- PSDR - mailman.hamwan.org

Re: [HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Board Elections
by Allen Johnson 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

4 3

New Installation at K7MM: Router Board RB912 and Ubiquiti Panel Antenna AM-5G20-90
by Daniel Ransom 15 Feb '16

15 Feb '16

I installed the new MikroTik MIMO radio and Ubiquiti panel antenna in the tree mount at my backyard fence (where I have LOS to Gold Mountain). My signal is 6 dBm better, with increased signal-to-noise ratio, over the QRT-5. (The QRT-5 moves to the South Kitsap School District bus barn for Emcom use.) The panel antenna has a 2-degree downtilt for mounting on a high site. So, for my low-site location I turned it upside down. See photos. I have attached a Winbox capture.73 from Dan at K7MM

2 2

Video on Configuring a MikroTik Modem
by Daniel Ransom 13 Feb '16

13 Feb '16

I've recorded a video for general use, especially for new people who are configuring a modem from the client configuration page. I've put some hints and tips in the video. I made this with Camtasia. Should we put this on the HamWAN website? | | | | | | | | | | | Configure Radio Modem_1080 dlr .mp4Daniel Ransom shared from Dropbox | | | | View on www.dropbox.com | Preview by Yahoo | | | | | 73 from Dan at K7MM

1 0

Kitsap County Gold Mountain HamWAN Attempts, Dish and Sector Antennas K7MM
by Daniel Ransom 27 Jan '16

27 Jan '16

Tom. Here is a status update on my efforts at accessing the Gold Mountain HamWAN. I went out with my two MikroTik Metal 5SHPn transceiver modems, one of my dishes, and a sector antenna this morning. I tested from the corner of E Collins Road and Babydoll Rd, at 47.548349, -122.5939, here in east Port Orchard. From this location I can see the flashing white beacon on Gold Mountain. I get a good signal on the mesh dish: -69 dBm. The vertically polarized sector antenna (SA58-90-17-WB) has 10 dB less signal, but the modem will "associate" with the network. Pointing is not critical--I've got about 15 degrees each way, a 30-degree sweep where I have reasonable signal (around -80 dBm). This is at ground level. It should work when I hoist it into the trees behind my house. I have two modems; one has a broken back-cover latch and is on v6.12. It associates well, even on the sector antenna. Unfortunately, I can't seal the back connection because of the broken latch. My other, water-resistant modem I updated from v6.12 to v6.32.3. I did not do a full reset when updating the client configuration from the HamWAN website. I could not get this one to acquire an IP address from the network, even on the dish antenna. I went back to my hamshack (I was wet and tired and water was fritzing my laptop keyboard!). I reset and reloaded this modem to try again tomorrow. Does RouterOS firmware matter? When I put the sector antenna/modem into the tree I will use a rope on top from which to hang the combination antenna/modem, and two ropes at the bottom of the sector antenna (one on each left and right side) to steer the antenna. I have shielded, outdoor CAT6 cable (Ubiquity ToughCable Carrier) as a downlead. We're hams, we experiment! 73 from Dan at K7MM 509 330 6398

4 15

Quarterly Board Call
by Nigel Vander Houwen 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Hello All, It’s time once again for our quarterly board conference call. It’s scheduled for 6PM (18:00) Pacific, Monday December 28th. We’ll be using our standard conference line at 1-206-805-8861. The board members will meet to discuss the current state and vote on any decisions necessary for the org. Members are welcome to dial in and listen, and I make a point of asking for general feedback on things being discussed before the board makes a decision. If anyone has things they would like to have brought up on the agenda, please reach out to me and I’ll be sure to include them. We’ve currently got on the list: Consider refactoring the hamwan.org web site to be more reflective of the HamWAN community. Puget Sound has been the founding/flagship network, but we have very successful sisters, and the main landing page should be inclusive of them. Consider a new mailing list for work on progressing the HamWAN standard. This is currently extremely informal, and is driven mostly on IRC. Consider transitioning the psdr(a)hamwan.org mailing list to something more general like hamwan(a)hamwan.org <mailto:hamwan@hamwan.org>. As with the first point, HamWAN is a standard, and we have a community of sister networks and there should be a general discussion place not specific to Puget Sound. We’ve had some technical projects come along that have put IP space back in our minds. We’ve had a suggestion to request a /16 for Puget Sound from ARDC, rather than a more incremental increase in our allocation. This would give us quite a bit of room to grow, and we would seem to have some support from our local coordinator. As Puget Sound is the hub for some of our more ambitious projects like the Open Peering Policy, we may be able to have some weight behind this request, but it is a large chunk, that will require large reasons. Thanks, Nigel President HamWAN

1 3

Beacon Tower panorama
by Bart Kus 30 Dec '15

30 Dec '15

http://hamwan.org/t/Beacon?structure=HamWAN --Bart

2 1

Re: [HamWAN PSDR] [Netops] Proposed Revision to Spectrum Allocation Standards
by Bart Kus 25 Dec '15

25 Dec '15

When you propose elimination of the 5MHz and 20MHz channel widths, are you referring to their central frequency spacings (staggering) or to the bandwidths themselves? There is a 3dB gain of 5MHz bandwidth over 10MHz, which really helps some of our weaker clients: [eo@Baldi-S1] /interface wireless> registration-table print # INTERFACE RADIO-NAME MAC-ADDRESS AP SIGNAL-STRENGTH TX-RATE UPTIME 0 wlan1-gateway WE7X/Baldi D4:CA:6D:7A:B8:81 no -83dBm 4.8M... 19h38m30s [eo@CapitolPark-S2] > /interface wireless registration-table print # INTERFACE RADIO-NAME MAC-ADDRESS AP SIGNAL-STRENGTH TX-RATE UPTIME 0 wlan1 KU7M/Newcastl... D4:CA:6D:9D:5C:07 no -86dBm 3.2M... 9h21m7s [eo@SnoDEM-S2] > /interface wireless registration-table print # INTERFACE RADIO-NAME MAC-ADDRESS AP SIGNAL-STRENGTH TX-RATE UPTIME 0 wlan1 AE7Q/MillCree... D4:CA:6D:54:B4:F5 no -87dBm 2.2Mbps 18h25m26s I can't foresee us taking 3dB away from these folks. So as far as the bandwidth is concerned, I think 5MHz bandwidth is here to stay because: 1) it's the highest power spectral density we can achieve with the hardware, and 2) we don't have throughput saturation on our sectors, 3) which means we also use 5MHz to increase reliability (reduce retransmits) of the service. Now, about the interference between 5MHz and 10MHz plans. The PSDR group here recognized this would be an issue if we wanted to run some sectors @ 10MHz bandwidth, so we migrated the network onto a 5MHz bandwidth / 10MHz staggering plan. This gives us the ability to run an arbitrary mix of 5MHz and 10MHz bandwidths without any self-interference, since the radiation angle for each sector is the same in both bandwidths. This provides an easy next-gen upgrade path without further spectral changes. This upgrade would only take place once we hit saturation on a given sector and we'd have to weigh the impact to the marginal users vs. benefits to the high speed users. To support this new 5MHz bandwidth / 10MHz stagger combination we simply pushed an update to all the client modems with an additional channel plan, and updated our client setup docs to include the new channel plan. This doesn't mean we had to retire the original 5MHz plan, though. That can stay programmed into client modems for any areas that wish to use it. It's still the tightest packing of the channels for areas that have very limited access to Part 15 frequencies and therefore need to use the rest of the Part 97 5.9GHz segment to run their PtPs. Any new useful channel plans can simply be added to the official list (BTW: we need to publish an official list) without the need to kill existing channel plans. For the sake of reducing search time in the clients, we can prune the official list down to a "known active" list. Maybe still uploading all the channels, but in a disabled state for the unused ones. This optimization would reduce client modem compatibility when new networks come up, so there's pros and cons here. I'm fine with recommending the widest list by default, and if the user so chooses, they can self-optimize their local channel list. Now, given this client flexibility, the new b-channels you propose look like a fine idea, and I can appreciate your argument with very nearby sites not having perfect directional shielding. We'd likely have the exact same situation if our Council House site came on the air, since it would be very close to the Capitol Park site. Capitol Park also uses gen 1 antennas, so their directional shielding is poor. There will be added complexity if 2+ HamWAN networks using different channelization start to share a border or a region. In those cases, they'd have to work together to only use compatible channels in the overlapping regions. I don't even wanna touch on what'd be compatible among all the possible channel plans. Sounds like a headache. The clients should remain unaffected in such cases though, provided they have the full channel list uploaded. The use of omni channels is a very complicated issue. Can you tell me more about how you're using them today without causing self-interference? I'm facing the same design challenge on the 900MHz front. The use of MIMO is a fully compatible upgrade, so there's no problems there. I don't think this has any impact on the standards other than maybe updating the "recommended hardware" section. --Bart On 12/25/2015 12:43 AM, Ryan Turner, K0RET wrote: > Netops, members, and interested parties of PSDR and Memphis, > > I propose the following changes to our official band plan for point to > multipoint: > > * Elimination of the 5 MHz and 20 MHz channel width standards > * Introduction of a second set of sector channels > * Introduction of channels specifically to be used for omni use in > areas where sectors are not feasible (user density, space, budget) > * Adoption of dual chains, horizontal and vertical, for the last mile > > See a chart of the proposed band plan here: > https://jsfiddle.net/ryan_turner/n13cy7ot/4/embedded/result/ > > I propose these changes in order to address a number of issues: > > 1. 5 MHz channel width is not particularly beneficial; its > performance improvements are only marginal over 10 MHz, and it is > a rare scenario for this to be useful in a last mile situation. > Frequently signals that benefit from 5 vs 10 MHz would be much > further improved by instead better client antenna positioning. 5 > MHz channels may be reasonable temporarily should we place them > somewhere within an unoccupied 10 MHz channel, but today as the > two 5 mhz and 10 mhz plans coexist, they overlap and interfere. > 2. 20 MHz channel width is not likely to be adopted locally due to > marginal nature of all of our links and the limited benefit from > the afforded bandwidth. I do anticipate hardware limitations may > drive us to eventually use 20 mhz channels, however. > 3. Since our antenna systems are not ideal radiators, inter-cell > interference remains a problem for sites that have LOS between > eachother; two of our sites today are able to see eachother > entirely -- that is to say, each sector on one can see all five > other sectors; introducing more channels for this scenario would > greatly help > 4. In dense urban areas and areas where towers and tall buildings are > specifically banned, in order to reach our users we need more > frequent, smaller points of presence > 5. Dual chain radios have already been deployed at multiple sites and > found to be better performing than the slightly higher output > power mikrotik metals; cell site sector antennas already support > dual polarity, and with Mikrotik's mANT30 dish the end-user cost > difference is about $40 over our current day recommended solution. > > Please share your thoughts and opinions. > > Thanks, > -- > Ryan Turner, K0RET > +1.901.300.0039 > > HamWAN Memphis Metro <http://www.memhamwan.org/> - Memphis' Amateur > Radio Multi-Megabit IP Network > > > _______________________________________________ > Netops mailing list > Netops(a)hamwan.org > http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/netops

1 0

Winter Wonderland
by Tom Hayward 22 Dec '15

22 Dec '15

Tis the season for HamWAN sites to be inaccessible and covered in snow! Bart grabbed this shot from the camera at East Tiger earlier today: Looks like a cold day to be climbing towers. I'm glad everything is battened down for the winter! Tom KD7LXL

1 0

ARC - DA5834SD1 antenna pattern file?
by Matthew Lawson 08 Dec '15

08 Dec '15

Does anyone have a antenna pattern file for this Dish antenna? I modeling some links and was wondering if anyone had created a pattern file or had one already. Thanks, 73 *Matthew Lawson* *KC7EQO* *442.100 + 100 Hz PL Blyn Mt Repeater* *http://www.qrz.com/db/KC7EQO/R <http://www.qrz.com/db/KC7EQO/R>*

2 2

Streakwave MIMO dish deal
by Rob Salsgiver 07 Dec '15

07 Dec '15

Streakwave has our current ARC-DA5830SD1 dish listed at $95 (MSRP $129) through Dec 16th. Not sure whether that's truly a sale or it's their normal price, but they're listing it in their "12 Days of Deals" promo. Either way, might be able to save at least a few $$$. Cheers, Rob - NR3O

1 0