Has anyone used this antenna?
http://www.itelite.net/en/Katalog/MIMO-80211-n//SECTOR-XL-500182xdual-HV.html
I am currently awaiting on technical information a pro-sector antenna with radio-space for two routerboards for integrated solution, my primary concern is interference between both antennas and how far apart the operational frequencies should be, they have also available a heavy duty mounting kit, I have bought many antennas from this company and would recommend the products they supply?
I would be concerned, too. We put only one board/card in a box. We no longer use rb600/800 with multiple cards. This never worked well.
Well, I wouldn’t be putting RouterBoard gear in it.
They already have a Dual Mimo sector for 2.4 + 5.8GHz which works very good, and on a crowded mast, antenna spacing has to be reduced so co-location interference can be a issue, but if the antenna has good rf screening and then maybe using bandpass filters, using one dual mimo antenna could be a solution for increasing client numbers plus have redundancy option if one radio board goes down by using virtual AP on the other radio board, etc
IT Elite said they built the antenna with the purpose of it having two distinct dual polarity radios. They said they will measure F?B ratio, port to port isolation, etc. and get back to me.
Please take a look on our WiBOX system. There are different boxes where we mount various antennas, for example http://www.wireless-instruments.com/en/produkty/14/58/antennas-5-ghz/mimo/sector/wibox-sa-d4m5-90-17hvx.html . Here you have four polarity antenna, I expect you are looking for something like this. If you need 2 x H&V, we can also do it, no problem for us to mount them in our Extra Large WiBOX.
2.4 and 5.8 combined will work. But 2 5GHz Radios see each other without antenna connected. So there have to be good metal shielding between cards. And the antenna needs a good separation, too. If I see a manufacturer which will add a paper where he tested this configuration and measured all RF-aspects …
Did not see this so far. Just see a lot of plastic boxes 
).
We have good success with StellaDoradus Boxes and see good results adding the new Mars 19db directional Antennas with compartments (vary small) as sectors for small areas. Lot of metal gives good FB-Ratio. Using higher gain Antennas for small spots reduces interference a lot.
I’ve got 3 dual pol 2.4GHz sectors here, getting ready for additional shielding. The antenna itself works very well, but the front to back ratio is more like 10dB than the 30+ dB that the data sheets say.
I am setting up the sectors on the ground, shielding with metallic paint first, then with shields if I have to. Six foot horizontal separation shows around -25dB signal from the other sector. I’ve had issues with sectors with better signal shielding.
I had to set the tx power down from default (RB711 2HnDA) to around 15dBm to get the opposing sectors to receive each other around -38 dB.
The paint won’t protect you against co-located signals, of course depending on the paint, but effective paints are quite expensive. We have checked few paints, then decided to use metal shielding inside our WiBOXes.
Better than paint is aluminium foil, it would protect better, but not ideal.
The best option is to attenuate unwanted signals, there are special materials for it, which have been used in professional solutions, but this option is also expensive.
Just looking at the mounting brackett for this antenna and it would not survive the high wind conditions we encounter on a regular basis?
I have used conductive carbon paint and it does work but it needs to be sealed by say a layer of varnish paint to prevent carbon coming free and possible landing on a board and causing a short?
metal shielding inside our WiBOXes
Is very effective but I would consider that this shield could also be used to improve antenna performance by having it’s spacing (and possibly variable distance for different frequencies = different wavelengths) from the antenna element?
best option is to attenuate unwanted signals
The best solution is to use a bandpass filter between antenna and radio card
That’s interesting idea with the carbon paint, but I think it takes some time and effort to achieve it. We were looking for some technology which is fast and relatively cheap in production. We can’t paint ourselves every antenna interior. From many technologies we tested, there was no good option.
metal shielding inside our WiBOXes
Is very effective but I would consider that this shield could also be used to improve antenna performance by having it’s spacing (and possibly variable distance for different frequencies = different wavelengths) from the antenna element?
I don’t know what do you exactly mean, do you mean that the metal shield can interfere or mofidy antenna operation ?
best option is to attenuate unwanted signals
The best solution is to use a bandpass filter between antenna and radio card
Maybe the best, but in current times every WISP is looking for every eurocent. But also the attenuating foils or sponges cost some money. Reflecting materials are the cheapest and that’s main way to reduce interferences those days in wifi.
The spacing between antenna element and metal shield becomes a “Reflector Element” if set to a frequency wavelength (1/4 or 1/2 Wavelength ) this could help to amplify the forward gain of the signal coming from the antenna, like in the picture DIY booster used for wi-fi, where there is curve on the shield to achieve this?
Saving money is always important but when a WISP reaches a stage where co-location interference on a busy mast causes problems with customers or halts expansion, then purchasing cheaper products which cannot address this issue is not a option worth considering?
The cpes have to be cheap but at the basestation we do not look at every cent. Every db of missing gain or interference at the base is worth a lot of money. As it allows to connect more customers or give a better service. Basestations often are expensive to repair as a climbing team is neccessary so it does not help to save some cents on Antenna material.
You are right, on 5 GHz the wavelenght is around 5-6cm, we needed to be carefull with it. Not controlled “new” antennas can make a mess… the problem isn’t present in our solution.
I don’t tell that it’s not worth to consider, I wrote it in general. When you install bad antenna set on the mast then you can make angry every mast user. In the places where there is a lot of antennas, making shielding is very important. Our customers met with these problems, they solved it using RF absorbers → http://masttechnologies.com/rf-absorbers/. No problem with co-location interference, no problem with inducing elements, and no problem with neighbours.
No offence, everyday I hear the sentence of “why it’s so expensive” very frequently 
I share your view in the matter of base station antennas, it MUST be done great.
Regarding the client solutions we all know how does it work. UBNT started it with low-cost Nanostations, then MikroTik went towards the same.
Hehe, why do you think it won’t survive strong wind ? It’s made of fiber-glass material… on this mounting you can hang a car It’s the strongest point in whole system, believe me.
We will make some video with this mounting and its potential, maybe in 1-2 weeks. I need to find out how to hang a car there 
Just joking…
I don’t remember the name right now, I’ll post it shortly. $36 for a 12 to 16 ounce spray can, nickel based conductive paint. Not sure if it is going to be enough or not.
It maybe the strongest point on the antenna but we have seen damage done by constant high winds ( and this must be the reason why we now have a very density of wind turbine farms here in Ireland ?) , a heavy duty brackett is required like http://www.itelite.net/en/Katalog/Custom-Antennas/ which is also made for one antenna ?