You didn't note what model wasn't easily found on Google. If it was written, we could help.
The previous email had so many "creative" parts that I needed to parse it better: >I don't understand why manufacturers don't compress the signal more to get higher bandwidth. What are your sources for that assumption? Some do data compression (e.g. Dragonwave), but since much of the content on the internet is already compressed, savings are minor, maybe 10-20% on average traffic, so many do not. >Using tighter filters they should be able to get a 100x more data throughput than they do. Definitely not, radio filter quality varies but the difference in speed / modulation between average and great filters is more in the range 10-30%, not 10000%. The latter would be an insane amount, out of this world. >1 Mhz appears to be worth 1 bit. Why aren't they using 100hz for 1bit? Did you mean 1hz worth 1bit? Such as FSK modulation - that was around the year 2000. Since then, radios have become much more efficient, some can do 10-15bits/hz which is up to dual-stream 1024-4096QAM. Such requires strong signal, 40dB+ over noise, which is not often seen, and getting near the maximum efficiency possible in modern channels / spectrum / distances. 100hz for 1bit would be extremely inefficient; if you meant 100bits/hz, that would require technology so advanced and signal so incredibly strong that the devices would be insanely expensive and almost touching distance, not miles away. >Tighter filter, vast increase in throughput, no more competition from cable/fibe Tighter filters will give some percentage speed increase as noted above, but the second and third part of this sentence are very incorrect. >just saying, the manufacturers designers should pull their heads out of their bosses butts and improve the designs they have instead of reaching for higher bands which only function under rare conditions! Those designers know a massive amount about RF, and most designs today are quite good (depending on price range). Good ideas are nice but above you have made some very incorrect statements, and no new or notable ideas. On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:50 AM Jan Van Kort <[email protected]> wrote: > So that would be a yes it does experience rain fade? It rains here and > heavy misting at least 6 months out of the year. > > I'm not finding that model on google, Mouser elect. seems to be an Aviat > dealer, not finding this model there, so I wouldn't know what freq this > model supports. Is it even produced anymore? > > I don't understand why manufacturers don't compress the signal more to get > higher bandwidth. Using tighter filters they should be able to get a 100x > more data throughput than they do. 1 Mhz appears to be worth 1 bit. Why > aren't they using 100hz for 1bit? Tighter filter, vast increase in > throughput, no more competition from cable/fiber. > > just saying, the manufacturers designers should pull their heads out of > their bosses butts and improve the designs they have instead of reaching > for higher bands which only function under rare conditions! > On 3/10/21 7:28 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: > > Everything above 7ghz experiences rain fade. No vendor can fix that. > On 3/10/2021 10:25 AM, Jan Van Kort wrote: > > Does this unit experience rain fade/fog issues? > On 3/10/21 7:15 AM, Jim Bouse [Brazos WiFi] wrote: > > AF5X-HD or AF11X if you want to stay in the UBNT ecosystem. > > Personally, I’d do 11X because the channel widths needed for backhaul are > better used in PTMP 5ghz. 11X will get you 500-600mbps at that distance. > > If you need more speed, I’d look at Aviat 11Ghz. > > > > Jim Bouse > Owner - Brazos WiFi > 979-999-7000 > http://www.brazoswifi.com > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf > Of *Jan Van Kort > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:04 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [AFMUG] PowerBeam upgrade? > > > > We're using PowerBeam 5AC ISO for our links between towers. Is there a > higher capacity choice available yet? Our longest links are about 6-7 > miles. > > GAMs > > > > -- > 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
