Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
If a pigtail is loosing 6-7db it gets thrown in the trash. It doesn't have to be lost in an RF standpoint it could be lost through heat also. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Greg, Excellent comments and questions... And My answer to you is. "all of the above". Scott, And I agree, each card brand and model will have its own properties. I just used one high power brand in a CPE for the last time (which I will not mention for professional courtesy) that as a CPE can hear a -50 signal awesome at 54mb modulation, but the AP receiver can't make out the CPE's signal and CPE stay associated unless the CPE transmits at 12mbps modulation or lower. Clearly distortion from the transmit amp, considering all the CPEs with CM9s can successfully transmit at 54mbps modulation. If we extended this converstaion to full relevence, we'd extend it to ask the questions for each and every manufacturer's cards. What I'm looking for is establishing the best choices to optimize success. Its not a black and white world here. I have systems in the field that have two 5.x cards in them and operate fine on 10Mhz channels with only one channel seperation in between. But I had a XR9 and DCMA82 (5.x) card in a 2 port AP System, where I had to reduce the 5.X card's power down to 10-12 db, in order for the 900Mhzcard to associate with its client. I can give examples of where details may help us 2 antenna ports cards are more available. But I may want to buy single antenna port cards, if it helps reduce noise from other cards in teh system, IF antenna port is a place of noise injections. But I may chose a low power card instead, if Amps is a place of injections greater than that of a second unused antenna port. Sure two cards can co-locate, but why not install in the method taht will minimize self interference, but still meet the minimum need of teh deployment? Today... for example I build a Dual Pol MIkrotik PTP w/433, and decided to put a second mpci card in the unit, but it only was going to use single pol, since the case only had space for one external pigtail. What card would be best to isntall, not to interfere with the first primary more important PTP link? I chose to make a isolation plate between the cards. I took a peice of cardboard wrapped it with tin foil, and put it inside a 3"x3" static bag. I then stuck it inbetween the two stacked Mpci slots. Because MT has 3 stacked slots, and I used the top and bottom one, there was plenty of room to insert the shielding without restricting airflow to cool the cards. It seemed to help. (although didn't record exact before after results). lastly, amped and non amp'd cards are not equal in design. For example, when the amplication is done in a single device there is no connection between two devices. With a second add-on amp embedded on the card, there is a second path entering into that amp, where noise can be induced to the amp. AMPs are also designed to work at a specific power level to acheive the best noise reduction, when it does not operate at that level, there also becomes a situation where the amp is underloaded or overloaded, causing more distortion. When there are two amps working togeather, there are now two points and more vaiables to configuring cards to be operating at the least amount of distortion. For example, an Amp may work best if its input is 13db, but the first amp may not output 13db constantly. Actually, its one of the reasons here were pre-amps in hgih end hi-fi gear, to make sure the signal all amps where working at their optimal powers and optimal signals injected into them. So at the end of the day, I guess all that really matters is How much distortion the specific card solution transmits or hears. Sure its possible that the Hi-power cards could be designed to be more resilient to distortion. Maybe that is a reason why they have much higher receive sensitivities? But then again, that was not the case when XR2s were compared to 200mw Prism cards. ManyWISPs reported better results from the PRism, regardless of what the spec sheets said. The pigtails also could be acting as antennas. I wonder how much loss they have. Some people reported pigtails having as much as 6-7 db loss if they were made poorly, and that energy loss all goes to somewhere, probably RF interference. For example, I wonder if crossing the pigtails or running them parallel can effect how much self interference betwee n the cards exist? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From:
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Marlon, if you have an analyzer and time, that would be interesting results to learn. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" To: "Kurt Fankhauser" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > What's what we normally do... I almost never run an AP at it's full > power. > In fact these days I never do. > > Someday when I get bored I'll fire up the analyzer and see if there is any > difference in the signal shape between max and min power levels. > > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:30 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > >> >> Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are >> more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. >> -- >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> - Original Message >> From: WISPA General List >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> Date: 04/29/09 16:31 >> >>> >>> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing >> each >>> other so loudly"? >>> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use >>> one >> >>> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >>> (even if different channels and freqs). >>> >>> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept >> the >>> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same >> RB600"? >>> >>> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the >>> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed >>> to >> >>> give better isolation. >>> >>> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi >> loss, >>> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX >> adds >>> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it >> is >>> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like >>> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I >>> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside >>> sources.) >>> >>> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because >>> either >> >>> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards >>> electronics. >>> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry >>> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes >>> pickup music radio. >>> >>> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s >> performing >>> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because >> they >>> were quieter. >>> >>> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if >>> you >>> repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), >> whether >>> you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to >> the >>> spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, >>> because >> >>> it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? >>> >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >>> >>> >>> > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >>> > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on >>> adjacent >>> > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing >> throughput >>> > on >>> > backhauls. Because even if you were operati
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
yeah, but I question that to, considering that 2.4Ghz could have harmonics of 5.8Ghz or vice versa, considering half the wavelength.. I'm finding that I can get several 5.X cards in the system, with a channel seperation. Just sometimes I can't get full modulations above 18-24mbps. I also think receiver overload may be a bigger problem than channel selection. For example, having more troubles colocating a XR9 to a CM9 than two CM9s. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Well so far the only thing I've seen them good for is one card in running > 2.4ghz and another card running 5.8ghz. Those won't interfere with each > other. > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of . > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:39 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > I'm curious to know if you're taking about transmit amps or receive > amps. When you say noise are you meaning transmitted noise (meaning > spectral impurity such as distortion, or do you mean unintentional > radiation of the desired transmitted signal?) or do you mean receiver > noise such as a higher noise floor, or signals considered to be noise > which are being picked up by the higher sensitivity receiver? I'm > assuming you mean transmitted noise of some kind as a result of the > transmit amp but I just want to clarify. Thanks! > > What's the point of these router boards that have multiple radio card > slots if you can't have the radio cards that close together? > > Greg > > On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > >> There is nothing wrong with lowering the power on them. >> I personally love SR5s. >> >> The facts are though that cards with add-on amps embedded have the >> potential >> to be noisier than one that does not. >> How much noisier, I can't say. That was part of tthe goal, to >> determine if >> XR5s are as clean as CM9s, and if there is a distinguishable >> difference or >> not. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:30 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> >>> >>> Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? >>> They are >>> more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. >>> -- >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> WAVELINC >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> 419-562-6405 >>> www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> >>> - Original Message >>> From: WISPA General List >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >>> Date: 04/29/09 16:31 >>> >>>> >>>> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 >>>> seeing >>> each >>>> other so loudly"? >>>> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to >>>> use >>>> one >>> >>>> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >>>> (even if different channels and freqs). >>>> >>>> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you >>>> still kept >>> the >>>> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same >>> RB600"? >>>> >>>> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That >>>> means the >>>> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is >>>> supposed >>>> to >>> >>>> give better isolation. >>>> >>>> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding >>>> rssi >>> loss, >>>> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain >>>> MMCX >>> adds >>>> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX >>>>
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Greg, Excellent comments and questions... And My answer to you is. "all of the above". Scott, And I agree, each card brand and model will have its own properties. I just used one high power brand in a CPE for the last time (which I will not mention for professional courtesy) that as a CPE can hear a -50 signal awesome at 54mb modulation, but the AP receiver can't make out the CPE's signal and CPE stay associated unless the CPE transmits at 12mbps modulation or lower. Clearly distortion from the transmit amp, considering all the CPEs with CM9s can successfully transmit at 54mbps modulation. If we extended this converstaion to full relevence, we'd extend it to ask the questions for each and every manufacturer's cards. What I'm looking for is establishing the best choices to optimize success. Its not a black and white world here. I have systems in the field that have two 5.x cards in them and operate fine on 10Mhz channels with only one channel seperation in between. But I had a XR9 and DCMA82 (5.x) card in a 2 port AP System, where I had to reduce the 5.X card's power down to 10-12 db, in order for the 900Mhzcard to associate with its client. I can give examples of where details may help us 2 antenna ports cards are more available. But I may want to buy single antenna port cards, if it helps reduce noise from other cards in teh system, IF antenna port is a place of noise injections. But I may chose a low power card instead, if Amps is a place of injections greater than that of a second unused antenna port. Sure two cards can co-locate, but why not install in the method taht will minimize self interference, but still meet the minimum need of teh deployment? Today... for example I build a Dual Pol MIkrotik PTP w/433, and decided to put a second mpci card in the unit, but it only was going to use single pol, since the case only had space for one external pigtail. What card would be best to isntall, not to interfere with the first primary more important PTP link? I chose to make a isolation plate between the cards. I took a peice of cardboard wrapped it with tin foil, and put it inside a 3"x3" static bag. I then stuck it inbetween the two stacked Mpci slots. Because MT has 3 stacked slots, and I used the top and bottom one, there was plenty of room to insert the shielding without restricting airflow to cool the cards. It seemed to help. (although didn't record exact before after results). lastly, amped and non amp'd cards are not equal in design. For example, when the amplication is done in a single device there is no connection between two devices. With a second add-on amp embedded on the card, there is a second path entering into that amp, where noise can be induced to the amp. AMPs are also designed to work at a specific power level to acheive the best noise reduction, when it does not operate at that level, there also becomes a situation where the amp is underloaded or overloaded, causing more distortion. When there are two amps working togeather, there are now two points and more vaiables to configuring cards to be operating at the least amount of distortion. For example, an Amp may work best if its input is 13db, but the first amp may not output 13db constantly. Actually, its one of the reasons here were pre-amps in hgih end hi-fi gear, to make sure the signal all amps where working at their optimal powers and optimal signals injected into them. So at the end of the day, I guess all that really matters is How much distortion the specific card solution transmits or hears. Sure its possible that the Hi-power cards could be designed to be more resilient to distortion. Maybe that is a reason why they have much higher receive sensitivities? But then again, that was not the case when XR2s were compared to 200mw Prism cards. ManyWISPs reported better results from the PRism, regardless of what the spec sheets said. The pigtails also could be acting as antennas. I wonder how much loss they have. Some people reported pigtails having as much as 6-7 db loss if they were made poorly, and that energy loss all goes to somewhere, probably RF interference. For example, I wonder if crossing the pigtails or running them parallel can effect how much self interference betwee n the cards exist? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "." To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > I'm curious to know if you're taking about transmit amps or receive > amps. When you say noise are you meaning transmitted noise (meaning > spectral impurity such as distortion, or do you mean unintentional > radiation of the desired transmitted signal?) or do you mean receiver > noise such as
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
What's what we normally do... I almost never run an AP at it's full power. In fact these days I never do. Someday when I get bored I'll fire up the analyzer and see if there is any difference in the signal shape between max and min power levels. marlon - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are > more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. > -- > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > - Original Message > From: WISPA General List > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Date: 04/29/09 16:31 > >> >> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing > each >> other so loudly"? >> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use >> one > >> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >> (even if different channels and freqs). >> >> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept > the >> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same > RB600"? >> >> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the >> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed >> to > >> give better isolation. >> >> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi > loss, >> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX > adds >> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it > is >> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like >> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I >> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside >> sources.) >> >> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because >> either > >> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards >> electronics. >> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry >> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes >> pickup music radio. >> >> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s > performing >> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because > they >> were quieter. >> >> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you >> repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), > whether >> you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to > the >> spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, >> because > >> it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> >> > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on >> adjacent >> > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing > throughput >> > on >> > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 >> and > 5825 >> > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in > the >> > same >> > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short > of separation. >> > I >> > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > experience >> > with the list. >> > >> > >> > >> > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the > local >> > True >> > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead > connector >> > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the > three >> > radio's that woul
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Well so far the only thing I've seen them good for is one card in running 2.4ghz and another card running 5.8ghz. Those won't interfere with each other. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of . Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test I'm curious to know if you're taking about transmit amps or receive amps. When you say noise are you meaning transmitted noise (meaning spectral impurity such as distortion, or do you mean unintentional radiation of the desired transmitted signal?) or do you mean receiver noise such as a higher noise floor, or signals considered to be noise which are being picked up by the higher sensitivity receiver? I'm assuming you mean transmitted noise of some kind as a result of the transmit amp but I just want to clarify. Thanks! What's the point of these router boards that have multiple radio card slots if you can't have the radio cards that close together? Greg On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > There is nothing wrong with lowering the power on them. > I personally love SR5s. > > The facts are though that cards with add-on amps embedded have the > potential > to be noisier than one that does not. > How much noisier, I can't say. That was part of tthe goal, to > determine if > XR5s are as clean as CM9s, and if there is a distinguishable > difference or > not. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > >> >> Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? >> They are >> more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. >> -- >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> - Original Message >> From: WISPA General List >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> Date: 04/29/09 16:31 >> >>> >>> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 >>> seeing >> each >>> other so loudly"? >>> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to >>> use >>> one >> >>> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >>> (even if different channels and freqs). >>> >>> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you >>> still kept >> the >>> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same >> RB600"? >>> >>> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That >>> means the >>> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is >>> supposed >>> to >> >>> give better isolation. >>> >>> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding >>> rssi >> loss, >>> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain >>> MMCX >> adds >>> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX >>> because it >> is >>> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things >>> like >>> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But >>> surely I >>> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside >>> sources.) >>> >>> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because >>> either >> >>> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the >>> cards >>> electronics. >>> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp >>> circuitry >>> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can >>> sometimes >>> pickup music radio. >>> >>> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s >> performing >>> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, >>> because >> they >>> were quieter. >>> >>> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder >>> if you >>>
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
I'm curious to know if you're taking about transmit amps or receive amps. When you say noise are you meaning transmitted noise (meaning spectral impurity such as distortion, or do you mean unintentional radiation of the desired transmitted signal?) or do you mean receiver noise such as a higher noise floor, or signals considered to be noise which are being picked up by the higher sensitivity receiver? I'm assuming you mean transmitted noise of some kind as a result of the transmit amp but I just want to clarify. Thanks! What's the point of these router boards that have multiple radio card slots if you can't have the radio cards that close together? Greg On Apr 29, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > There is nothing wrong with lowering the power on them. > I personally love SR5s. > > The facts are though that cards with add-on amps embedded have the > potential > to be noisier than one that does not. > How much noisier, I can't say. That was part of tthe goal, to > determine if > XR5s are as clean as CM9s, and if there is a distinguishable > difference or > not. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > >> >> Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? >> They are >> more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. >> -- >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> - Original Message >> From: WISPA General List >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> Date: 04/29/09 16:31 >> >>> >>> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 >>> seeing >> each >>> other so loudly"? >>> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to >>> use >>> one >> >>> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >>> (even if different channels and freqs). >>> >>> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you >>> still kept >> the >>> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same >> RB600"? >>> >>> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That >>> means the >>> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is >>> supposed >>> to >> >>> give better isolation. >>> >>> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding >>> rssi >> loss, >>> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain >>> MMCX >> adds >>> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX >>> because it >> is >>> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things >>> like >>> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But >>> surely I >>> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside >>> sources.) >>> >>> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because >>> either >> >>> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the >>> cards >>> electronics. >>> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp >>> circuitry >>> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can >>> sometimes >>> pickup music radio. >>> >>> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s >> performing >>> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, >>> because >> they >>> were quieter. >>> >>> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder >>> if you >>> repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), >> whether >>> you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, >>> proportional to >> the >>> spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, >>> because >> >>> it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? >>> >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
I would argue the fact that every card has amplification circuit its just a matter of how large it is. I'm not a EE but I would imagine that a well built XR5 causes no more noise to its neighbor than a less quality cm9 or other... I don't think we can talk about these cards on even playing fields just because they fit in a mini-pci slot and are on 5Ghz... I think each brand model will have its own properties that affect our discussion in different ways... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Tom DeReggi" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:21 PM > To: "Kurt Fankhauser" , "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > There is nothing wrong with lowering the power on them. > I personally love SR5s. > > The facts are though that cards with add-on amps embedded have the potential > to be noisier than one that does not. > How much noisier, I can't say. That was part of tthe goal, to determine if > XR5s are as clean as CM9s, and if there is a distinguishable difference or > not. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:30 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > > > > > Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are > > more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. > > -- > > Kurt Fankhauser > > WAVELINC > > P.O. Box 126 > > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > > 419-562-6405 > > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > - Original Message > > From: WISPA General List > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > Date: 04/29/09 16:31 > > > >> > >> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing > > each > >> other so loudly"? > >> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use > >> one > > > >> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. > >> (even if different channels and freqs). > >> > >> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept > > the > >> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same > > RB600"? > >> > >> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the > >> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed > >> to > > > >> give better isolation. > >> > >> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi > > loss, > >> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX > > adds > >> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it > > is > >> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like > >> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I > >> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside > >> sources.) > >> > >> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because > >> either > > > >> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards > >> electronics. > >> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry > >> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes > >> pickup music radio. > >> > >> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s > > performing > >> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because > > they > >> were quieter. > >> > >> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you > >> repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), > > whether > >> you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to > > the > >> spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, > >> because > > > >> it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? > >> > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >>
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
There is nothing wrong with lowering the power on them. I personally love SR5s. The facts are though that cards with add-on amps embedded have the potential to be noisier than one that does not. How much noisier, I can't say. That was part of tthe goal, to determine if XR5s are as clean as CM9s, and if there is a distinguishable difference or not. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are > more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. > -- > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > - Original Message > From: WISPA General List > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Date: 04/29/09 16:31 > >> >> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing > each >> other so loudly"? >> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use >> one > >> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >> (even if different channels and freqs). >> >> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept > the >> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same > RB600"? >> >> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the >> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed >> to > >> give better isolation. >> >> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi > loss, >> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX > adds >> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it > is >> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like >> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I >> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside >> sources.) >> >> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because >> either > >> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards >> electronics. >> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry >> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes >> pickup music radio. >> >> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s > performing >> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because > they >> were quieter. >> >> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you >> repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), > whether >> you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to > the >> spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, >> because > >> it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> >> > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on >> adjacent >> > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing > throughput >> > on >> > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 >> and > 5825 >> > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in > the >> > same >> > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short > of separation. >> > I >> > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > experience >> > with the list. >> > >> > >> > >> > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the > local >> > True >> > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
But previously you said you used the same cards and the original cards were xr5s? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > The RB600 was not in an indoor enclosure but just a normal outdoor > enclosure. The radio's were all low power CM9 cards and they were seeing > each other at -30's. > -- > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > - Original Message > From: WISPA General List > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Date: 04/29/09 16:41 > >> >> Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had > their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail > interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, > from > what it sounds like. >> >> I guess that should be clarified >> >> Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, > was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: Jason Wallace >> To: WISPA General List >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> >> Also, some dummy loads can act as a poor antenna. Was this part of the > experiment consistent both times? Maybe run some coax from the boxes > separate directions and then attach the dummy loads? >> >> Scott Carullo wrote: >> Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them >> like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their >> own > >> small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the >> antenna? > >> Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit > more >> too... >> >> Scott Carullo >> Brevard Wireless >> 321-205-1100 x102 >> >> Original Message >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput >> on >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and >> 5825 >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the >> same >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of > separation. >> I >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my >> experience >> with the list. >> >> >> >> I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local >> True >> Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead >> connector >> holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the >> three >> radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having >> only >> 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the >> outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. >> >> >> >> I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on >> each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I >> found: >> >> >> >> I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency >> 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see >> each >> other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the >> bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is >> on >> the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that >> possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With >> two >> boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at al
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Tom DeReggi wrote: > Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their > own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail > interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from > what it sounds like. > > I guess that should be clarified > > Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was > the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > Question I have that should debunk that theory that cards in close proximity interfere with each other. Why do the cards not interfere with each other when there is additional gain antennas hooked on to them? You would think there would be even more self interference with high gain antennas than with no antennas WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Whats wrong with using XR5's and lowering the TX power on them? They are more rugged and have better RX sensitivity than many other cards. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 16:31 > > The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing each > other so loudly"? > There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use one > RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. > (even if different channels and freqs). > > First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept the > dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same RB600"? > > What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the > card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed to > give better isolation. > > (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi loss, > stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX adds > by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it is > more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like > Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I > thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside > sources.) > > So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because either > loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards > electronics. > The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry > driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes > pickup music radio. > > For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s performing > better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because they > were quieter. > > So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you > repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), whether > you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to the > spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, because > it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> > To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput > > on > > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 > > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the > > same > > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. > > I > > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience > > with the list. > > > > > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > > True > > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector > > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three > > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having > > only > > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > > found: > > > > > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each > > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is > > on > > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
The RB600 was not in an indoor enclosure but just a normal outdoor enclosure. The radio's were all low power CM9 cards and they were seeing each other at -30's. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 16:41 > > Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. > > I guess that should be clarified > > Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: Jason Wallace > To: WISPA General List > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > > Also, some dummy loads can act as a poor antenna. Was this part of the experiment consistent both times? Maybe run some coax from the boxes separate directions and then attach the dummy loads? > > Scott Carullo wrote: > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own > small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more > too... > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > 321-205-1100 x102 > > Original Message > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput > on > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and > 5825 > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the > same > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. > I > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > experience > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > True > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead > connector > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the > three > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having > only > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see > each > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is > on > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With > two > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two > boards > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not > on > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all > seeing > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing > it > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas > on > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much > more > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus,
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
You are missing the point Its not an issue of having to high of TX power. Its an issue that AMPs are noisy and amplify noise they hear. Turning an XR5 amp down does not necessarilly solve the problem, as the amp still hears noise to inject into its output. If radios are clean, and cabling solidly shielded, there shouldn't be so much RF leakage. I'm starting to wonder if someone should make a small thin lead plated plastic case, the size of the mpci card, than snaps around the MPCI cards, while in the mpci slot, to minimize the RF leakage? I guess what I'm getting at. Shouldn't we be understanding where the RF leakage is getting leaked? So our conclusion can be "how to fix the problem" apposed to "how to work around it"? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Scott Carullo" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > How about just decreasing the xr5 power level to about 200mw > > I wouldn't put a cm9 on a tower or so > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x102 > > On Apr 29, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Tom DeReggi > wrote: > >> The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing >> each >> other so loudly"? >> There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to >> use one >> RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. >> (even if different channels and freqs). >> >> First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept >> the >> dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same >> RB600"? >> >> What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means >> the >> card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is >> supposed to >> give better isolation. >> >> (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding >> rssi loss, >> stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain >> MMCX adds >> by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX >> because it is >> more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things >> like >> Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I >> thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside >> sources.) >> >> So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because >> either >> loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards >> electronics. >> The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp >> circuitry >> driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can >> sometimes >> pickup music radio. >> >> For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s >> performing >> better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, >> because they >> were quieter. >> >> So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder >> if you >> repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), >> whether >> you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, >> proportional to the >> spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, >> because >> it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" >> To: "'WISPA General List'" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> >>> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >>> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent >>> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing >>> throughput >>> on >>> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 >>> and 5825 >>> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in >>> the >>> same >>> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of >>> separation. >>> I >>> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my >>> experience >>> with the list. >>> >>> >>> >>> I installed a s
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
How about just decreasing the xr5 power level to about 200mw I wouldn't put a cm9 on a tower or so Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x102 On Apr 29, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing > each > other so loudly"? > There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to > use one > RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. > (even if different channels and freqs). > > First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept > the > dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same > RB600"? > > What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means > the > card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is > supposed to > give better isolation. > > (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding > rssi loss, > stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain > MMCX adds > by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX > because it is > more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things > like > Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I > thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside > sources.) > > So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because > either > loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards > electronics. > The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp > circuitry > driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can > sometimes > pickup music radio. > > For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s > performing > better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, > because they > were quieter. > > So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder > if you > repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), > whether > you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, > proportional to the > spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, > because > it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing >> throughput >> on >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 >> and 5825 >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in >> the >> same >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of >> separation. >> I >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my >> experience >> with the list. >> >> >> >> I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the >> local >> True >> Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead >> connector >> holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from >> the three >> radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. >> Having >> only >> 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the >> outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. >> >> >> >> I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy >> loads on >> each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is >> what I >> found: >> >> >> >> I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on >> frequency >> 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only >> see each >> other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to >> the >> bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind >> this is >> on >> the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that >> possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. >> With two >> boards
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Good point but. the problem went away when the mcpi cards each had their own SBC/Case, this would infer card to card or pigtail to pigtail interference, since in all cases the dummy load was outside the cases, from what it sounds like. I guess that should be clarified Kurt, when you tested with teh RB600 and 3 cards on the adjacent slots, was the RB600 also in a case with the holes metal taped? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason Wallace To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Also, some dummy loads can act as a poor antenna. Was this part of the experiment consistent both times? Maybe run some coax from the boxes separate directions and then attach the dummy loads? Scott Carullo wrote: Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more too... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: "Kurt Fankhauser" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience with the list. I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I found: I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards could not even see each other in an AP scan. Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more throughput! Thoughts anyone? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- --
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
The first question is "why are the 4 mpci cards in teh RB600 seeing each other so loudly"? There lies the problem needing fixed, because of course we want to use one RB433, instead of 3 RB433s, to accommodate 3 mpci cards. (even if different channels and freqs). First question to you... "am I assuming correct that you still kept the dummy loads on each of the mPCI cards, when testing all in teh same RB600"? What is a bot disturbing is that you said you used a XR5. That means the card had a single antenna connector and a MMCX style, which is supposed to give better isolation. (note: some have advocated that Ufl is as good as mmcx, regarding rssi loss, stating that the UFl connector itself has less loss than the gain MMCX adds by enabling thicker pigtail cable. I always still prefer MMCX because it is more rugged abd less likely to break pigtails connectors in things like Rootenas that are not easy to access with short pigtails. But surely I thought mmcx would also add better shielding/isolation from outside sources.) So using XR5s, it would infer that the cards saw each other because either loss from pigtail cable, loss from mmcx connector, or simply the cards electronics. The next relevent info might be to determine if it is the amp circuitry driving this interference. Just like a pair of PC speakers can sometimes pickup music radio. For years Lonnie (StarOS) gave teswtimonials for lower power CM9s performing better than Amplified cards (SR5) for short range applications, because they were quieter. So there is about 8db difference between a SR5 and a CM9. I wonder if you repeated your tests, but used CM9's instead (no ext embedded amps), whether you'd just hear the other adjacenet radios at 8db lower, proportional to the spec of the radios, or if you hear the otehr radio much much less, because it doesn;t have the amp to pcikup the interference? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput > on > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the > same > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. > I > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > True > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having > only > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is > on > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two > boards > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all > seeing > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much > more > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > --
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Sure you can do that, but it defeats the purpose of the business case for multi-MPCI boards. I'd rather learn how to make multi-mpci systems work better. Expecially when one pays rent per CAT5 feed or Radio enclosure. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" To: ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Exactly I you don't need long 10' coax lines > > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Scott Carullo > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their > own small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the > antenna? > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit > more too... > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > 321-205-1100 x102 > > Original Message ---- >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing >> throughput > on >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and > 5825 >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in >> the > same >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of > separation. > I >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > experience >> with the list. >> >> >> >> I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > True >> Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead > connector >> holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the > three >> radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. >> Having > only >> 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the >> outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. >> >> >> >> I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads >> on each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is >> what I >> found: >> >> >> >> I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on >> frequency 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could > >> only see > each >> other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > >> bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this >> is > on >> the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that >> possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With > two >> boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two > boards >> could not even see each other in an AP scan. >> >> >> >> Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 >> not > on >> top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all > seeing >> each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing > it >> this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas > on >> the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the >> self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much > more >> throughput! >> >> >> >> Thoughts anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > &
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Cost a *lot* more than a fiber and a fiber cable if you can do the tower future climbs yourself Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x102 On Apr 29, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > > $2.90 per foot for the 5/8 heliax. Its 25% cheaper than LMR-900, > weighs > less, and less loss. > > > -- > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > - Original Message > From: WISPA General List > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Date: 04/29/09 12:31 > >> >> YOu getting good prices on that? >> >> * --- >> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer >> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/>; >> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services >> WISPA Vendor Member* >> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net >> <http://www.linktechs.net/>; >> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* >> <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>; >> >> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is > intended only > for the person(s) or entity/entities to which >> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >> material. > Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking > of any > action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities > other than > the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you >> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the >> material > from any computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >> > I don't hang radio's on towers for lightning reasons. I have > installed >> > Andrews 5/8 Heliax and put all my radios at the bottom. This has > worked out >> > very well for me and upgrades are a breeze because there is no > climbing >> > involved :) >> > >> > Kurt Fankhauser >> > WAVELINC >> > P.O. Box 126 >> > Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> > 419-562-6405 >> > www.wavelinc.com >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org >> ] > On >> > Behalf Of Scott Carullo >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:48 AM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference >> test >> > >> > >> > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even >> mount > them >> > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in > their own >> > small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under >> the > antenna? >> > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you >> eggs a > bit more >> > too... >> > >> > Scott Carullo >> > Brevard Wireless >> > 321-205-1100 x102 >> > >> > Original Message >> > >> >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM >> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> <wireless@wispa.org> >> >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference >> test >> >> >> >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz >> radio's > being >> >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on > adjacent >> >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus >> decreasing > throughput >> >> >> > on >> > >> >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on >> frequency's 5745 > and >> >> >> > 5825 >> > >> >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if >> installed > in the >> >> >> > same >> > >> >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at >> that > short of separation. >> >> >> > I >> > >> >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and >> share my >> >> >> > experience >> > >> >> with the list. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I installed a single
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
I thought of that. If i moved the RB333 enclosures so that that were pointing opposite directions with the dummy loads touching each other there was no link and the client scan could see no AP even with the loads touching. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 12:13 > > > > > > > > Also, some dummy loads can act as a poor antenna. Was this part of the > experiment consistent both times? Maybe run some coax from the boxes > separate directions and then attach the dummy loads? > > Scott Carullo wrote: > > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own > small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more > too... > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > 321-205-1100 x102 > > Original Message > > > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput > > > on > > > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and > > > 5825 > > > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the > > > same > > > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. > > > I > > > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > > > experience > > > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > > > True > > > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead > > > connector > > > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the > > > three > > > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having > > > only > > > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see > > > each > > > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is > > > on > > > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With > > > two > > > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two > > > boards > > > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not > > > on > > > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all > > > seeing > > > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing > > > it > > > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas > > > on > > > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much > > > more > > > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.co
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
$2.90 per foot for the 5/8 heliax. Its 25% cheaper than LMR-900, weighs less, and less loss. -- Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com - Original Message From: WISPA General List To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Date: 04/29/09 12:31 > > YOu getting good prices on that? > > * --- > Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer > WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/>; > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > WISPA Vendor Member* > *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net > <http://www.linktechs.net/>; > */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* > <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>; > > The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which > it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > > I don't hang radio's on towers for lightning reasons. I have installed > > Andrews 5/8 Heliax and put all my radios at the bottom. This has worked out > > very well for me and upgrades are a breeze because there is no climbing > > involved :) > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > > WAVELINC > > P.O. Box 126 > > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > > 419-562-6405 > > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Scott Carullo > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:48 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > > > > > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them > > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own > > small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? > > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more > > too... > > > > Scott Carullo > > Brevard Wireless > > 321-205-1100 x102 > > > > Original Message > > > >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <k...@wavelinc.com> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > >> > >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput > >> > > on > > > >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and > >> > > 5825 > > > >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the > >> > > same > > > >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. > >> > > I > > > >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > >> > > experience > > > >> with the list. > >> > >> > >> > >> I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > >> enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > >> > > True > > > >> Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead > >> > > connector > > > >> holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the > >> > > three > > > >> radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having > >> > > only > > > >> 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > >> outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > >> > >> > >> > >> I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy l
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
YOu getting good prices on that? * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp> The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > I don't hang radio's on towers for lightning reasons. I have installed > Andrews 5/8 Heliax and put all my radios at the bottom. This has worked out > very well for me and upgrades are a breeze because there is no climbing > involved :) > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Scott Carullo > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own > small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more > too... > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > 321-205-1100 x102 > > Original Message ---- > >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput >> > on > >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and >> > 5825 > >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the >> > same > >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. >> > I > >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my >> > experience > >> with the list. >> >> >> >> I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local >> > True > >> Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead >> > connector > >> holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the >> > three > >> radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having >> > only > >> 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the >> outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. >> >> >> >> I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on >> each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I >> found: >> >> >> >> I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency >> 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see >> > each > >> other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the >> bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is >> > on > >> the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that >> possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With >> > two > >> boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two >> > boards > >> could not even see each other in an AP scan. >> >> >> >> Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed a
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Also, some dummy loads can act as a poor antenna. Was this part of the experiment consistent both times? Maybe run some coax from the boxes separate directions and then attach the dummy loads? Scott Carullo wrote: Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more too... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: "Kurt Fankhauser" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience with the list. I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I found: I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards could not even see each other in an AP scan. Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more throughput! Thoughts anyone? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
On the remote sites it's so true.. I have one site that got a horizontal omni that is picking up signal at -89 from a WISP who's closest tower is over 35miles away. Also at one point had one horizontal omni at a 70ft tower site connected to another horizontal omni at a 120ft tower site about 8 miles I would guess apart (mind you our trees in this area are between 30 and 60ft tall so the 70ft tower is barely over the tree tops and there is a high ridge between that tower and the 120ft tower. I had that same 70ft tower connected to a 60ft tower that had a 9dB horizontal omni about 4 miles away. In any of the omni to omni connections the signals where not great and throughput was max about 1-1.5mbit.. But this came in handy at one point when a backhaul to the 120ft tower went down I hooked the two omnis together and customer had internet connection albeit not very fast but they where online while we fixed the problem. I love the 62% magic it's so much fun to see things work that you figured would not be able to work yet it does... But I dislike the 50% science when you know/think something should work and it doesn't just to figure out there is an issue like when we first deployed 900 just to learn that noise floor in vertical was -58 to -64. Of course none of the links that hit in on -70'ish would work. Durn science.. Wish could found a black magic trick besides replacing the ap antenna to horizontal and go rotate the few cpe's we manage to get online to this ap. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test We used to see that a lot in the old Lucent AP1000 and similar units. Two radios in the same case (at least they were 6" or so apart). Many that used them a lot had to switch to radio versions that had no built in antenna (even if the antenna were turned off). And someone, um, dang, can't remember who, even had a custom metal shade built in a way that it would clip onto the outside of the radio and give more rf insulation. Out here I've found that even using the same BAND for backhaul and distribution doesn't work nearly as well as using different bands for each service. And far too many operators still think that higher power is the answer to all problems. When what we should really be doing is running LOWER power and making up for it with bigger antennas at the client end. When we dropped our amps and went from 4 watt sites to 1 watt (often less) sites we more than doubled out speeds, even at 15 to 18 miles ptmp! This is possible because the new radios have such high receive sensitivity. Wanna know what you're doing to yourself with your OWN noise? One day put one of your APs into client mode. You'll likely be shocked at how many of your own APs you pick up and how far away they are. Especially when using sectors vs. omnis. I have one site that has a 13 dB sector that can see an AP that's putting out a mere 1 watt. The two systems are roughly 30 miles apart! I didn't even know that they had line of site! It's crazy stuff. Interference is very real. We are usually our own worst enemy. We have a competitor that's starting to loose customers to us (luckily most of our competitors do a pretty good job so churn, both ways, is pretty low, good for the industry's reputation...). I just pulled a customer from him. His tower is about 8 miles from them. On a 19dB antenna they picked him up at -60 dB. I calculate that as a 43dB output on his AP!!! That's basically a 1 watt amp with a 12 dB omni. The legal limit is 36 dB or 4 watts. If we figure that every 3 dB is double the wattage this then becomes: 39dB is 8 watts, 42dB is 16 watts, 43dB is somewhere around 20 watts! He's nearly 7 times the legal power limit! There are two major problems with this. First and most important to him is that his service is starting to really suck. He's got ap's all over hell and high water and they are ALL over powered like this. At least the ones that I've detected are. I've left him to self destruct because he's not been too much of a problem to my network (yet). By using very good gear and intelligent designs we're able to (mostly) ignore him. But he's undoubtedly causing massive problems for himself. Speeds on his system were 1.5 down and .5 up. The other problem is that I can, at pretty much any time, shut him down with a complaint to the FCC. Well, they'll not likely shut him down, but they WILL investigate and make him drop back down to the legal levels. And once they do that he'll be forced to replace CPE all over the place because the customer's antennas will no longer be big enough to
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
We kind of do this where climbing is difficult. We run lmr600 down the tower (never more than 50 or 60' though) to boxes near the bottom. marlon - Original Message - From: "Scott Carullo" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them > like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own > small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? > Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit > more > too... > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > 321-205-1100 x102 > > Original Message >> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test >> >> About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being >> installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent >> channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput > on >> backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and > 5825 >> the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the > same >> enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. > I >> decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my > experience >> with the list. >> >> >> >> I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor >> enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local > True >> Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead > connector >> holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the > three >> radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having > only >> 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the >> outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. >> >> >> >> I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on >> each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I >> found: >> >> >> >> I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency >> 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see > each >> other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the >> bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is > on >> the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that >> possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With > two >> boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two > boards >> could not even see each other in an AP scan. >> >> >> >> Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not > on >> top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all > seeing >> each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing > it >> this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas > on >> the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the >> self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much > more >> throughput! >> >> >> >> Thoughts anyone? >> >> >> >> >> >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > > >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
We used to see that a lot in the old Lucent AP1000 and similar units. Two radios in the same case (at least they were 6" or so apart). Many that used them a lot had to switch to radio versions that had no built in antenna (even if the antenna were turned off). And someone, um, dang, can't remember who, even had a custom metal shade built in a way that it would clip onto the outside of the radio and give more rf insulation. Out here I've found that even using the same BAND for backhaul and distribution doesn't work nearly as well as using different bands for each service. And far too many operators still think that higher power is the answer to all problems. When what we should really be doing is running LOWER power and making up for it with bigger antennas at the client end. When we dropped our amps and went from 4 watt sites to 1 watt (often less) sites we more than doubled out speeds, even at 15 to 18 miles ptmp! This is possible because the new radios have such high receive sensitivity. Wanna know what you're doing to yourself with your OWN noise? One day put one of your APs into client mode. You'll likely be shocked at how many of your own APs you pick up and how far away they are. Especially when using sectors vs. omnis. I have one site that has a 13 dB sector that can see an AP that's putting out a mere 1 watt. The two systems are roughly 30 miles apart! I didn't even know that they had line of site! It's crazy stuff. Interference is very real. We are usually our own worst enemy. We have a competitor that's starting to loose customers to us (luckily most of our competitors do a pretty good job so churn, both ways, is pretty low, good for the industry's reputation...). I just pulled a customer from him. His tower is about 8 miles from them. On a 19dB antenna they picked him up at -60 dB. I calculate that as a 43dB output on his AP!!! That's basically a 1 watt amp with a 12 dB omni. The legal limit is 36 dB or 4 watts. If we figure that every 3 dB is double the wattage this then becomes: 39dB is 8 watts, 42dB is 16 watts, 43dB is somewhere around 20 watts! He's nearly 7 times the legal power limit! There are two major problems with this. First and most important to him is that his service is starting to really suck. He's got ap's all over hell and high water and they are ALL over powered like this. At least the ones that I've detected are. I've left him to self destruct because he's not been too much of a problem to my network (yet). By using very good gear and intelligent designs we're able to (mostly) ignore him. But he's undoubtedly causing massive problems for himself. Speeds on his system were 1.5 down and .5 up. The other problem is that I can, at pretty much any time, shut him down with a complaint to the FCC. Well, they'll not likely shut him down, but they WILL investigate and make him drop back down to the legal levels. And once they do that he'll be forced to replace CPE all over the place because the customer's antennas will no longer be big enough to handle the range he's designed into his system. So his services suck (based on HIS customer's calls to US) and he's just begging to be slapped around by the FCC. Bad for his customers, bad for his business, bad for our industry etc. All because of limited channel choices and high AP density required by terrain. Oh yeah, OUR service when we switch folks? steady 3 down, 15. to 3 up. We even saw 4 x 4 once. I'll have to upgrade my backhaul to do much better than that. Oh yeah, that particular customer's home shoots RIGHT through another farmer's 40' high Rohn two way radio tower that's about 2 or 3 miles away. MY system comes into the old provider's CPE (the customer owned it so we used the same radio) at about a -77. Because this site will now be a tower site for us we'll probably replace the CPE with a 24dB grid before too long, just to help overcome any issues caused by the other house etc. that sits in the RF path. Never ever forget: Wireless is 50% science and 62% black magic! Kurt, I totally believe your findings. We see similar (though not as extreme) examples all day long out here in the real world. laters, marlon ----- Original Message - From: "David E. Smith" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >> Thoughts anyone? > > Out of idle curiosity, did you try testing with two cards on the same > board, but with both cards and pigtails wrapped in foil, or otherwise > "insulated" from one another? With the two cards just being an inch > apart, I imagine you'd still have that nasty crosstalk
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
I was wondering the same thing David. Scott -- Original Message -- From: "David E. Smith" Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:42:30 -0500 >Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >> Thoughts anyone? > >Out of idle curiosity, did you try testing with two cards on the same >board, but with both cards and pigtails wrapped in foil, or otherwise >"insulated" from one another? With the two cards just being an inch >apart, I imagine you'd still have that nasty crosstalk even with the >insulation, but I don't know of anyone who's actually tested that >specifically. > >David Smith >MVN.net > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
I don't hang radio's on towers for lightning reasons. I have installed Andrews 5/8 Heliax and put all my radios at the bottom. This has worked out very well for me and upgrades are a breeze because there is no climbing involved :) Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more too... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Exactly I you don't need long 10' coax lines Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more too... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing > throughput on > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in > the same > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. > Having only > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads > on each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is > what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on > frequency 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could > only see each > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this > is on > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 > not on > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
I previously have had three 2.4ghz cards all in the same RB333 with no isolation that they were all seeing each other in the -30's as well. Throughput was terrible on that setup. I would rather only have 1 card per board so I could get more CPU horsepower out of the entire setup. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > Thoughts anyone? Out of idle curiosity, did you try testing with two cards on the same board, but with both cards and pigtails wrapped in foil, or otherwise "insulated" from one another? With the two cards just being an inch apart, I imagine you'd still have that nasty crosstalk even with the insulation, but I don't know of anyone who's actually tested that specifically. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Another quick note... if you have individual units why even mount them like this inside a larger box? Why not put individual RB411s in their own small box (say DCE 7x6x2) and put the box outside right under the antenna? Then you would have even more seperation and distribute you eggs a bit more too... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Changing out the RB600 with this new RB433 setup. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test So you are going with what? Rb433's or the rb600? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience with the list. I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I found: I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards could not even see each other in an AP scan. Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more throughput! Thoughts anyone? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Thanks for the info but I'm not sure you can compare apples to apples because you had 3 separate units, not multiple radio boards in one RB. You should have used RB411s you would have saved money, power, heat and space. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:36 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test > > About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being > installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent > channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on > backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 > the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same > enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I > decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience > with the list. > > > > I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor > enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True > Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector > holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three > radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only > 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the > outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. > > > > I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on > each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I > found: > > > > I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency > 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each > other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the > bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on > the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that > possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two > boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards > could not even see each other in an AP scan. > > > > Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on > top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing > each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it > this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on > the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the > self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more > throughput! > > > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > Thoughts anyone? Out of idle curiosity, did you try testing with two cards on the same board, but with both cards and pigtails wrapped in foil, or otherwise "insulated" from one another? With the two cards just being an inch apart, I imagine you'd still have that nasty crosstalk even with the insulation, but I don't know of anyone who's actually tested that specifically. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test
So you are going with what? Rb433's or the rb600? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] RB333/433 eliminating self-interference test About a week ago there was some discussion about 5ghz radio's being installed in the same board and causing self-interference on adjacent channels and possible even on the entire band thus decreasing throughput on backhauls. Because even if you were operating on frequency's 5745 and 5825 the two radio's would have side lobe harmonics that if installed in the same enclosure they would still "hear" each other at that short of separation. I decided to combat this problem and find a solution and share my experience with the list. I installed a single XR5 card into 3 different RB433's with indoor enclosures. I also installed foil tape which I obtained from the local True Value store for $2.49 on all the vent holes and unused bulkhead connector holes. This was done in order to prevent RF side lobe leaks from the three radio's that would escape from the indoor enclosures themselves. Having only 1 card inside each enclosures I should not have a heat problem as the outdoor box will not be in direct sunlight. I then stacked all 3 enclosures on top of each other with dummy loads on each of the N-bulkhead connectors and did some testing. This is what I found: I set the bottom board as AP and the middle board as Client on frequency 5825. Even with this close of separation the two XR5's could only see each other at -83 on the same channel. With the top board connecting to the bottom board they could only see each other at -90. Keep in mind this is on the same frequency so adjacent channels should be much less than that possibly even in the -100 ranges. Wish I had a spectrum analyzer. With two boards separating the AP and Client there was no link at all. The two boards could not even see each other in an AP scan. Just as a comparison with the same radio's installed all on a RB600 not on top of each other but in the adjacent mpci slots the radio's were all seeing each other at -30's. So I gained roughly -55 db of separation by doing it this way. So all I would have to do now is make sure that the antennas on the tower have at least 10 foot of vertical separation and the self-interference problem should be gone and I should be enjoying much more throughput! Thoughts anyone? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
