Micronet is doing it. I got the PCNs for review this afternoon and sent them this question and a couple more late today. I don’t know what they will say Monday, I was looking for some info from the folks here to be ready.
They have never suggested bucking before, they have always been able to use the sub band that we already have spare radios for, and they almost always put single pol links in VPOL. Also this same person did our last 2 batches of links. So I assume there is some logic behind it. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steve Jones Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 8:21 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] licensed link high/low question Who do you have doing the engineering On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 8:06 PM Tim Hardy <thardy...@gmail.com <mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote: If there’s double the bandwidth or more in frequency separation between T-R at the bucking site you should be okay. It will just be difficult to add frequencies / new paths at that site in the future. Send me the path data and I’ll take a quick look. On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:00 PM Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com <mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote: I realize we forced them into this situation by wanting new links involving 2 sites where we already have 11 GHz. One of the sites is a water tank where it might be possible to put the tank between the 2 dishes, but that is not the bucking site. That site is actually I think a Rohn 45 and the antennas would be close to each other, although not the same azimuth. It sounds like I should ask them to look at it again with one of the shorter links in 18 GHz. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf Of Tim Hardy Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 7:38 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] licensed link high/low question The radios certainly don’t have any isolation from this type of interference, so what you’re relying on is totally on the antennas - there’s not much FSL on these and I wouldn’t bet my life on a 2’ Category B to provide the kind of close-coupling loss needed on a co-located system. AT&T and MCI used to do it when they had completely back-to-back horns or ultra-high performance antennas but they provide about 80 dB of discrimination front-to-back. Sent from my iPad On Mar 13, 2020, at 8:31 PM, Colin Stanners <cstann...@gmail.com <mailto:cstann...@gmail.com> > wrote: To my knowledge the radios and dishes have enough isolation that H/L match at a site is not necessary unless you're almost pointing in the same direction with those dishes (or have a TX frequency at one site overlapping a RX) . The opposite polarity increases the isolation so you have even less worry in this case. That H/L match idea is more of a tendency and to simplify planning than a rule. On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, 6:52 PM Ken Hohhof, <af...@kwisp.com <mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote: I am having some 11 GHz links coordinated and the draft PCNs they sent me have one site high on one link and low on the other link. They are however different sub bands, and one is HPOL and the other is VPOL. Does this make it OK? I could probably do one of the links in 18 GHz. I had internalized the idea that you never had high and low at the same site. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
