I would rather not name the vendors at this time. On Sep 21, 2017 2:30 AM, "Mitch Koep" <af...@abwisp.com> wrote:
> Josh > > Will you shall the radio info? > > Mitch > > On 9/21/2017 12:57 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > The frequency agility between the radios is 800 mhz. Vastly different > radio filters. > Both are capable of similar channel bandwidths. > This is all done at MCS0 / QPSK > > I'm comparing, basically, their sensitivity and selectivity. The radio > that is frequency capable of 200mhz is also capable of hitting 4096QAM, > while the radio capable of operating in a 1GHz range of frequencies is > 256QAM capable. > > Basically, it's (the 256QAM radio) sensitivity at the same modulation and > the same power is wayyyyyy closer than I would expect it should be - > vastly different, and far cheaper components. TL;DR: I'm calling BS on the > data sheet :) > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < > li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > >> Can you give specific examples? Having a hard time understanding for >> sure the exact specs you're comparing. >> >> In relation to the thermal noise floor: just reducing from 1000mz to >> 200mhz will gain you ~7db of noise floor. But usually that's in a >> channel, not in the entire 'frequency agility' area. Maybe they aren't all >> that selective within the 1Ghz bandwidth. >> >> I've never been able to find a chart of theoretical required s/n ratio >> for each of the QAM's so I can't comment on how much difference there is >> supposed to be - after all, with everything else being the same (channel, >> modulation, power, etc), 256QAM should definitely require a lower signal >> strength than a 4096QAM radio. They definitely shouldn't be the same >> with the same channel width, unless one radio is noisier or more >> susceptible to noise. >> >> And sensitivity should just be about the receiver, not the transmitter. >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Can someone smarter than I fill me in on something? I'm comparing some >>> radios here (no names...) >>> >>> One radio is 256 QAM, with a 1000mhz operating range >>> >>> Another one is 4096 QAM, with a 200mhz operating range >>> >>> Can you explain to me how the sensitivity on the 256QAM radio, at the >>> same modulation rate, same (scaled) power level, claims to be with a >>> single dB or two as sensitive as the 4096QAM radio with an 800mhz >>> smaller operating range? >>> >>> Anyone? >>> >>> Thanks :) >>> >>> --- >>> Josh Reynolds >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* >> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=3577+Countryside+Road,+Helena,+MT+59602&entry=gmail&source=g> >> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> >> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >> >> > >
