21+15 just checked
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't it 21+18 max? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > On Jun 6, 2016 10:52 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> only if the power is set wrong. >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Epmp is like 6 dB less power? >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> On Jun 6, 2016 10:47 AM, "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The only direct comparison I've seen with the same antennas at the AP >>>> was the one Jerry Head mentioned here... and he wasn't able to confirm that >>>> TX power was the same. >>>> >>>> The other thing that I'm wondering about is if the fact that the >>>> Cambium sectors are dual slant instead of H/V has something to do with it. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Someone asked whether the xmt power was apples-to-apples, has that >>>>> been answered? >>>>> >>>>> If the antennas are comparable, it would seem the only explanations >>>>> for different rcv signal would be xmt power, or calibration error. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Chuck McCown <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 8:18 AM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> I think if I was cambium, I would have a couple of guys on a plane or >>>>> in a car with a suitcase of equipment to visit you in the field. >>>>> This was not the intended or expected outcome for that product. >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2016 8:17 PM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Never really left. I would have to lose customers with epmp 2.4 wifi >>>>> due to lack of signal. >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> On Jun 5, 2016 10:12 PM, "Paul McCall" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So you went back to UBNT in 2.4? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 5, 2016 9:57 PM >>>>> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. I have no pmp450 in my network simply due to cost. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Paul McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Josh, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have you tried 450 2.4 in the exact situation where ePMP 2.4 “sucked”? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 2, 2016 5:10 PM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No...it's not. The EPMP 2.4 radios just suck at penetration. I've >>>>> done Ubnt KPP and IT Elite - they all performed terribly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>>> Suite 1337 >>>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> hmm, i will check into that. Pretty sure with ubnt we're using kp >>>>> performance. With epmp, i think it is bundled antennas... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:50 PM >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jay, I suspect the difference you are seeing may be mainly in the >>>>> antennas. 2.4 GHz from any vendor should penetrate the same, the radio >>>>> waves don’t care what brand radio launched them. And I think the >>>>> difference between the platforms will be most evident in low interference >>>>> environment where they can achieve their full modulation and throughput. >>>>> With low SNR, I think it’s kind of like arguing Ferrari vs Porsche for off >>>>> road racing, neither will be able to show off its capabilities. Receiver >>>>> sensitivity and bits/sec/Hz won’t matter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* CBB - Jay Fuller <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 3:28 PM >>>>> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also interested in interference rejection of the pmp450 - is there >>>>> any (in 2.4) >>>>> >>>>> we are getting better foliage penetration with ubnt 2.4 than epmp 2.4 >>>>> - - and from the performance of >>>>> >>>>> the epmp 2.4 i wish wish wish it penetrated better! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Matt <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:25 PM >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] PMP450 vs. ePMP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have mostly PMP100 and PMP450 deployed. Some Ubiquiti we tried and >>>>> some we inherited as well. Have some ePMP we have tested but so far >>>>> have not deployed more then couple test links. >>>>> >>>>> For those who have tried both ePMP and PMP450 what are the differences >>>>> you have seen in performance? Interference tolerance among others? >>>>> >>>>> For those that have gone with PMP450 over ePMP what was the reasoning? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
