Ed,
Good post.
Without the courtesy wrap, mastic will flow into every
possible space--like connector threads--and become a real nuisance when a
connection has to be taken apart.
What is the harm of the Mastic flowing into every space like threads? Is it
really that big a nuisance?
We haven't had that much trouble pulling off the Mastic on our broadband
connection, and the fact that the Mastic fills the thread means a water path
no longer exist, sorta like Plumbers using that white thread tape. Would
you agree, that if someone doesn't mind the nuisance, not using the courtesy
wrap, would be one level better waterproofing? I'm NOT saying Courtesy Wrap
is wrong, just that it may be an installer's preferrence for convenience.
Are you finding it to be more of a nuisance, on different size cabling? For
example Telcos tend to use much larger Coax, and as a result have MUCH
thicker rolls of waterproofing and Mastic, which may be harder to cut
through, and therefore more releveant to ahve the courtesy WRAP?
I'm constantly amazed how many folks cannot seem to afford to "do things
right the first
time" but seemingly can afford to do those same things over another 2, 3 or
more times.
I'll add that most often when things are not done adequately it is not a
decission of "Affording". Its an issue of "inforcement". The person
installing the gear is rarely the person responsible for the cost of the
repair after the fact, if one is needed. There fore people tend to be lazy,
and do the minimum to get the job done. I see it all the time. Installer
thinking, "OOps, I left my Mastic in the VAN, so I'll use more Super 88
instead, or throw some plumbers putty in there, nobody will ever know the
difference, at least for a year or so when a repair is needed, after I'm
long gone and paid." The problem with inforcement is that the only way to
tell if its done right is to undo the waterproofing (which is counter
productive) or wait, not even a photo can help, conclusively. Or when an
installer runs out of something, (because they didn;t think ahead to stock
their van) does it justify a next day return visit to redo it with the
correct stuff? Or the day there is an emergency, the first available tech
gets sent to investigate, regardless if they are the one with the best
skills. I guess what I'm saying is... So many people inspect other's work
and pass judgement on it, without the information that is relevent on why it
may have been done that way. I can give an example, where I brought someone
to tour one of our cell sites, (forgeting it was one in repair) and the
first thing he said was, "we never cut corners and leave out reboot devices
and high quality long duration UPSes", seeing that our reboot device was not
there and only a small UPS, not realizing that the Reboot device blew up 10
days earlier, and was out on RMA repair, and vendor was out of stock for a
new one, and that the site was powered by a generator located in the
basement. A poor job, is not always what meets the eye.
Education of the worker is only one small part to making sure that quality
gets replicated time and time again. And what makes this industry hard is
that it is NOT a cookie cutter business, and special exception often apply
to special cases. How can a novice installer be aware of all these
exceptions, and be held accountable for jobs that require inconsistent
processes based on good judgement. I just spoke to an employee candidate
last week, who stated his last supervisor stated, "I don't pay you to think,
I pay you to pull the cable, pull the darn cable". There are many cookie
cutter businesses, that thought is not necessary, such as that one. But in
this business, constant thought is necessary. And there is no substitute
for "experience", that enables an installer to make intelligent custom
judgement, to optimize installations' quality.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward J. Hatfield III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Warning: Soapbox ahead ...
Marlon, you're exactly right and that was a nice "catch" on your part. {:-)
Originally we were using customer-supplied materials on that project and the
quality of the electrical tape they provided was distinctly inferior to the
products we would have liked to use. It neither stretched properly nor stuck
well, nor did they initially like the idea of using mastic or of having a
courtesy wrap installed. But we finally penetrated the
arrogance-of-ignorance barrier, even though we wound up supplying the good
materials 'out of pocket'. But at least we never received (and had to 'eat'
the cost of) a call back--a very fair trade in my book!
That situation, however, raises some interesting thoughts. First, we always
try to stick with good materials, purchased from suppliers we know (from
whom we receive good service). One of the very best was inadvertently left
off my previous post. I've known Dana Lemmerman (Telecom Product Profiles,
765-427-5827, [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.telepp.com) for nearly 20 years and he
has consistently provided superb customer service. The Nello weatherproofing
kit (Part # 100347) is as high quality as anything on the market and I know
that Dana takes good care of his customers, service- and price-wise.
Next, some of our clients have felt the need to specify or supply inferior
materials and procedures, ignoring the advice/experience of folks who have
been installing RF-delivered services since: DARPA-Net was a "black"
project; communications satellites were quite literally the stuff of science
fiction novels; microwave links involved huge klystrons, 12' diameter
antennas, big waveguide, and cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars per
link; and a 'fully loaded' cable TV system had 12 channels and system signal
was transported via tube-type amplifiers mounted on telephone poles!
The point is that ignoring the hard-learned lessons of the past inevitably
means repeating old mistakes; the current discussions concerning
weatherproofing and cable types are merely the latest illustrative threads
I've followed in this List. To paraphrase Einstein, one cannot solve a
problem by continuing the behavior which produced the problem in the first
place.
Unfortunately, one size does NOT fit all in an RF environment, despite
simplistic and dogmatic statements to the contrary. And holding that "we've
always done things this way and it seems to be working fine" is logically
identical to claiming that continuing to run an overloaded circuit isn't
hazardous because the house hasn't burned down yet. If one is not capable of
A) doing the integration 'homework', [specifying the proper system
components for each intended application], B) performing the link budget
calculations to ensure proper system performance, or C) using proper
installation materials and practices, the long term prognosis for system
performance and customer satisfaction is not good. Six-9's and better long
term performance cannot be achieved by wishful thinking or bold
pronouncements; the 'big boys' learned this truth the hard way a LONG time
ago and their design/installation specifications are tight and inflexible.
Proper engineering and installation procedures maximize the potential for
cost effective operations in the long run as inevitably as cutting corners
generates costly service impairments and repair efforts. I'm constantly
amazed how many folks cannot seem to afford to "do things right the first
time" but seemingly can afford to do those same things over another 2, 3 or
more times. During nearly two decades spent in system operations, I learned
to hate the impact of this "dummy tax" on our bottom line, and how to
prevent it.
OK, exiting soapbox mode and re-entering training mode. The reason for the
courtesy wrap--installing one layer of electrical tape prior to the
application of the mastic--is because correctly installed mastic is
compressed so as to eliminate voids (air pockets which can trap moisture).
This compression takes place first during the proper application of the
mastic itself and is 'reinforced' by the stretched wraps of tape over the
whole connection area--most carriers have learned to require 3 or 4 full,
overlapped wraps of tape to both guarantee the seal and also to prevent the
tape from unraveling. Without the courtesy wrap, mastic will flow into every
possible space--like connector threads--and become a real nuisance when a
connection has to be taken apart.
Whew, that was fun. Now, as concerns tower structural issues, mounts,
safety, path performance, grounding and bonding ... {:-)
Ted Hatfield, President
E.J. Hatfield & Company
5142 Edgemoor Drive
Norcross, GA 30071-4342 USA
1-770-209-9236 - Office
-----Original Message-----
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Weatherproofing
Yeppers. The only things I'd have done differently is a little further down
on the coax and a higher quality black tape. Something that would have laid
down nicer.
Nice work!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
