## 6 Discussion of Results  
The experimental findings in residential, laboratory, and industrial environments demonstrate that WiFi66E_6160 can deliver peak throughputs exceeding 1.6 Gb/s under LoS conditions and low spectral occupancy. However, performance degrades significantly with distance or in the presence of obstructions, particularly in industrial scenarios, similar to the issues shown in [15]. In such cases, throughput reductions of up to 40% were observed beyond 60 m, whereas 80 MHz configurations exhibited more gradual and stable degradation. These results indicate that effective system performance is not determined only by physical-layer capabilities but rather by the interplay between SNR, channel width, and the spectral environment. This behaviour aligns with previous findings in which WiFi6_580 was shown to outperform WiFi5 only up to approximately 50 m in outdoor scenarios [30]. Similarly, indoor measurements indicate that WiFi6E_6160 throughput drops below 1 Gb/s beyond 14 m [15]. In industrial outdoor settings, broader configurations such as WiFi6E_6160 offer high performance under LoS, whereas narrower configurations like WiFi6_680 or WiFi6_520 exhibit superior reliability and latency in non-LoS conditions [17]. Moreover, 160 MHz configurations appear more sensitive to external interference, which limits their applicability in congested environments. In contrast, 80 MHz channels offer a favourable trade-off between throughput and robustness, especially in scenarios with multiple obstacles or overlapping networks. Empirical measurements confirm that such configurations can maintain average RTTs below 2.5 ms with low jitter, making them suitable for latency-sensitive industrial applications. These results support a deployment model in which 80 MHz channels are used as the default configuration for robust performance, while 160 MHz channels are reserved for short-range links with low spectral congestion. This approach is well aligned with the requirements of Industry 5.0, optimising stability without compromising capacity. Although other wireless technologies such as 5G have been considered a promising candidate for industrial applications due to their theoretical advantages in latency and reliability [8], the deployment, configuration, and ongoing maintenance remain significantly more complex and costly compared to Wi-Fi-based solutions. In contrast, experimental evidence obtained using commercial hardware shows that WiFi6E offers a competitive, cost-effective, and sufficiently robust alternative for real-world industrial environments. This is particularly true when its high-efficiency features are fully utilised. The IEEE 802.11 ax standard in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Acronym**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**UDP Traffic**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C.D. = 15 m**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C.D. = 60 m**} \\  & **Jitter (ms)** & **Packet Loss (\%)** & **Jitter (ms)** & **Packet Loss (\%)** \\ \hline WiFi62\_4,20 & 0.171 & 0.14 & 0.749 & 0.16 \\ WiFi42\_4,20 & 0.502 & 0.32 & 0.21 & 0.45 \\ WiFi5540 & 0.048 & 1.5 & 0.067 & 0.32 \\ WiFi6540 & 0.042 & 0.5 & 0.075 & 0.1 \\ WiFi7540 & 0.045 & 1.2 & 0.12 & 0.5 \\ WiFi6E680 & 0.022 & 0.44 & 0.085 & 1.6 \\ WiFi7680 & 0.027 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 1.8 \\ WiFi6E6160 & 0.016 & 0.39 & 0.041 & 2.1 \\ WiFi76160 & 0.02 & 0.4 & 0.065 & 2.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Analysis of jitter and packet loss for Wi-Fi transmissions at two different distances. troduces several enhancements aimed at improving spectral efficiency and throughput density, including OFDMA, MU-MIMO, spatial reuse, and dynamic sensitivity control [4]. These mechanisms offer substantial potential, although their effectiveness strongly depends on context-aware tuning, thus motivating future research into the dynamic and adaptive optimisation of industrial-grade WiFi networks.