## 4 Results and Discussion  
### Evaluation of Communication Range and Channel Attenuation Modeling  
Different scenarios are selected to analyze, in actual conditions, the propagation of LoRa signals at different distances and in different environments. The propagation of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Application** \\ **Payload** \\ **(Bytes)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Messages** \\ **Per Hour** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Configuration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Periodicity** \\ **T\({}_{\#}\)** \\ **(simons)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Battery** \\ **TTL** \\ **(yes/months)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **AAA** \\ **(Alkaline,** \\ **(260 mAh)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Li-Ion** \\ **(1000 mAh)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **AA** \\ **(1000 mAh)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Li-Ion** \\ **(200 mAh)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} 51 \\ 6 \\ \end{tabular} } & 12 & SF12/125 kHz & 4.57 & Worst case & 1 m & 1 m & 3 m & 4 m & 7 m 3 w \\  & & SF7/125 kHz & 5.00 & Best case & 9 m & 9 m & 2 y 4 m & 2 y 1 m 3 w & 5 y 9 m 2 w \\  & & SF12/125 kHz & 9.57 & Worst case & 2 m & 2 m & 6 m 1 w & 7 m 3 w & 1 y 3 m 3 w \\  & & SF7/125 kHz & 10.00 & Best case & 1 y 4 m 3 w & 1 y 5 m & 4 y 4 m 3 w & 5 y 5 m & 10 y 10 m 1 w \\
6 & & 12 & SF12/125 kHz & 4.57 & Worst case & 2 m 1 w & 2 m 1 w & 7 m 1 w & 9 m & 1 y 6 m \\  & & SF7/125 kHz & 5.00 & Best case & 10 m 2 w & 10 m 2 w & 2 y 8 m 3 w & 3 w & 4 m 2 w & 6 y 9 m \\  & & SF12/125 kHz & 9.57 & Worst case & 4 m 2 w & 4 m 2 w & 1 y 2 m 2 w & 1 y 5 m 3 w & 2 y 11 m 3 w \\  & & SF7/125 kHz & 10.00 & Best case & 1 y 7 m 2 w & 1 y 7 m 2 w & 5 y 3 w & 6 y 3 m & 12 y 6 m \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Battery lifespan. LoRa signals in rural environments (with and without obstructions such as a forest), suburban environments, and urban environments are considered. Two stations, transmitting and receiving, are examined, providing point-to-area and point-to-point communication services. The environments in which line-of-sight is impossible due to obstructions are taken into consideration in the conducted analyses. Some realistic case study scenarios are considered, in which the distance between the receiver and the transmitter is less than 100 m, 500 m, 2 km, 5 km, and 7 km, respectively. Therefore, the chosen distances between the receiver and the transmitter are much lower than the theoretical and experimental range described in the literature [81], which refers to open environments under line-of-sight (LOS) conditions. In the rural LOS scenario, the transmitter antenna is placed above a grove of trees. In contrast, in the considered NLOS scenarios, the transmitter antenna is positioned so that the signal is partially propagated through trees or the signal propagation is partially obstructed by buildings. In the analyzed cases conducted in this research, the gateway is placed at the height of approximately 65 m above the ground. The field experiments are conducted using hardware prototypes based on LoRa devices to determine the state and range of communication links. In real testbeds, measurements are made using an RFM95/96/97/98(W) LoRa module to determine how parameters such as transceiver antenna gain, spreading factor, and coding rate influence communication. Different parameters are used to measure signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio at various distances between the transmitter and receiver and to determine whether it is possible to achieve reliable communication in different areas, and under what conditions. The conducted study considers operation in the European region, in the EU863-870 ISM band, where three default channels are defined: 868.10, 868.30, and 868.50 MHz.