we tried a seven mile link with them...not impressed in field test, we ended up putting two rockets for the link. we are going to try them in a 3 mile link next,
Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > ouch. > > Does that mean that if you need DFS, and the application wants a > nano-bxxxx, the bxxx=bridge? > > That sure sucks, because I was under the impression that I'd never have to > install another nanobridge. > > Which I do not like. > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > On 3/14/2015 11:32 AM, John Woodfield wrote: > > No DFS for nanobeams. Doubt there ever will be. > > > > > > > > > > John Woodfield, President > > Delmarva WiFi Inc. > > 410-870-WiFi > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:56pm > To: [email protected] > Subject: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS? > > Not sure why UBNT makes it so difficult to determine which models are > legal > in which bands. Am I interpreting correctly that Nanobeams are still > limited to 5.7 GHz? > > I have to do a 2000 ft link to an omni and an NBE-M5-16 or 19 seems > perfect. > I could use a NanoStation Loco, but that doesn't seem right for 2000 feet, > even if the Loco is already hitting max EIRP. I guess my only other choice > would be a NanoBridge, not sure why I can't find the 22 dBi version, and > the > 25 dBi seems like overkill, actually they both seem like overkill. > > > >
