Only you, Steve :) Who's your SAF rep?
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 12, 2014 10:34 PM, "That One Guy via Af" <af@afmug.com> wrote: > yeah, we are the PCN is -43 and we are -42/-41 Everything tests fine, > speedtests are great, full capacity. I wouldnt be concerned if it had been > hard to get the link up. > > we did full H/V sweeps on both sides, then fine aligned as normal. I just > expected it to be hard to find the link and somewhat easy to use it. on the > sweeps we didnt see notable side lobe peaks. just strange. > > Im really freaking happy with SAF on this though, great support from > moonblink both pre and post sales, input from SAF sales and support > directly, quick responses. I guess my only complaint is the product wasnt > harder to use > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Josh Luthman via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: >> >> If you got the signal the PCN states you're good to go. You can also do >> a speed test to verify your 300 some megs if you need to? >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> On Dec 12, 2014 10:24 PM, "That One Guy via Af" <af@afmug.com> wrote: >> >>> yes. >>> you do understand my concern is that they linked up too easily? Im >>> almost thinking we could have just laid the antennas on their sides and >>> they still would have made a marginal link. If I werent so pessimistic I >>> would be excited about this. Im concerned when the ground thaws or >>> something everything will go batty >>> We have cut the traffic over to it. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af <af@afmug.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Did u make sure they linked up in lab first? >>>> >>>> Jaime Solorza >>>> On Dec 12, 2014 7:08 PM, "That One Guy via Af" <af@afmug.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> the ground is frozen, pretty much all tilled farmland. Is it possible >>>>> im seeing some sort of multipath type madness that this thing just wouldnt >>>>> not link up. Ive had a harder time pointing shorter 5ghz links >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Slow and easy...slow and easy... >>>>>> >>>>>> Jaime Solorza >>>>>> On Dec 12, 2014 11:43 AM, "That One Guy via Af" <af@afmug.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> madness we are a little better than the target after fine alignment. >>>>>>> at one point we had the 4' side pinting to the ground abot 100 yards out >>>>>>> ant it still had about a -80 on the bnc readout >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, it was so considerate of AT&T to leave that dish up there >>>>>>>> when they sold off the site, only needed to be re-aimed about 2 >>>>>>>> degrees to >>>>>>>> go where we wanted. And they built a platform to stand on while >>>>>>>> aiming it, >>>>>>>> that was awfully nice of them. And they left the flexible waveguide >>>>>>>> down >>>>>>>> to the shelter. I’d really hate to think about hanging a new 12 ft >>>>>>>> dish >>>>>>>> ourselves and running waveguide to it. And it’s an Andrew parabolic, >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> the old WE horns, so we don’t have to worry about water getting into >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> waveguide and freezing. It doesn’t even look like anyone has been >>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>> the lightning bolt logo for target practice. Life is good when someone >>>>>>>> abandons nice stuff you can use. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Hardy, Tim via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:18 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] aligning bigger antennas on short paths >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HPBW for a 12 ft dish at 11.2 GHz is 0.5 degree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof >>>>>>>> via Af >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM >>>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] aligning bigger antennas on short paths >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, a 4 ft dish in 11 GHz should be pretty narrow, a few degrees >>>>>>>> and you should be into a deep, deep null. Take a look at the >>>>>>>> beamwidth or >>>>>>>> pattern for your antenna. It should be similar to an 8 ft dish in 5.x >>>>>>>> GHz. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We once used an existing 12 ft dish for an 11 GHz link and I kept >>>>>>>> having to tell the tower guy he was not going to be able to eyeball it. >>>>>>>> The beamwidth was something like 1 degree if I remember right. He ketp >>>>>>>> getting nada for signal until I made him slowly sweep the azimuth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* That One Guy via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 9:50 AM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] aligning bigger antennas on short paths >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Weve never gone above 2' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we finished installing our 11ghz link yesterday and had the >>>>>>>> antennas rough aligned, one side is 3' one side is 4'. I expected the >>>>>>>> tighter patterns would make it harder to find the initial link but they >>>>>>>> actually linked up right off the bat and it was right on the projected >>>>>>>> power levels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is only 10 miles, so we have visual on the path. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We did a little rough alignment yesterday, and will do the fine >>>>>>>> alignment today. when we we roughing it there was a good amount of >>>>>>>> travel >>>>>>>> on the antenna (4') side we were on and only a couple db change. do >>>>>>>> larger >>>>>>>> antennas on such a short path give you a little more leniency in >>>>>>>> alignment >>>>>>>> or something? we will do full horizontal and vertical panning today to >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> sure we arent in side lobes, just curious is there is more slop in this >>>>>>>> scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember >>>>>>>> that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. >>>>>>>> Therefore, if >>>>>>>> you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all >>>>>>>> means, do >>>>>>>> not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that >>>>>>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that >>>>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >>>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do >>>>> not >>>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >>> >> > > -- > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >
