Look it's 60 feet. The link I posted said you can get over 300 feet outside with line-of-site. I see no reason to drop $xxx.xx for special hardware to get wireless to travel 20% of it's maximum distance. I don't think throwing money at the problem solves the problem.
I've spent some time reading up on making DIY directional antennas, and you can buy one for $20.00. I don't think I need that. I think I need to run a cable from the wireless router to an antenna and zip tie it to something on my roof. Not sure what the wireless bridge does or how it works, but I have a feeling I can set that up at the shop, connect a basic $5.00 antenna mounted on the roof of the shop and make the thing work. I don't think I need to spend a lot of money to get a wireless connection over 60 feet. That's only 20% of the maximum range of the wireless.
I don't think I need to spend over a hundred dollars to get a wireless connection over 60 feet, which is 20% of the maximum range of the wireless router.
The wireless router's maximum range is over 300 feet. I want to establish a wireless connection over just 60 feet, which is about 20% of the wireless router's maximum.
The wireless connection I'm trying to establish is only about 60 feet apart, and the maximum range of my wireless router is over 300 feet. I don't think I need to spend over a hundred dollars on hardware in order to get this connection set up.
How many times should I repeat this before it starts to make sense to the people that are "helping" me?
My apologies if I offended you in any way.
I have recommended solutions that are tested and true.
These would be the suggestions I would give my own customers to insure problemfree operation.
I would suggest you try your own ideas and see if they will work.
Then come back and let the forum and Google know what you did and how you solved it so that others might benefit from it as well
So as I read between the lines here you didn't really read my op, gave me a "cookie-cutter", one size fits all opinion, with the idea that it's the same solution you've used in other places, the whole "when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and now that your one-size-fits-all solution has been determined to be impractical, your 2nd response is that I'll get no other constructive answer, that I should find my own answer and then post that answer here for someone else.
I've been on tech forums for years. I've seen your personality numerous times in the past. You aren't really here to help, you don't really pay attention to the problem, you have a handful of "solutions" that you post repeatedly in a "one size fits all" manner, and you adopt the attitude that if you can't solve it, it can't be solved. The truth is that it can't be solved by YOU, and primarily because you aren't really interested in solving problems, just appearing to be doing so, much like virtue signalling, And also the whole idea that I'm "offended" reduces the technical inadequacy of your suggestion to some kind of interpersonal problem, which is just another tactic by you to avoid having to face the fact that your technical "solution" was inadequate. I'm not "offended" at all, in fact I'm doing you a favor, and risking Moderator attention, by instructing you on your poor quality answer, your failure to actually read the problem and the poor manner in which you reacted to being told the truth of your inadequate online troubleshooting skills. You have a lot of learning to do and I suggest you step out of this thread and contemplate what they learning might look like. Any simpleton can advocate throwing money at a problem in order to create the illusion of helpfulness. It's easier than actually thinking about the problem and having the skillset to deal with it in the most efficient manner possible.