Yeah, which is probably why they're typically slightly stronger. PowerBeam M2's consistently get about 3db better than NanoBeam M2's, even though they're both supposed to be 18dbi antennas... which makes me think the ePMP numbers might actually be more accurate.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: > Keep in mind the gain on the Force110 is better than the Powerbeam5-400 by > something like 1.5db (though both are labeled 25dbi). > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I don't know about 2.4ghz, since I really haven't done anything with >> 2.4ghz ePMP, but with 5ghz links I've swapped from UBNT, the signal has >> always been as good or better with ePMP. >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Christopher Gray < >> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote: >> >>> I just changed two low bandwidth 5 MHz width PTP links from Rocket M2 >>> radios to ePMP 2.4 GHz non-sync radios. The "signal strength" is about 10 >>> dB lower with the ePMP radios. Do they use a different mechanism to >>> calculate signal strength? >>> >>> Link 1: >>> >>> - 2x Rocket Dish RD-2G24 >>> - Antennas were not re-aimed when switching radios >>> - Radio outputs are maximized on both systems to FCC PTP limits >>> - UBNT signal read -62 dBm Tx / -61 dBm Rx >>> - ePMP singal reads -72 dBm Tx / -70 dBm Rx >>> >>> Link 2: >>> >>> - 1x Rocket Dish RD-2G24 >>> - 1x L-Com DPD 18 dBi Dish >>> - Antennas were not re-aimed when switching radios >>> - Radio outputs are maximized on both systems to FCC PTP limits >>> - UBNT signal read -70 dBm Tx / -72 dBm Rx >>> - ePMP singal reads -80 dBm Tx / -82 dBm Rx >>> >>> Both links were stable, and both links appear stable now. Both ePMP >>> links have 60-70% more throughput. Do I just need to adjust my mental meter >>> 10 db? Are the new signals actually as concerning as they feel? >>> >>> Thanks - Chris >>> >> >> >
