## 4 Results and Discussion
### LoRaWAN or LoRaMESH Restricted Network Reach  
The scope of the protocols restricted LoRaWAN and restricted LoRaMESH were analyzed within the same context of the sides presented above, where the nodes were distributed to each side, and the maximum range per SF was obtained and analyzed in order to present the performance of the two protocols and then obtain a broader result with the hybrid infrastructure. In the Figure 31 are the results of the average RSSI and SNR per point with LoRaWAN protocol. Where in the Figure 31a is the representation of RSSI per point, and it is clear to see that as the distance increases, RSSI loses quality. The difference is almost 15 dBm from the SM which is 500 m from the gateway, to the SM which is 2.35 km away. And this small difference represents how much this technology is able to communicate with small and long distances without having a significant interference in the RSSI. The same occurs in the SNR represented in the Figure 31b, where the difference is as much as 10 dBm from the nearest GS in comparison with the GS further away from the gateway. However, communication was only possible up to a distance of 2.35 km considering all sides and barriers present. In this case, the left side was the one that got the best range, this because the scenery is an avenue because of this target, facilitated the effective communication of the SM with the gateway, already the other sides got only a distance of 2 km due to the barriers present in the scenery. It is worth mentioning that the smaller SFs reached only the distances A to C for the sides (left and front) and A to D for the right side,  
Figure 30: Average RSSI and SNR per SF LoRaWAN. (**a**) RSSI. (**b**) SNR. the other points only communicated with the larger SFs. In the LoRaMESH scenario the RSSI and SNR results by side were also collected and are being presented in the Figure 32.  
Where the Figure 32a presents the RSSI for the distances of points A with 200 and B with 300 m that had a difference of almost 20 dBm, from point A to point C with 500 m, the difference was almost 15 dBm, and from point A to point D with 600 m the difference rises to almost 40 dBm. This means that as the distance increases, the RSSI will be reduced significantly until it reaches a level of no longer working. That is, these devices are made for long distance communication, but with little interference. In the city, these scenarios are represented by condomiums of houses and buildings, where the distances are long but the interference is smaller compared to the scenarios of cities, industries and public buildings. To conclude, the Figure 32b presents the SNR for each point, and like the RSSI, the SNR will be affected as the distance increases, having differences of almost 5 dBm per point, however, as already discussed, this technology is more resistant to the interference of the sinila in relation to the noise and barriers present in the scenario, for this protocol the main factor is distance between the devices. With this, the maximum range achieved was 600 m in the proposed scenario regardless of whether it is for the coordinator or for the other device that performs the mesh communication. To analyze the range of SMs, the results of RSSI and SNR were also studied by SF configuration for each point determined in the LoRaWAN protocol. The Figure 33 presents this results in more detail. In the Figure 33a it is possible to observe that for each geographic point the SF works differently, being better for the points closest to the gateway, and this was expected. However, the difference between expensive SF is worth mentioning, because as the distance to the gateway is increased, the RSSI is affected with a value of approximately 3 dBm, being considered a minor difference.