[MVMA] Suggested change at MVHS

[William Curtice]

So ..... this is a test to compare the performance of a pair of NSM3s vs.
an NSM5 and an AGM5.  That is an interesting comparison.  I would like to
know the result of that test.

However ..... let's assume the NSM3s outperform the 5.8 link;  why would we
want to change that link to 3.4, given that performance of the existing 5.8
link significantly exceeds any current or projected network need?

On the issue of being limited to 4 nodes at MVHS, it is true we have only 4
Cat5 lines running from the radio room to the roof.  However, I presume we
could always install a switch on the roof, and connect multiple nodes to a
single line  if we really needed more.

Thoughts?

Bill

William Curtice
937-287-0871
Please reply to: william.curtice at ieee.org

On Oct 2, 2018 5:23 PM, "Chuck Gelm" <nc8q-mesh at gelm.net> wrote:



On 10/02/2018 04:59 PM, William Curtice wrote:

Chuck:

What is the purpose of the NSM3 at MVHS?  Is this a test, or a permanent
install?  Does it replace the 5.8 link between MVHS and N8NQH?

Bill


Hi, Bill:

 Testing. 1, 2, 3. ;-)

This would take the NS-M5 out of service. The NS-M5 is providing no service
anyway.
The AG-M5 at MVHS links with N8NQH.
I am betting that it is capable of replacing the 5.8 GHz link.

 I am pretty sure we are limited to 4 nodes at MVHS. :-(

 *However, all bets are off unless the GS108E is (can be) properly
configured.* :-|


Chuck



_______________________________________________
MVMA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mvma
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:MVMA at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mvma/attachments/20181002/378c6104/attachment.html>