6H/ref=asc_df_B01N4EGN6H/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309947853784&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8734991022110678440&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=20480&hvtargid=pla-405803833561&psc=1&th=1&psc=1 Thanks
emaherx wrote: » The one I've linked is a preconfigured pair of devices to create a wireless bridge between 2 buildings and can link to wired devices in both buildings. The TP link is a better known brand but is configured as an access point. I'd have to see the manual to see if it supports a bridge mode also. If it can do a bridge you'd need 2 of them. Depending on the layout of your yard it may well suit your needs as an access point, it would need a cable running from the router in your house and then positioned in a central position in the yard but from there you'd need all your devices cameras etc to be WiFi enabled. From a hardware point of view these are very similar devices, but the software may limit whether they can act as Access points or bridges or even both simultaneously. Obviously since the TP link is only one device it's essentially twice the price. Edit: This one is designed to create a bridge with a claimed range of 15KM you'd need 2 of them.https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-directional-CPE510/dp/B00N2RO63U
westlander wrote: » Thanks for that one last question before I shell out the cash 😠Does the first one /preconfigured paired setup one does that work without having to physically connect up all 3 parts with cables.... I mean does that setup work without any need for cables?
emaherx wrote: » I'm sorry I've been known to ramble on a bit. If you are looking for a cheap wireless bridge, from the description this should do fine. But I can't vouch for the quality as I've never used this brand but at £54 surely they are worth a go. On the POE, these will work from their own power supplies using standard ethernet cables so you don't need to worry too much about my previous comments. Just understand that they can't be powered from other industry standard POE devices like a POE switch. But as they ship with their own non standard POE power supplies you won't have an issue. If you are buying cameras that are passive POE its the same thing, but again you'll not have an issue using any power supplies provided with them.
Holly Tree Farm wrote: » Lmao no you didn’t ramble, I’m just not very technically minded and all that POE and passive just lost me 😂 I want to get something that will do the job as cheap as poss but not that cheap that I’m going to be wasting my money, if you know what I mean? 😀 will keep following this thread. The only problem I have at the moment is that we have a row of 40ft high 12ft wide conifers in between the house and the barn where we need them? These will be coming down soon though 😀
orm0nd wrote: » Unless they're very dense the trees won't affect it especially if you use 2.4 Ghz stations.
Avns1s wrote: » That would not be my experience! I'd be pretty sure that 12 ft. wide barrier of conifers will absolutely kill any wireless signal, particularly when wet if it's blocking the line of sight.
emaherx wrote: » Its quite possible that you are both right Its always going to be best advice to avoid trees as much as practical, but the m5 nanostations have a 15km+ range with clear line of sight. Its safe to say the trees will have greatly reduced their range but but obviously not below 400m Anyone considering the cheaper devices with a max range of 1KM may not be as lucky by trying to penetrate a row of trees over the same distance.
orm0nd wrote: » I could be wrong as I am helping a couple of boardsies setting up through DMs and may have my wires crossed, but I think the OP in this case wants to cover 100m. (open to correction too lazy to scroll back) that's why I said the trees won't be probelm
emaherx wrote: » True but the OP and others in the thread are potentially looking at much cheaper gear with a shorter range, which is why I'm saying you are both right. Basically I agree with you about the nanostations but I'm reluctant to say the same about the cheaper option.
curiousinvestor wrote: » I'm going to get the kuwfi bridge( £63). However I realised i need a ptz with optical zoom. So I need to decide which one is for me. I was thinking if I got all the hardware for 350e I'd be doing ok. Im thinking if there is an option to run a cat5 to the camera it may be better also. Like a previous poster I wanna spend the minimum I can but also get a bit of quality top so it lasts a few years.
curiousinvestor wrote: » That looks like a good job alright. I'll have a closer look later I got a quote of e1250 for one ptz installed,including bridge. So this will make quite the saving if I can do it Thanks
emaherx wrote: » Not sure what you mean. Both units need a cable to at least the power supply. It may be possible to get them to act as repeaters without a network cable to your router but this is not how they are preconfigured. And honestly I think running a cable from your router to the device would best. Its always better to run a cable as much as possible and have as few wireless links as possible. I don't think they have enough radios to repeat a WiFi router efficiently especially not if you want to do it in 3 hops. This would be one of these cases where you'll get what you pay for and a simple wireless bridge to join 2 wired networks at £54 is pretty good value.
westlander wrote: » @emaherax, I will have your head wrecked. But this is what I was thinkin in my own head excuse my ignorance here but if I was able to do it once id be sorted....... Was going to buy either of "option 1" or "option 2" below (already posted by you and the other one posted by another poster dont know which one is better): Option 1:https://www.amazon.co.uk/KuWFi-Wireless-Supports-transmission-application/dp/B07Z4KHHLN/ref=asc_df_B07Z4KHHLN/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310842873031&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4429376369160098959&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=20474&hvtargid=pla-886907281802&th=1 Option 2:https://www.amazon.co.uk/KuWFi-Wireless-Supports-Transmission-Distance/dp/B07Z4R827X/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1GN0SVN8NP3F1&dchild=1&keywords=point+to+point+wifi&qid=1606133808&sprefix=point+to+,aps,199&sr=8-3 Put the master unit up on the side of the chimney. It needs to be plugged in to a socket in the house for power and as well as that it needs to be connected to the wifi router in the house (so will need a very long lan cable and a long lead for power supply) Then put the slave unit at the corner of the slatted shed and this one needs to be plugged in as well via socket in the shed. As long as they are in a clear line of sight from chimney to slatted shed it should be sound. Then camera in shed will pick up signal from the slave unit. Is the above assumption a correct starting point for getting this working? Btw I have a zosi 2.4 GHZ ptz camera...I presume this camera will work with the above 2 paired slave/master units..eventhough they say 5GHZ in the info section of the above master/slave unit.
emaherx wrote: » You don't need a power cable, you connect a short network cable from your router to the power supply then a much longer network cable from the power supply to the unit on your chimney. This is the Power over ethernet bit, it means you use the same cable for power and data. The difference in the 2 units is speed, cheaper one has a max speed of 300mbs and the other is 900mbs. Either should work for your purpose but there is not much difference in price. Dose your camera have an ethernet option or just Wifi? If it has an Ethernet option I'd run the cable for simplest setup.
