You are here

Nano

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kf7vol
Kf7vol's picture
Nano

Hello Group,

What would be the complications if any if I tried to build a near 360 deg coverage with ubiquity 2.4GHz nano's. Has anyone else tried this and what were you results?

I am trying to get near 360 deg coverage without using a bullet and an omni which I have heard do not yield the best results.

Thank you,

K6AH
K6AH's picture
Not good...

Several have tried it... and with Rockets and sector antenna as well.  They interfere with each other because they are on the same channel (-2).  You really need to use the 5 GHz band for that and spread the channels out.

Kf7vol
Kf7vol's picture
Understood.

Understood.

I'm thinking that one radio per band per sight then based on your experience then?

If that's the case. Im thinking for our location one 2.4 rocket may be the way to go. I have see many of those available. Beings we are looking for 360 deg coverage from our sight what omni antenna would you recommend? Seen a few out there but the price point seemed all over the board.

K6AH
K6AH's picture
AMO-2G10 or AMO-2G13

Using an omni approach will reduce the link distances due to the lower effective radiated power, but if you want to go that way the Ubiquiti ​AMO-2G10 or AMO-2G13 are the only ones I would consider.  They are MIMO (operate in both the vertical and horizontal planes simultaneously), a must for AREDN nodes.  Google them for more info.  They are more expensive, but you get what you pay for here.

KE2N
KE2N's picture
omni

I would caution that the Ubiquiti omni antennas have a built-in electrical down-tilt - they suppose you are going to put it up someplace really high.  If that is not your geometry, then you might consider the L-com brand which is similar in price (and quality I think) and does not have a down-tilt in the pattern.

If you are pinching pennies though, some members of our group have had good luck with the Altelix antennas. For example:
https://www.amazon.com/Altelix-Ubiquiti-RocketM2-MikroTik-BaseBox2/dp/B07KFL9QCV/

The quality seems good. It takes a few years to know for sure.




 

Kf7vol
Kf7vol's picture
Thank you for the info..

Thank you for the info..

It still sounds like the omni is not the best and I do understand and agree. I just don't want to miss potential users around the sight we are looking to access. I still feel like there may be a way to handle this that I am missing. I know I'm not the first person that wanted to do this. Some one has figured a way to do this well and efficiently.

 

nc8q
nc8q's picture
Some one has figured a way to do this well and efficiently.

Yes, the cellular telephone system with multiple channels and the ability to change channel and
the Amateur Radio Repeater system with assigned clear channels resulting in no hidden transmitters.

 There may be others, but I doubt that there are any using only channel '-2'.
If so, please speak up and show us how you did it.

 Are you willing to budge off of your desire to
"build a near 360 deg coverage with ubiquity 2.4GHz nano's" ?

 Equally important, are your existing or 'potential users' willing to invest in non 2.4 GHz devices.
 

KE2N
KE2N's picture
co-located

co-locating a number of AP's at the same location is a really common requirement and the problem has been studied extensively.  

Years ago Ubiquiti came up with a scheme called airSync that made all the AP's at a given location transmit at the same time and receive at the same time so that they did not interfere with each other. It used a Layer 3 UDP connection between AP's where one unit is the Master and the others "slaves".  But there was still the issue of what to do about the remote stations . So they had this idea of using GPS to synchronize the units. There were a lot of complicated design considerations like what to do when a station can hear more than one AP, or AP's at different locations can hear each other, etc..  Ubiquiti gave up on the Rocket M2-GPS (do you have one of the few ever made? keep it as a collectors' item).  They kept the feature in the Rocket M5 but, from comments on their forum, using it sometimes tended to reduce throughput under some conditions. Even with the synchronization scheme working, they recommended that you use different channels for each radio (part of the reason for dropping the feature on the M2, I imagine, since there are few channel choices).

Using 5 GHz radios (or 3 GHz) gives you enough channels to get the required spectrum spacing for a multiple-radio AP to work.  But, even there, you need shielding between the units for best results (or put them on opposite faces of a building, or water tank, and get shielding that way).

Anyway, here is an interesting article that touches on the topic of co-location and how you can calculate the expected throughput impact of mutual interference between AP radios.on adjacent channels (applies to your AREDN system):

https://community.ui.com/questions/Rocket-GPS-and-Airsync-FAQ/6d236e2d-8960-44ce-aae8-6b30196a02d8

= = = = 

The newer UBNT stuff has a version of this just called "GPS Sync". 
It's a duplex frequency arrangement where a 4xAP system requires two channels and  6 AP system uses 3 channels.  Read all about it:
https://dl.ubnt.com/guides/GPS-Sync/GPS_Sync_Design_Guide.pdf

 

Kf7vol
Kf7vol's picture
Thanks for the information..

Thanks for the information.. I will have to check this out and see what our users can and or are willing to do!

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer