When operating that way, do both channels need to be the same size, or can you mix a 40mhz and an 80mhz, for example? I got the impression with the Bridgewaves that would both need to be the same size (i.e 80mhz+80mhz).
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:43 PM <joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote: > Matthew - yes we do. > > Thanks, > > > Joe Schraml > VP Sales Operations & Marketing > SIAE Microelettronica, Inc. > +1 (408) 832-4884 > joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > www.siaemic.com > > >>> Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> 6/4/2020 8:20 AM >>> > Does Siae have the capability of running two channels per core, like was > discussed earlier on the Bridgewave and Aviat radios? > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Tim Hardy <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core >> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one >> another. Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are >> just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block. >> Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one. >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> >> wrote: >> >> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of >> actual usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with >> them on the rest... >> >> Jon Langeler >> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one >> CCDP at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the >> two transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct? This will require >> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB). Any >> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” >> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be >> strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth >> greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal. >> >> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> >> wrote: >> >> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per >> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available. >> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and >> he will try to make it happen. >> >> Jon Langeler >> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >> >> >> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com> wrote: >> >> >> Jon, >> >> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz >> channels per TX side? >> >> TJ >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> >> wrote: >> >>> 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. >>> >>> Jon Langeler >>> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >>> >>> >>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> What band can you do 120mhz in? >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all >>>> the same >>>> >>>> Jon Langeler >>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie < >>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two. >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's >>>>> called a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100 >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps. The >>>>>> Bridgewave has some other magic. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie < >>>>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core >>>>>>> version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in >>>>>>> part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput >>>>>>>> (~3Gbps if you have the channels available). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each >>>>>>>> capable of ~1.4Gbps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie < >>>>>>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat >>>>>>>>> WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)? I'm having a hard time deciding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Jason >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
