See Page 15 of the current NanoBridge M3/M365/M9 Quick Start Guide, "Specifications" in particular.
www.ubnt.com/download/airmax-m/nanobridgem/default/nanobridge-m3m365m9-q...
The reference to Gain shows "NSM3/NSM365" as 21.5 - 22.4 dBi and for the 900 MHz "NBM900" as 10.6 - 11.3 dBi.
Can anyone or has anyone already confirmed that a 5 pack box of 3Ghz/900Mhz dishes and Mounts labeled "NanoBridge Offset Dish Antenna Model:NB-OD9" and mounts that fit the NSM3 perfectly, coupled with 2014/2015 production NSM3s will be identical to a NanoBridge M3 or not?
The QSG shows different mounting arms for the 3Ghz and 900Mhz radios that are different colors. This box clearly has the 3GHz version. See pages 2 and 7.
A smart Liquidator picked up the lot. No NSM3s, just M3 Rockets, & Omnis but he almost gave away the box of NanoBridge antennas that were in that lot because he had no NSM3's to pair with them.
The Dishes are heavy however to increase the EIRP with a 22 dBi antenna for 'high level' links over the 13 dbi of an NSM3 or the 18 dBI 120 degree on a Rocket M3, it is probably well worth paying a younger certified (and probably way better qualified) tower climber to install them or purchase a decent pulley to leave above wherever they go.
If no one knows with certainty, it will be almost fun setting up a test and confirming whether current NSM3s will function with apparently that much additional gain of EIRP and no unanticipated issues.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate how these 3GHz Ubiquiti Rockets, Omnis and NanoBridge Dishes appeared on ebay to be shipped from within the U.S. by a Liquidator who purchased them in the U.S. from a large Federal Contractor.
TIA & 73
...dan wl7coo
You are here
Are the "M3" NanoStation and "M3" NanoBridge the same radio?
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 19:29
#1
WL7COO
Are the "M3" NanoStation and "M3" NanoBridge the same radio?
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
i put odds you have a 900mhz arm as the manual describes is not the same as the m3 arm. The photo implies the aim is different between the two but I haven't had "hands on" with either but would make sense position is different based on frequency.
The photos on page 7 show that bracket the NBM900 slips onto is clearly much shorter then the NSM3 Support Tube bracket which the NSM3 does fit onto nicely. There is either a minute dimensional difference in the length of the lower clamp or the mount bracket flange is slightly tapered, it was just a scoche harder to fully seat than on the Ubiquiti Window/Wall mount plastic flange and I was being a little timid about fully seating it.
If no one has first hand information about the subject I'll seat it and test it in place alternately with a standard NSM3 against a third at some distance.
The ambiguity found on old (5 or 6 years ago) references to this topic in the ubnt.com 'Community' Forum had to do with observations that the NBM900 (I think it was a Loco) had only a single antenna.
Someone else claimed the NSM3 of that era used in the NanoBridge M3 also had a single antenna and they surmised that the NMS3 had dual antennas like the dual antenna of the NBM900.
I'm confused, not by what the Quick Start Guide says but rather by my inability to confirm whether or not the NSM3 is the radio portion of the NanoBridge M3.
73 & Thanks
...dan wl7coo
I do not have a nanobridge M3 but here is a NS M3. The antenna patches are spread over about 6-1/2 inches. I would expect the bridge version has only one or two patches to fit within the focus of the dish - anyone want to open one and share?
Short story: the internal antenna of the NB3 is different than the standard NS3 (see my other post)..
The reflector is egg-shaped and makes (surprise) an egg-shaped reflection. But the image is not oblong enough to cover all three antennas in a standard Nano Beam. The Nano Bridge radio, on the other hand, could be used with any dish (no egg required) although an offset dish would be better to minimize aperture blockage. Covering a dish with aluminum foil is an interesting way to see the shape of the focal plane - but be careful!
Three patches, maybe they are different.
73
...dan wl7coo
So here's my less than scientific analysis.
The Ubiquiti spec for the NanoBridge M3 is Power = 25 dBm; Antenna gain = 22 dBi
For the NanoStation, the spec is Power = 25 dBm; Antenna gain = 13 dBi
Assuming they are identical, and if you’ve mounted the radio correctly, you should expect about 9 dB in additional gain from the reflector.
When I pointed my NanoStation M3 alone directly at my Palomar Mtn node 26 miles away, I measured an SNR of 6 dB (with some variability up to as much as 9 dB).
When I mounted the NanoStation to a re-purposed DishNetwork reflector in approximately the same position as illustrated in the Ubiquiti spec sheet I measured an SNR of 15 dB (with some variability up to as much as 20 dB).
So it appears I achieved the theoretical maximum, 9 dB, gain from the reflector… and perhaps more when you consider the positive variability.
In the end, does mounting an NSM3 on a NB dish (or similar, as in my case) get you the gain you need? Whether the NSM3 radio/internal antenna is identical to the NBM3 or not is really only interesting from a theoretical perspective. My casual analysis suggests they could be. But in the end, try it and see if it works well enough for you.
Andre, K6AH
I agree wholeheartedly with the try-it-and-see.
My idea was that maybe the NB antenna was just the NS antenna with a couple of circuit traces cut off. If someone were to show us the NB antenna we could tell if that was the case, or if the antenna was a totally different one. In the former case, a couple minutes with an Xacto knife might pay off handsomely.
Ken
I'm confused, Ken. I thought we were beginning to align on the NanoBridge M3 being a more economical solution than mounting an NanoStation M3 on a dish (unless you happened to have both laying around). My analysis suggests it doesn't matter whether you use a NanoBridge radio or a NanoStation radio... they both produce similar results. So even if there is a difference in the NB and NS internal antennas, where's the handsome payoff in cutting an antenna trace?
Andre
Yes - this is all based on you having access to NSM3's and finding dishes for a low cost. I was just trying to optimize that situation.That was the first posting in the email chain, after all. My comments contain nothing on economic analysis or buying the NBM3 new.
If you are buying new, it's pretty straightforward. I happen to own four NSM3's already so I have some interest in the retrofit option.
Maybe model the antennas? If someone could accurately measure dimensions ... tapered lines and all ... a model would be pretty easy.
-Jeff W9NIZ
If I remember the 2.4 and 5 GHz NMs have circular dishes. I'm mildly disappointed that the fit is not perfect so the NBM radio is not specifically identical the NSM3. I'm not too concerned because I too suspect it will be useful elsewhere.
Thanks, 73
....da wl7coo
I did however order a pair of the NBM3 radios to go along with 2 of the 5 NanoBridge antennas that were part of the liquidators' 3GHz pile.
Time and motivation permitting we (not the 'royal we' there is another retired Amateur in the county who has done some research re: Physics and Microwave) may try to make some throughput tests between the two radios on the same dish.
If the radios are the same and the antenna's alone differ, shouldn't we be able to reproduce the same performance with an NSM3 as the factory NBM3?
So, re: lining the offset dish w/ aluminum foil, do you speak from experience?
How would we be careful other than having a fire extinguisher handy.
Will we see the actual outline of the reflection .... going up in smoke?
I'm thinking this might be an exciting way to compare the focus area on the dish, prior to trying to arrive at any relative metrics.
Still need to determine whether the mount needs to modified so the center of the NSM3 will sit where the center of the NBM3 does.
pax, 73
...dan wl7coo
I would not use the solar reflection method on a dish that is designed to focus on a small spot (a point, essentially). There are other ways to find the focal point ( see - http://www.qsl.net/n1bwt/chap5.pdf )
But I knew this dish was going to produce a large focal area, possibly with an asymmetrical shape - I wanted to see the details of the focal plane, not just find a point.
Being careful - your target should not be dark colored material (because it will get too hot) and you should wear dark glasses because a light colored target will be dazzlingly bright. Since even an asymmetrical dish still had a lot of symmetry: it is not necessary to plate-out the whole reflector. A couple "stripes" of foil up/down and diagonally should be enough to produce a pattern.
You can see from the design of the internal patch antenna that the standard mounting arrangement will center the radiation at a point about two inches from the end of the NB3 radio. On the standard NS this is a point right in between patch 1 and patch 2, leaving patch 3 'out in the cold'. But the focal area seems to be considerably bigger than just one patch and would probably cover most of patch 1 and 2. I would guess this still gives you reasonable gain - just that it will have a lobe pointed up the the sky and some energy will be lost due to that third patch becoming a radiator, rather than "gatherer" of energy.
If you felt like experimenting, I could suggest sliding the unit up about 2-1/2 inches so that the spot is focused on the center patch which we know is about 3-1/2 inches from the end of the unit. You would want to make some measurements of gain vs tilt angle to see what the pattern looked like. Actually, you probably want to do that even with the mount in the OEM location.
Your explanation is wonderfully educational.
The challenge is clearly going to be deferring putting these to use on a Mtn or Tower for long enough to ascertain actual differences in gain and receive sensitivity.
My inherent traits of laziness and slothfulness will be encouraging acquisition of 3 more NBM3s and accepting your explanation as sufficient.
In the unlikely event we are able to do some testing, any results not already noted will be willingly shared.
Do you know if anyone has yet put Ubiquiti 3 GHz 26 dBi Rocket Dishes to work for AREDN 3 GHz long hauls?
Are there other Manufacturer's higher gain 3GHz dishes available?
Thanks again, 73
...dan wl7coo
I use them on the San Diego Backbone and am achieving pretty good results. Across a 48.8 mile span I obtain 100 LQ with data rates reported in Mesh Status at from 39-51 Mbps. The link would likely benefit from one more re-pointing exercise. I've attached current snapshots of the Mesh Status screens. The RocketDish is definitely pricier than the NB, but is also much more robust and will support RF Armour. These nodes are on 6000'+ peaks and weather some on the worst SoCA has to offer.
Andre, K6AH
Given ability to effect DtD connectivity at each end, would you use AREDN or AirOS, current version for these longer hauls (> 20+- miles)?
So far, other than Bullion <=> Oso I think we'll be able to interconnect Sacramento & Fresno via AREDN with links less than your 48 miles.
As always, sage advice based on experience is valued.
73, ...dan wl7coo
I'm currently using AREDN firmware in all my nodes. The plan is to go to an AirOS bridged backbone, but until node-count and traffic warrant it... it hasn't become a priority yet. Michael Brown, KG9DW, was also asking about this so let me elaborate for the both of you. I think there are some advantages of a collapsed backbone. It certainly simplifies the routing and reduces the OLSR hop-count, and I think it's reasonable to give a hardened/robust infrastructure backbone a routing advantage over more ad-hoc alternative routes. There's also likely a point you reach where the additional layer-2 traffic overwhelms this advantage.
I'd be eager to see someone implement that architecture. Tom King, KA6SOX, (Southern CA AREDN implementer from Santa Barbara to points north) was planning a network using AirOS down to the mid-mile layer (leaving AREDN only to the lowest, deployed user, layer). I'm wondering how that's going. Perhaps we can flush him out of the the woodwork to comment on his experiences.
A two site backbone is easy - use AirOS to create a bridge between two nodes, let the DtD stuff do its magic, and you're golden. Where I'm less clear is when I have three sites. Do you bridge radio one at site 1 to radio two at site 2, then a third radio at site 2 to radio four at site 3? And are all three sites on the same IP broadcast domain (same subnet)? They would be if you're doing transparent bridging, but that may not be the best solution. There are a lot of single points of failure in this network design (any of 4 radios failing would cause site 3 to be down).
What we really need around here is a WISP design person!
Ideally (money falls from trees) there would also be an AREDN mesh node at sites 1, 2, and 3. This enables clients or downlinks to occur at every hop. Thus, there's always only a P2P bridge over a single AirOS TDMA link.
Note, using DtDlink in this way should have a config change to OLSR. Currently, if the link quality over DtDlink goes below 90%, it will remove the link from the routing tables. This parameter may need to be manually changed to have a lower threshold similar to the current RF link threshold (can't remember off-hand is something like 20% or 40%) -- to avoid the link bouncing.
There have been many discussions in side emails, this forum, and other groups on this issue. I think there are 3 approaches (from the AREDN centric view):
1) AREDN DtD like link that goes over the top of a bridged TDMA link. -> tuning issues with OLSR to address, IP address coordination, and other?
2) AREDN 'tunneling' over a foreign network (44.x.x.x or other). -> coordinating with multiple gateways and default routes on the mesh
3) AREDN 'tunneling' over a foreign network /w access to services on the foreign network -> getting into BGP implementation with multiple foreign networks involved
Joe AE6XE
If you want redundant links you need to use MicroTik Routers with OSPF. You make a large ring and if one link goes down the traffic will just go the other direction. This is the way our WISP network is setup. Each tower site needs to have its own subnet. As sites are added or dropped from OSPF the routing table is updated across the network. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:OSPF-examples
This is what our network layout is.
We have Fiber Connections at each end and one in the middle. So if at any time we lose a link or a Fiber the network still runs just at a reduced speed.
73
K5MOB
All NanoStations are the same as their NanoBridge counter Parts, They just mount them to a reflector. UBNT Reflectors SUCK!
The only ones that differ are the NanoBridge M2 and M5 as they are just a dual polarity bullet mounted in a case that can snap into a parabolic dish. Just a bit of FYI the NB2M, NB5M, Bullet2M, Bullet5M, AirGrid, and Pico Station all use the same internal PCB. Just as the Rockets and UniFi units use the same internal boards. UBNT is like General Motors the reuse as much as they can. I can edit the RedBoot of any UBNT device and make it think it is its brother.
I have used MikroTik SXTs and UBNT M365 & M900 NanoStations on a mix of aftermarket and homemade reflectors with no issues. The antennas in different generations of UBNT NanoStations are a bit different but the performance difference is negligible. The best performance reflector I have put my hands on is the KP Performance units, Infact all antennas they make are second to none!
We use few reflectors now days, we try to use grids with rockets or similar. A grid has better wind load and rockets have more frequencies than the NanoStations. Plus our current upgrade path will be to Mimosa Networks gear that support 1Gbps transfer with beam forming. So by installing the grids when it is upgrade time we just go out and swap the radio and the grid stays in place. I have attached photos of some of the stuff we use.
UBNT NanoStation on KP Performance Reflector
MikroTik SXT on KP Performance Reflector
Alfa Networks Reflector This will work with any thing you can mount to the pipe and they are 25 dollars each shipped. It has about 2db less than the KP but is half the price and does not require a custom mount for each different product!
Homemade single pole BiQuad on a PrimeStar dish. We shot our first 30 mile link with one of these back in 2003 using modified Linksys Routers! We will invert the dish on the mounting bracket so we can shoot straight instead of up into the sky.
Commercial 5ghz feedhorn that will mount in the Andrew style dish "PrimeStar dish". You just replace the LNBf with this unit.
5ghz feedhorn installed on FTA dish.
Commercial 2ghz feedhorn that will mount in the Andrew style dish "PrimeStar dish". Same deal as the 5ghz just replace the LNBf.
22db@2ghz and 29db@5ghz dual pole grid from acantenna sold by 4netonline. 2ghz or 5ghz use the same reflector but different feedhorns, This unit is used with a UBNT rocket or similar radio. This is the perfered setup over installing a NanoStation or SXT on a reflector. It cost a few dollars more but hands down has better wind load and equal or better performance RF wise.
Grid made by WisNetworks, same is ACantenna unit but a heavyer duty. You must buy these in lots of 50 and have them imported as there is currently no dealer in the US for them. We are working an agreement to be the US dealer for WisNetworks.
MikroTik LGH-5 with integrated 24.5db reflector Retail price $60
NanoBridge M2 mounted on a device called a CommDeck. The CommDeck allows you to mount to the shingles and not destroy the roof. You trim some of the shingles out and slide the CommDeck under the shingles and screw it to the roof deck. You then drill a hole through the roof deck and route the wire into the attic. CommDecks run about $50 each if buy them wholesale. If you decide to remove the equipment you simply unbold the mount and put the bolts back in the CommDeck and it looks like a roof vent on the roof. The CommDeck is rated to hold a SlimLine 36" DirecTV dish.
73
K5MOB
This is all very interesting, but as a caution to readers, only the specific references to NanoStation and NanoBridge are compatible with AREDN... Unless of course your building a traditional routed wireless network.
Not so my friend! Mikrotik Routerboards can run OpenWRT so there is no technical reason it cannot run AREDN. Plus if you are going to use the Mikrotik units as backhaul with AREDN mesh nodes at each local pop/tower the software on the backhaul does not matter. If you are not going to use AREDN as the backhaul I highly recommend you use the MikroTik units as they are cheap they have a 10foot interface plus have way less issues with Static EMF than UBNT equipment.
Even if you use all UBNT equipment the NanoStation and NanoBridge are not the only radios that work, The Rockets, AirGrids and Bullets also work. They are all the same unit internaly. Infact you install the same openwrt firmware on most of them. The only time you need a differant firmware is if you change hardware platform Ie a Rocket XM and Rocket XW will use different builds of firmware as the chipset is different
http://www.aredn.org/content/supported-platform-matrix.
K5MOB
K5MOB, We've not yet had a compelling reason to port MikroTik hardware to the AREDN supported platform list -- wasn't any articulated benefits in capability that we'd get beyond what we already have with existing AREDN supported platforms. There is non-trivial effort to add support for new hardware, it's not a slam dunk just because it can run OpenWRT.
Having said that, are the MikroTik devices you are referring to, with better static EMF immunity, based on ath9k? How much better? Any way to quantify, e.g. failure rates? Moving away from ath9k is a major jump in risk and effort--given our tweaks to part 97 channels and long distance links.
Joe AE6XE
to support some kind of Collapsed Back Bone for longer hops that may or may not have MESH connectivity between the loci? I think I'm asking about the relative efficiencies you refer to between multi hop MESH and OSPF and whether OLSR can (already does) incorporate reasonable route decisions if there is a single hop, faster alternative available?
No need to re-invent or even help spin another wheel.
By way of a brief update;
People are working and playing very well with each other!
CA SJV Merced & Mariposa Counties don't yet have a persistent Gateway or much in the way of Tunnels, but RSN.
Asterisk PBX, NAS and Apache are all extremely useful !!
4 radios on Little Bullion. Anticipate 4 more on Big Bullion within weeks. Each site with a 2.4, a 5.8 and a pair of 3GHz on different channels.
Jason KG6H is making serious headway to the North and West, we'll be connecting via RF soon enough.
Research into MicroSIP & Jitsi continues at no expense to other implementation efforts. There may be potential for Pt to MPt integration for training approximating simultaneous AV and Meshchat type utility, very early stages, apparent new anomalies surfacing almost daily in both of those apps.
Yes Trevor we're sincerely rooting for you and learning a bit along the way<g>.
TIA & 73
...dan wl7coo
This thread originally started out talking about the 3 GHz units and has wandered into different areas.
Its clear that the NB and NS have different patch antennas inside the box. So - for 3 GHz - they are not the same unit,
Having said that, the KP Performance reflector is very flat in the vertical plane and, if it is just a bit flatter that the UBNT reflector, then I think it will produce a focal plane that is big enough to encompass all three patch antennas in the standard 3 GHz NS. It looks very interesting for retrofit applications (as opposed to, say, selling your nano stations on eBay and buying M3's and Rocket Dishes)..
I got my hands on one of the KP Performance reflectors. I was hoping tht it would produce a focus that was taller than it was wide to match the NSM3 with its three patch antennas. But it looks like a kind of "roundish" spot which would not quite cover the three patches vertically. I think this is really just a satellite dish with a holder for the nano station and - while I am sure that it is better than nothing - it is not as good as it could be (IMHO).
(The white card in the photo is the same height as a Nano Station and twice as wide.)
I've been emailing with the vendor, KP Performance Antennas. Here is what they say (there are 2 antenna sizes):
"The large dish is about a 2-3 dbi gain over the standard dish, depending on the frequency. Unfortunately we don't have spec sheets for the reflectors as they aren't an antenna, and we manufacture them for a few different radio manufacturers. The big problem for us is they would have to be tested by the radio manufacturer because the radio isn't ours, so we can't release a spec sheet for someone else's radio. "
Joe AE6XE
I suppose you would have to do some antenna range measurements to get the final say. RF measurements close to the ground have a lot of uncertainty.
The Ubiquiti reflector is 17"x22". The KP one I tested measures 18"x23" so it is unlikely to have much more gain (given the shape of the pattern).
I have now posted pictures of the internal antenna of the NB3 and NS3 and focal patterns of the Ubiquiti reflector and the KP reflector.(UB24EWIFIDBI).
But I see that there is a "new" product on the KP site (UB24EWIFIDBI-4LD) - dimensions are not given (!) but it appears to be the same width only taller. This likely would fix the deficiency I identified with the pattern not being quite tall enough for the 3-patch nanostation.
The main problem with these dishes is that they are designed to be mounted on a wall or roof - which is fine if that is what you are doing.
No provision is made for mounting on a mast - which is what most hams do, I think.
From the vendor, "the regular dish are 23” by 18.5” and the larger dish is 28” by 23.5” ". Thus, 5" wider and 5" taller. Jury still out if this fully covers the NanoStation 3-patches... The web site does not show the larger dish 4-pack in stock at present, but sounds promising that they can redirect or find one for me.
The vendor dimensions are the extremes of the measurement, including a "lip" around the edge that may serve as an RF choke, but is not part of th reflecting surface.
If you happen to be in Virginia, I can make one of the small ones available ;-)
I received the 4-pack of the large reflectors and promptly put it on the roof paired with a NSM2 secondary and marginal link out from my QTH. The primary is a NSM3 going 5 miles and I'm happy with the throughput, so will leave it alone.
Attached is the before/after on the other end of the SNR bump achieved. Note, this link is 12 miles and there are a couple rows and blocks of houses that it skims over the top of. It's got to be infringing in the freznel zone, so can't say this is an ideal test. But still good results. I'll post a pic of the sun pattern probably this weekend.
Joe AE6XE
but did not specify the freq.
It is the same video for both sizes and their 'comparison', as you noted makes no mention of gain.
What did you think of the build quality and mounting hardware in general?
After pricing the 3 GHz, 26 db Ubiquiti Dishes, these are looking pretty seductive.
If (as unlikely as it feels) you haven't already re-homed the ones you aren't using, I'm interested.
Is the big difference between the Rocket and NSM, other than the slight difference in TX power, the Rocket's Rx sensitivity is better than the NSM given similar gain situations?
If I remember there is only 1 or 2 -dbm difference in Tx power for the 3GHz comparison.
TIA & 73
...dan wl7coo
I assume the plastic holder which tightens around the NanoStation is the right material to not decay in the UV, get brittle, and break. Time will tell. I'm ready for the sun to be out tomorrow to see the pattern. This reflector will be wiggling around in a 100 mph wind, it is not that thick, if it doesn't tear off. The square edges on the outside of the oval curled back behind give it the strength. I'd be a bit nervous if these were mounted up on a tower not easily accessible--I suspect they are going to take more maintenance trips and might make an excellent hawk perch. I'll be using these on easy to reach places.
The rocket also has 2x the RAM @ 64Mb compared to the NanoStation with only 32Mb. Some of the recent out-of-memory issues with loading down a device with meshchat and tunnels are not showing up on Rockets. Overall the rocket is meant for the 'tower' site rather than a NS at the "customer premise". Thus, generally more robust.
It looks like I already have locations for all of these. 1) My roof, 2) upgrade going in at San Juan Capistrano, 3) scheduled a trip in July to install one at JPL to hook them in, and one to have portable... They're going fast :) .
Joe AE6XE
KP's video on these showed it mounted on what looked like a 1.75 or 2" mast.
Am I missing something?
TIA & 73
...dan wl7coo
Sorry - this is re Msg #32.
K5MOB