From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 23:07:52 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:07:52 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] Ubiquiti SR9 Message-ID: <000901c75de8$c6b58850$04000100@hp> Just curious if any hams have experimented with the Ubiquiti's Super Range 9.? From kb9mwr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 5 20:56:30 2007 From: kb9mwr at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:56:30 -0600 Subject: [Ham-80211] Ubiquiti SR9 Message-ID: <000901c75f68$c1ac98e0$6301a8c0@hp> Alright, perhaps I should have posted more about it. http://www.ubnt.com/sr9_faq.php4 http://www.wlanparts.com/product/SR9 It's about the same price as the Aerocomm ConnexLink, but a lot faster. At almost a watt, comparable power. While the Aerocomm units are FHSS, these are not, they are 802.11 like clones, so you can have them in 802.11b = DSSS or 802.11g = OFDM. I found a new notes: There are a few requirements one must follow with SR9 cards, that have been pointed out by Ubiquiti: *) The card does not perform well if rate exceeds 18Mbps *) 802.11b mode is recommended, as 802.11g is very prone to interference with the SR9 *) You must use long preamble at all times This persons testing has shown that the optimal TX power setting is 15. I stumbled into only one other report so far. Where they "punched 5 miles through some trees and houses. Using attic mounted antennas (13db) and the Ubiquiti SR9 cards they could get a signal to noise between 10 and 20 and move a couple of megs of data at the home." Since 2.4 is so trashed, this is interesting. And I'd like to hear more reports where people use them in similar "less than ideal" situations. I noticed they sell a 900MHz Cavity Filter, so that makes you wonder if thats going to be needed or for just really bad areas... You could add a 3 watt Hyperlink bidierectional amp to it, for plug and play people. It really boils down to how well it does with other near by signals. But even with that pricey amp, you beat the price comparison to a D-Star ID-1 setup. Those are my thoughts. I'd like to hear more about it. From wispa at oregonfast.net Tue Mar 6 01:57:52 2007 From: wispa at oregonfast.net (George Rogato) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:57:52 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] Ubiquiti SR9 In-Reply-To: <000901c75f68$c1ac98e0$6301a8c0@hp> References: <000901c75f68$c1ac98e0$6301a8c0@hp> Message-ID: <45ECCAA0.6070700@oregonfast.net> Hi Steve, the wisps have been using sr9's for a few months now. There have been good reports about them. Problem is for some wisps is they are not certified with anything at this point. Hope this is helpful. George Steve wrote: > Alright, perhaps I should have posted more about it. > > http://www.ubnt.com/sr9_faq.php4 > http://www.wlanparts.com/product/SR9 > > It's about the same price as the Aerocomm ConnexLink, but a lot faster. > At almost a watt, comparable power. While the Aerocomm units are FHSS, > these are not, they are 802.11 like clones, so you can have them in > 802.11b = DSSS or 802.11g = OFDM. > > I found a new notes: > There are a few requirements one must follow with SR9 cards, that have > been pointed out by Ubiquiti: > *) The card does not perform well if rate exceeds 18Mbps > *) 802.11b mode is recommended, as 802.11g is very prone to interference > with the SR9 > *) You must use long preamble at all times > This persons testing has shown that the optimal TX power setting is 15. > > I stumbled into only one other report so far. Where they "punched 5 > miles through some trees and houses. Using attic mounted antennas > (13db) and the Ubiquiti SR9 cards they could get a signal to noise > between 10 and 20 and move a couple of megs of data at the home." > > Since 2.4 is so trashed, this is interesting. And I'd like to hear more > reports where people use them in similar "less than ideal" situations. > I noticed they sell a 900MHz Cavity Filter, so that makes you wonder if > thats going to be needed or for just really bad areas... > > You could add a 3 watt Hyperlink bidierectional amp to it, for plug and > play people. It really boils down to how well it does with other near > by signals. But even with that pricey amp, you beat the price > comparison to a D-Star ID-1 setup. > > Those are my thoughts. I'd like to hear more about it. > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ From n0fpf at att.net Tue Mar 6 04:55:33 2007 From: n0fpf at att.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:55:33 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] Ubiquiti SR9 In-Reply-To: <000901c75f68$c1ac98e0$6301a8c0@hp> References: <000901c75f68$c1ac98e0$6301a8c0@hp> Message-ID: It would be really interesting if you can do 900mhz mesh network. In the Seattle area I could see the noise level of about -40db to -30db in the downtown area. There is a lot of 900Mhz stuff out there in an urban area. gotta watch the rules in that freq range too... Steve N0FPF At 12:56 PM 3/5/2007, you wrote: >Alright, perhaps I should have posted more about it. > >http://www.ubnt.com/sr9_faq.php4 >http://www.wlanparts.com/product/SR9 > >It's about the same price as the Aerocomm ConnexLink, but a lot >faster. At almost a watt, comparable power. While the Aerocomm >units are FHSS, these are not, they are 802.11 like clones, so you >can have them in 802.11b = DSSS or 802.11g = OFDM. > >I found a new notes: >There are a few requirements one must follow with SR9 cards, that >have been pointed out by Ubiquiti: >*) The card does not perform well if rate exceeds 18Mbps >*) 802.11b mode is recommended, as 802.11g is very prone to >interference with the SR9 >*) You must use long preamble at all times >This persons testing has shown that the optimal TX power setting is 15. > >I stumbled into only one other report so far. Where they "punched 5 >miles through some trees and houses. Using attic mounted antennas >(13db) and the Ubiquiti SR9 cards they could get a signal to noise >between 10 and 20 and move a couple of megs of data at the home." > >Since 2.4 is so trashed, this is interesting. And I'd like to hear >more reports where people use them in similar "less than ideal" >situations. I noticed they sell a 900MHz Cavity Filter, so that >makes you wonder if thats going to be needed or for just really bad areas... > >You could add a 3 watt Hyperlink bidierectional amp to it, for plug >and play people. It really boils down to how well it does with >other near by signals. But even with that pricey amp, you beat the >price comparison to a D-Star ID-1 setup. > >Those are my thoughts. I'd like to hear more about it. > >_______________________________________________ >ham-80211 mailing list >ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org >https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 From wispa at oregonfast.net Tue Mar 6 05:20:06 2007 From: wispa at oregonfast.net (George Rogato) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:20:06 -0800 Subject: [Ham-80211] Ubiquiti SR9 In-Reply-To: References: <000901c75f68$c1ac98e0$6301a8c0@hp> Message-ID: <45ECFA06.40804@oregonfast.net> It's being done now: http://www.adiengineering.com/php-bin/ecomm4/productDisplay.php?category_id=31&product_id=81 Not sure about who is certifying these. Steve wrote: > It would be really interesting if you can do 900mhz mesh network. > In the Seattle area I could see the noise level of about -40db to -30db > in the downtown area. There is a lot of 900Mhz stuff out there in an > urban area. > > gotta watch the rules in that freq range too... > > Steve N0FPF > > > At 12:56 PM 3/5/2007, you wrote: > >> Alright, perhaps I should have posted more about it. >> >> http://www.ubnt.com/sr9_faq.php4 >> http://www.wlanparts.com/product/SR9 >> >> It's about the same price as the Aerocomm ConnexLink, but a lot >> faster. At almost a watt, comparable power. While the Aerocomm units >> are FHSS, these are not, they are 802.11 like clones, so you can have >> them in 802.11b = DSSS or 802.11g = OFDM. >> >> I found a new notes: >> There are a few requirements one must follow with SR9 cards, that have >> been pointed out by Ubiquiti: >> *) The card does not perform well if rate exceeds 18Mbps >> *) 802.11b mode is recommended, as 802.11g is very prone to >> interference with the SR9 >> *) You must use long preamble at all times >> This persons testing has shown that the optimal TX power setting is 15. >> >> I stumbled into only one other report so far. Where they "punched 5 >> miles through some trees and houses. Using attic mounted antennas >> (13db) and the Ubiquiti SR9 cards they could get a signal to noise >> between 10 and 20 and move a couple of megs of data at the home." >> >> Since 2.4 is so trashed, this is interesting. And I'd like to hear >> more reports where people use them in similar "less than ideal" >> situations. I noticed they sell a 900MHz Cavity Filter, so that makes >> you wonder if thats going to be needed or for just really bad areas... >> >> You could add a 3 watt Hyperlink bidierectional amp to it, for plug >> and play people. It really boils down to how well it does with other >> near by signals. But even with that pricey amp, you beat the price >> comparison to a D-Star ID-1 setup. >> >> Those are my thoughts. I'd like to hear more about it. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ham-80211 mailing list >> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org >> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 > > > > _______________________________________________ > ham-80211 mailing list > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211 -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/