You are here

Home » Forums » General discussion

PBE-M5-400 vs ISO

7 posts / 0 new
Log in or register to post comments
Last post
Fri, 06/02/2017 - 16:03
#1
KG7LMI
KG7LMI's picture
PBE-M5-400 vs ISO
We plan to mount a set of PBE-M5-400 systems between 2 mountain top towers ~ 41km apart. One of these mountains is very crowded, with a lot of other microwave gear nearby. Therefore, we were looking to deploy the ISO model of the PBE-M5-400 to gain better noise immunity. From what I can tell from the specs, the only difference is in packaging. Is this correct? Is support for the PBE-M5-400 ISO in 3.17.1.0RC1 also? 73, Rob
Top
Fri, 06/02/2017 - 17:16
K6AH
K6AH's picture
I intend to use the PBE-M5-400 ISO

Rob,

I have a PBE-M5-400 ISO mounted on a commercial tower and am planning to bring the 35-km link up in a few weeks.  Radio Mobile suggests nearly 24 dB fade margin.  I am hoping the ISO version will provide some additional immunity to co-located part 15 dishes on the tower.  Keep me posted as to your results... I'll do the same.

Andre, K6AH 
 

Top
Fri, 06/02/2017 - 18:58
KG7LMI
KG7LMI's picture
PBE-M5-400 ISO
Andre, You'll be done before we will! We're pre-staging the network to configure the nodes, servers, services, etc. We also have to wait a bit until we complete the design and implementation of a controller we are building that will have an audio mux (analog audio interface that will be digitized and packetized internally and sent out over Ethernet) so we can accomplish our first goal of linking 2 repeaters together. We're hoping to do the tower climb once for each tower given the logistical complexities. Have you installed 3.17.1.0RC1 on your node already? Any issues? Happy to keep you posted on our progress. Hope yours goes as planned. 73, Rob KG7LMI
Top
Fri, 06/02/2017 - 19:47
(Reply to #3)
K6AH
K6AH's picture
3.17.1.0RC1
I'm actually running the nightly development build on which the PBE-M5-400 was added, but I plan to upgrade to RC1 when I turn the link up.  I personally see no reason to be concerned about using RC1... the only significant issue the team is working is an apparent memory issue when tunnels are configured on the node.

Andre
Top
Fri, 06/02/2017 - 20:07
(Reply to #4)
KG7LMI
KG7LMI's picture
Thanks
Less concerned about RC1 than just getting confirmation that the ISO model is indeed electronically identical to the PBE-M5-400. If it's working, then either that is the case or they have provided support. Since it is not listed in the release notes I just want to confirm this before purchasing them (they are waiting in my shopping cart now :-)) 73, Rob KG7LMI
Top
Sat, 06/03/2017 - 10:02
(Reply to #5)
K6AH
K6AH's picture
Identical except...

It comes with a radome and shielding tube and the backside of the node has been sprayed with conductive paint.  IIRC it also uses the same UBNT Board ID,

Andre

Top
Sat, 06/03/2017 - 22:35
(Reply to #6)
KG7LMI
KG7LMI's picture
ISO model
Yes, I understand the packaging differences, just wanted to confirm software release support before we purchase these. If the board ID is the same, then I will assume that it is. This also makes sense, but you never know what they might have changed for some obscure reason ... Thanks again. 73, Rob
Top

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer