• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About wirelessrudy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "You can have two radios (one of them just one chain radio) connected to one antenna" should that not be be re-written in "You can have two antennas (one of them just one chain/polarization) connected to one radio"...? Since the Netmetal is one radio with 3 chains. So you can hook one dual polorized antenna and one single polorized to it. We have in fact done this in one situation. The extra antenna is a directional in the centre of the other's sector to reach some further away clients that are also higher up on a mountain slope.
  2. Good! With your excellent clarifications I now have a more detailed picture of how its done and yes indeed, as you say, there are more roads leading to Rome.....
  3. Maybe an add on for the ignitenet scope (http://www.ignitenet.com/products/metrolinq-scope/). Many operators start to user their 60Ghz product line more and more too. A clip that sits around the smallest ring of any horn (they are all the same dia?) where the scope then gets attached too. RF Elemenents is great in making such add-on devices for 3rd party products.... The target cross in the scope should be pointed towards a landmark that you'd calculated in Google Earth first. (Take a copy of the picture with ya!) All that is needed is that the scope indeed is H+V parallel with the centre of the horn...
  4. I've been reading the case study and have some questions: 1. Why use the XL CARRIER CLASS 2.4 GHz on each deck? Is it used as AP antenna for client's devices to connect? This is a directional antenna, that looks to me a bad choice in any building like environment. Especial since its a shielded type of antenna. A better choice to me would have been a ceiling fit omni directional or something like StationBox InSpot housing. A typical ship superstructure is internally also divided by metal bulkheads (= walls) that are highly reflective and non penetrable. Hence in my opinion a multi path multy antenna AP, preferably 4x4 with beam forming would be a much better choice. The signals can then enter cabins and other spaces through doors etc. 2. Although on the outside the horns are used to pickup the signal from distant AP I hope these ships are not regularly moved to another part of the quay. If so you need to re-align the ship unit each time again. But this is not a common practise I know (the moving of the ship). 3. Since it seems this is a temporarily situation for ships occasionally berthing at the dock it means the horns are to be moved and used again on the next ship each time again? I happen to have to move a horn once after two months and at the second attempt to tighten the screws one of the bolts 'locked' by the destruction of the tread. The alu bolts already corroded. I had to replace it.... This is in a very arid hot climate miles away from any salty sea air...... The guy using these horns in this environment better greases the bolts otherwise he need regular replacements... (The materials of the bolts are a weak point in the furthermore splendid design! :-) ) 4. How is the network distributed from the CPE-Netmetal to the netmetals on each deck? He must be using a switch or router with many Ethernet ports. One for each device? 5. The cables, do they run over the decks? On the bulkheads? Walls? How to enter the accommodation superstructure? Usually a ship's superstructure is made watertight, so unless doors/window are left open cables have no simple way to enter. To run and fit and later remove the cables seem a lot of work to me each time again. And then most cables don't like to be moved a lot. Or they tend to be a hazard if loose and trip people. I know, I'll tell you! 6. How is the power supply of all the devices arranged? You need a set of 110/220V and maybe even other type of voltage power supplies that also need to fit the different socket types that are to be found on ships... Ships have as many standards as there are on the world and probably even more..... I have one suggestion that might proof to be workable; Have the CPE unit fit on the bow mast of the ship. Also fit a second directional (Just enough to cover the whole superstructure from there.) Another 30 degree horn could be perfect) These units in the mast are well out of the path of most workers and can be fit with short cables and one power supply only. No more risks of somebody tripping over a loose cable or braking the cable and only one socket needed to fit ship's (or yard's) power supply. Then on each deck, behind a cabin's- or recreation room's- or the brige's- window place an indoor dualband (5Ghz for CPE and 2,4Ghz for AP) device. If this device is placed direct behind the window it will pickup the outdoor 5Ghz signal and on the interior now distribute a 2,4Ghz signal in that cabin/bridge/deck (if there are not metal bulkheads blocking it). No need to run cable to each indoor AP. And most rooms/spaces have wall sockets available so it won't be hard to find one for the 'window-'unit. And if the signal from one such device is not penetrating the whole deck, just fit another one behind another window..... To me this looks a much cheaper, more manageable solution also less vulnerable (no loose cables = security item!) to incidents or accidents. No extra router needed (one of the Netmetals in the fore mast can do all the client's authentication, limiting and routing etc.) since all deck AP's are wireless connected to the one AP. The indoor CPE-AP units can be much cheaper too. So cheap that you can leave them as a bonus to the crew! (And where to hang the big XL's? A rb hAP-ac with its 2x triple chain radios is a perfect high capacity unit that presents the deck with some Ethernet ports too!) And we don't have to use any cables! Regarding the 5Ghz signal penetrating the glass of the superstructure; When the outdoor AP is in the foremast, it will hit the glass of the superstructure under an almost 90 degree angle. I think the signal passes that without too many losses. If the AP would be located at the side (on the quay for instance! Even less work!) then I am not sure. It could be that when the signals hits the (thick!) window glass under a smaller then 45 degree angle it might get reflected.. The bottom line is I can pick up outdoor signals inside my house with a device better behind a window then behind a wall and in fact years ago we've had 5Ghz ubnt nanostations with a special vacuum nap device to fit it on the inside of the window picking signals from an AP a kilometre away..... it worked fine. I've been working on ships 25 years of my life and now for 15 years am a wireless network operator with RF as my main field of interest. Probably from the days as radio licensed officer with basic background educations on the behaviour of radio wave propagation..... If my suggestions are appreciated by the operator he can send me a pm rudy@marucom.es if he'd like to discuss any other aspects. I even have an idea to avoid the need of the foremast CPE-AP setup to save even more costs and hassle. Nice article though!
  5. I wouldn't agree. At such short range signals from one will penetrate heavy in the radio circuits of the other. This is noise and at a very high level. Unless the radio has really good filters or out of working channel frequency rejection I think it is not good. I would never fit them like that...
  6. Well, with the global warming this issue melts away! lol. You are right, but to me its not a single problem. Sub zero temps would hit the papers here where I live (East Spain)
  7. You live in an utopia kind of world where AP locations are available to your convenience and budgets are unlimited and all possible clients only have you as their internet source. Real world is often you have to do with the locations available, find a way of finance you investments at reasonable level and compete with more then 1 competitor fishing the same pond. And then we still want to make some money at the end of the day...... The fact is that although we have 300+Mhz to play with we have at least 5 backhauls and 4 other AP's at short range and within a radius of 2-4km all belonging to us. Beside that we have 6 competitors with their AP's and backhauls... all squeezing their channels in the same spectrum.... On the moment we are using 40Mhz on this first A5 we'd use with some 55 clients. We are now planning to change it for two A5c's with both 2 2x2 sectors covering a 360 sector again but it needs to deal with 120+ clients.. It will 'steal' clients from my other Mikrotik AP's (and maybe some from other operators) so we hope in the near future to remove 1 AP.
  8. I work with a Mimosa A5 and planning to use these more. We have some 80 LHG's out in the field that one day or the other either have to be replaced or if for a little bit extra can be made slant could stay around for another year or so.... LHG-5 is not only popular due its price, its a real good antenna outperforming several other CPE's costing double... One day MT will make it 802.11ac and then they have a topseller that only better be fit slant to work with a Mimosa.....
  9. I don't know if both the designers of these antennas do agree on this.. https://www.kpperformance.ca/product_documents/get/document/id/255/ http://www.mtiwe.com/?CategoryID=228&ArticleID=498&SearchParam=MT-464042%2FND%2FB Since Mimosa is aiming at dense urban developments with small cells I presume the principle of lateral separation is not such a big issue.... How a setup comparison between two same direction fit 13dBi horns would perform against one of the above mentioned.... I don't know. RF elements starts with a lag of 4dB. Off course the horns are well designed, but that doesn't mean the others are poor. I do fully agree that another usage of the A5c is with 2 x 2x2Mimo sectors or horns. This way only one radio can serve 2x 60 or 2x 90 or even 2x120 degree sectors to achieve a wide coverage all in range of one single radio. Off course top PYI's will be lower and MU-Mimo only works where both sort of overlap. But for many migrating operators this still gives a great achievement compared towards the standard 802.11 stuff out on the market now. I am planning a setup where a A5c will server one 15dBi 120degree sector beside one 30degree horn that has to reach some clients in a corner double the distance as the clients on the 120 sector. In our setup with actuall 2 A5c's with 3 RF Element's carrier class sectors and this one 30 degree horn we hope to reach 125 clients with only two 80Mhz wide channels and still deliver them 50Mbps with tops to 100Mbps.
  10. Some of the already available brackets can be used to fit some 3rd party CPE antennas (SXT, SEXTANT) in a 45º slant setup. It would be nice to have a marker printed or profiled on the brackets to easily find the 45º angle. It would also be nice to see some (Vertical adjustable) bracket that would allow Mikrotiks popular LHG-5 antennas to be fit in a 45º slant setup.
  11. Ok, so here's a new one; Is RF Elements going to develope a 4x4 sector? Mimosa has its A5c 4x4 radio on the market now and its only a matter of weeks before they say their beam forming firmware will come out. To make full use of that and coming Mu-Mimo 4x4 sectors are the best to work with but so far only one US based manufacturer makes these......
  12. I already made the remark about this type connector somewhere else in this forum. Imho there will be many operators that work with brands where due the size or type or market share a TwistPort connector would not easy be developed. But if the N-type port connector in itself would come as TwistPort adapter it would make it easy to swap type of antennas to your wish on your radio (a Tower with 4x90 might later need 8 x 45 sector. What to do now with the absolete 90º domes?) Or in migrating from one brand to another (Mikrotik or Ubnt to Mimosa!) without the need to buy new domes. (I got several domes working on Mikrotik boards. But now we move to Mimosa we can trow all these nice domes away? What a waste.... I think the professional user will understand that a twistport solution with N-connector and cable will never be the same a the 'ner-' or 'real' zero loss twistport adapter.
  13. Nice product line! But it would even be better with the 'head' ('red' part with the n-type connector) as twistport! This way I can upgrade my already twistport horns in the field with a radio brand that doesn't have a twistport adapter (yet)! (Like Mimosa!).
  14. OK, good news for you guys, and me! But "starting deliveries of StationBox XL with pigtails included in package" from a few months ago? Well I tried to order them November with several suppliers and most only had a handfull available and only one supplier in Spain could deliver me 33 uds after ordering them for me. They all were without pigtails and even the ones from this last supplier came without these...... They must have received them in November.... Can it be the suppliers remove the pigtails from the package and sell them later separate? Wouldn't suprise me..
  15. Hmmm, thanks for your answers. Gambling on your own new, proprietary tdma is nice but the product needs to come with more than only "the best antenna there is". Like you said, once made a choice for one product line the bigger the WISP (the more interesting for any manufacturer) the more difficult it will be for such operator to change his network. I mean, ALL units (AP's + CPE's) have to be changed.... that's an investment and job... Hence you don't see a lot business change from MT to ubnt (cheaper and/or more 'dummy' proof) or Motorola (eCambium). The latter has big problems to regain once lost market share and a new player like Mimosa has issues to enter the market. Amongst all these product you'll find tecnologies that represent the latest in mimo and mu-mimo with 'ac', sync etc. Only if you will deliver all in a working constellation that noticably outperforms other's a your new radio stands a chance. And if RF-elements is able to make something (it will be a 'high-end product, like Aruba, Ruckus, Radwin or Cisco etc.) it will have to compete in a price segment MT, ubnt and eCambium alike. So you have to deliver the Ferrari and sell it at the price of a Fiat...... Your Simper product line must really outperform existing product lines a lot. And lets be honest, the present adapters work fine so MT, ubnt or eCambium don't have to do anything to make their product ready for the twistport and cone antennas. So why should they develop a new twistport radio? Off course, there will be a marginal improvement between a 3rd party radio in an adapter or a similar developed radio that comes with twistport. But the end user also will hardly notice the better signal, an adapter just does do fine too (as I already noticed.) The development of a simper radio with its own OS or the gamble that any manufacturer will make his own simper radio product is nice but I don't see it as a game changer and it might proof not a very strategic decision for your company to go that road. I think the best idea would be to have a simper radio develloped that can actually have a 3rd party OS uploaded and installed. Now you can sell units, manufacturers still make money (licenses, at no costs....) and the end user is mostly happy. He can get the best out of both worlds, depending on what he thinks is best.....