dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4045
share rss forum feed

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
reply to wirelessdog

Re: 6.6mile PTP link - hardware?

Yea even those 25dbi dishs worried me a bit. This tower at the AP side shown above can't go any higher, as there is no room to run guy wires.

I'll try and align these a bit more to get something better, might have to try 2.4 I suppose.


treichhart

join:2006-12-12
reply to TheHox
@ TheHox how tall is that tower?

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
5 full sections + 1 topper section
So 60ft, but it is in the ground 4ft deep so 56ft.

The pole on top adds another 5-6feet or so?


Inssomniak
The Glitch
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:2
reply to TheHox
That's a lot of Rohn 25 there .

2.4 might be better.
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
reply to TomS_
said by TomS_:

According to the datasheet the beams on the M2 and M5 are somewhat narrow (maybe 10 degrees? it doesnt say explicitly), so good alignment is somewhat critical to get the best performance from the link.

This. ^

The beamwidth is narrow...half-assing the alignment will result in poor performance.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
The alignment is currently half-assed at best. I'll be playing with it more today.

Funny thing is I can pick up other APs in the -80s all the time, that are not even aiming at me, but I can't see the AP that I do have aiming to my station side half the time at all.


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
You might be in a deep null.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
reply to TheHox
Finally had the balls to climb up to the tower just now to try and re aim the station side. While blowing in the wind freezing my fingers off, I tried to aim it while scanning for the AP on my phone.

My AP I only see briefly once in a while on the Scans page, with -90 or so power. But I see 4 other APs that are near my APs, (6+ miles away) that are not even aimed at me.
WPA2 -84 / -89 5.745 149
WPA2 -74 / -88 5.805 161
WPA2 -90 / -96 5.74 148
NONE -84 / -89 5.765 153

As of now I don't even see my AP at all, I've hit refresh/scan like 50 times in the past few minutes and I haven't seen my AP once.

I would think since mine is aimed at me I would see stronger power levels than others that are not even closed to being aimed in my direction.

Which brings me to my next theory....

While installing the AP side, I dropped the antenna piece. It fell about 50ft onto a roof that had about 5" of snow on it, then slid off and fell on the grass below that had 5" of snow as well. I figured it was destroyed, but it appeared to be ok, but did have a tiny bit of snow by the ethernet jack. After cleaning the snow out and trying to dry it, I plugged it in, inside, and it booted and I was able to access the admin page, but I noticed the antenna was very warm, almost hot. Hot enough that if I was to take off the plastic casing, I would probably burn my hand on the pieces inside. So how warm do these get in normal operation conditions? I havn't felt it since it has been outside, but I felt the station side just now and it didn't feel warm at all. (Obviously it is about 25F outside right now)
( this »i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2NFgxNjAw/ ··· 0_35.JPG )

I'm wondering if some water got inside and damaged the antenna. It may work but performs very poorly? Or are these normal to get pretty warm.

Thanks again

Looking towards the AP
»sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-s ··· 19_o.jpg


treichhart

join:2006-12-12
Is this the same 56-60ft tower or is this different tower size height?

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
The AP side is the 56-60ft.
The station side, which is where I am working at now, is 70ft


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8
reply to TheHox
You might try a Nanostation at the house. It has a wider H/V beamwidth and is far easier to point.


DaDawgs
Premium
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA
reply to John Galt
said by John Galt:

said by TomS_:

According to the datasheet the beams on the M2 and M5 are somewhat narrow (maybe 10 degrees? it doesnt say explicitly), so good alignment is somewhat critical to get the best performance from the link.

This. ^

The beamwidth is narrow...half-assing the alignment will result in poor performance.

Aye and if memory serves Ubi was specifying beamwidths at the 6 dB power point. That 25 dBi solid has a 3 dB beam width of about 7 degrees sooo +/- 4 is going to be the zone.
--
Once we IPv6 enable every device on the Internet we will have toasters, baby monitors, and security cameras joining the bot nets which today are populated only by idiots that can not refrain from clicking, "Yes I would like to see those titties..."

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
reply to TheHox
I'm back at this again. I'll write a little refresher here.

I first tried 2 NanoBridge M5s with 25dbi dishes. These didn't work, I saw the AP side 25% of the time, but was never able to get a connection. I believe I am hitting trees still, and enough of them since all the leaves are off here in the upper mid west.

I had some Nanonstion LocoM2s layin around I figured I would try to see what 2ghz could do. I was never able to see the AP side at all with these.

So today, I tried 2 Nanostation LocoM900s.
There is some other 900mhz stuff in the area, so I tried both 5mhz and 10mhz widths and channel shifting. The best I got was about -80 for power level, it fluctuated around low 80s, sometimes hitting high 70s. Noise floor was around -95 to -100
I was able to make a connection sometimes, but obviously nothing stable.
Ping statistics for 192.168.1.21:
Packets: Sent = 1048, Received = 921, Lost = 127 (12% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 2987ms, Average = 956ms


Thoughts on what I could try now? Get some UBNT 16dBi Yagis?
Use them on the loco M900s? Or get a rocket m900?

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
You're just dead set on learning the hard way.

If you go back to page one I gave you a suggestion - had you listened you would be done.

I also told you 900mhz wouldn't work. Imagine that, it doesn't work.

You might get some type of crappy connection to work if you use the yagi's. UBNT yagi's are dual-pol, Nano 900's are only dual pole using the internal+external antennas. You could look at the M2 900mhz yagi's or if you want to use the UBNT which would be the best of a crappy configuration for your application and use rockets.

Or you could do it right and order a couple high gain 5ghz grids, two 5ghz bullets and be done with this.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
reply to TheHox
Click for full size
Click for full size
Yes I read that, but I'm doubting the 5ghz because of the trees now. Seeing as I had issues before with 5ghz, and its winter and no leaves on the trees. In summer, its back to zilch.

My link calc looks ok, but that doesn't show trees. There is a hill less than 1/4mile from the AP side, that is 23 feet higher than ground elevation at the AP. So 23ft + a 45ft mature tree = Im blocked.

The red line I have on the picture is where I believe I have to aim, based on a path I drew from each tower in Google Earth. Looking at it now, I am aiming right into trees. Maybe this AP tower will just not work, but seeing as I work here, and have fiber at this location, it would have been the perfect spot, besides, the LOS issue.
If you enlarge that picture, you can pretty much see the line of trees about 1/4 mile out is the only thing blocking me. You can see between the trees, the ridge line in the way distance.

I was hoping to get at least 900mhz to work, with channel shifting and even 5mhz, get me at least 5mb, and decent steady latency.
I have 1mb currently with horrible latency.

Thanks for the help, I'm not trying to learn the hard way, spending $1k on gear that will sit on the shelf doesn't help me much either.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to TheHox
It's pretty simple really. If you can't see the other side, your going to be in trouble. Especially if you are trying to push 100Mb/s
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
reply to TheHox
True. I thought it was clearer looking at the charts, and that I just couldn't see the ridge in the distance since it was 6 miles away. But it turns out its just 1 row of trees in my way.

I don't need the full 100mb, I'd be happy with 5-10.

I'll have to keep sourcing other sites.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to TheHox
What does "sourcing other sites" mean?

None of the equipment mentioned is any different than the others... It's physics, and you can't beat physics. Higher power, higher gain, or more elevation. That's it... Lower frequencies helps, but the lower you go the more interference in most cases, so its a catch 22.

Everyone that's here, does this for a living. Respect what has been given to you already, and do it, is my best suggestion.

My only other suggestion is to bench test your links before you put them in place, that will rule out any operator errors in configuration.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


Inssomniak
The Glitch
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:2
reply to TheHox
Just to correct wirelessdog the nano loco 900s are dual polarity with their internal antennas only. But see below they do suck.

The internal 900 loco antennas suck, I get 10db by adding a 13 dbi yagi to a loco, add 4 for a nice 17dbi M2 or try the 16 dbi rocket versions paired with, of course, the rocket 900 radio. Sort of expensive but they do work well. 20mhz wide in 900mhz rarely works well, but neither does 5mhz, 10mhz or 8mhz has worked well for me and in 8mhz should get you 10mb with 2 chains going.

If you want to try wirelessdog's suggestion I have a pair of 29dbi 5ghz mammoth grids here you can have real cheap . But height is your answer here regardless.
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
reply to TheHox
I don't have time to log into one this morning but I'm almost certain you can set the Nano's to Internal plus External and maintain 2x2. That said, I don't know why anyone would use that configuration but I'm almost sure its available as an option.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
reply to gunther_01
said by gunther_01:

What does "sourcing other sites" mean?

Well, for starters I have been talking with the city about the water tower. The public works director that I have been working with for the past year on/off just retired, so now I've been told to contact the city manager, which is new as well. I've been playing phone tag with him.
As most of you can probably tell, I am new to this. I am trying to start a WISP out where I have my station side at. I work for an IT company and I have set up multiple short distance links, linking other complexes, offices, warehouses, and even linking CEOs directly to the office, distances all under 1 mile, with big cooperate dollars to build any tower I needed. Our IT company was an ISP/WISP, but sold that off 7 years ago, but we still have a tower here. Now I am finding out, for where I am trying to get to, this tower does not have enough height.
I was hoping I could at least get 900mhz to work through the occlusion. And seeing as I got around -80 on the loco 900s internal antenna that has like a 30 degree antenna width, I was thinking adding a yagi of some sort, could get me a better shot. But, yes, I do not know for sure, and I am asking for your help. I may be a little suborn at times, and if I choose to learn the hard way, it only hurts my wallet, but I do learn more as I go with trial and error.

So, is it your thought that the current 900 setup I tried did not work, because of its poor internal antenna? Or the probability of other 900 interference? Or both? Or physical obstruction? I should post a screen shot of the air view for you experts to look at I suppose.

While it seems as this AP side obviously does not have enough height, it is my easiest test site for now. I have as much free bandwidth/IPs as I need and its right here. I was hoping to get some type of steady back haul up, and test out another tower at the station side with a few customers to see how things go. If it proves to work out well, and at least break even, I would take the next step and source another AP tower that I would probably have to pay for.
Of course my other option is to start throwing money out there at other locations, in other words, go balls out and hope for the best. But as you can see, I'm still learning, and not confident enough to take that step yet until I get this down more.


warwick

join:2009-06-05
Hollywood, FL
reply to Inssomniak
Indeed... Once he addresses the height issue he may be able to get even get a pair of wap11's to link up just fine.

The Rohn25/45g towers are pretty good and cost effective; following detailed instructions you can even erect it yourself saving additional $.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:

I don't have time to log into one this morning but I'm almost certain you can set the Nano's to Internal plus External and maintain 2x2. That said, I don't know why anyone would use that configuration but I'm almost sure its available as an option.

You can, but it's worthless, as the radio will only work as well as the worst chain.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net

bburley

join:2010-04-30
Cold Lake, AB
reply to TheHox
From my experience with Ubiquiti on 900 MHz, the Loco 900's suck.

If you put Rocket M900's with the Dual-Polarity Yagi's on both ends, you should get the best possible performance at 900 MHz. If that doesn't work, either fix the tower height or find a spot for an intermediate hop.

After I saw the difference with Rockets and Dual-Polarity Yagi's, that is now over 90% of my deployments in a heavily treed area.
Expand your moderator at work

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
reply to TheHox

Re: 6.6mile PTP link - hardware?

Trying to backhaul using 900mhz is just stupid. For less than you will spend on gear you could have a working link in 5ghz that would actually work.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
I'm not trying to use 900mhz as a backhaul. I am just trying to get a connection to my house. If I COULD get something better to work I would use it as a backhaul.

Also, I would use 5ghz if I had enough height, but unfortunately I doubt I do. I will have to source another location for either another hop or a main pop.

I'm sorry you feel I am wasting your time, if I knew I had a good line of sight I would gladly use 5ghz. I don't. I have 2 free towers, free bandwidth, no more height, and no line of sight. I'll get by for now with what I can, if anything. If not, back to the drawing board.

said by bburley:

From my experience with Ubiquiti on 900 MHz, the Loco 900's suck.

If you put Rocket M900's with the Dual-Polarity Yagi's on both ends, you should get the best possible performance at 900 MHz. If that doesn't work, either fix the tower height or find a spot for an intermediate hop.

After I saw the difference with Rockets and Dual-Polarity Yagi's, that is now over 90% of my deployments in a heavily treed area.

Thanks, I hate to spend another $600+ on 900 gear too, but as for this path, I think that's my last option. And I suppose I can justify the expense as my "cost of learning". I can always use them somewhere else anyway.

said by warwick:

Indeed... Once he addresses the height issue he may be able to get even get a pair of wap11's to link up just fine.

The Rohn25/45g towers are pretty good and cost effective; following detailed instructions you can even erect it yourself saving additional $.

I have Rohn25gs at both locations, pushing the height probably as high as I can go with out guy wires, about 60ft and 70ft at each end.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
reply to TheHox
Low height, 900mhz, 6.6 miles. You do realize Fresnel at that distance and frequency is 60' correct?

At 5ghz you're closer to 20'

The trees in your path are far less a concern than the Fresnel

You'll figure all this out once you have wasted money on 900mhz gear, have ok signal and are trying to figure out why you have packet loss and low throughput.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31
said by wirelessdog:

Low height, 900mhz, 6.6 miles. You do realize Fresnel at that distance and frequency is 60' correct?

At 5ghz you're closer to 20'

The trees in your path are far less a concern than the Fresnel

Well finally, thank you. Now I see the reasoning behind your push for 5ghz. I didn't know the thought process behind the two, you stating the Fresnel issues between the two, I now understand.

Hmmm I think we actually have a grid in stock at the store. I'll have to look tomorrow.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
Keep in mind that would be a grid and a bullet, not an airgrid.