wirelessrudy

"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.

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.....

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...

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!

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...

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)

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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......

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.

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!).

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..

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.....

Hi, good to get this forum starting... We are coming from a V-pol network (like most WISP's I would think) so a VVH would be the one I'd pick. Although your theory is that 3rd chain might received a V-pol package that is not picked up (in the same strenght) by the 1st V-pol chain I have some doubts: 1. To get the higher MCS values we need mimo to work. Thus the H-pol chain needs to work too otherwise we only have a single chain connection with related low (50%) throughputs. Only if the signal of either one of the V-pol chains has similar signal as the H-pol we have mimo. The chance now one V-pol chain reception is much lower than the H-pol where the 2nd V-pol could now would come to the aid to still get a high V-pol signal is very rare. After all, on relative longer distances (> 1km) multipath receipt for similar polorized signals leaving same antenna is almost un noticable. Same theory prevents full triple chain links (3x3) to get much advantage over 2x2 when distances are more than 300-500 meters. 2. When we have a field of single chain or duo chain CPE's a triple chain (VVH) might improve signal receipt a little on the AP side. But in the day to day practise the bulk of the traffic is AP >> CPE. Here the only chance a VVH sector might improve CPE's receipt is if one of the V-pol chains would be poor compared to the H-pol and the 2nd V-pol chain's signal could now come to the rescue. How big is the chance this is ever happening? 3. We actually learned that in a P2P 3x3 link (H+V+45ªslant) link the 3rd chain did not produce any gain improvement on a 8 km link. On the contrary, the CCQ dropped meaning the 3rd chain actually made the link worse. We have done this setup on 2 separate P2P links and for both we had the same 'dissapointing' results. 2x2 actualy worked better. So again, I am really not pursuaded on the advantages of 3x2 P2mP networks. Unless you have other info or inside (or real world tests) to spare...

Nice. Is your 30º not a bit down angled? I mean, the signal still is best in the centre so the most reach you get at the centre of the beam? To me it looks your centre hits the ground only some hundred meters away? Lifting the antenna might give you more reach while not loosing signal at short range since the antenna already has much more vertical coverage than any normal sector. I would lift it... I have similar antenna to reach clients at 5 km. I have the antenna horizontal fit. The centre is aligned towards a client at 5.3km. This is a SEXTANT and I have -57/-55 (Tx/Rx seen at AP that has a 31dBm radio) At the same time I have one client (SXT-lite) at 2km at least 100meters lower and 40 degrees out of the centre line. This client still has -49/-50 as signal (seen from AP). Due the difficult situation (AP has to 'overlook' some trees at 15 mtr in the direction of its centre line) and the presence of at least 26 (!) 5Ghz frequencies amongst at least 8 with signals better than -70 (and my tower has in total 9 5Ghz radio's) we tried several solutions. We tried a SXT-5HPacD SA (31dBm with 13dBi antenna), we tried a SXT-5HPacD (31dBm with 16dBi antenna), we tried a SEXTANT (30dBm with 18dBi antenna) and we tried a 30dBm NetMetal on a 19dBi Interline 60ª antenna. But whatever we tried, or we did loose too much signal at the distant unit, or we did not have enough coverage on the sides. And at the same time all they had more noise from other AP's. Now the 30ª Cone is fit with a rb922UAGS-5HPacD (031dBm) we have the best results and a very stable connection. Although the unit is a bit heavy to carry up in a tower, when the mast mount is fit the aligning and fixing can be done with one hand... The only minor comment I have is that the 3 horizontal pane fine adjustment bolts are a bit difficult to reach with an allen key if you are a bit in an ackward location! (Hanging with one finger in gusty gale while your glasses are splattered by the driving rain! )

As your sale might be aware, there is a huge problem in availability of these pigtails needed for the Stationbox XL5 (to be used with MT boards) I purchased 60 or so Stationbox XL5's but in the whole of Europe I could only find 8 pigtails! And price ranges from under 1€ up to 6€ each! I think these pigtails are an important part of the Stationboxes and should come with them included into the package, like they are with many other antenna units.... I am sitting and waiting for at least 50 pigtails since early December...... :-(

Oh, and now we are talking the new radio's with a new OS. Radio sync would make them very interesting. I know, MT is not doing that (yet???) so if you guys would choose to come with something new, try to embedd radio sync. This would make it a winner again. [I am afraid that if ubnt or MT is chosen for its OS only ubnt will see it with sync available now. This would put MT on the side line.....

Interesting reading. One new question though, the new simper radio's; what OS will they have? From previous articles I've got the impression it would be ROS or an clone of it? Im my opinion that would make you new radio's a winner. MT users could then just integrate these into their existing ROS network. But since ubnt has much bigger market share business wise Airmax would be better. (But not for me.. :-( ROS is much better than ubnt's OS but then again, just radio's don't always need all these options....) Probably you guys have to pay a fee to either MT or ubnt for use of their OS? Maybe the radio's would come with no OS at all? You could than just opload the OS of you liking? Or you can pick the one of choice? For sales volumes multi platform looks best to me. For sales value not. (Price has to be lower since user still has to pay the OS license). I'm hoping you guys are not inventing the wheel again with a new, non tdma compatible, OS version. This would drop interests a lot from supposed users. Off course I am referring to tdma (Airmax or NV2). Normal 802.11a/n/c is compatible to all, but in reality most serious WISPS don't use that anymore.

Is there really an advantage in using triple chain VVH (or VHH) antenna in a network presently consisting out of a mixture of V-pol single chain antennas with V+H-pol antennas? (Network consists of Groove's on 24-25dBi or higher Mesh/panel antenna and some SXT's and SEXTANTS and the first RF Basebox XL5's) We use Mikrotik radio's only and to us it seems the radio only uses these chains that give best signal. In our opinion it is not like a VVH-polantenna on AP side will increase signal at V-pol client with 3dB (or 1,5dB in case of the use of duo chain antena at client). Now to make a transition to full duo chain network we have to change these 1xCH ones one by one for dual chain CPE's antenna. For budget reasons we are planning to use Basebox XL5 with rb911's. But gain is 19dBi where the duo chain setup gives us 3dB extra. So compared to a 25dBi mesh we still loose 3dB signal (halve the energy!). In the 'old' days we worked with signal levels at CPE (Rx) up to -81dB but we now try to maintain -70 or better to sustain the higher mcs rates. (Clients want more speed than 2 years ago!) We already increase the Tx at the AP from 25dBm to 30 or 31dBm and will use either RF carrier class or the Simper cone antennas to bring more, and 'cleaner' signal to the CPE. But we are still not sure if a triple chain sector would give us any benefit above a duo chain sector. (On the moment the triple chain NetMetals are actaully cheaper than the duo chain units!) Anybody has any say in this?