On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 07:43:56AM -0800, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote: > From: Darac Marjal <mailingl...@darac.org.uk> > Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:07:38 +0000 > > This being a Wireless connection, it's more likely to be signal > > strength. > > My original thought also. > > > ... no attenuation = 100% ... > > I don't understand. Any received signal which is too weak to > saturate the receiver should not need attenuation. Every such > signal is marked as 100%? Whereas any signal which saturates > the receiver will be attenuated. Such signal is marked as less > than 100%? Seems counter intuitive.
I was rather meaning how much the signal is attenuated between the sender and receiver. However, doing a quick bit of searching suggests that the whole "link quality as a percentage" thing is more like voodoo: http://en.usenet.digipedia.org/thread/18494/13225/ http://www.rigacci.org/wiki/doku.php/doc/appunti/linux/sa/wifi_signal_quality
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
