If you’re supposed to have –51 but actually have –66 on one chain and –77 on the other, you’re on a sidelobe or don’t have clear LOS or are so badly misaligned you’re operating on multipath. So it may be unfair to say that AF5X is requiring “perfect alignment”. The dBm level may not be telling the whole story, if you aren’t even in the right zipcode as far as alignment.
From: Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 PTP links 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 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
