Yes.


Weak FEC allows for more data, Strong FEC gives you better RX sensitivity.  It 
is a trade off.  As ACM works though we only use Strong FEC.



I’d recommend using the default ATPC values, you do want some margin between it 
and the min RX level for the modulation you are engineered at.



***************************************************************************

Daniel White

SAF North America LLC

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Skype: danieldwhite
Social: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielwhite84>



***************************************************************************



From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] saf 11ghz lumina status



does weak FEC or strong FEC impact the workload on the radio any different? 
This link was overengineered a bit for margin.

The manual only shows signal values to modulation unless im looking at the 
wrong manual. It says I can hit the full 366 with a -62

Would it be pushing my luck to raise that ATPC to a loser value, lowering the 
overall output power?



The default correction limit is 10, so Im assuming I would need to increase 
that to the maximum -12, does this mean output power would not be able to go 
any lower than 6?







On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

>extend the overall life of the radio head

That's definitely nice to know!






Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Daniel White <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Okay so a little knowledge goes a long way :-)



The MSE value is fine.  There are charts in the manual that describe required 
MSE per modulation.  MSE is something like SNR, but different.  Anyways your 
value is good.



ATPC is a great tool.  Number one failure of any radio is related to the TX 
part of the radio… so the lower the TX power, the less stress on vital 
components.  I absolutely recommend ATPC, on any vendors radio (assuming it is 
implemented well) to extend the overall life of the radio head.



Hope that all helps!



***************************************************************************

Daniel White

SAF North America LLC

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590 <tel:%2B1%20%28303%29%20746-3590>

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Skype: danieldwhite
Social: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielwhite84>



***************************************************************************



From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf 
Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:53 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [AFMUG] saf 11ghz lumina status



this is just over a ten mile hop, it had gotten out of alignment we went up. 
the target was -43 on the original install and we met that then, no degredation 
since we realigned it.

I had never turned on ATPC, but when it was out of alignment one side was -54 
and still at full modulataion, so I turned it on with the target 50-55, TX 
power is now staying at 8.



I wonder though if that stress value is something I should be concerned about, 
I dont know what is good or bad.



I like keeping things neat on the rf side where I can, having that extra 10db 
power seems reasonable for fade, but I dont want to be cooking a chipset doing 
so




--

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.



  _____


 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>











--

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Reply via email to