Yeah, I was responding to what Ken said about using a single core radio. Using a dual-core radio is obviously going to give you a lot more flexibility, but if the available channels happen to be in the right place (which probably really isn't very likely in this case), you can do it a lot cheaper that way.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:21 PM Tim Hardy <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote: > The dual-core WTM-4200 radio only suffers a coupler loss hit. I think > you’re referencing the single-core WTM-4100 using Adaptive Dual Carrier > (A2C) which has a significant power hit at 1024 QAM and above. > > On Jan 4, 2021, at 3:01 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, you can do 2 x 80mhz channels with a single core on some radios, but > there are some limitations. Depending on the radio, my understanding is > that they have to either be adjacent, or very near each other (definitely > within the same sub-band). It seems to me that some radios can even do two > different sizes of channels (like 1 80mhz + 1 40mhz), but I could be > remembering that wrong. If I understand it right, the Aviat radios have a > significant tx power hit when you activate that feature, which probably > makes it unusable in a lot of cases. We're doing that on a Bridgewave 11ghz > link (using 4x 80mhz on a dual core radio), and there's it works fine, with > only a minor performance hit on those radios. SIAE does have that feature > as well, but I don't remember if there was a significant performance hit or > not... I think they may have been the ones that could use two different > sizes of channels. > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 1:51 PM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >> Probably, LinkPlanner is pretty smart. >> I assume you don't want to use 2 antennas. >> There are some licensed radios now that I think can do 2 x 80 MHz >> channels in a single core, like from Aviat or SIAE maybe, I don't know if >> this gets around the splitter cost and performance issues. I may have that >> feature completely wrong, I haven't looked into it. There could also be a >> performance hit by using the same xmt power amp for 160 MHz. >> I also haven't checked out the full feature set of the new PTP850C, the >> only thing I know it has is SFP+. >> >> ---- Original Message ---- >> From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >> Sent: 1/4/2021 1:30:45 PM >> To: af@af.afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar >> >> Ok yeah, the Link Planner BOM shows some splitters. I wonder if Link >> Planner already accounted for the additional losses when I selected "Co >> Polar" on the dropdown. >> >> >> On 1/4/2021 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> > I seem to remember that different channel different polarization is the >> best, if your radio manufacturer charges for an XPIC license key. Next >> best is XPIC. And that the problem with different channel same >> polarization is you need a splitter which costs several dB of system gain. >> But that's from memory, and mine is not so reliable. >> > >> > ---- Original Message ---- >> > From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >> > Sent: 1/4/2021 1:16:26 PM >> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> >> > Subject: [AFMUG] 2+0 Co-Polar >> > >> > I'm looking at a path where the coordinator can get me two 50mhz XPIC >> > channels, or two 80mhz H-Pol channels. >> > >> > I've never installed co-polar. Do you need a lot of extra junk to make >> > that work? >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> 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
