## 5 Experimental Results  
### BATMAN IV with Split Hop Penalty  
The results collected after the experimental work for the split hop penalty are presented in this section. Since the results are collected for seven different node setups and with four different transmit powers, presenting all of them with two different algorithms will be hard to differentiate on a single graph. Therefore, the results presented here contain two graphs each for different types of hop penalties. The summarized results will be used to average the results for better comparison. The average roundtrip time or end-to-end delay is presented in Figure 10 with (a) original hop penalty and (b) split hop penalty. The experimental data are shown in Table 11. The results show a great performance increment overall, with some points where BATMAN IV still performs slightly better than the newly adapted hop penalty. The lowest RTT achieved by the original hop penalty was 2.362 ms compared to 2.45 ms for the split hop penalty. The highest delay was recorded to be 91.921 ms for the original hop penalty in contrast to 84.867 ms for the split hop penalty. The overall average gain of 10.2% was recorded in average roundtrip time for the two techniques. The most obvious performance gain was recorded with the highest number of nodes, i.e., 14, which was found to be a 22.09% improvement over the original hop penalty. All the packets that are lost during the transfer of information from source to destination lead to information loss and sub-quality hardware. However, some techniques might help recover some of the lost information but will require additional hardware and further cause a delay in processing or due to re-transmissions. The packet loss information is provided in Figure 11, whose results can be seen by dividing the graphs into two different phases depending on the number of nodes. The experimental data are shown in Table 12. Scenarios, from the lowest number of nodes to a total of eight nodes, including the split hop penalty show remarkable performance in keeping packet loss low as compared to the original hop penalty. There is a whopping 37.01% greater chance of packets reaching the final destination than the earlier technique. Although this good performance is later stopped as we increase the number of nodes, the original hop penalty provides better results than the split hop penalty. Therefore, it is safe to say that the split hop penalty will not always provide a better performance, especially where the number of nodes is large in the same area. It is also important to note here that during our experimental results, we found multiple incidents where duplicate packets were received and several duplicate packets were equal in both techniques. This needs further investigation as routing loops or unnecessary broadcasts may cause it. The most important factor for communication is the speed offered by the protocol or speed difference that is caused by a change in the operation of the network. Figure 12 represents the spontaneous speed in Kbps toward the destination for both techniques. The experimental data are shown in Table 11. An average difference of 21 times greater was recorded for the proposed split hop penalty compared to the original hop penalty. This proves that the split hop penalty can be utilized in a wide variety of applications requiring a high data rate, as the proposed scheme boosts the performance of BATMAN drastically. The difference is most prominent where a higher number of nodes were utilized, e.g., an average of 209 Kbps throughput was recorded for the original scheme, while the proposed scheme increases the average throughput to 9840 Kbps, which is at least 47 times greater as compared to the original scheme. This difference is caused by the appropriate metric adjustment provided in the new scheme and proves its worthiness to be used in advanced communication systems requiring high transmission rates. Figure 11: UPD packet loss for (**a**) original hop penalty and (**b**) split hop penalty.