SecurAlign NSMReflector.
https://www.streakwave.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=NSMReflector&eq=&Tp=&o1=0
If it seems to good to be true ..........
If anyone has experimented with these and has formed an opinion, good, bad or indifferent, please share.
If it works to effect a more robust link at the edges of normal NSM ranges for an intermediate (mid-mile) link at less cost than a Rocket w/sector or dish with the advantage over a Rocket of an additional 100mbs Ethernet port - might be useful for frequency translation to/from another NSM freq.
I'm thinking of 3GHz down to perhaps an NSM possibly running airOS as a largish 2.4GHz hotspot. An extra few pounds and reasonable cost that might provide substantial utility for temporary deployments.
OTOH, if it seems too good to be true ......
TIA
...dan wl7coo
You are here
Has anyone tried these?
Mon, 03/28/2016 - 22:52
#1
WL7COO
Has anyone tried these?
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
Andre
http://www.neobits.com/ubiquiti_networks_nb_5g25_us_ubiquiti_nanobridge_...
They are getting harder to find.... We bought 10 of them off of ebay from a WISP that was upgrading.
If they were the same price as the 5GHz NanoBridges I'd be all over them.
pax
...dan
We're also using an OMNI for an access point mesh node and then use the NBM5 nodes as end points (still mesh nodes, pardon the terminology). We've got one OMNI up and one dish up with 20DB SNR at 10km. I'd say this is the max distance I'd put a node hitting back to the OMNI.
You can see the nodes (except for the node hitting the OMNI) on the beta map:
http://usercontent.aredn.org/K/5/K5DLQ/livemap.html
Look at Bloomington, IL.
see
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/NanoStation-and-Loco-Devices/Install-a-NanoStation2-LoCo-on-Reflector-How/td-p/189323
Within this discussion chain you will see the internals of the loco and the full nanostation.
The full nanostation has two patch antennas. Only one of them can be at the focus of the dish.
So the technical basis for boosting the loco is better than the full nano.
But then if you are trying to reach long distances, why are you using a loco (rhetorical question)?
to one location or repeater antennas that are 5/8 over 5/8 it creates on generic pattern.
I am not an antenna design expert however so could be wrong on this.
A trip through google searches brought me to an interesting observation. While gain certainly varies by frequency on these dishes, the focal point does not change.
Here's a good backgrounder by N1BWT:
http://www.qsl.net/n1bwt/chap4.pdf
I believe the multiple LNB's are arranged to point at different satellites - which are in different points in the sky in the geosynchronous orbit "belt" - the satellites are effectively in a line. You could say the antenna has more than one boresight.
If one got really clever, a horizontal nano-station/parabola antenna could be used for two point-to-point links ... if the two stations were in exactly the right orientation ;-)
The feed for a parabolic dish needs to be a "point source" for perfect results. Of course, all real-world antennas are bigger than a point, but dish feeds are generally designed to concentrate their radiation into as small an area a possible. A single patch is already a bit large. Many parabolic dish antennas use a "horn" type of feed (Ubiquiti dishes do).
To stretch the analogy with stacked beam antennas - the stacked beams have two reflectors. Here we have only one reflector. It can only be located properly with respect to one of the patch antennas. And location of the feed point relative to the focus of the dish is rather critical. If you manage to get both patches at the right focal distance simultaneously, they will each have a different "boresight". Assuming a vertical orientation, that means you will have one beam on the horizon and the other beam either up at the sky or down on the ground.
Paul Wade (W1GHZ) has written some very readable material on this subject.
table of contents
http://www.w1ghz.org/antbook/contents.htm
I can't say that I know the direct thread you are referring two but I can think of a couple Part 15 regulations (Modification of a radio Device, use of an unapproved antenna [the reason RP-SMA was used for wifi], or exceeding EIRP. All of which can affect Part 15 users but have zero on us as Part 97 operators who have different regulations to comply with which while they exist are much looser.
I would be much more worried about RF exposure on these bands than I am about max legal output power as exposure is very easy to get into the danger zone. (You shouldn't put your hand directly in front of a NanoStation at full power as IIRC the Part 15 filing called out MPE distance as at least a few inches away )