What Steve said. You probably can make it work, but you are more than likely going to waste a lot of time and money fighting with it.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:29 PM Steve Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Linkplanner is probably one of the best things out there these days > > this link however is not, its being a terrible steward of the spectrum. > You can do it, law even backs you, but should you? nope. > Are you going to spend more money fighting this thing over the years than > you would have on establishing a midpoint or alternative solution, 99.999% > yes > > Trashing an entire band with noisy crickets to achieve a subpar link is > just not being very neighborly at all. > > If its got feasibility in any way, find some transport within 5 or ten > miles of either site, put up quality links to those endpoints and lease the > transport, sell more on each end, save the spectrum for delivery > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:46 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> LinkPlanner is great. >> You can use it for your AirFiber too. Pick a Cambium product which lets >> you set the same Tx Power as the AF and then pick an antenna with the >> correct gain. Obviously it won't give you the correct mbps and reliability >> numbers, but you'll get an RSL you can take to the bank. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> On 12/7/2018 4:37 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> Use LinkPlanner and manually punch in the trees. If you're shooting >> through them, get higher or find another way. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM Brian Webster <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> With tower coverage and radio mobile, path calculations and results are >>> going to vary greatly by the amount of reliability you have set in the >>> configuration. What you use for spot mode for ptmp is a lot different than >>> if you want 99% or more uptime. Each decimal place in radio mobile wants >>> another 10 dB signal to meet the reliability. This is a good tool to >>> determine the path profile but you really want to use some other path calc >>> tool that is designed for PTP links so that you get a reliable uptime >>> calculation result. The Longley Rice propagation model used for Radio >>> Mobile is not that good to reliability calculations in PTP paths. It’s >>> usually conservative unless you have your availability numbers set too low >>> say at 70 or 80%. >>> >>> >>> >>> Long story short Kurt, find a path calc tool to run the signal numbers >>> now that you have established you have a path. As Adam has said I would not >>> be overly concerned with those trees in the path as much as having the >>> right tool to show your predicted signal. A good path calc tool for PTPT >>> gives you almost the exact numbers for signal you should have for >>> alignment. Radio Mobile and by default tower coverage will not calculate >>> the paths the same way. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank You, >>> >>> Brian Webster >>> >>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>> >>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* AF [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kurt >>> Fankhauser >>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 06, 2018 4:32 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 25 mile shot AF5XHD NLOS ??? >>> >>> >>> >>> after looking at another tower i think i can go with the 3 foot dishes >>> now. that puts me at -57 and tower coverage is supposed to be factoring in >>> a little bit of tree fade so even if i fade 10db more im still at -67 which >>> should be enough i would think. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:12 PM Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> So, to achieve 150Mbps each way, you would need 300Mbps aggregate with >>> an AF5xHD, which means that you're going to need a minimum of a 40mhz >>> channel at 8X (256QAM). to get 8X, you can use a maximum of 22dbm TX power, >>> which by my calculations, would give you a signal of roughly -58 with 2' >>> dishes - an AF5xHD is supposed to be able to do 8x at -65 on a 40mhz >>> channel, so assuming no noise and clear LOS, that'd work just fine and give >>> you a few db to spare. Realistically, you probably aren't going to get 8X >>> on that link, so you'd need to bump it up to a 50mhz channel and hope 6X >>> works. That lets you bump the TX power up a couple more db, and now you >>> only need a -69 to get the desired capacity, which starts to look a lot >>> more promising... but those trees could easily cost you more than 10db, and >>> we don't know what kind of noise you're going to be dealing with. Going to >>> 3' dishes on both ends should gain you 8db, but if you can't use 3' dishes, >>> that doesn't really matter. My guess is that those trees are going to be >>> cutting the signal down more than what 3' dishes would gain, but I don't >>> believe that trees in towercoverage are accurate enough to really try to >>> predict that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course if you don't mind burning up the entire 5.8ghz band, you could >>> use an 80mhz (or even 100mhz) channel, and then you'd only need 4X to get >>> that kind of bandwidth, which would let you go up to 29dbm TX power, and >>> you'd only need a signal of -71, which would mean you could afford to lose >>> around 20db to the trees... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:40 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I got over 300mbps at 16.7 miles with 3' dishes on the AF5XHD. >>> The catch is you need a large channel for these high data rates and you >>> have to have a solid SNR across the whole channel. That's no guarantee. >>> >>> I don't think those intermittent trees in the bottom half of the Freznel >>> zone are as big of a problem as people are making out. The bigger problem >>> I see is the 2' dishes. I would not bet the farm on getting 150mbps out of >>> it. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> On 12/6/2018 2:48 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >>> >>> Josh, who did you do that link for? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:38 PM Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Not just no but hell no. 150 megs isn't going to happen. I wouldn't >>> even count on it associating. >>> >>> >>> >>> I did a 15 mile shot and I was a lot higher on both sides maybe half an >>> hour from where you're at. >>> >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:20 PM Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> found another site with better looking profile, 100 foot higher >>> elevation on one of the ends. (see attached) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:04 PM Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> ubnt doesn't make a product that's going to work good for that >>> situation... The only thing that might work better than AF5XHD for that is >>> going to be AF-2X, or maybe AF-3X, but the chances of getting 150mbps out >>> of either of those is pretty slim. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, as far as if AF5XHD's with 2' dishes will work... who knows, it >>> depends on how much the trees actually block it, which probably isn't >>> really possible to accurately predict. You're pretty much going to have to >>> try it to know what it will do, but personally, I wouldn't do it unless I >>> really had to. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:45 PM Timothy Steele <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> everything about that email just wants to make me ask why-why oh why.. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I would use https://link.ubnt.com/ to find the product that would work >>> best >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 1:31 PM Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Trying to do a NLOS shot with AF5XHD's thats 25 miles (see attached >>> topo). Only have done 10-12 mile shots before that are NLOS. I have had >>> good success doing the 10 mile shots skimming tree tops but not sure if the >>> added distance is going to drastically change that. According to >>> TowerCoverage this link is showing it will work. Can't use 3 foot dishes >>> due to wind loading only able to use 2 footers. Anyone think this should >>> work? Only need about 150mbps each way. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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
