I have used 2 of them so far. I asked Jack Unger about them after I had the first one in place. I haven't had any issues with about 20 clients on each sector so far. I doubt if I have tested the capacity yet though. Below are the comments from his response to my thread.
The thread started on or about May 16th. Called: 180* sector choices Rick, Here's what I see that's good about the Pac Wireless antenna: 1. The 3-in-1 design may be the only solution where only one antenna-mounting space exists on a tower. 2. The inclusion of electrical downtilt will minimize overshooting customers. 3. The inclusion of null fill will minimize connectivity problems with customers located very close to the tower. 4. The 15 dBi gain is in the appropriate and usable range. 5. The weight (14 lbs) will make the antenna easy to raise and mount. 6. The price range ($700) is moderate considering that you're really getting three sector antennas in one. Here's what I see that will need special consideration and planning. 1. The front-to-back ratio is only 15 dB. This is low compared to the 30 dB that I usually recommend for high-quality antennas. 2. The sector-to-sector isolation is 35 dB. When compared to the 83 dB of isolation that 10 feet of vertical separation would provide, 35 dB is a lot less. In summary, this appears to be a good antenna system with the one limitation that the somewhat low f/b ratio and sector-to-sector isolation will combine to place the burden for good AP-to-AP isolation on the quality of the co-located access point receivers and the quality of the overall AP/site design. Receivers with poor or moderate selectivity (in other words, receivers on Wi-Fi cards) will be overloaded by the other AP transmitters with the result being a throughput reduction that begins when traffic levels increase. The more traffic, the more missed incoming packets, the more retransmissions and the more throughput reduction. The result will be that the site reaches saturation sooner and won't handle as much traffic as a site where the AP receivers are not being overloaded. The solution (other than to use really expensive equipment which has good receiver filtering and selectivity built in) is to again use single-channel bandpass filters on each AP. These will reduce the level of signal from the co-located adjacent-channel AP transmitters and permit the site to handle more traffic (reach saturation later) than a site where the receivers ARE being overloaded. Finally, in addition to the above, it's important not to "defeat" the antenna isolation by letting RF energy "leak" directly from AP to AP either on the ground or from PC-card to PC card. Proper shielding and grounding will help to maintain that hard-won receiver-to-transmitter isolation resulting in a high-performance, high-traffic handling, reliable, profitable site. jack Respectfully, Rick Harnish President Supernova Technologies, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jory Privett Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Pac Wireless Antennas I was wondering if anyone has used one of these before and if they are worth the money? http://www.pacwireless.com/products/SO24.shtml Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
