+30 only at like QPSK 1/2 code rate modulation
On Feb 23, 2016 3:09 PM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I see now, I was confused where the 158 was coming from... but the Force
> 200 spec sheet says the antenna is 25dBi and trasmit power is up to
> 30dBm... so, shouldn't that get us 173?
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 22 dBm transmit power with a 23 dBi integrated antenna == 45 dBm EIRP
>> RX sensitivity, adaptive = –93 dBm.
>> To me that would be a system gain of only 138 dB.
>> Oh, but you have to add the RX antenna, so another 23 dBi and you get 158
>> dB.
>>
>> There ya have it.
>>
>> *From:* Chuck McCown <[email protected]>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:01 PM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force 200 Ptp distance
>>
>> If you max out the EIRP and go for minimum usable RX signal level,
>> Cambium says that difference is 158 dB.
>> (system gain)
>>
>> The rest is a free space path loss formula run backwards.
>>
>> *From:* Craig House <[email protected]>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:58 PM
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force 200 Ptp distance
>>
>> I understood it perfectly.  Up to the period after sheet .  It got a bit
>> fuzzy after that.
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" <[email protected]>
>> *To: *"af" <[email protected]>
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:57:33 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Force 200 Ptp distance
>>
>> Your math confuses me...
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 158 dB using 23 dBi integrated antenna according to the spec sheet.
>>>
>>> 158=20 log D + 20 log 5800
>>> 7.9=log D +3.76
>>> 4.14=log D
>>>
>>> 10 to the 4.14 power = 13,804 miles
>>>
>>> *From:* Joseph Marsh <[email protected]>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:45 PM
>>> *To:* [email protected]
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Force 200 Ptp distance
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the max distance for a force 200 Ptp link?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to