This on the AP side??
Better spot for the ground lug?? Maybe the bottom? Another request on the ground lug - make the head of the lug bolt larger. When we try to put anything larger than like 14 gauge wire on there, it won't stay under the screw head - the screw head just pushes it out.
I'm not a fan of the ground lug on the back, the biggest reason is it makes it sigifianctly more difficult to field service.
everything in the air is complicated 10 fold, if we need to replace one after the install, bending 6ga (my desired minimium ground contact) is difficult, if its on the back of the radio the person having to replace it has to free the radio from the sector, then some how hold the radio safely while disconnecting and then reconnecting the new radio, this is a saftey hazzard due to drop risk of the radio. the ground lug needs to be accessiable after the radio has been safely attached to the sector to reduce drop hazzard in my opinion.
attached is a photo of commonly used 6ga single hole ground lug. double hole lugs are the most common used for the cell carriers. i'd be happy with this sized lug contact with quarter 20 hardware, this lug is sized for 3/8 hardware.
as a side note, if you designed this lug hole to pass all the way through the radio, and makes contact near the most heat generating componet of the radios, i'm willing to bet having this thick of a ground contact would have an extra impact on the overall temp of the radio.
@Cambium_Julia wrote:
Chris,
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the visual. For the ePMP 2000, the grounding screw was moved to the back of the radio, where you can attach larger gauge cables because you are no longer limited by the tight enclosure in the radio. What are your thoughts on this placement?
Feel free to ignore the salt/fog labeling and that the grounding screw is a little smaller than it is supposed to be.
- 20170714_114352.jpg (4.89 MB)
@Chris_Bay wrote:everything in the air is complicated 10 fold, if we need to replace one after the install, bending 6ga (my desired minimium ground contact) is difficult, if its on the back of the radio the person having to replace it has to free the radio from the sector, then some how hold the radio safely while disconnecting and then reconnecting the new radio, this is a saftey hazzard due to drop risk of the radio.
How would a climber hold the radio while changing the grounding cable? It seems like you wouldn't have enough hands or horizontal surfaces to make that change. I can now understand why there would be a drop risk during that switch, and why it would be easier to have the grounding lug on the front of the radio.
@Cambium_Julia wrote:
@Chris_Bay wrote:everything in the air is complicated 10 fold, if we need to replace one after the install, bending 6ga (my desired minimium ground contact) is difficult, if its on the back of the radio the person having to replace it has to free the radio from the sector, then some how hold the radio safely while disconnecting and then reconnecting the new radio, this is a saftey hazzard due to drop risk of the radio.
How would a climber hold the radio while changing the grounding cable? It seems like you wouldn't have enough hands or horizontal surfaces to make that change. I can now understand why there would be a drop risk during that switch, and why it would be easier to have the grounding lug on the front of the radio.
the problem is a climber can't really use a hand to hold the screw, screw driver and the radio. you've got to find a place to pin the radio down while you get the screw and cable lined up, then grab the radio to tighten the screw. the flat surface space is nearly none existent so you've got to use your leg to do it.
having the grounding lug on the front would make it easier because the ground cable wouldn't be installed until the radio has been installed on the sector antenna, then there is no need to hold onto the radio while trying to screw in the ground cable and at this point the drop risk is changed from 1 pound radio to a bolt or screw weighing less than an ounce.
1 Like
There are NO tricks when trying to mount Force 110 parabolics.
If you look at the Force 200's, the design of its mount is much superior to the design of the Force 110 mount.
For example, on the Force 200's - you mount the parabolic on the pole and point it in the general direction that it is suppossed to aim.
Adjust the azmuth left and right.
Lock down the azmuth adjustment, then loosen other second set of screws on the mount and adjust the elevation for max signal. Then tighten the elevation screws.
Go back and loosen the azmuth screws and pan the azmuth of the dish for max signal. Tighten up everything and you are done.
On the Force 110 parabolics, you have only ONE SET OF SCREWS that tightens up everything.
You cannot make both azmuth and elevation adjustments at the same time, plus tighten up the one set of bolts and expect the parabolic to stay where you want it.
Have the guy that designed the Force 110 mount go up a tower an try to mount one himself. He will be ashamed for every putting that mount on the market.
Futhermore, you would think that customers (such as us) that (for various reasons) pay extra buying the ePMP AP's and SM's radios and the Force 110 parabolics (instead of the Force 200 paraboloics) would be getting a decent mount with the parabolics.
Someone in management with some mechanical experience needs to get a Force 110 and a Force 200 and compare the two mounts. They will easily be able to see the difference.
brubble 1 says it correctly in his post: "Mounting a 110 with the buggy and slow as molasses UI was most rage inducing combination I ever had the displeasure of working with.
I, and many others out in the field, agree with brubble 1's comments above.
Danny Ray Boyer,
Thank you for your honest feedback. We value your input and conduct these conversations to clearly and exactly understand your needs. Our design team is fully engaged in incorporating your feedback, and you will see proof of that in our future products.
Sincerely,
Julia
OK
Many thanks
jyd