am i gonna reduce noise with this?
am i gonna reduce noise with this?
It depends while you have shielded sides you have omitted part of the back of the SXT and being plastic will allow RF signals through, my home brew is here http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/nv2-disconnect-problem/55769/1
(sextant in picture is not mine)
20mm copper foil painted over with conductive paint and earthed which after a quick test greatly reduced signal pickup from rear.
tin roof plate. i also ground the plate to the tower’s body
I somewhere saw RFI/EMI shielding spray, I think it’s cooper based or is at least conductive. I do believe inner side of laptop bottom covers are covered by some similar coating and I wonder if it would help SXT’s or SEXTANTs to reduce back-pollution. If DIY solution with spray turns out effective, MT could consider coating back cover with similar paint/surface..
I have used on my network with success DIY modifications using conductive paint, copper tape
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Supplies:_Shielding/Conductive_Shielding_Paint.html?actn=100101&xst=3&xsr=45541
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Supplies:_Shielding/Conductive_Copper_Tape.html?actn=100101&xst=3&xsr=5090
From which it has stopped NV2 disconnects due to co-location interference and reduced unwanted signal pickup on a SXT. MT have now available the http://routerboard.com/RBMetal5SHPn which has high output, waterproof, metal shielding, the only reservation I have about this unit, it is a pity a 90° N connector was not used, I would prefer if MT produced a plastic enclosure with a metal shielded unit inside, the plastic would solve the weather proofing, corrosion, moisture condensation build-up caused by cold nights and sunshine in the morning, etc. - issues that could occur if a metal enclosure was used,
i could not more than agree to this 
where can i get such spray? i’ve never seen something like this here
I did a few years in EMC testing and I am surprised that nobody at MT has considered using conductive materials in the plastic injection moulding.
I came across many products that were made of plastic, but were also conductive (like an EMC shield designed to keep the radiation in), it would also keep the unwanted RF out and improve SNR further. I am sure all of us would be happy to pay an extra euro for the modified plastics.
While price is important it is not the most consideration in a commercial environment, I would rate stability + performance, build quality with good RF screening and rugged design much higher than price of units on a mast.
The truth is that SXTs & SEXTANTs are targeted at general audience and are considered as CPEs, not carrier class units, but many of us still use it on AP sites due to its ability to ensure quite satisfying results. Mostly for short-range P2P links. While shielding would help at busy towers, they are not that much needed at customer side. So at this point I think everything depends on how much buck that shielding solution would add.
Another thing is that RF physics are not that easy and everything has to be carefully calculated and tested by people that know what they are doing. I for example bought today some high quality aluminum heat-shielding tape and laid all the backcover of one SXT & SEXTANT each and now I’m not sure if it does more good or bad (multipath reflections)..
I usually use in my test setup make note of signal reading before the start of modifications and then compare after for example on one live AP I noted all CPE’s signal + CCQ removed the AP from brackett (so it would be put back exactly in the same position) then after RF screening was done compare the CPe’s signal + ccq for any reduction in signal which would indicate a change in AP TX beamwidth as this did not happen I concluded that beamwidth remained the same, this works for me until some manufacturer builds a AP which they can certify works NV2 in noisy locations and is tolerant to co-location interference.