Based at least partly on what I've learned on this list:

An enclosure can contain radios from 2 different bands with no issues.

A dual band sector has less wind loading than one of each.

Radios and enclosures have gotten cheaper.

It really wouldn't be any more complicated than having a spare radio 
"on the tower," if implemented properly. If an entire router or power 
supply failed there would be an entirely redundant unit ready to go 
into service.

So there would be no single unit.  If either radio, or either router 
died, the drone would take over.  Each antenna would have a redundant 
radio in a DIFFERENT enclosure.

Mike


At 09:07 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
>I think the concept of combining functionality into single units and fault
>tolerant redundancy are mutually exclusive.
>
>I believe more people have had problems with more complicated installs than
>more simple ones vs. failed components on simple installs.  I think a well
>planned combination of both including redundancy where it counts would be
>best IMO
>
>Scott Carullo
>Brevard Wireless
>321-205-1100 x102
>
>
>----------------------------------------
>
>From: "Mike" <m...@aweiowa.com>
>Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:05 PM
>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>Subject: [WISPA] Fault tolerant tower deployment
>
>I have been thinking of putting together a fully fault tolerant tower
>setup.
>
>1 antenna; two radios.  Separate CAT5, separate box. If one radio
>failed, the other would come on-line.  The replacement climb would be
>taken out of the EMERGENCY category.
>
>A complete system would be a 3) 5.8 120 degree sectors, plus 3) 2.4
>(or 900 MHz) degree sectors.  6) small waterproof enclosures would
>contain a router and one of each radio.
>
>I know on some of the MT router boards there is a fan header that
>could be used to energize a relay.  Microwave relays are readily
>available and have acceptable insertion loss.  Would a stripline
>divider like Cameron suggested in another thread be the answer
>instead? Passive solutions are always better.  If the antennas were
>dual-band, wind load on a tower could really be lowered.  Besides
>redundancy, consolidating wind load would be my goal.
>
>Has anybody done anything like this?  Can't seem to find any on the net.
>
>Am I mad?  Mike
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to