## 3 Results
### Cellular Network Latency Comparison  
Similarly, latency values are calculated again, as described in Section 3.2, using a file of 395 kilobytes with a packet size of 32 bytes, and the corresponding parameters are calculated for comparison. Though a smaller file was utilized, using the same 32-byte packet size described in Section 3.1, the mean, median, maximum, and standard deviation of the recorded latencies will remain comparable.  
Latency data collected in the cellular network case, shown in Figures 10 and 11, indicated a minor increase in per-packet performance of the 5G network over 4G. Over the course of an entire data file, these minor increases compound into a more significant reduction in total latency. Figure 10a shows the packet latency for 4G technology while Figure 10b shows the packet latency for 5G technology.  
Figure 11 shows the latency for both tests plotted together to better compare the two. It can be seen that for a majority of packets, the latency for 5G remains below that of 4G. It is also shown that the 5G network exhibits fewer outliers and is of smaller magnitude than its 4G counterparts.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Wi-Fi Network** & **HaLow** & **2.4 GHz HTC** & **5 GHz HTC** & **2.4 GHz Orbic** & **5 GHz Orbic** \\ \hline Mean (ms) & 0.01861 & 0.03362 & 0.03366 & 0.03133 & 0.03134 \\ Median (ms) & 0.01431 & 0.02646 & 0.02694 & 0.02575 & 0.02575 \\ STD (ms) & 0.02002 & 0.03529 & 0.03837 & 0.03642 & 0.03277 \\ Maximum (ms) & 1.11628 & 1.67227 & 3.15857 & 3.503561 & 1.76930 \\ Total Latency (ms) & 1598.11 & 2887.42 & 2891.37 & 2691.27 & 2692.15 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison of the five network setup cases using mean, median, standard deviation, and total latency statistical data.  
Figure 10: Packet latency for (**a**) 4G cellular and (**b**) 5G cellular.  
These outliers are better illustrated in Figure 12a,b, which show the probability density of latency for 4G and 5G technologies, respectively. The probability density of the outliers depicted in Figure 11 is so low that it is not visible on the same axes. The mean, median, and standard deviation for each histogram are shown in Table 3, as well as the total latency.  
The mean latency for 4G was found to be 0.0009 ms greater than in the 5G case; however, the median value was 0.0002 ms less in the 4G case than in 5G. The standard deviation for 4G was 0.0002 ms, which is the mean of the 5G technology.  
Figure 11: Packet latency for 4G and 5G technologies for each packet.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Technology** & **4G** & **5G** \\ \hline Mean (ms) & 0.0221 & 0.0212 \\ Median (ms) & 0.0167 & 0.0169 \\ STD (ms) & 0.0215 & 0.0173 \\ Maximum (ms) & 0.7586 & 0.3061 \\ Total Latency (ms) & 279.923 & 268.059 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of the mean, median, and standard deviation for calculated transmission metrics.  
Figure 12: Comparison of latency histograms for **(a)** 4G technology and **(b)** 5G technology.  
deviation was 0.0042 ms smaller in the 5G test, demonstrating the greater stability of the 5G connection. The total latency was found to be 11.864 ms shorter for 5G.  
The mean latency time for transmitting the B-scan in each setup case is depicted in Figure 13 for a visual comparison. It can be observed that transmission over the HaLow Wi-Fi network resulted in a mean latency time that was 42.7% faster than the mean value of the other WLAN cases and performed 12.2% faster than the 5G network.