## 7 Results and Discussion  
We validated the proper working of the created software by using a cabled setup. The transmitted signals were attenuated by 40 dB. This attenuated signal was split, causing an additional 3 dB attenuation. In this way, the signal was distributed to the dedicated DASH7 gateway and the SDR simultaneously. For 10 measurements per channel, we observed mean received signal strengths between 21 dB and 22 dB. Subsequently, no packet loss was registered at the gateway and from the recorded data. This implies that our created software works as expected. When investigating the wireless indoor experiments, we observed very good results, although, at some points, partial packet loss was found. We have to note that 90% of the TX locations were NLOS and transmitters were placed at challenging locations throughout the office environment. Subsequently, we see that the results of the indoor experiments are better compared to the suburban data set. The reason for this higher packet loss in the suburban environment is due to multipath effects, NLOS scenarios, and changes in distance between the transmitting locations and receiver setup. We also believe that we reached the limit of the maximum distance from where DASH7 can operate. It was found that the dedicated DASH7 gateways occasionally had a hard time detecting and decoding the packets properly. We also observed that packet loss occurred more often when the mean RSS was equal to or lower than \(-80\) dB; however, this was not always the case. We believe this was due to the received signal being close to or even below the noise floor. For the suburban data set, we found that packets were received even at a distance of 1180 m, which is within the expectations of the technology. Locations 1 and 2 were NLOS points. The obstruction was formed by buildings at the receiving end. Locations 3 to 7 were effectively LOS locations; however, on channel 0, a low level of packet loss was found. We noticed that there were other signals transmitting at or around the same frequency during experiments. This can explain why the packet loss was substantially higher in general at channel 0. Location 8 was an NLOS location with low packet loss. Location 9 was an LOS location, but a small packet loss was observed in the software. Locations 10 to 14 lay behind the marina and were further obstructed by vegetation and metal fences, which again caused quite some packet loss. Location 15 was an (N)LOS location, and partial obstruction from buildings, vegetation, and metal fences was observed. Although channel 0 and channel 186 performed well, channel 93 experienced low packet loss. Locations 16, 18, and 20 were NLOS locations, but at a long distance. At these locations, a partial packet loss was observed, which was due to buildings and vegetation obstructing the view. Locations 17, 18, 20, and 21 were measured on an embankment, whereas locations 17 and 19 were LOS locations that did not experience packet loss. Locations 18 and 20 were the second- and third-furthest locations while being NLOS locations. Also, here, we observed severe packet loss. Location 21 was a worst-case location with no line of sight while located at the furthest measurement point. A summary of the obtained results of the indoor and suburban experiments can be found in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively. We believe that the majority of the packet loss is attributable to NLOS measurement points and not necessarily distance. In many cases, when packet loss was observed, the loss was equally significant or even worse when we put the recorded data through the created software. Figure 20 shows the relation between distance and mean RSS for each channel measured at the suburban environment. We note that the RSS fluctuates heavily, independent of the distance. However, the majority of the NLOS happens at \(-75\) dB or lower. Figure 21 shows the relationship between packet loss and distance per channel for the suburban environment when the data were processed through the created software.