The dual-core WTM-4200 radio only suffers a coupler loss hit. I think you’re referencing the single-core WTM-4100 using Adaptive Dual Carrier (A2C) which has a significant power hit at 1024 QAM and above.
> On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:01 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but > there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is that > they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely within > the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two different > sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be remembering that > wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a significant tx power > hit when you activate that feature, which probably makes it unusable in a lot > of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz link (using 4x 80mhz on a > dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with only a minor performance > hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature as well, but I don't > remember if there was a significant performance hit or not... I think they > may have been the ones that could use two different sizes of channels. > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart. > I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas. > There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz channels in > a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if this gets > around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that feature > completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a > performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz. > I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the only > thing I know it has is SFP+. > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar > > Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link > Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co > Polar" on the dropdown. > > > On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the > > best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next > > best is XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same > > polarization is you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. > > But that's from memory, and mine is not so reliable. > > > > ---- Original Message ---- > > From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar > > > > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC > > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels. > > > > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of extra junk to make > > that work? > > > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <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
