-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
mike wrote:
On 07-04-2022 09:54 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
[...]
Remember that their products are primarily geared toward ISP operators
who aren't needing dual-band (tower is 5 GHz, pointless to add cost to
the CPE for a never-used 2.4 band)
That makes sense which means that two radios and antennas will be needed. These are what I'm looking at for Ubiquiti CPE outdoor radios & antennas.
25 dBi dish antenna
$79 5GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M5 transmit 23dBm & sensitivity -75dBm
@54MBit/s
18 dBI dish antenna
$79 2.4GHz Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 transmit 24dBm & sensitivity -75dBm @54MBit/s
Those are quite difficult to align well - they've only got something
like a 4 or 5 degree beam. Gain doesn't matter if it's not aligned to
the AP ;).
If you want to stick with UBNT, then an asier time of it would be the
nanobeam / nanostation lineup. 16 or 19 dBi gain, but with a wider
beam.
Likewise, the listed 'tik products are alright.
WiFi max EIRP is 36 dBm (4 watts), at least in the US.
Given the specs above bounce back & forth, which is the MOST IMPORTANT specification for this situation of whatever campgrounds use for Wi-Fi
APs?
That you're not trying to connect to something "indoors" while you're
"outoors" ;) . From your list, the only one you have much control over
is the gain -- the products listed all use pretty standard Broadcom or
Atheros chipsets.
Long as you're hearing at -50 to -60, you're in the ideal range.
I very much doubt it's anywhere near that good.
Otherwise it wouldn't have been a problem.
It's likely worse than -85 dBm, which is why good equipment is needed.
Well, if you're at -85 now, getting it to -70 or so won't be too bad,
most things will do 802.11n in that range.
Lower will certainly work (but at reduced rates).
I picked 54Mbps for the specs above which seems like a reasonable goal.
Sounds like 802.11g.
I was talking about reduced 802.11n MCS rates (e.g. MCS5 or 13;
depending on whether the device is 1x1 or 2x2).
Assuming, of course, that
the AP in question isn't overloaded, or simply incapable of handling a
link through the building's exterior walls.
Given the common campground wifi AP situation described, which is best? Antenna gain of Ubiquiti 25 & 18 or Mikrotik 16 & 10 dBi
Transmit power Ubiquiti 23 & 24 or Mikrotik 20 & 36 dBm
EIRP Ubiquiti 48 & 42 or Mikrotik 36 & 46 dBm
Receiver sensitivity Ubiquiti 75 & 75 or Mikrotik 80 & 80 dBm
Not wasting your money trying to connect to a WiFi AP that's behind a structure's exterior wall. In that scenario, they're all equally bad.
Of the four things there, gain is the thing that's going to impact you
the most. BUT, you have to understand that the gain values are obtained
by narrowing the beam. If you were to think of the antennas as the
reflectors in a flashlight, the mikrotik models you're looking at are essentially a LED flashlight; whereas the powerbeams are ... well, a
laser pointer.
Bear in mind that with the UBNT EIRP, they're giving the maximum for
when setup in fixed point-to-point mode. You will have to look at your national communications coordinator (e.g. the US FCC) for legal limits.
Where are you pulling this "sensitivity" from? Do you mean the tables
where they're indicating the relative limits of a given modulation
scheme? If so, that's ONLY to be read as a general threshold value
(perhaps a cautious one at that), and with the understanding that it's
in otherwise perfect conditions.
i.e. the SXTsq Lite can theoretically demodulate an MCS7 encoded 802.11n
signal from the other end if it's receiving at -75 dBm (or better).
However, noise or other interference will skew that value.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3asj+xn6fYUcweBnbWVw5UznKGAFAmJQD18ACgkQbWVw5Uzn KGCxSBAAqyEfDjMQGHSh0fHGnaNDPjePQXGOBuXVPCA96I0B8+Nbm4ZfYtkkqJ61 MFPtPeZm2OoFzCRvTY7zTHlbk2tSolxmL6Xa5V3WG6bKZ/Wuf4y1qnfFBw36CmAO bxpVaId0Oq58fvLeGui5U5WIvxWaD9QWZJaXXf0yJ3vwuTtBS3joQ4IxBnktxPyG XwJu0YJdqIHhGHZ1qO3jX7TRYT4MDu/OErDLi7DQtEnWj6xis344u5/+sjUHPlUE dcVIu8+wk/HdMtdK53/u0+bprrOBbwq9Fntc9eTuWRfiMJKtBZJpBeUbgUSz4TEN UKsl/WSUvjbeI/7pl99s9PkmPXHhjF9INntXD+k+i42Qu4ybPuesTMLAbX931u97 KzUhQQL+CrZJ7ybBeW7U5glHoxpg1Z8EaZfg6FnH3XCkVncH+BPSWBuYz+StsV2k cfGRIt7JUIoNjLpCAZcYQ7ACKjaV3M4FUT4B2DSdJfBsftxChFKbvWG4Ck8DI44r nEzzZwiSvkFz1WQcncfA+4K1b/oluxcko6rUVkxemuVNKUT1NdV6JG1CspQui/Gl rSo6uAmf9TBdgof3dHy/7z8SyAqfOps2FFuBIu61363mJpRsoDdd8oFMBEM/dgYD 86VVsndvpDIQ6jnhErUGMOsvEnpedQ0S5Jhz5mRv+PUcn/+O3SU=
=zh0X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
|_|O|_| Github:
https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)