No worries, you are on the right track, and asking the right questions..... The document, while it says a lot, it also leaves another very interesting question unanswered, with a very casual implied answer....
See if you can read between the lines and figure out the 'it' ! :) (ref: Movie City Slickers .... 'it' is different for everyone ! ) Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Joshaven Mailing Lists" <lis...@joshaven.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 4:44:24 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] to slant, or not to slant - that is the question > Thanks! Just the info I needed so that I can figure out how to eat my shorts! > Now I need to read this thing really carefully because my mind just went pop. > Sounds like y’all were ahead of me in this area of thinking something was out > of order… > Sincerely, > Joshaven Potter > MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA > Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com > Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370 > supp...@joshaven.com >> On Dec 4, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote: >> Since inquiring minds want to know... >> Here is the Word on this topic from Cambium... (While this was titled >> 2.4Ghz, as >> per them, it applies to their 5ghz as well). >> :) >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>> From: "Joshaven Mailing Lists" < lis...@joshaven.com > >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 4:15:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] to slant, or not to slant - that is the question >>> The Atheros chipset differentiating between the Mimo chains does not have >>> to do >>> with 45º slant vs 90º… it means that chain A and B on one radio can be H&V >>> or >>> V&H while chain A and B on the other can be H&V or V&H interchangeably with >>> no >>> loss because and the chip will just cross them over as needed. This means >>> that >>> hooking up the antenna cables “backwards” won’t effect anything. It doesn’t >>> mean that the orientation of the antenna is irrelevant. >>> The energy received by an antenna that is out of phase with another antenna >>> is >>> much less then if it was in phase that is a principal of radio that no >>> chipset >>> will ever overcome. Now… maybe you can make a magic antenna that is “multi >>> phased” such that it can tune in a 45º phase offset signal well. I suspect >>> that >>> the Cambium equipment when properly matched will both have the same >>> polorization. >>> I believe that if your having the same outcome on slant or not slant it >>> would be >>> due to one chain being refracted. For example if your horizontal chain was >>> fine >>> but the virtual chain was refracted off something such that the wave was on >>> or >>> near a 45º slant then you would have the same basic performance regardless >>> of a >>> standard or slant orientation. This however is a path issue not a design >>> characteristic of the chipset or antenna. >>> FYI, linearly polarization is not a reference to the polarization being on a >>> vertical, horizontal or slant axis but a reference to the way the wave >>> propagates, circular polarization is an alternative to linear polarization >>> not >>> “slant". >>> Sincerely, >>> Joshaven Potter >>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA >>> Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com >>> Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370 >>> supp...@joshaven.com >>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: >>>> The DSP in the ePMP can do some kind of processing to correct for the 45 >>>> degree >>>> offset when you have slant on one end and V+H on the other. I might not be >>>> stating it with the correct technical jargon, but that's the gist of it. >>>> They >>>> sell a dual slant sector for the AP with the intent to use it with V+H >>>> integrated SM. >>>> This is a built in feature of the Atheros chipset, so presumably UBNT >>>> radios can >>>> do the same thing. >>>> That all said...I would try to match them up as just a matter of principle. >>>> On 12/4/2015 2:07 PM, Joshaven Mailing Lists wrote: >>>>> Your AP & SM should always have the same antenna orientation. I promise >>>>> you that >>>>> you don’t want slant on the AP and not on the CPE. If the signal is so >>>>> obstructed that the orientation is screwed up to the point that unmatched >>>>> polarization is actually a benefit then there is something seriously >>>>> wrong… >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Joshaven Potter >>>>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA >>>>> Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com >>>>> Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370 >>>>> supp...@joshaven.com >>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Paul McCall < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: >>>>>> We are looking at smaller sector sizes for a 5 Ghz ePMP cluster (60 >>>>>> degree >>>>>> probably), and am considering my options, which might also increase my >>>>>> gain >>>>>> quite a bit. Using a non-Dual Slant sector such as AM-5AC21-60, would >>>>>> increase >>>>>> my options. There have been a calling threads on Cambium’s sites about >>>>>> whether >>>>>> Dual Slant was a big factor at the AP if the SMs aren’t dual-slant. >>>>>> Cambium’s Daniel Sullivan made this comment … The thread was originally >>>>>> about >>>>>> 2.4 Ghz options, so not sure if it applies exactly to 5 Ghz. >>>>>> Paul >> <ePMP_2_4_GHz Antenna_Configuration.pdf>
