As I understand it, it's a capability that's built into wifi chipsets... it
actually does appear to work with ubnt too.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <[email protected]> wrote:

> That just boggles my mind. Why doesn't the 450SM work with both antenna
> types then? Why would a cheap $100 SM radio have a more sophisticated
> antenna design than a $250 FPGA radio? I can personally attest that you CAN
> NOT hook up a 2.4ghz 450 slant SM to an AP that's running a V/H antenna.
> Tried that with horrible results....
>
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
>
> Wavelinc Communications
>
> P.O. Box 126
>
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>
> http://www.wavelinc.com
>
> tel. 419-562-6405
>
> fax. 419-617-0110
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> It works with any SM, there's nothing special about the antennas.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Any SM or just the ones that were made to support slant?
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> On Mar 17, 2015 8:51 PM, "TJ Trout" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There was an explanation made that was over my head even with 20 years
>>>> rf experience but basically the sm doesn't care sees them both the same
>>>> strength and no compromise
>>>> On Mar 17, 2015 4:35 PM, "Josh Luthman" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious to know what everyone is using for 2 GHz sectors.
>>>>> Primarily linear vs slant but also OEM vs aftermarket sectors.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS.  I heard through the grapevines that the (integrated) CPEs can do
>>>>> slant and linear.  Is this true?  Is there no loss in signal regardless of
>>>>> your AP/Sector being 90*/45*?  If the patch antenna can do both, doesn't
>>>>> that mean it isn't focusing on one or the other and had to compromise?
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>>> Suite 1337
>>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to