[MVMA] Curtice Response to Recent Posts: LQ .vs. the forests

[Chuck Gelm]

On 11/09/2018 04:54 PM, William Curtice wrote:
>
> *Chuck indicates we need to provide a “Stable Link”, that is, a link 
> that does not have too many stations on the same frequency.  I would 
> guess, that a stable link also implies a link that is not affected by 
> trees, or other environmental factors.  Therefore, “Stable” implies 
> LQ=100% all the time.  I do not believe that is a reality in Ohio!  
> Mesh, by it’s very nature, is inherently unstable…. (At least the RF 
> side of Mesh is inherently unstable). *
>
> **
>
> *Case in Point…is the link we had between an AGM5 at MVHS, and an NSM5 
> at N8NQH.  When initially installed, we had S/N of over 45db.  
> However, it too, was not stable. Even though there were no trees in 
> the path, the S/N dips to far lower levels (more when someone climbs 
> on the dish mounting frame)*
>
Hi, Bill et alia:

  My sole link has a SNR of 9 to 14 dB. My antenna is 40 feet agl. I 
have a row of ~60 foot tall evergreens a few hundred yards away in my path.
A midway _one half mile portion_ of my path is ~50 agl. This is 
certainly 'in the trees'. This is 'reality in Ohio'. :-|
My LQ has been 100% all of the time since late March.

  I believe that is it possible and practical to provide 100% LQ links 
in 'the forests' of Ohio.
I believe link quality is affected by the radio, antenna, and especially 
the frequency choices we make.

"*However, it too, was not stable."
*
If I recall correctly, that link was LQ 100% and TxMbps 65 (maximum 
possible - MCS7). I call that 'stable'.
I thought that link would have better TxMbps with a pair of NS-M5s...but 
I digress.

Chuck

**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mvma/attachments/20181110/d9ce65f0/attachment.html>