Which ones? They range from 16 to 25 dBi.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:38:31 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Nanobeam still no DFS? 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: <blockquote> 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]> 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. </blockquote>
