In these parts, "they" claim there is a lot of iron in the soil, so our leaves are worse than elsewhere... but I've never been anywhere but here.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > The boys down in the Southern Yellow Pine parts of the world say that pine > is worse than other types of trees. > > *From:* Mathew Howard > *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2017 3:56 PM > *To:* af > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz? > > I don't think there really is such a thing as typical loss through > trees... there are way too many variables to be able reliably calculate > anything, in my experience. But it's a pretty good bet that 5ghz will be > worse.... although if it's a PTP link, you do have the benefit of being > able to use a lot more TX power with 5ghz, so you might be able to make up > for the additional loss. > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 5GHz through trees? 100% loss at that range. Seriously, I don't know, >> but I'd be willing to bet that is not going to work well at all. >> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> for 3.65ghz I've been told 125db / km is typical loss through trees. So >>> I guess if that's true in your case then you've got 100m or so of trees to >>> get through. >>> >>> I do not know the equivalent number for 5.8ghz. Maybe somebody else can >>> fill in the blank. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Christopher Gray" <cg...@graytechsoftware.com> >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Sent: 4/17/2017 4:51:23 PM >>> Subject: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz? >>> >>> >>> I'm looking doing some calculations for a link that is currently 4.7 >>> miles effectively with M365 NanoBridges. >>> >>> The signal calculates out to -59 dBm, but in reality it is -71 dBm (12 >>> db loss through foliage). >>> >>> Is there a decent way to estimate what the equivalent foliage loss would >>> be at 5 GHz? >>> >>> >> > >
