Thread: [Madwifi-users] Txpower limitation behaviour very strange ...
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
otaku
From: Beat M. <Bea...@gm...> - 2006-04-24 17:49:29
|
Hi again I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. But can someone explain me why the signal drops about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) This is not true!! It drops the same as the CM9 card. If I lower the output to 10dbm the signal does not drop from 5M to 54M nor on CM9 nor on SR5. This leads to my second question. Is nobody using SR5 cards at 5.8GHz in p2mp environment with madwifi? Why nobody does complain about low output power. Folks do you use mikrotik, staros or do you don't have p2mp with madwifi? Example: NOTE: the example is real. -26, -21 for SR5 is not a joke the signal at the client is the same as the specifiation dbm but this is coincidence. It is at 4m, one site ruber duck, other site 22dbi grid ... Both sites full output i.e. default i.e. 17dbm Client AP CM9 SR5 54M: -24/-25dbm 54M: -26dbm 6M: -20/-21dbm 6M: -20/21dbm Both sitesoutput set to 10dbm Client AP CM9 SR5 54M: -29dbm 54M: -28/-29dbm 6M: -29dbm 6M: -28dbm So what am I missing? BTW: Lowering txpower with cm9 while running does work but you cannot set again more power until you restart interface with ifdown ath0;ifup ath0. This is so with madwifi-ng-1457 with patch txpower-20060412.diff from ticket 508! With SR5 both drivers works right ... Changing dot_pwrtgt makes no difference (default by cm9 27, SR5 17 ...) Greetings Beat -- GMX Produkte empfehlen und ganz einfach Geld verdienen! Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner |
From: Tom S. <tsh...@qo...> - 2006-04-25 00:06:44
|
All cards (cm9, sr5, etc) will drop TX power as the speed increases. The sr5's rated max output power of 400 mw is available only at the lowest speeds. From my experience the airspeed settings will override the power settings. Tom Sharples President Qorvus Systems, Inc. www.qorvus.net 360.243.7371 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beat Meier" <Bea...@gm...> To: <mad...@li...> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:49 AM Subject: **SPAM: [Madwifi-users] Txpower limitation behaviour very strange ... > Hi again > > I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. > If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. > But can someone explain me why the signal drops > about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? > If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other > end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) > This is not true!! It drops the same as the CM9 card. > If I lower the output to 10dbm the signal does not drop from 5M to 54M > nor on CM9 nor on SR5. > This leads to my second question. Is nobody using SR5 cards at 5.8GHz in > p2mp environment with madwifi? Why nobody does complain about low output > power. > Folks do you use mikrotik, staros or do you don't have p2mp with madwifi? > > Example: > NOTE: the example is real. -26, -21 for SR5 is not a joke the signal at > the > client is the same as the specifiation dbm but this is coincidence. > It is at 4m, one site ruber duck, other site 22dbi grid ... > > Both sites full output i.e. default i.e. 17dbm > Client AP > CM9 SR5 > 54M: -24/-25dbm 54M: -26dbm > 6M: -20/-21dbm 6M: -20/21dbm > > Both sitesoutput set to 10dbm > Client AP > CM9 SR5 > 54M: -29dbm 54M: -28/-29dbm > 6M: -29dbm 6M: -28dbm > > > So what am I missing? > > BTW: Lowering txpower with cm9 while running does work but you cannot > set again more power until you restart interface with ifdown ath0;ifup > ath0. > This is so with madwifi-ng-1457 with patch txpower-20060412.diff > from ticket 508! > With SR5 both drivers works right ... > Changing dot_pwrtgt makes no difference (default by cm9 27, SR5 17 ...) > > Greetings > > Beat > > -- > GMX Produkte empfehlen und ganz einfach Geld verdienen! > Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job > easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Madwifi-users mailing list > Mad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/madwifi-users |
From: Edwin W. <Edw...@nr...> - 2006-04-25 00:26:40
|
Tom, Beat and I have been kicking this poor mule to death off line trying to determine if we are actually getting the 400mw advertised. We realize the spec sheet for the SR5 (as well as most other radios) show that maximum power is only available from the 24M rate on down. The problem is that a: while "iwconfig ath0 txpower 26db" is accepted on the SR5 (but correctly rejected if in the lower band, BTW), iwconfig then only reports 18db, and b: the CM9 which we know only has 17db max txpower, is not 9db down from the SR5 as measured by a receiving unit. So which is it? Is the SR5 saying 18db but really tx'ing 26db (or something else?) Granted, this is all in a WRAP/madwifi-ng environment, hence Beat's question regarding different performance using StarOS. Field experiments do not indicate 400mw transmit, regardless of rate setting. I would indeed be thrilled to get the real 16+mbs the 24M rate gives but am unable to do so in the real world at distances that all calculations, cable loss, antenna gains, etc., say should work. Beat (if I may speak for you?) and I are looking for someone's experience/solution who is using the SR5 in an environment that will only work if 26db is available. For myself, I am this evening backing away from the PtMP I had hoped for with the extra power and deploying multiple PtP links. Tom, yours, or anyone else's real world comments on the SR5 and it's alleged tx power are most welcome. Respectfully, Edwin Tom Sharples wrote: > All cards (cm9, sr5, etc) will drop TX power as the speed increases. > The sr5's rated max output power of 400 mw is available only at the > lowest speeds. From my experience the airspeed settings will override > the power settings. > > Tom Sharples > President > Qorvus Systems, Inc. > www.qorvus.net > 360.243.7371 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beat Meier" <Bea...@gm...> > To: <mad...@li...> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:49 AM > Subject: **SPAM: [Madwifi-users] Txpower limitation behaviour very > strange ... > > >> Hi again >> >> I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. >> If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. >> But can someone explain me why the signal drops >> about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? >> If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other >> end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) >> This is not true!! It drops the same as the CM9 card. >> If I lower the output to 10dbm the signal does not drop from 5M to 54M >> nor on CM9 nor on SR5. >> This leads to my second question. Is nobody using SR5 cards at 5.8GHz in >> p2mp environment with madwifi? Why nobody does complain about low output >> power. >> Folks do you use mikrotik, staros or do you don't have p2mp with >> madwifi? >> >> Example: >> NOTE: the example is real. -26, -21 for SR5 is not a joke the signal >> at the >> client is the same as the specifiation dbm but this is coincidence. >> It is at 4m, one site ruber duck, other site 22dbi grid ... >> >> Both sites full output i.e. default i.e. 17dbm >> Client AP >> CM9 SR5 >> 54M: -24/-25dbm 54M: -26dbm >> 6M: -20/-21dbm 6M: -20/21dbm >> >> Both sitesoutput set to 10dbm >> Client AP >> CM9 SR5 >> 54M: -29dbm 54M: -28/-29dbm >> 6M: -29dbm 6M: -28dbm >> >> >> So what am I missing? >> >> BTW: Lowering txpower with cm9 while running does work but you cannot >> set again more power until you restart interface with ifdown >> ath0;ifup ath0. >> This is so with madwifi-ng-1457 with patch txpower-20060412.diff >> from ticket 508! >> With SR5 both drivers works right ... >> Changing dot_pwrtgt makes no difference (default by cm9 27, SR5 17 ...) >> >> Greetings >> >> Beat -- <=+=+=+==+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=> Edwin Whitelaw, P.E. New River Valley Unwired, LLC 2200 Lonesome Dove Dr Christiansburg, VA 24073 540-239-0318 |
From: Tom S. <tsh...@qo...> - 2006-04-25 01:05:38
|
Well, we do have quite a few real-world ptmp deployments but they are using wrap & CM9's and madwifi-old from mid 2005; these are in a commercial production environment and work fine now that we have added innumerable script and cron-job patches to overcome various stateful bugs :-). We have tried the sr5 in a 1.5 mile ptp test and have seen the expected 9db increase at the receive partner at the lower datarates in the 5.8 Ghz region, but this has been testing only and not production. I have also verified that there actually is a 9 db increase using an Eaton nm37 microwave analyzer hooked up to the sr5 output (with a 30db pad). Tom Sharples President Qorvus Systems, Inc. www.qorvus.net 360.243.7371 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edwin Whitelaw" <Edw...@nr...> To: "Tom Sharples" <tsh...@qo...> Cc: "Beat Meier" <Bea...@gm...>; <mad...@li...> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [Madwifi-users] Txpower limitation behaviour very strange ... > Tom, > > Beat and I have been kicking this poor mule to death off line trying to > determine if we are actually getting the 400mw advertised. We realize the > spec sheet for the SR5 (as well as most other radios) show that maximum > power is only available from the 24M rate on down. The problem is that a: > while "iwconfig ath0 txpower 26db" is accepted on the SR5 (but correctly > rejected if in the lower band, BTW), iwconfig then only reports 18db, and > b: the CM9 which we know only has 17db max txpower, is not 9db down from > the SR5 as measured by a receiving unit. So which is it? Is the SR5 > saying 18db but really tx'ing 26db (or something else?) Granted, this is > all in a WRAP/madwifi-ng environment, hence Beat's question regarding > different performance using StarOS. > > Field experiments do not indicate 400mw transmit, regardless of rate > setting. I would indeed be thrilled to get the real 16+mbs the 24M rate > gives but am unable to do so in the real world at distances that all > calculations, cable loss, antenna gains, etc., say should work. > > Beat (if I may speak for you?) and I are looking for someone's > experience/solution who is using the SR5 in an environment that will only > work if 26db is available. > > For myself, I am this evening backing away from the PtMP I had hoped for > with the extra power and deploying multiple PtP links. > > Tom, yours, or anyone else's real world comments on the SR5 and it's > alleged tx power are most welcome. > > Respectfully, > > Edwin > > Tom Sharples wrote: >> All cards (cm9, sr5, etc) will drop TX power as the speed increases. The >> sr5's rated max output power of 400 mw is available only at the lowest >> speeds. From my experience the airspeed settings will override the power >> settings. >> >> Tom Sharples >> President >> Qorvus Systems, Inc. >> www.qorvus.net >> 360.243.7371 >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beat Meier" <Bea...@gm...> >> To: <mad...@li...> >> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:49 AM >> Subject: **SPAM: [Madwifi-users] Txpower limitation behaviour very >> strange ... >> >> >>> Hi again >>> >>> I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. >>> If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. >>> But can someone explain me why the signal drops >>> about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? >>> If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other >>> end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) >>> This is not true!! It drops the same as the CM9 card. >>> If I lower the output to 10dbm the signal does not drop from 5M to 54M >>> nor on CM9 nor on SR5. >>> This leads to my second question. Is nobody using SR5 cards at 5.8GHz in >>> p2mp environment with madwifi? Why nobody does complain about low output >>> power. >>> Folks do you use mikrotik, staros or do you don't have p2mp with >>> madwifi? >>> >>> Example: >>> NOTE: the example is real. -26, -21 for SR5 is not a joke the signal at >>> the >>> client is the same as the specifiation dbm but this is coincidence. >>> It is at 4m, one site ruber duck, other site 22dbi grid ... >>> >>> Both sites full output i.e. default i.e. 17dbm >>> Client AP >>> CM9 SR5 >>> 54M: -24/-25dbm 54M: -26dbm >>> 6M: -20/-21dbm 6M: -20/21dbm >>> >>> Both sitesoutput set to 10dbm >>> Client AP >>> CM9 SR5 >>> 54M: -29dbm 54M: -28/-29dbm >>> 6M: -29dbm 6M: -28dbm >>> >>> >>> So what am I missing? >>> >>> BTW: Lowering txpower with cm9 while running does work but you cannot >>> set again more power until you restart interface with ifdown ath0;ifup >>> ath0. >>> This is so with madwifi-ng-1457 with patch txpower-20060412.diff >>> from ticket 508! >>> With SR5 both drivers works right ... >>> Changing dot_pwrtgt makes no difference (default by cm9 27, SR5 17 ...) >>> >>> Greetings >>> >>> Beat > > -- > <=+=+=+==+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=> > Edwin Whitelaw, P.E. > New River Valley Unwired, LLC > 2200 Lonesome Dove Dr > Christiansburg, VA 24073 > 540-239-0318 > |
From: Edwin W. <Edw...@nr...> - 2006-04-25 01:22:55
|
Tom, Do you know why madwifi never reports more than 18db or are you seeing something different? I'm running Voyage 0.2, -ng svn 1491 on a WRAP board. We're also using CM9s in 2 4+mile PtP links with madwifi-old. They've been great. I've got a 5.3 mile link with an SR5 as the AP driving a 16db sector and a 27db grid on the receiving end but cannot get a consistent usable connection. RSSI is around -74db though the AP does show -66db (not sure if the AP reported numbers are accurate, though.) Tried restricting the rate to various values at and below 24M. Do you have anything similar up and running? Edwin Tom Sharples wrote: > Well, we do have quite a few real-world ptmp deployments but they are > using wrap & CM9's and madwifi-old from mid 2005; these are in a > commercial production environment and work fine now that we have added > innumerable script and cron-job patches to overcome various stateful > bugs :-). > > We have tried the sr5 in a 1.5 mile ptp test and have seen the > expected 9db increase at the receive partner at the lower datarates in > the 5.8 Ghz region, but this has been testing only and not production. > I have also verified that there actually is a 9 db increase using an > Eaton nm37 microwave analyzer hooked up to the sr5 output (with a 30db > pad). > > Tom Sharples > President > Qorvus Systems, Inc. > www.qorvus.net > 360.243.7371 > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edwin Whitelaw" > <Edw...@nr...> > To: "Tom Sharples" <tsh...@qo...> > Cc: "Beat Meier" <Bea...@gm...>; > <mad...@li...> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [Madwifi-users] Txpower limitation behaviour very strange > ... > -- <=+=+=+==+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=> Edwin Whitelaw, P.E. New River Valley Unwired, LLC 2200 Lonesome Dove Dr Christiansburg, VA 24073 540-239-0318 |
From: Tom S. <tsh...@qo...> - 2006-04-25 04:06:46
|
Comments inline: > > Do you know why madwifi never reports more than 18db or are you seeing > something different? I'm running Voyage 0.2, -ng svn 1491 on a WRAP > board. As far as I know the HAL does not actually support attempts to set the hardware to greater than 18db output (altho madwifi may echo back the higher user settings under various conditions). To get around this (dumb) limitation the sr5's internally add 9 db to the HAL levels when (a) those are set to higher than around 16 db, and (b) you're operating in the 5.8 Ghz region. > > We're also using CM9s in 2 4+mile PtP links with madwifi-old. They've > been great. > > I've got a 5.3 mile link with an SR5 as the AP driving a 16db sector and a > 27db grid on the receiving end but cannot get a consistent usable > connection. RSSI is around -74db though the AP does show -66db (not sure > if the AP reported numbers are accurate, though.) Tried restricting the > rate to various values at and below 24M. Do you have anything similar up > and running? No altho we've done 3+ miles successfully with a pair of 29db 2" pacwireless dish antennas and sr5's. With madwifi you really need to have an initial snr of at least 22-24 db to get links started reliably; I don't know that you'd ever get there with the antenna arrangement you've described. Tom Sharples President Qorvus Systems, Inc. www.qorvus.net 360.243.7371 |
From: Jim T. <ji...@ne...> - 2006-04-26 05:10:18
|
On Apr 24, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Beat Meier wrote: > Hi again > > I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. > If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. > But can someone explain me why the signal drops > about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? This is normal for OFDM. You either have to have a very (very) =20 linear PA or you pull the power back. Reason as more carriers are used, staying in FCC compliance gets more =20= difficult (there is "more signal" going through the PA.) So nearly everyone pulls back power in order to stay in compliance. > If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other > end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) Thats not what the SR5 cal tables show (at least on my card). =20 Perhaps you should complain and return the card if that is the spec =20 you were given. > This is not true!! It drops the same as the CM9 card. > If I lower the output to 10dbm the signal does not drop from 5M to 54M > nor on CM9 nor on SR5. > This leads to my second question. Is nobody using SR5 cards at =20 > 5.8GHz in > p2mp environment with madwifi? Why nobody does complain about low =20 > output > power. > Folks do you use mikrotik, staros or do you don't have p2mp with =20 > madwifi? > > Example: > NOTE: the example is real. -26, -21 for SR5 is not a joke the =20 > signal at the > client is the same as the specifiation dbm but this is coincidence. > It is at 4m, one site ruber duck, other site 22dbi grid ... > > Both sites full output i.e. default i.e. 17dbm > Client AP > CM9 SR5 > 54M: -24/-25dbm 54M: -26dbm > 6M: -20/-21dbm 6M: -20/21dbm > > Both sitesoutput set to 10dbm > Client AP > CM9 SR5 > 54M: -29dbm 54M: -28/-29dbm > 6M: -29dbm 6M: -28dbm > > > So what am I missing? > > BTW: Lowering txpower with cm9 while running does work but you cannot > set again more power until you restart interface with ifdown =20 > ath0;ifup ath0. > This is so with madwifi-ng-1457 with patch txpower-20060412.diff > from ticket 508! > With SR5 both drivers works right ... > Changing dot_pwrtgt makes no difference (default by cm9 27, SR5 =20 > 17 ...) > > Greetings > > Beat > > --=20 > GMX Produkte empfehlen und ganz einfach Geld verdienen! > Satte Provisionen f=FCr GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =20 > security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your =20 > job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache =20 > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20 > cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > Madwifi-users mailing list > Mad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/madwifi-users |
From: Leszek O. <le...@os...> - 2006-04-26 08:42:16
|
Jim Thompson wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Beat Meier wrote: > >> Hi again >> >> I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. >> If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. >> But can someone explain me why the signal drops >> about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? > > This is normal for OFDM. You either have to have a very (very) linear > PA or you pull the power back. > Reason as more carriers are used, staying in FCC compliance gets more > difficult (there is "more signal" going through the PA.) > > So nearly everyone pulls back power in order to stay in compliance. > >> If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other >> end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) > > Thats not what the SR5 cal tables show (at least on my card). Perhaps > you should complain and return the card if that is the spec you were given. > Jim, this has already been discussed once in a while - the SR5 calibration tables have lowered values entered into them - they don't count external PA: =========================Calibration Information============================ | 5530 | 5750 | 5820 | 0000 | 0000 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| |pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)| | | | | | | | XPD_Gain 0 | | | | | | 25 6.75 | 25 8.00 | 25 8.25 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 47 14.50 | 45 15.50 | 46 15.75 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 57 17.75 | 54 18.00 | 55 19.25 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 62 19.75 | 57 19.50 | 56 19.25 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 63 19.75 | 63 19.50 | 63 19.25 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | | | | | | | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | 0000 | 0000 | 0000 | 0000 | 0000 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| |pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)| | | | | | | | XPD_Gain 0 | | | | | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | | | | | | | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| Press any key to continue ============================Target Power Info=============================== | rate | 5180 | 5240 | 5380 | 5470 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | 6-24 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 17.5 | | 36 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 16.5 | | 48 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 15.0 | | 54 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 13.5 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | rate | 5600 | 5650 | 5750 | 5820 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | 6-24 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | | 36 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 | | 48 | 15.0 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 14.5 | | 54 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.5 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| I guess they must have had a reason to do it that way. I don't know why though. Regards, Leszek |
From: Leszek O. <les...@os...> - 2006-04-26 08:39:46
|
Jim Thompson wrote: > > On Apr 24, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Beat Meier wrote: > >> Hi again >> >> I think there is a big problem with the hal and output power. >> If hal limits the output to 17dbm is one thing. >> But can someone explain me why the signal drops >> about 6dbm when you change from 6M to 54M bit rate with an SR5? > > This is normal for OFDM. You either have to have a very (very) linear > PA or you pull the power back. > Reason as more carriers are used, staying in FCC compliance gets more > difficult (there is "more signal" going through the PA.) > > So nearly everyone pulls back power in order to stay in compliance. > >> If the output is 17dbm SR5 should have the same signal at the other >> end at 6M or 54M (specification: 21dbm@54M, 26dbm@6-24M) > > Thats not what the SR5 cal tables show (at least on my card). Perhaps > you should complain and return the card if that is the spec you were given. > Jim, this has already been discussed once in a while - the SR5 calibration tables have lowered values entered into them - they don't count external PA: =========================Calibration Information============================ | 5530 | 5750 | 5820 | 0000 | 0000 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| |pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)| | | | | | | | XPD_Gain 0 | | | | | | 25 6.75 | 25 8.00 | 25 8.25 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 47 14.50 | 45 15.50 | 46 15.75 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 57 17.75 | 54 18.00 | 55 19.25 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 62 19.75 | 57 19.50 | 56 19.25 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 63 19.75 | 63 19.50 | 63 19.25 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | | | | | | | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | 0000 | 0000 | 0000 | 0000 | 0000 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| |pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)|pcdac pwr(dBm)| | | | | | | | XPD_Gain 0 | | | | | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | 00 0.00 | | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | 63 0.00 | | | | | | | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| Press any key to continue ============================Target Power Info=============================== | rate | 5180 | 5240 | 5380 | 5470 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | 6-24 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 17.5 | | 36 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 16.5 | | 48 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 15.0 | | 54 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 13.5 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | rate | 5600 | 5650 | 5750 | 5820 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| | 6-24 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 17.0 | | 36 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 | | 48 | 15.0 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 14.5 | | 54 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 13.5 | |==============|==============|==============|==============|==============| I guess they must have had a reason to do it that way. I don't know why though. Regards, Leszek |
From: Jim T. <ji...@ne...> - 2006-04-30 05:29:29
|
On Apr 25, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Leszek Olszewski wrote: > I guess they must have had a reason to do it that way. I don't know > why though. I've already explained it, three times now. |