I have masked the front and painted the backs with galvanizing spray paint, but the difference was not really very noticeable. I debated trying foil tape, but just gave up frequency reuse on that old UBNT gear.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:47 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have cost them just a penny or two to have coated the inside of > the enclosure with aluminum deposition or nickel paint (or arc spray zinc) > to have eliminated much of that. > > I wonder what the difference would be to put foil on everything but the > area in the front where the antenna is... > > *From:* Jeremy > *Sent:* Friday, July 27, 2018 10:43 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RF Armor for a CPE > > ....so it dropped from hearing at a -30 to a -36. Still too hot for them > to both be on-channel obviously, since they put out so much noise out the > back. Obviously a directional antenna like a Powerbeam will be different. > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In my experience testing RF armor on a two Nanostations facing opposite >> directions, ten feet apart from each other, each rf armor lowered the noise >> level by 3db. So both of them lowered the level that they could hear each >> other by 6db. >> >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Jay Weekley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> How effective is RF Armor in reducing interference being received by an >>> SM? Obviously it depends on which direction it's coming from . >>> -- >>> *Jay Weekley* >>> >>> *Cyber Broadband * >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >> > > > ------------------------------ > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
