• Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor

    From c186282@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 10, 2025 15:00:01
    On 12/9/25 06:57, Andy Burns wrote:
    The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    might be dependent on where I parked the car

    Monitoring within the appliance bays of multiple fire stations,
    certainly shows signal levels exhibiting high and low levels depending whether the truck is in or out ...

    Wi-Fi is sometimes just black magic ...

    Simply just moving things just a couple of
    inches oft makes an unreasonable difference.

    2.4 tends to have better range indoors
    than 5ghz - making up for the lower xfer
    rate by being Reliable.

    5G phone can be just as spooky.

    6G phone ... I saw somewhere that a theoretical
    'dynamic signal steering' tech might help - but
    real-world that's still to be seen.

    Robots ... with current tech they will depend on
    being able to connect their tiny AIs to a BIG AI
    somewhere else so they can do much more. BUT, if
    6G is horrible, then what ?

    If monitoring 'emergency vehicles/installations'
    is critical, maybe consider something using lower
    frequencies than wi-fi ??? In USA I think there's
    a designated comm space in the 400mhz band. It'd
    still be good enough for a 1-fps camera feed.

    Ah ... POTENTIAL cheap solution. Haven't fooled
    with it in about 10 years but I think it's still
    possible with Linux. Just buy one of those wi-fi
    extender/repeater thingies (about $50 USD) and
    put it not far from the main router. Make it
    wlan1. At least with wpasupplicant and dhcpcd.conf
    you could designate an automatic "fall over" in
    case the main signal got crappy. Not 100% sure
    what happens now with apps if you list a wlan0 and
    wlan1 at the same time - will the app just use
    whichever, or both, without complaints ???

    Between the two, 'shadow' areas ought to largely
    go away.

    Pity nobody makes a 5ghz "viewer" so you can
    get at least a fuzzy picture of the signal at
    different places :-)

    I have a repeater to reach an out-building. Gonna
    try to add it as wlan1 just to see what happens ...









    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From c186282@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 10, 2025 20:00:01
    On 12/10/25 00:38, Andy Burns wrote:
    c186282 wrote:

    ˙˙ Now if real, legal, 'security' was an issue
    ˙˙ then you'd want a solid connection all of
    ˙˙ the time ... and one wi-fi point likely won't
    ˙˙ provide that.

    Only the largest couple of stations have multiple APs in the bay.˙ The building and individual vehicles have 4G, and the buildings form a
    meshed POCSAG network between neighbouring towns (or parts of cities).

    Ummm ... an 'extender' is a bit different from
    an 'access point' (and cheaper). The extender
    binds to the access point/router. Connected
    devices may, as needed, connect to the main
    point or the address of the extender and still
    get net access. Wired equiv is more like a
    hub/switch.

    I do have experience - like last week - with
    extenders. Just got in a cheap spare, had to
    set it up (CAN be slightly confusing but not
    bad at all). My better extender doubles
    the range of my good wifi connection, to
    some out-buildings with some IP cams (and
    soon a home-built "weather" thing (Pi3 based,
    have a couple of spares & some 1-wire sensors)).

    Anyway, judging by the problem you claimed, your
    easy fix is an extender. Use the main point for
    cams/devices at point-blank range and put the
    extender across the bay, best higher up. Use
    whichever is more reliable for the particular
    device in the building.


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From c186282@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, December 13, 2025 22:30:01
    On 12/12/25 06:41, Andy Burns wrote:
    The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    Well the daemon runs under xinetd...for sheer laziness. I guess I
    could make it UDP.

    But I don't know what problem that would solve.

    The data would arrive if a single packet got through the fog, whereas
    with tcp at least dour packets on sequence need to make it (or get
    retried) with UDP you could afford to spray each packet half a dozen
    times and if one of them makes it, you're good ...

    I once made a bi-directional client/server setup,
    first Python, then 'C'. One variant was TCP, the
    other UDP. Probably could have used a config file
    or defs ... but I never got to it.

    On a clean LAN, both worked perfectly. However
    with some outdoor devices (Pi2 + wifi dongle as
    best I recall) both approaches had issues kind
    of similar to what you described.

    TCP, while "error resistant", was often VERY iffy.
    UDP - well - easier/smaller to send. You could
    scan each packet for obvious errors and, if a
    fail, could ask for it again or just let the
    pgm work around to sending that data again.

    For almost all modern apps, TCP is best by far.
    However iffy situations CAN still exist, so
    UDP you add some IQ to MIGHT be better.

    As I've said elsewhere, wifi can sometimes be
    black magic. Weird RF shadows and multipaths
    can be anywhere and it's very hard to tell
    what's perfect placement.

    Hmm ... apparently CANbus can be sent over
    wifi - but you lose some error-checking so
    there's no gain. There are various dongles
    for lower-freq data transmission too, but
    never got around to trying them. Fidelity
    might be worth losing some speed.


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Carlos E.R.@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, December 13, 2025 13:56:43
    On 2025-12-12 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:

    Two ideas.

    Some routers can steer the signal horizontally; the technology is
    called "MIMO" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO). You notice because
    the router has multiple antenas, maybe four.

    Then you can replace the antena on the router

    What antenna on the router?

    It's just a wifi bridge with an internal something or other.

    Ah, pity. Many AP have external antenas that are screwed on a socket.


    https://www.netxl.com/wifi-access-points/mikrotik-routerboard- rb951ui-2nd-wifi-4-access-point/

    Its actually very very cheap and has been 'good enough'

    Barely :-)



    or the remote with a
    directional WiFi antena.

    That gets complicated. I am trying easy shit first :-)

    P Pico W doesn't have an 'antenna' either. Just some PCB traces.

    Yeah, well.


    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi
    antenna". I made one and it actually works. But maybe they are sold, too.

    Everything is possible. I am lazy. I do what is necessary to achieve
    desired result and no more.

    For now I seem to have adequate connectivity.

    Of course, that is enough.


    --
    Cheers, Carlos.
    ES??, EU??;

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Carlos E.R.@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, December 13, 2025 13:30:38
    On 2025-12-13 05:42, c186282 wrote:
    On 12/12/25 06:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    On 2025-12-12 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    On 2025-12-10 11:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 10/12/2025 10:02, c186282 wrote:
    On 12/10/25 04:14, Andy Burns wrote:


    What about a small solar panel and rechargeable batteries?


    ˙ Seeed sells the "LiPo Rider Plus". After checking
    ˙ several brands of 'solar charge controllers' these
    ˙ were the ones I chose to power my field projects.
    ˙ Most of the others did NOT cap the voltage very
    ˙ well, or at all, so the sun comes out bright and you
    ˙ might send 6+ into your 3.1v device.

    ˙ Combined with a 3 to 5 watt panel they'll keep even
    ˙ intermittent non-nano-power projects going.

    ˙ Beware the quality of the batteries though ... got
    ˙ some no-names, about 50x50x10mm square, that were
    ˙ generally good - but one DID explode on me, inside
    ˙ the office building, when I barely touched it. Had
    ˙ not been charged for months either. Oh well, nothing
    ˙ to do but watch the big crimson flame .......

    ˙ Fire control IS a priority with lithiums.


    Huh. That's not good when the thing is intended to be near a oil tank.

    --
    Cheers, Carlos.
    ES??, EU??;

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Carlos E.R.@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, December 13, 2025 13:57:10
    On 2025-12-12 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    On 2025-12-09 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    First of all thanks to all those who responded on my first efforts to
    put a battery power Pi Pico W outside and have it phone home.

    Having eliminated temperature and supply voltage as issues, I delved
    into wifi and router logs, and it was clear that it was sometimes
    getting a DHCP lease and even occasionally opening a TCP/IP
    connections and sending data. And might be dependent on where I
    parked the car and the weather.

    I tried putting a tin tray behind the router and that made it worse.

    Now the layout was that a ground floor router through the window and
    the garage was not very good at about 30m range.

    Then I remembered I had put an Ethernet port in an upstairs bedroom
    by the window in case I wanted to use it as an office.

    It was further away - 35m or so - but much less cluttered path. It
    just had to go through a corner of the garage.

    Instantly the router reported about 8-10dB more signal and almost
    reliable comms resulted.

    Two ideas.

    Some routers can steer the signal horizontally; the technology is
    called "MIMO" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO). You notice because
    the router has multiple antenas, maybe four.

    Then you can replace the antena on the router or the remote with a
    directional WiFi antena. Home made with a box of Pringles. just google
    for "pringles wifi antenna". I made one and it actually works. But
    maybe they are sold, too.

    I sorta tried that without huge success, In fact I am getting up to 12dB variation in signal due to who knows what?

    The setup is all somewhat experimental. At least˙ for now the software
    is more or less stable - I have a few hanging daemons if the link goes
    down mid message - but that is easily fixed .

    ...

    And I knew all that trig would come in handy one day :-)

    You can calculate it numerically on a computer, by calculating the
    aproximate integral ;-)

    Huh? it can be as exact as your measurements are.
    No 'approximations' here...

    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ diameter= tankDepth - offset;
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ radius = diameter * 0.5;
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ y = echoDepth - offset -radius;
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ theta = asin( y / radius);
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ x = radius * cos(theta);
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ pie= radius * radius * theta;
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ delta = x * y;
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ area= (M_PI * radius *radius)/2 - (pie + delta);
    ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ volume=(area/(M_PI * radius *radius ))*tankVolume;

    That is about ultimately three days of work. It is redundant but I think
    gcc can optimise out the intermediary variables that I used to make sure even I could understand it.

    You can aproximate the chord with a rectangle. If you divide the chord
    in two, it is two rectangles. Up to a thousand rectangles, or a million.
    The numerical result is close to the real result with a math formula.
    Kind of Runge-Kutta.

    :-D

    Or ask ChatGPT for the formula. I sure don't remember it, I doubt I ever
    saw it.





    What has been encouraging is the pinpoint accuracy of the measurements.
    Once in a stable environment the ultrasonics are very precise. something like a mm or two in a couple of metres. Probably more precise than the
    speed of sound in air of variable pressures would justify, or indeed the expansion of the oil in warmer temperatures.

    LOL.

    Maybe I have built the world's most complicated barometer.



    --
    Cheers, Carlos.
    ES??, EU??;

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From mm0fmf@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 07:58:11
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi antenna".

    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small
    in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of
    physics! :-)


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 20:07:30
    On 24/12/2025 17:00, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
    On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:23:45 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    []
    What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to
    design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted.

    I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am
    not so quick to rubbish them as you are.

    RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value
    often have enormous effects.


    Prsumably you're saying Mythbusters-style "not proven"?


    I am saying that a blanket denial 'because the theory says no' is not
    good enough for me, personally.

    To make a waveguide, which is analysable, is quite tricky. To throw
    something in place that 'does something' and clearly is *not* a
    waveguide, and is essentially unanalysable, is another matter.

    With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know...


    --
    If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
    ..I'd spend it on drink.

    Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Lars Poulsen@3:633/10 to All on Thursday, December 25, 2025 10:30:02
    [Folloup-to alt.unix.geeks]

    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi antenna".

    On 2025-12-24, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small
    in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of physics! :-)

    As a wireless applications engineer, I have always shaken my head
    at the pringles can antenna, which if well made can have a gain up
    to at most 8 dBi or so. For less than $50, you can buy a professinally
    made flat patch antenna with 8 dBi gain at L-com.com. Apparently, you
    can find used ones on eBay for under $30, but why take the risk?
    If you need circular polarization, it will be closer to $75.
    --
    Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Kerr-Mudd, John@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 17:00:18
    On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:23:45 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    []
    What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted.

    I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am
    not so quick to rubbish them as you are.

    RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value
    often have enormous effects.


    Prsumably you're saying Mythbusters-style "not proven"?



    --
    Bah, and indeed Humbug.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From John R Walliker@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 14:04:03
    On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi
    antenna".

    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too
    small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Assuming that is a relevant issue.

    Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of
    voice frequencies, still works....

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of
    physics! :-)


    ..especially for people who don't fully understand them...

    Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference
    between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and
    transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide.
    If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff
    frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high.
    However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard
    tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference.
    For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave
    monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything
    that can be achieved with small pcb antennas.

    A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can
    be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane
    is at least a few wavelengths across.

    A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very
    good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the
    frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to
    use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted.

    An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be
    more effective than a lossy directional one.

    John


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 14:23:45
    On 24/12/2025 14:04, John R Walliker wrote:
    On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi
    antenna".

    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too
    small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Assuming that is a relevant issue.

    Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of
    voice frequencies, still works....

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of
    physics! :-)


    ..especially for people who don't fully understand them...

    Indeed.˙ And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference
    between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide.

    An antenna is not a waveguide.



    If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff
    frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high.
    However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard
    tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference.
    A statement which clearly contradicts the well known skin effect of
    conductirs at high frequencies.

    For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave
    monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything
    that can be achieved with small pcb antennas.

    Sure. Most routers come with wavelength sized wobbly penises that give
    you a few dB.

    A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can
    be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane
    is at least a few wavelengths across.

    A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very
    good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the
    frequency dependency of the coax balun.˙ The choice of which one to
    use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted.

    An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be
    more effective than a lossy directional one.


    John


    Nevertheless I have seem that sort of design work.
    I worked around radar antennae briefly in the 1960s.

    What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to
    design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted.

    I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am
    not so quick to rubbish them as you are.

    RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value
    often have enormous effects.


    --
    The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
    its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

    Anon.


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 12:16:27
    On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi
    antenna".

    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small
    in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Assuming that is a relevant issue.

    Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of
    voice frequencies, still works....

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of physics! :-)


    ..especially for people who don't fully understand them...
    --
    "It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Lars Poulsen@3:633/10 to All on Thursday, December 25, 2025 12:30:02
    [See also my previous followup - also shifting to alt.

    On 2025-12-24, John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi
    antenna".

    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too
    small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Assuming that is a relevant issue.

    Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of
    voice frequencies, still works....

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of
    physics! :-)


    ..especially for people who don't fully understand them...

    Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference
    between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide.
    If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff
    frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high.
    However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard
    tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference.
    For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave
    monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything
    that can be achieved with small pcb antennas.

    A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can
    be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane
    is at least a few wavelengths across.

    A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very
    good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the
    frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to
    use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted.

    An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be
    more effective than a lossy directional one.

    John



    --
    Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From mm0fmf@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, December 24, 2025 23:17:41
    On 24/12/2025 20:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know...

    Some of us do know.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Kerr-Mudd, John@3:633/10 to All on Thursday, December 25, 2025 10:43:18
    On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 03:34:30 +0000
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 25/12/2025 03:25, Robert Riches wrote:
    On 2025-12-24, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi antenna".

    Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small
    in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz.

    Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of
    physics! :-)

    If you need a different diameter and know what diameter you need,
    any decent hardware store or home improvement big-box store in
    the US and perhaps elsewhere will have a wide assortment of sizes
    of PVC, ABS, and metal pipes and round conduits. Some adhesive
    and copper foil would seem likely to be useful for making the
    plastic types useable.

    If I felt that a design of any sort could be connected to a Pi Pico W I would 3D print it.
    But in the end the simpler approach was to create a wifi point higher up.

    Signal strength varies wildly, but enough transmissions get through...



    But what do I do with all these spare Pringle tubes:-?


    --
    Bah, and indeed Humbug.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)