I don't think there really is such a thing as typical loss through trees... there are way too many variables to be able reliably calculate anything, in my experience. But it's a pretty good bet that 5ghz will be worse.... although if it's a PTP link, you do have the benefit of being able to use a lot more TX power with 5ghz, so you might be able to make up for the additional loss.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > 5GHz through trees? 100% loss at that range. Seriously, I don't know, > but I'd be willing to bet that is not going to work well at all. > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> for 3.65ghz I've been told 125db / km is typical loss through trees. So >> I guess if that's true in your case then you've got 100m or so of trees to >> get through. >> >> I do not know the equivalent number for 5.8ghz. Maybe somebody else can >> fill in the blank. >> >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Christopher Gray" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: 4/17/2017 4:51:23 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz? >> >> I'm looking doing some calculations for a link that is currently 4.7 >> miles effectively with M365 NanoBridges. >> >> The signal calculates out to -59 dBm, but in reality it is -71 dBm (12 db >> loss through foliage). >> >> Is there a decent way to estimate what the equivalent foliage loss would >> be at 5 GHz? >> >> >
