Is your sector dual polarity? 

Sent while mobile


> On Feb 1, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Ryan Mano <rm...@corp.mdswireless.com> wrote:
> 
> It registers 12 feet in front of the AP at 8x/1x…if I point at it 1 mile down 
> the road it will not link just says scanning
>  
> I only enable the  freq that the ap is using and unchecked all the rest…this 
> is what I meant by isolating
> AP eval shows nothing at 1 mile mark but close up it shows
>  
> So from what you guys are saying the first 8x means what the sm is capable of 
> doing and the second number 1x is actual speed?
>  
> So if it registers at 1x…12feet in from the of ap then it would make sense 
> that it would not see anything if I try it at a mile
> Guess I will have to pass traffic through it to see if it works from what you 
> guys are telling me
>  
> I know for a fact that the sector antenna works because I attached a pmp100 
> AP to it and that registered without any issues…do you think me plugging a 
> pmp100 into the sector antenna would cause this?
>  
>  
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 5:09 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] pmp450
>  
> OK, then it's not what I was thinking. If you had software on them older than 
> 13.2 I believe, and you also had an AP where the factory reversed the 
> pigtails internally, your beacons would end up on horizontal instead of 
> vertical and the SM probably wouldn't hear it.
> 
> You say you're getting 8X/1X but it's also not registering. That does not 
> compute. As other have suggested, try locking down the SM's scan list to the 
> exact frequency and channel bandwidth that the AP is on. Tone alignment 
> helps. If you can get a laptop, tablet, phone, etc. and look at the Tools > 
> AP Eval page on the SM, does anything show up there? That's one of the first 
> things our techs are supposed to do when troubleshooting on-site. If it's 
> obviously not an alignment issue, log in and look at the AP eval.
> 
> On 2/1/2016 3:46 PM, Ryan Mano wrote:
> Running 5.7 software ver 14.1.1
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 4:42 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] pmp450
>  
> There still seems to be some misconception on this. 8X/1X means that it's 8X 
> capable / 1X current. It's always going to show 8X capable (or 2X for FSK, 3X 
> for 430). After the / is what you need to pay attention to. Also, the uplink 
> and downlink are independent. On the AP session status page (power tab), 
> that's the downlink rate to that SM. On the SM main page, link status, etc., 
> that's the uplink rate to the AP.
> 
> What band is this? 2.4, 3.6, 5.4 or 5.7? And what software version do you 
> have on the radios? It'd be best to stick with 13.2.1 for now.
> 
> For the longest time I too thought this was backwards. I assure you it's 
> correct.
> 
> On 2/1/2016 2:26 PM, Ryan Mano wrote:
> 8x down 1x up
>  
> this is the first sm am trying to install on it
> ​
>  
> the freq am on is very clean not sure what the problem is....unless am 
> missing a setting?
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Josh Luthman 
> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 3:17 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] pmp450
>  
> Signals on each side?
>  
> 8x down 1x up?  Could be an uplink path issue or heavy interference at the AP 
> side.  Have you changed frequencies?  Spectrum analysis?  Is this the first 
> SM on the AP?
> 
>  
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>  
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Mano <rm...@corp.mdswireless.com> wrote:
> am new to the pmp450 looks straight forward but am having issues registering 
> it from a distance​
>  
> when I point the sm  which is 12 feet in front of the ap it syncs 8x by 1x 
> ...but if I go 1mile down the road it doesn't register at all
>  
> not sure what am doing wrong...has anyone had this similar issue like this?
>  
> thanks
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

Reply via email to