Im not doing storms tonitr, dealt with issues from last night, you keep that shit up there. Mast size and weight are what will be the biggest issue hardwarewise, adding that weight and windload kills the load capacity on our current setup. I think we are just going to stick with the 2 footers for now, neitheir link is over 6 miles and our saf 5 mile link never faded to degredation on two footers, granted these will be bigger channels and 3x the capacity, so we may see and occasional throughput drop
On Jul 19, 2017 7:07 PM, "George Skorup" <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote: > If you're changing antennas, then you should be doing coordination again. > Or height, frequency, channel width, etc. I tell Liz what we want. If she > says we can do it, I just change stuff when she says to. She logs into ULS > and does her stuff. > > Radiowaves HP3's really aren't that large. The bigger problem with them is > needing a 3.5" OD pipe absolute minimum. 4.5" OD is more betterer, but > that's some heavy ass shit. > > The heavy rain bands we get round here, 4' dishes on both ends won't make > much difference. Tonight looks like it will be fun with the shitstorm > coming out of MN and WI. > > On 7/19/2017 3:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > what does it cost to submit a correction on a link? say we register 2' and > go up to 3, or vise versa? > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> does mimosa have max EIRP and antenna gain setting, assuming it has atpc, >> I love atpc >> >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>> Turn it down until you are. You still have the benefit of more RX gain >>> on both ends. >>> >>> *From:* Steve Jones >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:52 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] licensing for bigger antennas than installed in >>> 11ghz >>> >>> that's what I figured. I assume putting in a bigger antenna than is >>> licensed benefits in terms of pattern but then I'm no longer legal on EIRP? >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Colin Stanners <cstann...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Considering their goal of reducing interference through more >>>> directional antennas, I'm sure that installing a different antenna than >>>> licensed, especially a smaller one, is a big no. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> we have some links we are about to license, we can "get by" with 2' >>>>> antennas, but one is right on that margin. >>>>> we can do 2' all day long at all the sites involved, anything bigger >>>>> and wed have to do some retrofits that will create some other issues, not >>>>> a >>>>> huge deal, just prefer to not have to deal with the repercussions >>>>> we would like to have some troubleshooting flexibility down the road. >>>>> maybe a 4 and a 2 or 2 3s, just depending on how the actual path performs >>>>> over time >>>>> so can we do that, license them all with 3 or 4' and install 2' today? >>>>> I'm thinking no because of the antenna patterns on the PCNs not being >>>>> as narrow with the smaller antenna, but id like to hear its totally doable >>>>> with fcc blessing and they'll even send a guy with a rope to pull them up >>>>> for us >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
