|
Yep. That’s the way they recommend to do it. I’m going on a 170 foot tower and “must” use sectors. To reach those close to the tower, I plan on putting an omni at about 60’.
Jeremy -----Original
Message-----
Well, today I have been back up my tower and tried a lower gain Omni (8.5dbi) this gave a better signal to my clients close to the tower but the client further away had a worse signal – I am beginning to understand how my omni’s are pushing out their signal and I am now of the opinion that I must use sectored antenna’s.
I now plan to buy a 2 way splitter and install a 90 degree sector with the Omni – I shall point the sector antenna at my weakest clients and leave the omni up for the others – As I get more clients and more money I will replace them both for 2 x 180 degree sectored.
Thanks
Rob
-----Original
Message-----
But surely the 24dBi is a pretty pointless metric, isn't it ? Whilst I suppose its true that the gain of your aerial system might be 24dB greater than an isotropic radiator (perhaps - see later), if you're calculating the path profile to a client associated with this tower then the antenna gain is 12dBi at best, and thats usually the only reason you need to know about antenna gain.
The 24dBi is very questionable though. If you are driving both antennas from the same RF source, you will have had to use a aerial harness of some kind (ie properly phased splitter/combiner). At best you will get 3dB loss from this (maybe 6dB - long time since I did this stuff in detail). If you have 2 seperate RF sources, then you simply have 2 seperate systems each with an aerial gain of 12dBi - which sounds like a much better idea for lots of reasons.
If you tilt an omni, as you observe, service on one side will degrade (except perhaps for aircraft :) ), but you will probably also lose service to distant clients on the "good side". You might achieve the same, or better, result on the "good side" by bringing the whole lot 100' down the tower and removing the tilt to restore a circular pattern, thus recovering some coverage on the "bad side" too. So much depends on the terrain you have to work with and the location of your clients - but I would agree with Rudolph that sectors would give you much more control in both the H and E plane.
bw
|
Title: Message
- Re: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Derek Breiland
- Re: [smartBridges] Omni antenna cove... Brian Winter
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Tom Haynes
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Rudolph Worrell
- [smartBridges] Tower installation Rudolph Worrell
- Re: [smartBridges] Tower installation Blazen Wireless
- Re: [smartBridges] Tower installation Rick Kunze
- RE: [smartBridges] Tower installation Ken Chipps
- Re: [smartBridges] Tower installation Rick Kunze
- RE: [smartBridges] Tower installation Rudolph Worrell
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Jeremy Oswalt
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Jason Baugher
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Rudolph Worrell
- Re: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Derek Breiland
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Rob Cleminson
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage George Morris
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna cove... Rudolph Worrell
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Rob Cleminson
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna coverage Rudolph Worrell
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna cove... Tom Haynes
- RE: [smartBridges] Omni antenna ... Dave Covert
