<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Congrats! Although that's a very low
signal level. Trying different lateral positions might improve it
(various points along roof line for example). If you've got a
clear shot, you might wanna try for Haystack too, just for fun.<br>
<br>
No idea on the vertical axis performance. There is a project to
enable 3D radiation pattern measurement here. I've got the
dual-axis rotor control software written, and I'm now working on
developing a radar system that'll eliminate multipath effects as
sources of measurement error. I've managed to get 6GHz pulses as
narrow as 7ns (nanoseconds). Last night I also fixed a major
source of jitter problems, so progress is being made on this
front. So yes, we will eventually know the full 3D performance of
antennas, and even 4D if you consider frequency as a dimension.<br>
<br>
--Bart<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/13/2014 04:31 PM, Dean Gibson AE7Q wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53223FEE.8070205@ae7q.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Ah, that should be <b>330</b> bearing to Paine (and I'm a math
major, too!). Turns out I didn't really need it. Using Google
Earth, I noted the first visual "landmark" on the drawn path to
the remote stations (eg, Paine), and I just visually aim at that.<br>
<br>
Anyway, through a second-story window (open):<br>
<br>
<small><tt>[admin@AE7Q-Paine] > /interface wireless scan 0 </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> ADDRESS SSID BAND CHA.. FREQ
SIG NF SNR RADIO-NAME </tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>A RT D4:CA:6D:7A:B8:07 HamWAN 5ghz-n 5mhz 5905
-89 -118 29 Paine-S2</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>[admin@AE7Q-Paine] > /interface wireless monitor 0</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> status: connected-to-ess</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> band: 5ghz-n-5mhz</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> frequency: 5905MHz</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> wireless-protocol: nv2</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> tx-rate: 1.5Mbps</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> rx-rate: 1.5Mbps</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> ssid: HamWAN</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> bssid: D4:CA:6D:7A:B8:07</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> radio-name: Paine-S2</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> signal-strength: -89dBm</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> signal-strength-ch0: -89dBm</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> tx-signal-strength: -88dBm</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> tx-signal-strength-ch0: -88dBm</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> noise-floor: -118dBm</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> signal-to-noise: 29dB</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> tx-ccq: 10%</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> rx-ccq: 10%</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> authenticated-clients: 1</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> current-distance: 10</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> wds-link: no</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> bridge: no</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> routeros-version: 6.7</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> last-ip: 50.46.168.128<br>
</tt><tt> current-tx-powers:
6Mbps:31(25/31),9Mbps:31(25/31),12Mbps:31(25/31),18Mbps:31(25/31),</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
24Mbps:31(25/31),36Mbps:29(23/29),48Mbps:29(23/29),54Mbps:27(21/27),</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
HT20-0:29(23/29),HT20-1:29(23/29),HT20-2:29(23/29),HT20-3:29(23/29),</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
HT20-4:29(23/29),HT20-5:27(21/27),HT20-6:27(21/27),HT20-7:26(20/26)</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt> notify-external-fdb: no</tt><tt><br>
</tt></small><br>
I think the antenna needs to go higher ... (grin). Nevertheless,
the "traceroute 8.8.8.8" and "ping google.com" worked, as did an
inbound ping. What an "icky" OS, but it works.<br>
<br>
Is the antenna pattern more sensitive (narrow) in the vertical
axis? That's what I would guess from the antenna shape, but
antennae are strange and mysterious creatures ...<br>
<br>
I'm thinking very seriously of picking up a 2nd radio/antenna
combo this week, to play with.<br>
<br>
-- Dean AE7Q<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-03-12 22:45, Dean Gibson AE7Q
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:532145F0.7020702@ae7q.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I discovered a clever technique for initially orienting the
antenna: Using Google Earth, I draw a line from the Node (in
this case the DEM antenna at Paine field), to my house (5.02
miles 149.89 degrees). No only does that give me a pretty good
initial bearing (<b>300</b>), but I get to see what obstacles
are in my way (it isn't pretty) for various prospective antenna
locations. So, I see I'm squarely in the DEM SE (60-180 degree)
sector.<br>
<br>
Which brings me to my next question: Where is this "scan list"
and where do I set it?<br>
<br>
Is there a way to configure the radio to get the date/time from
a local NTP server? That would make its logs a little more
meaningful ...<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-03-12 22:21, Bart Kus
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5321405D.7080402@bartk.us" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dean, if you know what sector
you're shooting for, you can make your life a little easier
by temporarily typing the frequency directly into the "Scan
List" field instead of selecting the HamWAN scan-list. This
will not allow the modem to find other sectors, but it will
lock the receiver down to that 1 frequency to maximize your
signal-hunting adventures.<br>
<br>
The "Frequency" field you're referring to control the Access
Point mode frequency, and not the Station mode (which you
should be using). Station mode frequencies are entirely
controlled by scan-list.<br>
<br>
Feel free to share a copy of <tt>"/interface wireless
export verbose</tt>" so that we can verify your config is
right.<br>
<br>
--Bart<br>
<br>
On 3/12/2014 10:17 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:10FFE220-0C30-4CF4-9873-E1DD065CB115@k7nvh.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>Dean,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. The frequency is somewhat of a "default" so to say,
the channels defined are ones the modem will automatically
look for, so it will connect to whichever it can find.</div>
<div>2. I don't use winbox, so I can't speak to that, but
yes, /interface wireless scan 0 is how I run a scan. Maybe
someone else can speak to winbox options.</div>
<div>3. In theory N connectors are weather sealed by the
nature of their design. The antenna asks that you tape up
the connector due to their attachment of the coax to the
connector itself. I generally use a layer of Scotch 33
(good electrical tape), followed by a layer of Scotch 23
(Self fusing tape) or mastic, and followed by another
outer layer of Scotch 33.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nigel K7NVH</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 12, 2014, at 10:12 PM, Dean Gibson AE7Q <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:hamwan@ae7q.net">hamwan@ae7q.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> OK, so I have a
radio and antenna from Bart, assembled and on a mast
inside my house. I've run through the steps on the
Wiki, except for:<br>
<ol>
<li>Shared admin, and</li>
<li>Remote logging & SNMP monitoring (which I
will do when I have a connection).</li>
</ol>
I've run all the way up to "/interface wireless scan
0", which doesn't seem to report anything, not totally
unexpected since I'm inside my house. My DHCP server
supplies an IP address to the radio on either the DMZ
or LAN, and that's how I now connect via WinBox.<br>
<br>
So, now more questions ...<br>
<ol>
<li>When I click on the "Wireless" tab in WinBox,
the "interfaces" tab shows the correct SSID
("HamWAN"), but a frequency of 5180. That seems
odd. However, the "Channels" tab correctly shows
the values set from the HamWAN Wiki for "Client
Node Configuration".</li>
<li>Is there a better way to do a scan other than
the command (eg, a WinBox button somewhere)?</li>
<li>The antenna instructions talk about sealing the
cable to the radio with some sort of tape. I know
I'm getting ahead of myself here, but what do
people use/recommend? This is when I noticed that
when you mount the radio, the untaped N-connector
seems to be oriented to catch rain. Seems like a
weird design decision.</li>
</ol>
<p>Any other comments are welcome as well ...<br>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org">PSDR@hamwan.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org">http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>