Eric: The whole purpose of this test was to create an omni effect. You're talking about something totally different, and I have often wondered that as well. I think there was a company that did this a long time ago, Luxul maybe? You would buy their antenna array..and they claimed a lot but nothing materialized out of it AFAIK.
Jim: I don't have the data sheets for them, actually they (my techs) assembled everything while I was in Vegas. We've gone ahead and converted more clients over to it today, and speeds/latency are just the same when it was one sector. Regards, Chuck On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Eric Rogers <ecrog...@precisionds.com> wrote: > I have often wondered if it would be better to have two antennas in one > given direction, with one being \ pol and the other antenna being used for / > pol. I wondered if special diversity would allow us to achieve better > penetration results to clients without using splitters. > > > > Basically order the two of the standard moto antennas, but use one polarity > on each. > > > > Eric Rogers > > Precision Data Solutions, LLC > > (317) 831-3000 x200 > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of lakel...@gbcx.net > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:49 PM > To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update > > > > You are not really talking a phased array here. Lengths should not be > critical. > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Subject: [WISPA] Splitters with Motorola Canopy 320 - Results Update > Date: Tue, Oct 25, 2011 2:39 pm > > > Premades? Or did you make your own and get as close as humanly possible? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chuck Hogg <ch...@shelbybb.com> wrote: >> It is my understanding that they need to be of the same length. That >> was our design, all the same length...we used 18" LMR 240 for this >> situation. >> >> Regards, >> Chuck >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Kristian Hoffmann <kh...@fire2wire.com> >> wrote: >>> Do you have a reference for calculating the proper cable lengths and >>> antenna spacing based on frequency when using splitters in a >>> configuration like this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -Kristian >>> >>> On 10/25/2011 06:39 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: >>>> I thought I would post back on here what we did and our results. >>>> These are preliminary. >>>> >>>> Equipment: >>>> 1 x 320AP >>>> >>>> Configuration with only one sector: >>>> Power set to 19.9dB (per the manual for legal power settings) >>>> AP set to -65 power leveling >>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates >>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients. >>>> Client receive levels ranged from -61 to -75. >>>> >>>> Equipment: >>>> 1 x 320AP >>>> 4 x 16.5dB 90 degree sectors >>>> 2 x 4 way splitters from L-Com >>>> >>>> Configuration with only one sector: >>>> Power set to full 25dB (per the manual for legal power settings, >>>> assuming a -6.5dB of loss) >>>> AP set to -65 power leveling >>>> Client signals at the AP were -65 (or thereabouts, this fluctuates >>>> from -65 to -70) for all clients. >>>> Client receive levels ranged from -64 to -78. >>>> >>>> So essentially by adding a 4 way splitter the clients receive levels >>>> increased by about 3.5-4dB. Tower receive levels were unchanged, as >>>> most of the clients were power leveled down. Only one client is >>>> transmitting at full power now. That client is also the highest >>>> signal on both sides. Most client transmit levels are also running at >>>> a higher power now as well. >>>> >>>> Conclusion: >>>> I think that running 1 x 320AP x 4 sectors through splitters is a >>>> little aggressive. If the majority of your clients are going to have >>>> decent signal levels, then I see no problems with it. However, I >>>> think that our current situation is a little on the edge. I think >>>> that if you are looking for an inexpensive way to use 320AP's, I would >>>> recommend this solution. I think that this solution has a higher net >>>> gain over using an 8dB omni. My results show that it is pretty >>>> consistent on being about a total loss of about 8dB using a 4 way >>>> splitter. You can overcome 6.1dB of that loss in turning up the >>>> transmit power of the radios. Your net loss is about 2.5-3dB, >>>> however you are able to focus the sectors a little better. >>>> >>>> In the long run on future deployments, we will likely use 2 AP's and 4 >>>> sectors with 4x2way splitters (MIMO). Once they reach capacity, we'll >>>> add additional AP's. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Chuck >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kristian Hoffmann >>> System Administrator >>> kh...@fire2wire.com >>> http://www.fire2wire.com >>> >>> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
