sr9 and client distance
What are folks seeing with regard to distance and throughput with the SR9 900MHZ? Will these go 5-6 miles through a few trees (a few trees about mid way and a few more around the clients house)?
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
AP:SR9 in RB532 w/ 13 dbi 90 degree sector @ 110' EIRP 36 dbm
CPE: SR9 in RB112 w/ 13 dbi yagi @ 8' EIRP 36 dbm
Distance: 11.3 miles NLOS
Download to site on internet: 1.34 Mbps
Upload to site on internet: 800 Kbps
This is over a single T-1, so the SR9 link almost maxed out my T-1 @ 11.3 miles sitting right next to an operational Motorola Canopy 900 Mhz system. I was checking to see if the operational Canopy 900 Mhz system would cause interference on my 900 link.
At just about any location inside 8 miles, I could max out the T-1 on uploads and downloads. I was really impressed with the performance.
CPE: SR9 in RB112 w/ 13 dbi yagi @ 8' EIRP 36 dbm
Distance: 11.3 miles NLOS
Download to site on internet: 1.34 Mbps
Upload to site on internet: 800 Kbps
This is over a single T-1, so the SR9 link almost maxed out my T-1 @ 11.3 miles sitting right next to an operational Motorola Canopy 900 Mhz system. I was checking to see if the operational Canopy 900 Mhz system would cause interference on my 900 link.
At just about any location inside 8 miles, I could max out the T-1 on uploads and downloads. I was really impressed with the performance.
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
For right now the best information on the effect of rates, bandwidth are probably the following writeups by Ubiquiti.
Point-to-point:
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/SR9_Mtik_PtP.pdf
and point to multipoint:
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/SR9_Mtik_PMP.pdf
Our own experience closely matches the data therein.
Point-to-point:
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/SR9_Mtik_PtP.pdf
and point to multipoint:
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/SR9_Mtik_PMP.pdf
Our own experience closely matches the data therein.
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
I am just going to use the 5 mhz channels for now. If I expand later on, I may include some 10 mhz channels. I noticed that with one card on 5 mhz channels and 1 card on 10 mhz channels, the cards don't see each other. I guess they will add a little more noise but maybe not add significant interference to wach other.
You need a meter. For 900mhz only M2 makes a great little unit that will test your antenna and cable system any where on the 900mhz band. They also make great 14 and 17dbi yagi antennas. http://www.m2inc.com/main%20html/900acctemp.html
Erik
Erik
No, its a factor of the quality of the antenna design (decent design has low reflected power even over the relatively wide bandwidths required for this application), the quality of your connector workmanship (properly assembled connectors do not cause reflected power), and the assumption that the impedance of your antenna and cable are correct for the transceiver (a given if you're buying from Wifi vendors).There isn't a way to calculate based on what specs the Antenna and cable have?
Humm, Is there something different about the way the Moto 900 APs work then the 2.4 Moto. I only ask because a friend of mine was trying to add Moto 2.4 equipment to his Mikrotik network and as soon as he powers up the Canopy AP his MT APs just stop working. Even if they are on ch1(MT) and ch11(Moto). The Moto AP seems to kill the whole 2.4Ghz band.AP:SR9 in RB532 w/ 13 dbi 90 degree sector @ 110' EIRP 36 dbm
CPE: SR9 in RB112 w/ 13 dbi yagi @ 8' EIRP 36 dbm
Distance: 11.3 miles NLOS
Download to site on internet: 1.34 Mbps
Upload to site on internet: 800 Kbps
This is over a single T-1, so the SR9 link almost maxed out my T-1 @ 11.3 miles sitting right next to an operational Motorola Canopy 900 Mhz system. I was checking to see if the operational Canopy 900 Mhz system would cause interference on my 900 link.
At just about any location inside 8 miles, I could max out the T-1 on uploads and downloads. I was really impressed with the performance.
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
jcwn:
I am using some DB Products 90 degree 13 dbi sector antennas that are hand-me-downs from a cellular carrier. They have a 40 db F/B ratio and just perform awesome. The CPE side is a 13 dbi Hyperlink yagi. This is a little larger antenna than I would like to use, almost 5' long, I am planning to use a 9 or 10 dbi yagi, less than 3' long, in future installations. The configuration on the RB's are plain jane most config set to default.
jober:
I was testing around a competitors Moto 900 mhz system to determine if there would be any interference on the Mikrotik/Ubiquiti setup that I plan on using, before i spent the moolah for a large scale deployment. I could see no substantial interference.
I am using some DB Products 90 degree 13 dbi sector antennas that are hand-me-downs from a cellular carrier. They have a 40 db F/B ratio and just perform awesome. The CPE side is a 13 dbi Hyperlink yagi. This is a little larger antenna than I would like to use, almost 5' long, I am planning to use a 9 or 10 dbi yagi, less than 3' long, in future installations. The configuration on the RB's are plain jane most config set to default.
jober:
I was testing around a competitors Moto 900 mhz system to determine if there would be any interference on the Mikrotik/Ubiquiti setup that I plan on using, before i spent the moolah for a large scale deployment. I could see no substantial interference.
Last edited by slipstream1 on Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
Let me also state that I turned the power down to stay within FCC EIRP guidelines for 900 mhz, 36 dbm AP and Client side.
I do not see why we cannot get the ranges that the cellular carriers are getting, maybe even more. Yes, they can use higher power at the base station, but those little phones can only muster 100 mW or so max.
I do not see why we cannot get the ranges that the cellular carriers are getting, maybe even more. Yes, they can use higher power at the base station, but those little phones can only muster 100 mW or so max.
-
-
MyThoughts
Member Candidate
- Posts: 218
- Joined:
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
A bud of mine used to work for a cell company. They have amps on the tower as well to take those dinky phone signals and amplify them before they get to the receiver.I am aware of that, but we can generate more power at the client end. I think it will even out and improve the client end distance.
I agree, we should be able to get similar results as a handheld phone is like 500mw max, I don't even know if they hit that anymore.
Another benefit we have is fixed point to multipoint. The phones don't have much room for an antenna. Quite a few of the aftermarket cell phone antennas are only 3dBi and show signifigant improvement over stock.
-
-
slipstream1
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 52
- Joined:
I work in the cell phone industry also. Not all of the carriers use TTA's (tower top amps). Cingular is a big TTA user, but companies like Alltel do not.
I do not think that the modern cell phones reach 500 mW either. In hte search for more battery life, they are using smaller, less powerful transmitters. The digital technologies, CDMA, PCS, TDMA, and GSM use a lot less power than the old analog bay stations that Alltel and the like used. If I am not mistaken, in some areas, Alltel analog bay stations were cranking out close to 100 Watts, not mW but Watts. That would set the trees on fire.
Anyway, I am very optimistic about the SR9 and routerboard combos and how they will perform in the pineywoods region of Texas. I believe it will be another good tool to be used like alcohol, always best when used in moderation.
I do not think that the modern cell phones reach 500 mW either. In hte search for more battery life, they are using smaller, less powerful transmitters. The digital technologies, CDMA, PCS, TDMA, and GSM use a lot less power than the old analog bay stations that Alltel and the like used. If I am not mistaken, in some areas, Alltel analog bay stations were cranking out close to 100 Watts, not mW but Watts. That would set the trees on fire.
Anyway, I am very optimistic about the SR9 and routerboard combos and how they will perform in the pineywoods region of Texas. I believe it will be another good tool to be used like alcohol, always best when used in moderation.
-
-
gregdhayes
newbie
- Posts: 47
- Joined:
- Location: Osgood, IN
- Contact:
RB532/SR9 - Pac Wireless 120 deg Horiz Ant - 190' on tower.
Customer site: 20' off ground. RB112/SR9, pac wireless 15 Dbi Grid - 7 miles out, pretty heavy trees - Signal -70, noise -98.
Can do a Torch and get pretty consistant 11MB.
Another customer, Very heavy trees, rolling hills, 5.5 miles out, Ant 8' off the ground. Signal -80, same Torch speeds.
Using 2Ghz-10Mhz channel. Can't seem to connect anybody using 5Mhz channel???
Customer site: 20' off ground. RB112/SR9, pac wireless 15 Dbi Grid - 7 miles out, pretty heavy trees - Signal -70, noise -98.
Can do a Torch and get pretty consistant 11MB.
Another customer, Very heavy trees, rolling hills, 5.5 miles out, Ant 8' off the ground. Signal -80, same Torch speeds.
Using 2Ghz-10Mhz channel. Can't seem to connect anybody using 5Mhz channel???
We're fairly busy right now circling back and installing customers who did not want the expense or eyesore of a telescoping pole or truss for 2400mhz installations. Vegetation is a major problem for us but the 900 gear seems to be doing the trick so far.
If there's a challenge here, it's confining radiation from 900mhz APs, so as not to get too much overlap, a good problem to have on balance. That and Fresnel interference, which we've found can usually be overcome by tweaking CPE placement.
So far we're using RB112 CPE on 5mhz with good results. However we're already seeing hidden node issues crop up. MT, still waiting for that RTS control....
(and how about 802.11 MAC-level fragmentation too, while you're at it?)
If there's a challenge here, it's confining radiation from 900mhz APs, so as not to get too much overlap, a good problem to have on balance. That and Fresnel interference, which we've found can usually be overcome by tweaking CPE placement.
So far we're using RB112 CPE on 5mhz with good results. However we're already seeing hidden node issues crop up. MT, still waiting for that RTS control....
(and how about 802.11 MAC-level fragmentation too, while you're at it?)Who is online
Users browsing this forum: DanMos79 and 32 guests