So now you have lots of good explanations for what the differences are. Another part of it is that if you do the calculations, you will find 2 things. First, the current in the cable is minuscule, so the loss because of current is basically non-existent. Secondly, the current does not go up with the number of users as the radio transmits at the same level for each of them and can only transmit to one at a time, no matter how many there are.
On 2/14/2011 11:39 AM, Butch Evans wrote: > On 02/14/2011 07:50 AM, Optimum Wireless Services 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? > Well, his "logic" is fine, but his "reasoning" is wrong. There are a > couple of reasons that the bullet devices work better (or MAY work > better). The first (and most important) has to do with RF shielding. > The radio cards used in the MT platform are mini-pci type cards and they > are connected to their antenna using a very small rf cable. This rf > cable (the pigtail) has a tendency toward being very lossy, which can > dramatically impact performance. Another problem has to do with the > shielding on the card itself. When you install these devices in a > routerboard (for example), the radio cards have SOME shielding on them, > but in practice, this shielding tends to be less than perfect. It's > position on the board is subject to RF coming from the routerboard. > With the bullet device, this position can be optimized so that the > impact of these rf signals (noise) are minimized. > > The second reason is related to the first. This has to do with being > purpose built. In the MT device, there are drivers that allow it to run > as an access point/client. There are also a HUGE number of other > options available. Ubiquiti builds radios. Making the comparison > between a purpose built radio (bullet) and a device capable of being a > radio (MT) is similar to comparing a luxury H3 and the Army's HumVee. > While you can certainly take the H3 offroad, it's performance there will > not even approach the performance of the Army's purpose built > specifically to do just that. > -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
