| reply to gunther_01
Re: 6.6mile PTP link - hardware? 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 $. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| Keep in mind that would be a grid and a bullet, not an airgrid. |
|
| reply to TheHox
A Rohn 25 series is (supposed) to be guyed after 40' max I believe. Even when anchored to a structure at the 20' mark.
I bet those things are wobbly as hell. And frankly unsafe to climb IMO.
(Let's not get in to a flame war about who has done what. I am talking an actual Rohn spec, and what I think it is. And last I thought, it was what I stated)
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net |
|
| reply to TheHox
I could be wrong but I thought you could go 30' above the last guy or anchor point... I'm not saying I would do it, but I thought that was spec. |
|
| reply to TheHox
I thought it was 40' from the last mounted point. I'll look it up again here shortly.
I did look and we have 2 HG5827G antennas in stock.
»www.alliedelec.com/search/produc···70126412
Would these be worth trying? With a Bullet? |
|
| reply to TheHox
Yes.
Perhaps someone can chime in here as to use VPOL or HPOL. I forget what goes through trees better.
If you are in a high interference area use HPOL regardless. |
|
| reply to TheHox
They say Horizontal. If you think about the wave going up and down in theory it would run right in to the tree. But a wave moving side to side would only partially be blocked by the tree.
That's what they say LOL, IDK for sure. I would never use 900 in Vert to begin with. I'm not sure it would matter any for other frequencies as absorption would be more that any polarity could offset I would guess
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net |
|
