Ken, I have mounted a 3.65 integrated high gain antenna SM in the diamond orientation by using a PTP650 mount on it, the mount has extra holes in it where it bolts to the radio, just turn it 45 degrees and it will bolt right up. When i did that i seen no difference in performance while running square or diamond orientation.
Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wish they had gone dual slant with the integral 3.65 panel if only because > I like the way a diamond antenna looks. I do feel that 8x is especially > difficult to get with the V/H panel, they are so expensive I don’t have a lot > of them, I’ll have to check if any of them reach 8x. > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Skorup > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dual-slant 900mhz omni (for PMP450) ordering group > > Remember that the 450 originally operated MIMO-B only. Then they added > MIMO-A. I believe that was one of the first pieces of stability in the R13 > branch. That's probably what you recall struggling with. Mixed slant SMs and > a V/H AP would definitely not play nice with MIMO-B only. > > I really don't know when exactly they added phase discrimination and if it's > only for the 3.6 band radios. Since the integrated panel SM is just a > standard connectorized board in a fancy 450i case with an H/V panel, and 450 > SMs were shipping with 13.2.1 for a very long time, 13.2.1 could very well > have that functionality. I'm really not sure if it's enabled on 2.4 and 5GHz. > Someone that has tried it would have to tell us, or Cambium could. > > But yes Kurt, you can have H/V on one side and slant on the other and still > get MIMO-B. Even though the radio will see only a 3dB difference when mixed, > it works because of the phase offset of the two MIMO streams. The receiver > puts it all together. The only thing I question is whether it helps or hurts > in variable multipath situations like we get here in the summer. > > On 11/22/2016 8:27 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > I know for a fact that 12.x did not work on mixing the slant/linear because I > tried it and SM's got confused and would barely pass any traffic and kept > re-associating. Then 13.x something came along and fixed that but as far as I > knew you would only get Mimo-A. If you can get Mimo-B with 8x with mixing the > polarity's that is news to me. > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:24 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote: > Backwards. 2.4 V/H patch wouldn't fit, slant did because they could lop off > the corners. > > I want to say R13.3 added lots of stuff, like 5ms framing, so the v/h/slant > thing could've been in there as well. I know it didn't work on 12.x and early > 13.x. Maybe it was in 13.2.x. > > On 11/22/2016 8:13 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > I thought the 2.4 SMs were in fact V/H because the slant patch wouldn’t fit > in the case? Am I remembering this wrong? There was a whole thread about it. > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dual-slant 900mhz omni (for PMP450) ordering group > > When did 450 start working with mixing Slant and Linear? Whats your > definition of working? Last time I tried running a 2.4ghz 450 AP with a V/H > Omni and the slant SM's they all would operate in Mimo-A mode (instead of > Mimo-B) which basically resulted in throughput being cut in half. Or are you > saying that it works because the product does run in Mimo-A mode when it cant > distinguish the chains? I guess for me I would want to run in Mimo-B mode to > get maximum throughput. > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > I would be very surprised if you couldn’t use the dual slant yagi at the SM > and a V/H sector or (shudder) omni at the AP. You could open a ticket with > Support or post on the Cambium community. But if 2.4 and 3.65 can do it, why > would 900 lack this capability? Why would a Dalmatian not have spots? > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Skorup > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 5:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dual-slant 900mhz omni (for PMP450) ordering group > > It's not as simple as taking the slant adapter off of the Cambium yagi. The > adapter is threaded. You'll need slightly longer bolts and nuts to convert it > to H/V. > > Ideally, I'd like to leave them as slant and get away with a H/V omni during > site conversions. Then there's no going back to the customers after swapping > to Cambium OEM slant sectors. > > What we could do right now if we really wanted to, is use an Antel h-pol and > a separate v-pol omni like L-com/Hyperlink or something like that. I know Ben > Royer has done that. I think it was an MTI diving board though, and whatever > v-pol omni. > > On 11/22/2016 4:56 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: > I'm pretty sure the 900mhz 450i can do the phase thing... the 3.65ghz PMP450 > definitely can (the high gain integrated thing is H/V, but all the other > 3.65ghz is slant, so it does work), so it'd seem pretty odd if these > couldn't. I did do some testing with mixing H/V and slant antennas, and it > seemed to work fine, but I didn't really do enough testing to know for sure. > It looks like you can change the Cambium yagis to H/V pretty easily (theres a > metal piece the holds the mount to the antenna at a 45 degree angle, that > looks to be removable... haven't actually tried it though). > > Tower loading is definitely a problem with these things... so far all of our > deployments have only been one or two sectors, because we usually don't need > nlos coverage in all directions anyway, but I certainly wouldn't want four of > them on most of our towers. Itelite makes a little (closer to the size of a > normal 2.4ghz sector) 11dbi dual polarity H/V sector that could somewhat help > with that, if they work half way decently... they're not exactly anywhere > near the same quality as the Cambium sectors, and I'm assuming they don't > have good enough F/B ratio to do frequency re-use, but they are nice and > small and I'm hoping they'll be usable for some stuff. We have one of them > up, but I haven't had time to do anything with it yet, so I don't know how > well it's going to work. > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote: > The scenario I have at many 900 sites is >15-20 customers using 4x90 ABAB on > FSK. There is no other option. 900 is the only thing that works. And I'm > already using 16MHz. The top of the band is hosed with paging. I might be > able to sneak a 5MHz channel in somewhere, but it will depend on the site. > > The next problem is tower loading. I already have four sectors. Adding > another four of the Cambium OEM is unpossible. So if I can have an omni to > get the site converted to 450i, take the FSK sectors down and put 450i > sectors in their place and then take the omni down. > > That Alpha is hugemongous, but is dual slant. The KP will be H/V. So how > would the SM handle being in a mixed H/V and slant environment? Can the 900 > 450i do the phase thing? > > The final problem which could make this a big waste of money is the smart > grid rollout that we will see in the next year or two. If I get FSK speeds > out of the 450i after they turn it up, that's pretty much suicide. > > I would club baby seals for some TVWS gear that works. > > On 11/22/2016 9:12 AM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > You are wasting you time with omni's on 900mhz. So your sacrificing a lot of > gain to get 360 degree coverage which in turn will result in higher overall > noise floor and lower signal when this 450 product really starts to shine you > need 25db+ SNR at the client side to get the higher modulation connections. > So even if you got the Omni you'd going to be lucky to get 8-10db SNR to the > client which means your only going to be running at 2x speed and getting > 10mbps download which will probably be intermittent. I had a lot of omnis on > FSK 900 and I can tell you that after having used the cambium slant sector on > 450 I am a firm believer in sectors only for 900 from here on out. I have > connections that are 3-4 miles out running 10mhz channels and getting 40mbps > down/10mbps up. You will never get that with an Omni unless you have LOS and > if you have LOS then why aren't you using another frequency band? > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Colin Stanners <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been looking for dual-slant 900mhz omni options that would allow > lower-cost PMP450 900mhz deployment on middle-of-the-woods towers where there > are only a small number of customers (and low noise). I know that "omnis suck > compared to sectors", but having nothing at all sucks more. Due to the > difficulty of designing dual-slant antennas and the small market, options are > very few. > > Commscope has the CH360QS, only 5dbi gain at ~900mhz... and it's a cellular > base station omni with all the fancy doodads: 1800-2200Mhz band that WISPs > can't use, internal GPS antenna, internal diplexer, remote-controlled signal > tilt on the upper band, etc. At $3500 per antenna I hope that it makes your > breakfast too. > > Alpha has the best design that I found at present, the AW3464. ~7dbi gain > http://alphaantennas.com/products/small-cells/aw3464/ . It's ~$1200 USD > which is still inexpensive compared to any other NLOS options. > > But currently those antennas cannot be bought - I spoke with Crossover > Distribution and Alpha, they haven't received enough POs to make a production > run, need 50 orders at a bare minimum. So if anyone else is really interested > in one or more of these antennas, ready to buy for sure if they are > available, e-mail me "If available, I will buy x number of the Alpha AW3464 > at $1200/USD each from Crossover." and I'll make a list, once it hits 50+ > antennas I'll speak with Crossover and see if it can happen. > > > > > > > > >
