Let's assume it is misaligned (based on what Alex said it should be something like -51). AF5x can't register unless it's perfectly aligned? That's the part that concerns me the most.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Matt Hardy <[email protected]> wrote: > Technically, the support files said > > status: slave-registering > rxpower0: -66 > rxpower1: -77 > rxcapacity: 3840 > > In most cases, this kind of chain imbalance means alignment or bad > pigtail. We know Josh Luthman knows how to align radios ;), so still > waiting to see if replacing it with a spare fixes it. > If it does, this would be the first case we've heard about w/ these > symptoms, and thousands have been installed successfully, with great > feedback. > > Either way, let us know what you find... > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Support files said the slave heard the master at -66. Doubt it. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Jun 11, 2015 8:13 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> New EIRP rules biting you in the ass? >>> >>> *From:* Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:56 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 PTP links >>> >>> >>> EPTP mode fills the latency fix. >>> >>> My first attempt at AF5x and it won't even register. I'm trying to >>> replace Rockets that link up at -66. I'm told that there's a path issue or >>> bad radio. >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> On Jun 11, 2015 7:45 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Why exactly? Just asking. I'm wondering if we should be doing cheap PTP >>>> with ePMP or AF5x. I have several Force110 links up (just SMs, not PTP) >>>> operating all across the 5GHz bands. And one 10 mile link with Laird 2' >>>> dishes using connectorized non-GPS radios. Other than some oddities like >>>> intermittent increases in latency, they have all been working very well. >>>> Most are still running 2.3.3 and I don't want to touch them because they're >>>> working just fine. I'm leaning towards the Force110 PTP radios and whatever >>>> antennas required for new links since it fits with all the other Canopy and >>>> ePMP stuff (power injection, etc). But the AFs sure are nice when you can >>>> do FDD (except the 5X!) and get very low latency like licensed. >>>> >>>> On 6/11/2015 6:32 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>> >>>> Honestly I think they're better than AF5x at this point. >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman >>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>> Suite 1337 >>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>> On Jun 11, 2015 7:25 PM, "joseph marsh" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I got 2 links ready to deploy just sitting the office waiting to go >>>>> up on the tower >>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 5:34 PM, "Josh Luthman" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Uhm...I guess? It hears noise better than Ubnt for sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 6:23 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Does the force auto select a clean frequency? >>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 5:13 PM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> containerized... that must be when you buy a cheap router from >>>>>>>> walmart in put it on a tower in a rubbermaid container. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You mean connectorized? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bp >>>>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2015 2:21 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The containerized 5 GHz radios do the same throughput >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >
