If you were willing to hack apart an existing AF5, you could probably build waveguide from the hollow tubular center feed coming up from the PCB in the center of each of the two dishes, and run it to a waveguide-fed 5 GHz band dish... Such as a pair of 3' diameter Andrew/Commscope.
Would probably require hacking of the end reflector of each integrated dish's feed and putting on a custom CNC machined, waveguide adapter. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there a waveguide combiner\splitter? > > If they made both AFs connectorized, could you plumb them both into the > same dish for the same path? > > Would obviously need a dish that accepted waveguide. > > No clue how the RF performance of a dish would be in both of those bands > simultaneously. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:37:19 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium > > I agree, I want an AF5 connectorized. From the perspective of ubnt > engineering in Chicago, I bet a connectorized AF5 scares the hell out of > them, because they're selling airfibers to enterprise/clueless customers > that don't understand the technical properties of different types of PTP > microwave dishes. > > If you could guarantee that a FDD, two dish AF5 setup was always installed > with a pair of high quality, >70dB f/b ratio Jirous dishes or similar, it'd > work great. > > When Bubba hooks up a connectorized AF5 to a random pair of noisy, low > quality, unshielded PTP dishes, terrible things will happen. > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Until they give me what I want (connectorized). >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium >> >> >> he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize the clean, >> empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user customers, an airfiber5 >> backhaul is ruled out. >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP >>>> vendor). >>>> >>>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed >>>> for PTP. >>>> >>>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>>> same thing with backhauls. >>>> >>>> 2 cents >>>> >>>> -sean >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Cambium, >>>> > >>>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>>> > >>>> > Paul >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via >>>> Af >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>>> > To: [email protected] >>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>>> > >>>> > For Cambium.... we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>>> > >>>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>>> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a >>>> Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >>>> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>>> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>>> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>>> > >>>> > Tower R then feeds... >>>> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > >>>> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>>> radios on the backside links. >>>> > >>>> > The challenge... >>>> > >>>> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, >>>> I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>>> > >>>> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >>>> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >>>> inexpensive. >>>> > >>>> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced.... can it sync, now or >>>> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >>>> > >>>> > Paul >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >>>> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >>>> > To: [email protected] >>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>>> > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > Please allow me to clarify. >>>> > > >>>> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >>>> 10/100 FE ports. >>>> > > >>>> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >>>> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to >>>> proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still >>>> use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >>>> > > >>>> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >>>> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >>>> > >>>> > Reading this spec sheet. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>>> > >>>> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>>> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
