I agree with Fred. It's not about the number of clients that causes the problem. The physical separation of the radios is probably the key factor in the increased performance. Putting multiple radios with possibly leaky pigtails inside the same enclosure can introduce opportunities for self-interference by near field RF energies and mixing products. Unless an enclosure have been specifically designed, tested and built for that particular combination or radios and cable routing, there is no telling how it may or may not perform. Adding more radios to the MT just compounds the problem. Having the RF section outside the MT box is never a bad idea to avoid this phenomenon.
Thank You, Brian Webster Skype: Radiowebst www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:35 AM To: wil...@optimumwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: >Hello. > >Thought I share this with the list. > >I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his >radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, >similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining >that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by >far. His >explanation: > >"The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router >board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. >This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the >cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik >pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients >connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because >of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a >result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance >decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector >and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs >better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails." > >What you guys think of his logic? > >Note: >Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also >registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select (one person found that Laird pigtails were sometimes good, but not all of them). Pigtails can be lossy, reducing effective antenna gain, and can leak, which makes it susceptible to local interference. This has nothing to do with the number of clients, though. That's just silly. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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/ ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3443 - Release Date: 02/14/11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
