anoclon
join:2004-10-12
Guatemala
| 15 Miles shot. How to do it?
I have 2 base stations on the following coordinates:
1. 14° 4'27.72" N
90°25' 1.09" W
2. 14° 5'18.49" N
90°22'53.33" W
The stations have NO connection with each other.
Im trying to set up a customer (client) on the following coordinates:
13°51'49.56" N
90°24'26.49" W
Its about 15 miles shot. Im thinking on Deliberant DLB-2714 with 14dbi integrated antenna. Would that be enough for that kind of shot? I guess I have line of sight because client its at a sea level and my base stations are at 920 feet above see level and the other one at about 1050 feet over see level. What do you people think? I could use any of my 2 base stations to do the shot. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON | The lower cost DLB2300 model with 19dBi antenna will be better for 15 mile shot with clear line of sight.  |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON | Are the two bases running max EIRP and if sectorized, how close to the middle would the sub be? I would think a connectorized CPE with a higher dB mesh would be the way to go. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| reply to anoclon
Not sure why, but base2 provides a better option despite being a slightly longer shot and basically the same terrain. It even looks like there is slightly more fresnel encroachment on #2. Perhaps someone may have some other insight.....
This is with the 2300 w/19 as Lutful suggests.
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by PersComp  :Perhaps someone may have some other insight..... The ground at the lower part should be why it's low. It's cutting the fresnal smaller because of the height and distance. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| said by rawgerz :said by PersComp :Perhaps someone may have some other insight..... The ground at the lower part should be why it's low. It's cutting the fresnal smaller because of the height and distance. I thought that at first too, but the one with greater fade margin has less fresnel clearance. And the spot you speak of is the only spot that the fresnel has any encroachment. Just seemed weird to me. Must be one of those weird algorithmic fresnel issues that has to do with odd or even clearances or something..... 
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
John Galt
What...me panic??
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp | reply to anoclon
Hey..how goes your battles??
--
A is A |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| reply to LLigetfa
said by LLigetfa : how close to the middle would the sub be? FYI...location of sites....
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| By "how close to the middle", I was referring to whether the client is smack dab in the middle of a sector's coverage angle or at one of the edges. A sector's coverage angle is calculated to the point where the signal falls off by 3dB so that should be factored on a long shot like 15 miles.
Don't you think the EIRP on the bases are a tad excessive? Assuming them to be bound by PtMP rules and not PtP. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| said by LLigetfa :Don't you think the EIRP on the bases are a tad excessive? Assuming them to be bound by PtMP rules and not PtP. Agreed...
By the vagueness of the original post and the apparent "looking for something" I just used a couple of 2319s on RM and posted the results. It is up to the user to assume responsibility of legalities. The 2714 option that anoclon originally posted would not be legal in a PtMP setup either. I assumed that anoclon wanted a starting point and will use appropriate equipment and will be glad to check other options that may work. Here is a 36dB EIRP Base and the same 2319 client. This looks very marginal....need more antenna or higher Rx sens...
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| reply to PersComp
said by PersComp :Must be one of those weird algorithmic fresnel issues that has to do with odd or even clearances or something..... Like when you stop at a red light and your FM radio fades... pull ahead a foot or two and it clears up. When I run the numbers in RM, I always move the elevation up and down a few metres to see if it is on a null point.
I have read stories of installers having to lower an antenna a few feet to improve the signal. Sometimes it is to get below noise but not always. I'd guess sometimes raising it a few feet would have had the same effect. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| Hence the math of 50% engineering + 50% networking + 50% black magic to create a sucessful WISP...
Or as Yogi Berra said, 90% of hitting is half mental... 
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| reply to PersComp
said by PersComp :The 2714 option that anoclon originally posted would not be legal in a PtMP setup either. Why not?
It is legal by my calculation for the client side. Obviously not for the base though.
A 500mW output can legally drive a 15 dB directional (PtP) setup. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| said by LLigetfa :said by PersComp :The 2714 option that anoclon originally posted would not be legal in a PtMP setup either. Why not? It is legal by my calculation for the client side. Obviously not for the base though. A 500mW output can legally drive a 15 dB directional (PtP) setup. True....
That is why I said that it would not be legal for a PtMP (the base station). But if he only has that one client then he can use up to a 24dBi on his 2300 series radio on either link. I am currently using a 2400Maxx with integrated panel antenna as an AP for a link. Since it only has one client, then it is perfectly legal.
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| I think you are interpreting part 15 different than I do.
The number of clients on the AP is not the deciding factor of max EIRP of the client. Every client that talks only to the one AP falls under the PtP clause and could run over 50dBm. Obviously if the AP talks to more than one client, it falls under the PtMP max EIRP of 36dBm.
That said, if the base is at max EIRP of 36dB, the client would need a mesh of decent gain to overcome the weak Rx. So, when doing a disparate PtMP calc in RM, it is important to swap ends and test both ways. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
1 edit | So if the AP has only 1 client.....what makes it different than a backhaul???
If I add a 2nd client then the rules change. But if that is the only client then it is still a PtP, right?
--
Are these instructions or corrections???
edit: I am not trying to bend the rules. It was just easier to add the AP to my end rather than the client end (at least to verify that it would fix the problem at hand). |
|
John Galt
What...me panic??
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
| reply to LLigetfa
said by LLigetfa :I think you are interpreting part 15 different than I do. Part 15 does not apply to Anoclon...
--
A is A |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON | Right you are... part 15 doesn't apply to me either but IC rules are pretty much the same. Can't speak for Guatemala though. |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
| reply to anoclon
So does a PtP (end user) have different rules than a PtP backhaul? Perhaps I completely mis-understand part 15 myself.... I interprate a PtP as meaning 1 radio on each end. If I am wrong, someone please let me know.
--
Are these instructions or corrections??? |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON | Do not know about Guatemala, but PtMP CPEs are treated like a PtP endpoint in many jurisdictions. |
|
