[AFMUG] questions about filters
with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Economies of scale, more like a walk it off tax at this point really. On Sunday, October 26, 2014, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel;
It looks like Tessco has the mid gain Mars, but not the little one or the big expensive one. Maybe Winncom. From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 10:57 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; That Mars does look pretty good, but the availability is lacking. And the 22dBi, 12/12° beamwidth in a 14.5x14.5 package is interesting. About the same gain and beamwidth as an SM on a reflector though, so maybe not so good for those NLOS shots where a wider beam will help. Cheapest I could find is about $220-240 with the mount, and it is more available. Cheaper to go with the L-com though. I wish Cambium would listen and give us an integrated panel SM for 2.4 and 3GHz 450, or even all of the 450 line. 12x12 and 19dBi is a good middle-ground size for a nLOS/NLOS CPE. We would use the hell out of them if they were maybe $50-60 more than a connectorized SM. Shit, do the same thing for the ePMP. Does Cambium use these Mars antennas on the integrated PTPs? They look very similar, so I would guess so. The MTI style articulating mount is nice too. Both from Israel, not surprising there. These Jews sure do make some good antennas. On 10/25/2014 10:07 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That MARS 19 dBi antenna 12x12 inch looks good, price not bad considering the nice mount. Also a 14 dBi 8x8 inch model. I also see from the pictures that the L-Com mount can be attached to the antenna at 45 degrees, so that would be an option as well. But MARS would seem to win out due to the articulating diecast mount. From: Justin Lampman via Af Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 9:06 PM To: Ken Hohhof via Af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; We use a mars antenna. It is technically a v/h pol but has flexible mounting to have it sit on a 45 slant. Field testing showed almost identical performance to the expensive mti. Thanks, Justin Lampman Sent from mobile phone. Original message From: Ken Hohhof via Af Date:10/25/2014 9:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; That is exactly my current need. Actually through a couple trees, didn’t plan on using this AP for NLOS, but customer bought house currently on 900 and wants much higher speed and is only 1/4 mile from AP. It works OK with a bare SM but due to the high plan he wants, I want to get 8X if possible. As you say, I’m hoping a small panel would be better than a bare SM or a reflector dish. From: Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 4:43 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; That would be nice for doing some nLOS shots thru a tree branch where a dish is to focused and a bare sm doesn't have enough gain. On Friday, October 24, 2014, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I think there was a thread about 3.65 dual slant panels for PMP450 SMs, but I don't remember anyone being able to recommend anything, and I don't see anything out there except maybe something real expensive from MTI. I don't have a problem using a dish if I need the gain, just wondering if there is something more like 12x12 inches and 14-16 dBi.
Re: [AFMUG] Aviat Networks, (Harris stratex ), any input?
It is now, but has only been that way for a few years. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:37:06 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat Networks, (Harris stratex ), any input? The current Harris (the defence contractor) is a totally separate company from Aviat. On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I worked for division of Harris in mid 80s. Pricey gear but solid. Used by military and cellcos Jaime Solorza On Sep 22, 2014 3:49 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: blockquote Yeah, Chapter 11 being the same as reorganization is sometimes true. It is all Jargon. Here is something about the different meanings in different context: JARGON If you give the command SECURE THE BUILDING , here is what the different services would do: The NAVY would turn out the lights, shut off the power, drain the water lines, lock the doors and posts regular 12 hour watches. The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire. The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, kill everyone inside and set up a command post. The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building. The COAST GUARD would enter the building, give it a safety inspection, find drugs confiscate the building and contents and arrest those inside. The MERCHANT MARINE would enter the building, befriend the occupants, find drugs and alcohol, horse trade for drugs and alcohol, have a raging party for two days and leave. From: Tushar Patel via Af Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:49 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat Networks, (Harris stratex ), any input? So maybe it not called chapter 11, but whatever the reorg is called. Thanks, Tushar Patel 512-257-1077 www.westernbroadband.com From: Af [mailto: af-bounces+tpatel = ecpi@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Tushar Patel via Af Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat Networks, (Harris stratex ), any input? I posted following last week, that came directly from one of the sales rep, “ Tushar, Message from our CEO... We have gone through a major reorganization and change of ownership over the past week. However, the nature of our business stays the same as before. Same products, same markets and applications. We apologize for any inconvenience or business disruption this may have caused you. Thank you for your patience, understanding, and support during this rather extraordinary period of our evolution. We are confident we will reemerge stronger, more competitive, and better than ever before. So we're in business and moving forward.” Thanks, Tushar Patel 512-257-1077 www.westernbroadband.com From: Af [ mailto:af-bounces+tpatel=ecpi@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat Networks, (Harris stratex ), any input? Would like to know as well Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/22/2014 12:22 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: blockquote from what source are you seeing that Exalt has gone chapter 11? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Tushar Patel via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For license backhaul and 80 MHz channel in 11 GHz band, I have found only three company that is making the radios now. 1) Exalt (chapter 11 now) 2) Ceragon 3) Aviat Any other company making products in 80 MHz channel in 11 Ghz band? Any input on Harris Stratex (Aviat) products? Thanks, Tushar Patel 512-257-1077 www.westernbroadband.com /blockquote /blockquote
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
My opinion - There are some unavoidable impacts, like reduced performance in channels near the edge of the band or losing those channels completely. Even if cost is no object, there are tradeoffs with “brick wall” filters. Depending on how the rules are interpreted, we might also go back to having to buy separate hardware for each sub-band rather than one radio that covers 5.1 to 5.8. One thing about OFDM, you naturally get a decent amount of OOB attenuation especially if you have a lot of subcarriers. Stacking a bunch of narrow sinx/x shapes next to each other results in a spectral plot that has been described as looking like “Bart’s head”. So little or no additional analog filtering is needed to meet emissions masks. But look at the problems that TVWS manufacturers have had meeting those specs, and the guardbands that are required. I think a major problem would be how will manufacturers recover those costs? If they sell two models of CPE, one for low gain antennas and a more expensive one that is legal to use with a reflector dish or high gain antenna, how many of the expensive ones do you think they will sell? And if they take the high road and put the extra cost in every CPE, while a competitor sells two models, what do you think will happen? And would there be an international market for the expensive, filtered version? From: Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:03 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Economies of scale, more like a walk it off tax at this point really. On Sunday, October 26, 2014, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Add a filter, creates loss, need a bigger power amp to compensate, which still needs to be highly linear or it will create OOB distortion – sounds like a vicious circle. And needing all this just to use a higher gain antenna sounds like the old approach of requiring manufacturers to use an odd connector like a TNC to prevent someone from using a 3rd party antenna (as if no one makes a TNC to N jumper cable). It’s making it too attractive to just connect a bigger antenna or a reflector dish. Assuming you refuse to do that, lots of other people will, giving them a competitive advantage, and also depriving manufacturers of revenue and volume to pay for the equipment modifications. So expect some manufacturers to not even try, since the mainstream WiFi market only cares about small cells and low gain antennas anyway, just build what most people want. And if some people choose to use higher gain antennas with those radios, what’s a manufacturer to do? The practice of getting equipment certified with a ridiculously low gain antenna like a 5 dBi omni is already too widespread. From: Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 11:55 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Holy Grail
Looks like it's more marketing than anything. Telrad Breeze Compact. On Friday, October 24, 2014, Jayson Baker via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Anyone else get this email? Anyone know what it is?
[AFMUG] Using outside reps or service to call customers?
Is anyone using a 3rd party company to call your customers on your behalf, primarily in the area of upsells of service or routers? We have been pushing the Mikrotik routers to each customer prem and its really helping us a LOT to solve or at least see the customers internal issues (what device is using what bandwidth etc.). We do email blasts and an occasional robo-calls when we are going to be upgrading a tower, especially 2.4 customers, because it saves us having to get customers talked into logging into their router and changing frequencies to avoid radio conflicts, etc. The real question is, is anyone using a 3rd part sales/marketing service etc. to contact existing customers for this type thing? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
[AFMUG] Generator question
So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like.
Re: [AFMUG] Using outside reps or service to call customers?
You have working phone numbers for your customers? That alone is a major achievement. I go along dumb and happy thinking I do, until I need to reach them, and find out the number is no longer in service. From: Paul McCall via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Using outside reps or service to call customers? Is anyone using a 3rd party company to call your customers on your behalf, primarily in the area of upsells of service or routers? We have been pushing the Mikrotik routers to each customer prem and its really helping us a LOT to solve or at least see the customers internal issues (what device is using what bandwidth etc.). We do email blasts and an occasional robo-calls when we are going to be upgrading a tower, especially 2.4 customers, because it saves us having to get customers talked into logging into their router and changing frequencies to avoid radio conflicts, etc. The real question is, is anyone using a 3rd part sales/marketing service etc. to contact existing customers for this type thing? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.com pa...@pdmnet.net
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
You could put in the transfer switch that comes with the generator and connect it up as normal for one of the feeds, then add a slave transfer relay that would operate with the following two conditions: 1)Mains voltage of second feed is zero. 2)Voltage out of the generator is not zero. Feed the slave from the input of the generac transfer switch. It would take some additional puzzling to figure out how to force the generator to run when the second feed only is down. I am sure it can be done. You could have a relay between the meter and the transfer switch of feed 1 that would cut feed 1 if feed 2 died. That would force everything to start and run. Cheap and dirty. Inefficient but it would work. I am sure there is a better way. -Original Message- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:17 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: [AFMUG] Generator question So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like.
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
If physical size is not a concern, cavity filters can be dynamic. They are probably better tuned mechanically but you can use varactor diodes and electrically tune them with a slight loss in performance. I did quarter wave duplexors for 2 way radio that were dynamic. Had all the tuning screws coupled with a mechanical set of metal belt and pulleys. Then a stepper motor for tuning. From: That One Guy via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters to you design guys, the chucks in particular theoretically, not a it cant be done because it hasnt been done If you were tasked to design a component, strictly a proof of concept component, size, power consumptive, relative cost aside. The only requirement being dynamic adaptability to channel size. So If You are using a 5 mhz channel, it filters to the 5mhz channel, 10 to ten, and its not center channel dependent. 200mhz in its spread. Not a single response of why it couldnt be done It does not have to be mechanical On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bpOn 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
There should be a way to make that work. But if the equipment in one building only draws a modest amount of power, could you put in something like an APC or Tripp-Lite automatic transfer switch, and connect one input to power from the other building AFTER the transfer switch, making this input the secondary? That way you don't have to worry about starting the generator, you just use commercial power from the other building if it's available, otherwise the other building takes care of starting the generator and transferring power to it. -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Generator question You could put in the transfer switch that comes with the generator and connect it up as normal for one of the feeds, then add a slave transfer relay that would operate with the following two conditions: 1)Mains voltage of second feed is zero. 2)Voltage out of the generator is not zero. Feed the slave from the input of the generac transfer switch. It would take some additional puzzling to figure out how to force the generator to run when the second feed only is down. I am sure it can be done. You could have a relay between the meter and the transfer switch of feed 1 that would cut feed 1 if feed 2 died. That would force everything to start and run. Cheap and dirty. Inefficient but it would work. I am sure there is a better way. -Original Message- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:17 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: [AFMUG] Generator question So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like.
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
On 10/26/14, 14:17, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like. Feed a panelboard that subfeeds multiple transfer switches. Use switches that are two wire start signal and a generator that accepts a two wire start signal. Parallel the start connections. They'll switch independently. Pretty common and straightforward thing. I'm feeding three on a bus. If any one of the three want to go to emergency it will and the other two will do whatever they think is right, too. Don't do anything dumb like trying to come up with logic that depends on the others. ~Seth
[AFMUG] Mounts for trylon supertitan?
I'm looking at leasing a aprox 96ft trylon supertitan (at least that's what I think it is) and I need to be able to mount 3-4 sectors and 1-2 backhauls with the ability down the road for 6-8 sectors and 2-4 backhauls, I've browsed through the trylon accessories catalog but nothing really jumps out at me, can someone point me in the right direction as to what I might need to make this happen? Can I make something myself? Or what part numbers I might need?
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
sarcasmMaybe plug-in filters. Like swapping out the diplexer in an Exalt radio, or changing crystals in an RC car. When you change frequencies, you have to plug in a different filter. Mail new filters out to customers, like UBNT mailing you new FCC labels. /sarcasm From: Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters If physical size is not a concern, cavity filters can be dynamic. They are probably better tuned mechanically but you can use varactor diodes and electrically tune them with a slight loss in performance. I did quarter wave duplexors for 2 way radio that were dynamic. Had all the tuning screws coupled with a mechanical set of metal belt and pulleys. Then a stepper motor for tuning. From: That One Guy via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:21 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters to you design guys, the chucks in particular theoretically, not a it cant be done because it hasnt been done If you were tasked to design a component, strictly a proof of concept component, size, power consumptive, relative cost aside. The only requirement being dynamic adaptability to channel size. So If You are using a 5 mhz channel, it filters to the 5mhz channel, 10 to ten, and its not center channel dependent. 200mhz in its spread. Not a single response of why it couldnt be done It does not have to be mechanical On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bpOn 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
Exactly my thought, which is why I brought this up. So maybe a master switch feeding two sub switches? But I need either or both sides to be able to tell the generator I need power. On 10/26/2014 5:11 PM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: Those generacs have lots of interconnections between the transfer switch and the generator. They may be able to do a two wire start, but I would not count on it. I have installed lots of them and it seems like there is about 8 control wire. -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:06 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Generator question On 10/26/14, 14:17, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like. Feed a panelboard that subfeeds multiple transfer switches. Use switches that are two wire start signal and a generator that accepts a two wire start signal. Parallel the start connections. They'll switch independently. Pretty common and straightforward thing. I'm feeding three on a bus. If any one of the three want to go to emergency it will and the other two will do whatever they think is right, too. Don't do anything dumb like trying to come up with logic that depends on the others. ~Seth
[AFMUG] 450 3.65GHZ Antenna Options
Do any 180 degree dual slant sectors exist for 3.65GHZ? Looking for a cheaper option before going to full 4 sectors on smaller sites. Also, not real impressed with the range of the ~10db omni.
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
On 10/26/14, 15:11, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: Those generacs have lots of interconnections between the transfer switch and the generator. They may be able to do a two wire start, but I would not count on it. I have installed lots of them and it seems like there is about 8 control wire. I would say such a generator is the wrong tool for this kind of job if it can't handle a two wire start signal. Here's a crappy 30-second one line diagram for a normal situation. But I also don't use generators that mandate some proprietary transfer switch. The last thing I'll say on this topic is to avoid ghetto hack solutions or utility-to-utility transfers, because it really is straightforward (and safe) with the right tools for the job. If you want to hack something and are dead set on Generac, then hack it to come up with a universal two wire contact closure start input, not everything else around it. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
I said I wasn't dead set on the Generac. Only thing is, 1800RPM is cool and quiet. We have houses and other businesses around that don't want to hear an 18 wheeler running full bore all night long. And we have a 6x3' pad poured already, biggest we could fit. On 10/26/2014 5:49 PM, Seth Mattinen via Af wrote: On 10/26/14, 15:11, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: Those generacs have lots of interconnections between the transfer switch and the generator. They may be able to do a two wire start, but I would not count on it. I have installed lots of them and it seems like there is about 8 control wire. I would say such a generator is the wrong tool for this kind of job if it can't handle a two wire start signal. Here's a crappy 30-second one line diagram for a normal situation. But I also don't use generators that mandate some proprietary transfer switch. The last thing I'll say on this topic is to avoid ghetto hack solutions or utility-to-utility transfers, because it really is straightforward (and safe) with the right tools for the job. If you want to hack something and are dead set on Generac, then hack it to come up with a universal two wire contact closure start input, not everything else around it. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] Mounts for trylon supertitan?
Wbmfg.com M-TOW-3P-48 On Sunday, October 26, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I'm looking at leasing a aprox 96ft trylon supertitan (at least that's what I think it is) and I need to be able to mount 3-4 sectors and 1-2 backhauls with the ability down the road for 6-8 sectors and 2-4 backhauls, I've browsed through the trylon accessories catalog but nothing really jumps out at me, can someone point me in the right direction as to what I might need to make this happen? Can I make something myself? Or what part numbers I might need?
[AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE
Has anyone worked much with Sonicwall routers? We have a corporate client with a NSA 250MW using it as master to VPN between sites. If a SM gets rebooted, PPPoE server gets rebooted(in middle of night), etc the thing will never redial the PPPoE connection. Very frustrating. Has anyone solved this? I do not have direct access to the device but I can work with there tech.
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
That's the problem, both sides have stuff that needs to be on and are not insignificant loads. Both are 200A panels. On the north side there's the server room, telephone/office network closet, my desk (must have power!), boss' office, bookkeeper's office and the receptionist desk up front. Plus some hallway lights and stuff. The south half has offices and cubicles that must be on, which is probably the most critical because they answer the phones, but they can't do that if the stuff on the north side isn't up. This is also the side that has the tower and generator pad. So I guess on the south side, just install the transfer switch there and transfer that whole panel. Then run say a 50 or 60A circuit over to the north side that has its own simple auto transfer switch of some kind and put only the circuits on it that I need? Then the south panel should always be energized, either utility or gen. Yeah, Ken you're probably right, maybe I'm over-thinking this and that's the easier way to go. Right now I have two Tripp-Lite 3kVA UPS's in the main rack. Both are 110v L5-30 input. Not all of the servers, switches, routers, etc. have dual power supplies, but I can fix that either by replacement at some point or an ATS. So one UPS on the backed up feed and the other not and let it shut down. We're pulling under 1500 watts in the server room when the UPS's are charged. On 10/26/2014 5:06 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: There should be a way to make that work. But if the equipment in one building only draws a modest amount of power, could you put in something like an APC or Tripp-Lite automatic transfer switch, and connect one input to power from the other building AFTER the transfer switch, making this input the secondary? That way you don't have to worry about starting the generator, you just use commercial power from the other building if it's available, otherwise the other building takes care of starting the generator and transferring power to it. -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Generator question You could put in the transfer switch that comes with the generator and connect it up as normal for one of the feeds, then add a slave transfer relay that would operate with the following two conditions: 1)Mains voltage of second feed is zero. 2)Voltage out of the generator is not zero. Feed the slave from the input of the generac transfer switch. It would take some additional puzzling to figure out how to force the generator to run when the second feed only is down. I am sure it can be done. You could have a relay between the meter and the transfer switch of feed 1 that would cut feed 1 if feed 2 died. That would force everything to start and run. Cheap and dirty. Inefficient but it would work. I am sure there is a better way. -Original Message- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:17 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: [AFMUG] Generator question So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like.
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
Just to throw another curve into your thinking - what is your reasoning on the generator? Disaster recovery? Frequent power outages due to storms and such? As a thirty plus year vet at a phone company and a twenty five plus year vet on the fire department let me give you this to ponder. If it is for frequent power outages due to electrical storms, ice, and/or poor power lines then NG is fine. However it has been my experience that in disaster scenarios like earthquakes (ok I haven't actually seen this one) severe storms/tornadoes (I have seen way too many of these) then one of the first things the fire department does is shut down the natural gas pipelines. Too many houses destroyed and the possibilities of way too many leaks. I personally would go with diesel fuel. Almost always available - can be easily trucked in. LP can be hard to source and price fluctuates in the winter. There is always a farmer or construction company around with diesel. NG is defiantly more convenient, but in a true disaster situation it may not be available. Just my two cents worth. Rex -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:17 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: [AFMUG] Generator question So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like.
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
On 10/26/14, 3:56 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: I said I wasn't dead set on the Generac. Only thing is, 1800RPM is cool and quiet. We have houses and other businesses around that don't want to hear an 18 wheeler running full bore all night long. And we have a 6x3' pad poured already, biggest we could fit. Ah yes, you did say gas. I'm all diesel and thus 1800 RPM is normal. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] Generator question
Yes, standby for utility outages from storms. We have never had gas shut down. Not even after the tornado last year. Not saying it's impossible. If it happened, I could run the most absolutely critical stuff off of a portable generator and propane tank. On 10/26/2014 6:32 PM, Rex-List Account via Af wrote: Just to throw another curve into your thinking - what is your reasoning on the generator? Disaster recovery? Frequent power outages due to storms and such? As a thirty plus year vet at a phone company and a twenty five plus year vet on the fire department let me give you this to ponder. If it is for frequent power outages due to electrical storms, ice, and/or poor power lines then NG is fine. However it has been my experience that in disaster scenarios like earthquakes (ok I haven't actually seen this one) severe storms/tornadoes (I have seen way too many of these) then one of the first things the fire department does is shut down the natural gas pipelines. Too many houses destroyed and the possibilities of way too many leaks. I personally would go with diesel fuel. Almost always available - can be easily trucked in. LP can be hard to source and price fluctuates in the winter. There is always a farmer or construction company around with diesel. NG is defiantly more convenient, but in a true disaster situation it may not be available. Just my two cents worth. Rex -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:17 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: [AFMUG] Generator question So I have a unique situation at our office. We're looking at a Generac QuietSource 22 or 30kW running on NG. I'm not dead set on that, but those are very nice and quiet 1800RPM. And the problem is, our building is really old and is split in half with two separate 240 services coming in. And I do have an old empty 1-1/4 conduit between the two utility closets. The two services is actually nice because a lot of times, one side will have power when the other doesn't. One comes from the north, the other from the south. There's no way we can rewire and combine everything into one service feed. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how to do something like two auto-transfer switches on one generator. I have critical stuff to run on both sides. Probably need a qualified electrician or engineer, but I thought I'd ask here for suggestions before we go down that road and pay someone to come up with something that I most likely wouldn't like.
[AFMUG] take a moment - and watch this for halloween....
take a moment and watch this for haloween :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzRMPsnC3s
Re: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE
Is this a new or very old Sonicwall? I ran into that with DSL and ended up using the $50 DSL modem to do PPPoE ahead of the Sonicwall and put the Sonicwall on the DMZ. We couldn't get the Sonicwall to do PPPoE reliably. I forget how we dealt with the MTU issue. I would have thought this would be resolved by now, that was almost 10 years ago. I know Cisco ASA can do PPPoE reliably (not that I'm fond of programming them). -Original Message- From: Matt via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:28 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE Has anyone worked much with Sonicwall routers? We have a corporate client with a NSA 250MW using it as master to VPN between sites. If a SM gets rebooted, PPPoE server gets rebooted(in middle of night), etc the thing will never redial the PPPoE connection. Very frustrating. Has anyone solved this? I do not have direct access to the device but I can work with there tech.
Re: [AFMUG] Mounts for trylon supertitan?
Will that bolt to angle iron? What about the taper of the tower will the mount compensate or the sectors have enough adjustment to have any downtilt ? You think two of those can support 8 sectors and 4x 2ft or 3ft dishes ? On Oct 26, 2014 4:23 PM, Sean Heskett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Wbmfg.com M-TOW-3P-48 On Sunday, October 26, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I'm looking at leasing a aprox 96ft trylon supertitan (at least that's what I think it is) and I need to be able to mount 3-4 sectors and 1-2 backhauls with the ability down the road for 6-8 sectors and 2-4 backhauls, I've browsed through the trylon accessories catalog but nothing really jumps out at me, can someone point me in the right direction as to what I might need to make this happen? Can I make something myself? Or what part numbers I might need?
Re: [AFMUG] Using outside reps or service to call customers?
Yes, probably 95% of working numbers. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:57 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Using outside reps or service to call customers? You have working phone numbers for your customers? That alone is a major achievement. I go along dumb and happy thinking I do, until I need to reach them, and find out the number is no longer in service. From: Paul McCall via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:32 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Using outside reps or service to call customers? Is anyone using a 3rd party company to call your customers on your behalf, primarily in the area of upsells of service or routers? We have been pushing the Mikrotik routers to each customer prem and its really helping us a LOT to solve or at least see the customers internal issues (what device is using what bandwidth etc.). We do email blasts and an occasional robo-calls when we are going to be upgrading a tower, especially 2.4 customers, because it saves us having to get customers talked into logging into their router and changing frequencies to avoid radio conflicts, etc. The real question is, is anyone using a 3rd part sales/marketing service etc. to contact existing customers for this type thing? Paul Paul McCall, Pres. PDMNet / Florida Broadband 658 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, FL 32962 772-564-6800 office 772-473-0352 cell www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/ pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2. LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we could get some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones
Re: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE
SonicWall Sucks when it comes to PPPoE PERIOD. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:28 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE Has anyone worked much with Sonicwall routers? We have a corporate client with a NSA 250MW using it as master to VPN between sites. If a SM gets rebooted, PPPoE server gets rebooted(in middle of night), etc the thing will never redial the PPPoE connection. Very frustrating. Has anyone solved this? I do not have direct access to the device but I can work with there tech.
Re: [AFMUG] Help ptp650 stuck at 5x5
anybody? testing is still not legal, right? On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Given my recent tyrade about obeying the regulations I know I could have changed what the antenna size is in the GUI and the 5.2 band would have given me more output power to test this link. I knwo it boils down to me being a dick about it, that I dont question. But when it comes down to it, am I correct that we cant even test outside our power restrictions? I know the FCC isnt driving around in vans looking for people overpowering a radio for 20 minutes, its not about getting caught, its about principle. Are we allowed to do temporary things like that for testing purposes? I assume that as a letter of law we would have to have prior approval from the FCC, would we not? (This boils down to CYA over the ass chewing im pretty sure is on the way monday for not doing whatever it takes to get a critical link to full capacity, which I did last year when I specced out and sourced a licensed solution for the path) On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: my cambium guy said there wouldnt be an answer right now, so im packing this up and saying fuck all this noise, im goin drinkin On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I would call support at this point. +1-888-863-5250 Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 03:36 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: yes I did the spectrum is shit, I knew this going into it I unlocket the full throughput eval now its going above 5 but by 5x5 I mean 5.00 x 5.00 with 2:1 1:1 1:2, on every channel, on every channel size not 4.96 x 5.01 flat out 5.00 x 5.00 I have never seen a ptp stay at a single number like that While we were peaking it out it was running up where it was expected aggregate around 19 or something this didnt start until I switched bands I went to 5.4 it was where it was expected for a 10.3 mile link I went to 5.2 when I went here I switched to the biggest channel, thats when it started 5.00 x 5.00 Switched back to 5.8 had to move the transmit power back to 27 from -4 5.00 x 5.00, no matter the channel size Im guessing this is a bug, what im wondering is if it corrupted the generic lite key or something like that when its in the trial it ignores the key anybody know what happens if theres no good key? On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Did you Disarm the Installation Agent? Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 02:54 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: I'm running out of daylight. Has anybody come across this before? Was modulating higher. I switched to 5.4 then 5.2 then back to 5.8 now it won't go above 5x5 on any channel size -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Afmailto:af@afmug.com To:af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of RD on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones
Re: [AFMUG] Help ptp650 stuck at 5x5
Can you rob a bank, just to see what it feels like? On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 6:57 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: anybody? testing is still not legal, right? On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Given my recent tyrade about obeying the regulations I know I could have changed what the antenna size is in the GUI and the 5.2 band would have given me more output power to test this link. I knwo it boils down to me being a dick about it, that I dont question. But when it comes down to it, am I correct that we cant even test outside our power restrictions? I know the FCC isnt driving around in vans looking for people overpowering a radio for 20 minutes, its not about getting caught, its about principle. Are we allowed to do temporary things like that for testing purposes? I assume that as a letter of law we would have to have prior approval from the FCC, would we not? (This boils down to CYA over the ass chewing im pretty sure is on the way monday for not doing whatever it takes to get a critical link to full capacity, which I did last year when I specced out and sourced a licensed solution for the path) On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: my cambium guy said there wouldnt be an answer right now, so im packing this up and saying fuck all this noise, im goin drinkin On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I would call support at this point. +1-888-863-5250 Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 03:36 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: yes I did the spectrum is shit, I knew this going into it I unlocket the full throughput eval now its going above 5 but by 5x5 I mean 5.00 x 5.00 with 2:1 1:1 1:2, on every channel, on every channel size not 4.96 x 5.01 flat out 5.00 x 5.00 I have never seen a ptp stay at a single number like that While we were peaking it out it was running up where it was expected aggregate around 19 or something this didnt start until I switched bands I went to 5.4 it was where it was expected for a 10.3 mile link I went to 5.2 when I went here I switched to the biggest channel, thats when it started 5.00 x 5.00 Switched back to 5.8 had to move the transmit power back to 27 from -4 5.00 x 5.00, no matter the channel size Im guessing this is a bug, what im wondering is if it corrupted the generic lite key or something like that when its in the trial it ignores the key anybody know what happens if theres no good key? On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Did you Disarm the Installation Agent? Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 02:54 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: I'm running out of daylight. Has anybody come across this before? Was modulating higher. I switched to 5.4 then 5.2 then back to 5.8 now it won't go above 5x5 on any channel size -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Help ptp650 stuck at 5x5
If you're honest enough that testing doesn't mean permanent to you, then test away and nobody will notice or even care for the short amount of time that you're figuring something out. On 10/26/2014 8:57 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: anybody? testing is still not legal, right? On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Given my recent tyrade about obeying the regulations I know I could have changed what the antenna size is in the GUI and the 5.2 band would have given me more output power to test this link. I knwo it boils down to me being a dick about it, that I dont question. But when it comes down to it, am I correct that we cant even test outside our power restrictions? I know the FCC isnt driving around in vans looking for people overpowering a radio for 20 minutes, its not about getting caught, its about principle. Are we allowed to do temporary things like that for testing purposes? I assume that as a letter of law we would have to have prior approval from the FCC, would we not? (This boils down to CYA over the ass chewing im pretty sure is on the way monday for not doing whatever it takes to get a critical link to full capacity, which I did last year when I specced out and sourced a licensed solution for the path) On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: my cambium guy said there wouldnt be an answer right now, so im packing this up and saying fuck all this noise, im goin drinkin On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I would call support at this point. +1-888-863-5250 tel:%2B1-888-863-5250 Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 03:36 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: yes I did the spectrum is shit, I knew this going into it I unlocket the full throughput eval now its going above 5 but by 5x5 I mean 5.00 x 5.00 with 2:1 1:1 1:2, on every channel, on every channel size not 4.96 x 5.01 flat out 5.00 x 5.00 I have never seen a ptp stay at a single number like that While we were peaking it out it was running up where it was expected aggregate around 19 or something this didnt start until I switched bands I went to 5.4 it was where it was expected for a 10.3 mile link I went to 5.2 when I went here I switched to the biggest channel, thats when it started 5.00 x 5.00 Switched back to 5.8 had to move the transmit power back to 27 from -4 5.00 x 5.00, no matter the channel size Im guessing this is a bug, what im wondering is if it corrupted the generic lite key or something like that when its in the trial it ignores the key anybody know what happens if theres no good key? On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Did you Disarm the Installation Agent? Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 02:54 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: I'm running out of daylight. Has anybody come across this before? Was modulating higher. I switched to 5.4 then 5.2 then back to 5.8 now it won't go above 5x5 on any channel size -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2. LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we could get some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so
Re: [AFMUG] Help ptp650 stuck at 5x5
I think it’s like the “5 second rule”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-second_rule If you ask a group of moms if that’s true, you’ll be met with the same dead silence (and averted eyes). Now turning off someone else’s equipment to see if it’s causing you interference, that’s taking “testing” liberties too far. Which reminds me, I had another WISP do that to me, the funny thing is my equipment never actually went down, because there was a UPS on top of the grain leg, and they flipped the breaker at the bottom. But they said the interference went away while the breaker was off. From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Help ptp650 stuck at 5x5 If you're honest enough that testing doesn't mean permanent to you, then test away and nobody will notice or even care for the short amount of time that you're figuring something out. On 10/26/2014 8:57 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: anybody? testing is still not legal, right? On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Given my recent tyrade about obeying the regulations I know I could have changed what the antenna size is in the GUI and the 5.2 band would have given me more output power to test this link. I knwo it boils down to me being a dick about it, that I dont question. But when it comes down to it, am I correct that we cant even test outside our power restrictions? I know the FCC isnt driving around in vans looking for people overpowering a radio for 20 minutes, its not about getting caught, its about principle. Are we allowed to do temporary things like that for testing purposes? I assume that as a letter of law we would have to have prior approval from the FCC, would we not? (This boils down to CYA over the ass chewing im pretty sure is on the way monday for not doing whatever it takes to get a critical link to full capacity, which I did last year when I specced out and sourced a licensed solution for the path) On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: my cambium guy said there wouldnt be an answer right now, so im packing this up and saying fuck all this noise, im goin drinkin On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I would call support at this point. +1-888-863-5250 Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 03:36 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: yes I did the spectrum is shit, I knew this going into it I unlocket the full throughput eval now its going above 5 but by 5x5 I mean 5.00 x 5.00 with 2:1 1:1 1:2, on every channel, on every channel size not 4.96 x 5.01 flat out 5.00 x 5.00 I have never seen a ptp stay at a single number like that While we were peaking it out it was running up where it was expected aggregate around 19 or something this didnt start until I switched bands I went to 5.4 it was where it was expected for a 10.3 mile link I went to 5.2 when I went here I switched to the biggest channel, thats when it started 5.00 x 5.00 Switched back to 5.8 had to move the transmit power back to 27 from -4 5.00 x 5.00, no matter the channel size Im guessing this is a bug, what im wondering is if it corrupted the generic lite key or something like that when its in the trial it ignores the key anybody know what happens if theres no good key? On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Did you Disarm the Installation Agent? Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net mailto:m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 tel:530.272.4000 On 10/24/2014 02:54 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: I'm running out of daylight. Has anybody come across this before? Was modulating higher. I switched to 5.4 then 5.2 then back to 5.8 now it won't go above 5x5 on any channel size -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore,
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Afmailto:af@afmug.com To:af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force
Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel;
Well the 19 dBi looks about perfect, even the price is right, except when I check availability on Tessco’s website it looks like a Christmas present. From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 10:57 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; That Mars does look pretty good, but the availability is lacking. And the 22dBi, 12/12° beamwidth in a 14.5x14.5 package is interesting. About the same gain and beamwidth as an SM on a reflector though, so maybe not so good for those NLOS shots where a wider beam will help. Cheapest I could find is about $220-240 with the mount, and it is more available. Cheaper to go with the L-com though. I wish Cambium would listen and give us an integrated panel SM for 2.4 and 3GHz 450, or even all of the 450 line. 12x12 and 19dBi is a good middle-ground size for a nLOS/NLOS CPE. We would use the hell out of them if they were maybe $50-60 more than a connectorized SM. Shit, do the same thing for the ePMP. Does Cambium use these Mars antennas on the integrated PTPs? They look very similar, so I would guess so. The MTI style articulating mount is nice too. Both from Israel, not surprising there. These Jews sure do make some good antennas. On 10/25/2014 10:07 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That MARS 19 dBi antenna 12x12 inch looks good, price not bad considering the nice mount. Also a 14 dBi 8x8 inch model. I also see from the pictures that the L-Com mount can be attached to the antenna at 45 degrees, so that would be an option as well. But MARS would seem to win out due to the articulating diecast mount. From: Justin Lampman via Af Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 9:06 PM To: Ken Hohhof via Af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; We use a mars antenna. It is technically a v/h pol but has flexible mounting to have it sit on a 45 slant. Field testing showed almost identical performance to the expensive mti. Thanks, Justin Lampman Sent from mobile phone. Original message From: Ken Hohhof via Af Date:10/25/2014 9:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; That is exactly my current need. Actually through a couple trees, didn’t plan on using this AP for NLOS, but customer bought house currently on 900 and wants much higher speed and is only 1/4 mile from AP. It works OK with a bare SM but due to the high plan he wants, I want to get 8X if possible. As you say, I’m hoping a small panel would be better than a bare SM or a reflector dish. From: Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 4:43 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 dual slant panel; That would be nice for doing some nLOS shots thru a tree branch where a dish is to focused and a bare sm doesn't have enough gain. On Friday, October 24, 2014, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I think there was a thread about 3.65 dual slant panels for PMP450 SMs, but I don't remember anyone being able to recommend anything, and I don't see anything out there except maybe something real expensive from MTI. I don't have a problem using a dish if I need the gain, just wondering if there is something more like 12x12 inches and 14-16 dBi.
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Are you trying to be annoying, or just succeeding? From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:14 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2. LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we could get some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014
Re: [AFMUG] Mounts for trylon supertitan?
Chuck McCown has shown at animal farm using high quality test equipment that tower leg tilt has vertually zero effect unless you are at a 45* angle. With those mounts you can fit 6 x 2' sectors or really any combo of 2' antennas etc. We turned the ubolt bracket backwards and force it to settle into the angle iron. There are angle iron to pipe mounts out there if you really want to go that far. The mounts are EXTREMELY strong and galvanized. If the mount was to break you'd have much bigger problems on your hands (like a tornado blew down the tower) We love them and the WISPA membership at wispapalooza voted and gave wbmfg the product of the year award for the mounts. On Sunday, October 26, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Will that bolt to angle iron? What about the taper of the tower will the mount compensate or the sectors have enough adjustment to have any downtilt ? You think two of those can support 8 sectors and 4x 2ft or 3ft dishes ? On Oct 26, 2014 4:23 PM, Sean Heskett via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Wbmfg.com M-TOW-3P-48 On Sunday, October 26, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I'm looking at leasing a aprox 96ft trylon supertitan (at least that's what I think it is) and I need to be able to mount 3-4 sectors and 1-2 backhauls with the ability down the road for 6-8 sectors and 2-4 backhauls, I've browsed through the trylon accessories catalog but nothing really jumps out at me, can someone point me in the right direction as to what I might need to make this happen? Can I make something myself? Or what part numbers I might need?
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
The formula for bits/sec/Hz is quite simple. Take bits/sec and divide by Hz. So for example, if a Rocket Ti is capable of 75 Mbps actual throughput in a 20 MHz channel, that’s a spectral efficiency of 75/20 = 3.75 bits/sec/Hz. If you want to calculate based on physical layer throughput, it’s more like 5 or 6. Similarly, if a Cambium PMP450 does 100 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel at 8X modulation (256 QAM), that’s a spectral efficiency of 5. I don’t know what spectral efficiency is for something like a Mimosa B5, they claim 1 Gbps actual payload throughput, I’m guessing that’s in 160 MHz of spectrum, so that would be 6.25? The Wikipedia article divides by 3 for 802.11 and by 1 for LTE, based on the formula “multiply by the frequency reuse factor”. The problem is not the formula but the numbers plugged into the formula. Garbage in, garbage out. Where did the number 3 come from? Just because it’s on Wikipedia doesn’t mean somebody didn’t pull that number out of their ass. In a WISP equipment context, I think we usually talk in terms of just bits/sec/Hz. Frequency reuse, whether due to GPS sync or MU-MIMO or beamforming or whatever, that’s a separate factor to tout, and mostly a cellular concept. I don’t see why someone chose to arbitrarily divide the spectral efficiency of WiFi by 3. As far as SISO vs MIMO, the table says the numbers for 802.11n are for SISO, but I think they may actually be for 2x2 MIMO. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:14 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2. LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we could get some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get
Re: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE
Run away...run very very far away and don't look back. Sonicwalls are best used for target practice at the shooting range. On Sunday, October 26, 2014, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Has anyone worked much with Sonicwall routers? We have a corporate client with a NSA 250MW using it as master to VPN between sites. If a SM gets rebooted, PPPoE server gets rebooted(in middle of night), etc the thing will never redial the PPPoE connection. Very frustrating. Has anyone solved this? I do not have direct access to the device but I can work with there tech.
Re: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE
My experiences with Sonicwall were: #1 the PPPoE issue #2 finding out if someone forgets the password and you press the reset button (while it is powering up), you have bricked it unless you have a firmware image to load into it #3 the flashing wrench light I figured that was 3 strikes. Oh, and did I mention the added cost licenses? From: Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:56 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE Run away...run very very far away and don't look back. Sonicwalls are best used for target practice at the shooting range. On Sunday, October 26, 2014, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Has anyone worked much with Sonicwall routers? We have a corporate client with a NSA 250MW using it as master to VPN between sites. If a SM gets rebooted, PPPoE server gets rebooted(in middle of night), etc the thing will never redial the PPPoE connection. Very frustrating. Has anyone solved this? I do not have direct access to the device but I can work with there tech.
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
If you're not fixing to the problem, you're contributing to it. You have some valid points about weaknesses in the formulas used in that chart. Do you talk to everyone this way? Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 07:16 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Are you trying to be annoying, or just succeeding? *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:14 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Afmailto:af@afmug.com To:af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski ch...@macenski.com wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Josh, you have strong opinions and there's nothing wrong with that, but at times you come off very confrontational, IMO. Ken is one of the smartest people I know and I have great respect for him. I think most others here would agree. On 10/26/2014 11:28 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: If you're not fixing to the problem, you're contributing to it. You have some valid points about weaknesses in the formulas used in that chart. Do you talk to everyone this way? Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 07:16 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Are you trying to be annoying, or just succeeding? *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:14 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Afmailto:af@afmug.com To:af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output
Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters
Sidenote: I lack something called soft skills. It may come from having a father with a light case of Aspergers, a southern upbringing, and almost a decadeof service in the Army. Probably a shitty trifecta towards developing interpersonal skills. It's not intentional. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 08:46 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Josh, you have strong opinions and there's nothing wrong with that, but at times you come off very confrontational, IMO. Ken is one of the smartest people I know and I have great respect for him. I think most others here would agree. On 10/26/2014 11:28 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: If you're not fixing to the problem, you're contributing to it. You have some valid points about weaknesses in the formulas used in that chart. Do you talk to everyone this way? Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 07:16 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Are you trying to be annoying, or just succeeding? *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:14 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they can’t walk on air. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters The formulas are at the top of the chart. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_. If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy. Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Afmailto:af@afmug.com To:af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a
