John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to anoclon
Re: 15 Miles shot. How to do it?
said by anoclon  :Is this the case for deliberant 2319? I believe that it is...
The 23XX means that the base radio is a DLB2300 module (with the same firmware) and the XX19 means that it has the 19 dB panel antenna.
--
A is A |
|
anoclon
join:2004-10-12
Guatemala
| reply to lutful
said by lutful :1. The 12 mile limit comes from "deafult" timeout value for packet acknowledgement (ACK) - many firmware lets you increase the ACK timeout value for longer links. Is this the case for deliberant 2319? |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to anoclon
said by anoclon :John, are you there??? I am on vacation for a week...so I will in and out of here for a few more days.
PersComp, can you do a calculation using the DLB-2700 and 24 dB grids?
»www.deliberant.com/estore/web/da···1043.pdf
Thanks...and back to vacationing.
--
A is A |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| reply to jober
Well... there are still too many unknowns to make an accurate assessment. We know nothing about the two bases or the seaside site, noise floor, spectrum use, tower heights, wind factor, etc. There has been little described of the seaside location as to the immediate terrain and what sort of tower can suitably and affordably be erected.
5.8GHz has more free space loss than 2.4GHz. That said, there is the osbridge 5GXi with integrated 23dB panels (10 watt EIRP) at $200.US that could be considered. Wind loading would be minimal on an integrated panel. They also have a connectorized version one could use grids with for more $$$ but wind loading would require more substantial mounting. |
|
jober
join:2001-12-13
1 edit | reply to anoclon
If I were you and I could spend the extra money on this project, I would use the following equipment.
RB532-4A RB532 64MB RAM, Lvl 4 lic $185.00x2=$370.00
DCE-CaseKitPGME Die Cast Aluminum Case PGME $32.30x2=$64.60
SR2-80211bg SuperRange2 802.11b/g 400 mW mini-PCI $109.95 x2=$219.90
Ufl6-NFB-.5 Pigtail Ufl6 to NFB 5" $13.00x2=$26.00
POE-48 48v Input POE Injector $22.45x2=44.90
NM-NM-400-6 Pigtail NM to NM LMR400 Style, 6 ft $16.30x2= $32.60
DC24-HD-PF1PF 2.4GHz 24dBi Die Cast Antenna N-Female $58.45x2=$116.90
Total: $874.90
But I would also use 5.8Ghz not 2.4Ghz. The cost would be almost the same.
|
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| reply to anoclon
You could try a pair of radios with integrated panels but if they don't have enough power to give you the fade margin, you will have to shelve them.
If integrated panels don't work out, go for connectorized and get as much antenna gain as you can afford to buy and that the weather there won't tear apart. Then, since you are not bound by part 15, you can adjust radio power to give you the fade margin you need.
Good antenna gain always trumps radio power since it works both ways. |
|
anoclon
join:2004-10-12
Guatemala | reply to jober
Guys, please. I´m a rookie. Please keep it easy. John, are you there??? please I could use your help. Please traslate it. |
|
jober
join:2001-12-13
| reply to anoclon
I have a 13 mile link that does 7.5mbps.
The tower side has a 24dbi panel that I'm going to change to a 27 or 29bdi grid and the client side has a 29dbi grid.
Both sides are running SR5s in Router Board 532s.
I'm setting up a test link that's 35 miles. I have my side setup with a 24dbi grid and a SR2 in a RB532 and the other Wisp is setting up the same on his side.
At this point he has a 15dbi omni with a CM9 in a wrap or RB532 and I can connect to it with a -85db signal so I think the link will be good with the new hardware on his side. |
|
lutful
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to anoclon
1. The 12 mile limit comes from "deafult" timeout value for packet acknowledgement (ACK) - many firmware lets you increase the ACK timeout value for longer links.
2. Many of our links go over water at low height. Do not worry about that.
If you use connectorized DLB2300, please try 24dBi grid antenna since you could lose a few dB signal due to less-than-perfect tightening of cable and other strange issues. |
|
anoclon
join:2004-10-12
Guatemala
| reply to John Galt
1. I have read / learned on this forum that a 12 mile link would be the maximum distance or limit on a wireless connection without having to re-transmit the signal. Am I wrong or understood wrong?
2. Have you checked with google earth the surrounding area for client side? there´s a lot of water (canal / river) between the bases and the client. Could that affect the signal? |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to anoclon
said by anoclon :What´s the difference between a connectorized and a NOT connectorized radio? The connectorized radio needs a pigtail and an antenna whereas the integrated radio has an antenna built-in.
--
A is A |
|
anoclon
join:2004-10-12
Guatemala
| reply to John Galt
How´re you doing John. I´m glad to hear from you. I´m trying to survive downhere. As you see, I´m thinking deliberant instead of d-link now. That´s a big step for me as you already know.
Ok guys, thank you all. Sorry for leaving you alone discussing this subject all this time.
said by John Galt :said by LLigetfa :I think you are interpreting part 15 different than I do. Part 15 does not apply to Anoclon... John is completely right. He knows my entire story and FCC and part 15 regulations does not apply to me. So please, in my case forget about any rules you have upthere in US. I could use any radio with any antenna I want, with the output power I want but I´d like to keep it the cheapest possible way. In this case, I´ve considered deliberant.
I want it to be a PtP link, from any of my bases, to the client. My question is: do you think deliberant would do the job? Would the throughput be enough? What model would be best?
What´s the difference between a connectorized and a NOT connectorized radio? |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON | reply to John Galt
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. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| 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 |
|
PersComp
Premium
join:2005-08-17
Cayce, SC
1 edit | reply to LLigetfa
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). |
|
LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
| reply to PersComp
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
| reply to LLigetfa
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
| 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
| reply to LLigetfa
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
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. |
|
