The "100x bandwidth" claim needs to be substantiated.
There are some significant regulatory issues with the current popular mesh network protocols in the USA, namely that neither MeshCore or Meshtastic are compliant with the actual FCC regulations. 100x bandwidth because you're breaking the rules isn't the same as 100x bandwidth legally.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the primary appeal of LoRa was range? Also isn't the primary factor in making long range radio go through things is the frequency? So 2.4ghz is the same frequency as consumer wifi right and thus would propagate about the same right?
It doesn't seem like this would be that useful except that the protocol is LoRa so you can have higher bandwidth between two devices if they happen to be close enough together.
LoRa would go much farther than Wifi on 2.4ghz. Lora uses Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS) modulation while wifi uses OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing). The first being designed for extreme range while the latter for bandwidth. At 2.4ghz you could probably get LoRa connections up to 6 miles with the right antenna height.
6 miles seems a very optimistic estimation: 2.4Ghz propagation is very reduced by obstacles like buildings or trees and at that frequency the atmospheric water (fog, rain, humidity) have a big impact on propagation. And you need also to consider that 2.4Ghz is a very polluted band, then the noise floor is significatevly higher than in the 865/915 Mhz.
Moreover at 2.4Ghz the Fresnel window is smaller and the risk of multipath fading is higher.
"Going through things" isn't always necessary / is avoidable in some deployments. And 2.4GHz signals can propagate an okay distance between nodes if there aren't things to go through. (Globalstar's emergency SOS satellite constellation uses the n53 band, which is right above the 2.4GHz "wi-fi" band, and it propagates between handsets and LEO through 1400km of air just fine.)
So you could probably pull off a 2.4GHz mesh outdoors in rural areas? It'd be feasible in the same places a microwave-laser hilltop-to-hilltop link would, but instead of "fast but point-to-point" it's "slow but meshed" (and with much larger tolerance for slop — you don't need to put everything on fixed masts so they have perfect line-of-sight, you can just stick them on the tops of trees or whatever and if they wave in the wind it still works.)
Mind you, the authors' motivating use-case for the hardware seems to be their project (https://github.com/datapartyjs/MeshTNC) to (AFAICT) bridge LoRa (or some specific LoRa L2 protocol — Meshtastic, probably?) to packet radio, i.e. digital packet-switched signalling over amateur (HAM) radio bands.
In that context, the tradeoff of high throughput for low propagation makes sense. Insofar as you'd be speaking something like LoRA over 2.4GHz (LoRa itself doesn't spec a way to do that, but you could make it happen within the closed ecosystem of your own home), you would use this device as almost a "LoRaLAN" router. It'd be something you'd keep in your house, plugged into power + an antenna (internal to your house) + a packet-radio transceiver with its own even-bigger antenna (outside your house.) This module would pick up signals from:
- regular LoRaWAN IoT devices and Meshtastic handsets you own
- other devices you've built, in or around your house, that use another of this module; where these other devices do their part of the meshing only on the 2.4GHz band, which means they don't need big fiddly external antennas like LoRa devices do
- and possibly, a separate bidirectional LoRa repeater (which can just be made from any existing "high-gain" LoRa module [the kind used in mains-powered LoRaWAN base stations]) — to bring in LoRa mesh traffic from outside your home, and to pick up and carry away "elsewhere in this area" LoRa mesh traffic that your "LoRaLAN" device has put out (either due to forwarding it from your 2.4GHz-only mesh handsets/devices, or due to forwarding it after receiving it from packet radio.)
It sucks how everything feels like a toy. I think meshtastic is the closest thing to a “product”. They made a bunch of bad architectural decisions that are haunting them now like how nodes broadcast its info.
Seems like this would support institutional/campus environments or changing environments where the sensors at the edge are sending higher bandwidth ultimately back to an Internet node using LoRA mesh--instead of directional WiFi?
I'm trying to envision the application of a mesh like this. These could be examples?
- interconnected nodes need to share data (like images)
- interconnected nodes are acting as a collective array of sensors (eg. geolocation)
- interconnected mesh nodes provide redundant pathways back to the central node
- interconnected mesh nodes provide spatial diversity in case of interference or jamming
- nodes are mobile (eg. drone or vehicle) and mesh provides alternative connectivity based on node location and RF attenuation (also provides longer range with mesh connectivity)
I know it’s all open source and I’m not paying for anything so I cant be choosy. But after playing with a bunch of Lora peer to peer chat systems. All I wish is a chat service that uses haloW. Since it uses wifi backend, regular wifi should work as well.
Not much. While this is technically LoRa on 2.4GHz (which is not new), most people will associate LoRa with significantly longer range and LoRa 2.4 can do.
Cue xkcd on standards. I've been interested in mesh radio, and I keep hoping that a winner will emerge. Probably won't until a large commercial vendor gets interested and picks one.
Metricom Ricochet used dual-band radios, operating in 900MHz and 2.4GHz, to form a routable mesh that delivered internet access and other services, in 1999.
They used repeaters on street lights as part of the infrastructure, and even after the company went belly up people were able to use the repeaters for private networks. Pretty slick for the mid 90s.
There are some significant regulatory issues with the current popular mesh network protocols in the USA, namely that neither MeshCore or Meshtastic are compliant with the actual FCC regulations. 100x bandwidth because you're breaking the rules isn't the same as 100x bandwidth legally.
Here is the issue discussing this in the MeshCore repository: https://github.com/meshcore-dev/MeshCore/issues/945
It doesn't seem like this would be that useful except that the protocol is LoRa so you can have higher bandwidth between two devices if they happen to be close enough together.
So you could probably pull off a 2.4GHz mesh outdoors in rural areas? It'd be feasible in the same places a microwave-laser hilltop-to-hilltop link would, but instead of "fast but point-to-point" it's "slow but meshed" (and with much larger tolerance for slop — you don't need to put everything on fixed masts so they have perfect line-of-sight, you can just stick them on the tops of trees or whatever and if they wave in the wind it still works.)
Mind you, the authors' motivating use-case for the hardware seems to be their project (https://github.com/datapartyjs/MeshTNC) to (AFAICT) bridge LoRa (or some specific LoRa L2 protocol — Meshtastic, probably?) to packet radio, i.e. digital packet-switched signalling over amateur (HAM) radio bands.
In that context, the tradeoff of high throughput for low propagation makes sense. Insofar as you'd be speaking something like LoRA over 2.4GHz (LoRa itself doesn't spec a way to do that, but you could make it happen within the closed ecosystem of your own home), you would use this device as almost a "LoRaLAN" router. It'd be something you'd keep in your house, plugged into power + an antenna (internal to your house) + a packet-radio transceiver with its own even-bigger antenna (outside your house.) This module would pick up signals from:
- regular LoRaWAN IoT devices and Meshtastic handsets you own
- other devices you've built, in or around your house, that use another of this module; where these other devices do their part of the meshing only on the 2.4GHz band, which means they don't need big fiddly external antennas like LoRa devices do
- and possibly, a separate bidirectional LoRa repeater (which can just be made from any existing "high-gain" LoRa module [the kind used in mains-powered LoRaWAN base stations]) — to bring in LoRa mesh traffic from outside your home, and to pick up and carry away "elsewhere in this area" LoRa mesh traffic that your "LoRaLAN" device has put out (either due to forwarding it from your 2.4GHz-only mesh handsets/devices, or due to forwarding it after receiving it from packet radio.)
I'm trying to envision the application of a mesh like this. These could be examples?
- interconnected nodes need to share data (like images)
- interconnected nodes are acting as a collective array of sensors (eg. geolocation)
- interconnected mesh nodes provide redundant pathways back to the central node
- interconnected mesh nodes provide spatial diversity in case of interference or jamming
- nodes are mobile (eg. drone or vehicle) and mesh provides alternative connectivity based on node location and RF attenuation (also provides longer range with mesh connectivity)
Say I start the node and then what?