Hi Chris
I have had a 15 mile one way , 2 gHz, 3 foot, 100 mw, RF link for my ISP for 7 years now, and it has never given me a problem. A 50 foot run of LMR 400 is used here. My grid dish has 23 dbi gain. A Cisco model 350 is in my computer. I will assume for the moment my experiences somehow fit your situation and might be useful to you. I use a telescoping Radio Shack mast to mount a vertically polarized Grid dish. The mast is mounted on a lower roof level , using an upper roof peak bracket to stabilize the mast. It is a good solid mounting. The antenna is looking down a water shed that falls away at 3 foot per mile. That clear all the trees. Trees are a real bad attn on 2.4 gHz The grid dish is mounted vertically ( dish rods in the vertical plane) because the ISP uses that polarization. If I were to consider using two dishes I would test two dishes side by side. Diversity reception ( using two receivers ) of two stacked vertically might cancel some signal when mama nature does her tricks. Where as what ever trick mama nature has in store should remain the same for two antennas side by side. The effective aperture of a dish is the physical size of the dish so the distance between is not as critical. Where as the above and below mounting has to do with how mama moves the signal vertically over time.
I hope this has provided some food for thought
Joe K0VTY ================== On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:56:02 -0700 Chris Huber cahuber@ucdavis.edu writes:
Hello,
I know this is off subject, I am looking for ideas on stacking 2 antennas. I am doing a 25 mile WiFi link on 2 GHz using 1 3 foot grid dish with horizontal polarity. I have a power divider and a second dish that I
want to mount directly above the first antenna.
Is the vertical spacing critical? Is there any advantage over close
spacing, ie. increase gain or wide spacing to give better path fade
protection.
Thanks for your time.
Chris N6ICW _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Many people don't realize they're running these 802.11 links above the legal EIRP limits for point-to-point (different than point-to- multipoint) links.
It's not like the FCC is running over themselves to police it, but we hams supposedly have more knowledge of what we're doing, and probably can hold ourselves to a higher technical standard and stay within the law... even if they don't seem to care much these days.
http://michwave.com/bbnetwork/faq/fcc.htm <- Aimed at people running WIreless ISP's, and a decent reference without having to dig through Part 15.
With the recent discussion here about 2.4 GHz "pollution" causing design changes to whole transponders on the AMSAT world-wide projects, it also seems a bit like we all want our Part 97 cake and then we want to eat the Part 15 cake too. (GRIN)
Joe's setup looks like it comes in under the wire for P-t-P, but Chris didn't say how much power he was going to put into his antenna setup, nor the feedline type (to calculate feedline loss, since power is measured at the input to the antenna for these EIRP limitations). And it's 1:30 AM... so I probably (more than a 90% chance!?) did the math wrong.
Do your own bad math, I'm perfectly bad at math without any outside assistance! (GRIN) ;-)
-- Nate Duehr, WY0X nate@natetech.com
participants (2)
-
k0vty@juno.com
-
Nate Duehr