When I started working in mining, all of the mines I worked with were using Cisco APs mounted on the borer to facilitate a network connection to the less mobile equipment. The root of the link is usually the end of an extensible conveyor belt, and the PLCs controlling the belt communicate with the PLCs on the borer. There are things like safety interlocks which shut down the belt if the communication is interrupted. The extensible belt root AP is also uplinked to the rest of the mine network.
The Cisco bridges worked reasonably well at reasonable distances. On the bright side, EIRP was not a concern since we were far enough underground to prevent any sort of radiation into the open atmosphere, so very high gain antennas were standard operating procedure. I tried to find a pic, but just think parabolic dish.
But the borer moves away from the extensible as it does its work. We’re talking thousands of feet, and the cuts that the borer makes don’t stay level over the entire cut – so LoS is not maintained. On one hand, hard rock does an alright job bouncing signal along. On the other, throughput and data rate still faded quickly.
Yes, that IS two 1242 APs in a NEMA enclosure with back to back patch antennas, forming a repeater; AND I’m happy to see you!
It worked. No channel reuse (sorry Keith) because it was more important for unskilled miners to be able to move and install them with zero config. The entire set of root, repeaters and end bridge are hard coded to the same frequency.
Oh and if you could see to the ground in that picture, you’d find a car battery and some alligator clips. Fancy.
And yes that’s repeaters plural. The borer just got that far away. Sometimes it goes around a corner and then you need a repeater too.
So it’s not surprising to know that throughput was… not great. When VoIP was first brought out to the borers, we had a problem with the PLC interlock between the borer and the extensible belt dropping anytime someone picked up the phone. Neither the PLC interlock nor the VoIP call required much bandwidth, but there was enough latency or loss to starve the interlock, and VoIP tends to get prioritized by default. We had to do a little QoS reservation for the PLCs to keep them running at the expense of the calls.
This is a Ubiquiti PowerBridge M3. 3.5GHz licensed frequency? No problem – we’re thousands of meters underground! That’s a 20dBi integrated panel antenna, and a 2 SS radio.They use a root AP with a 26dBi antenna, and 12dBi repeaters, if necessary (sorry, I neglected to record the antenna specs on the Cisco gear when we installed them years back).
The results were rather stunning. At distances without repeaters, they can maintain near 100Mbps. With repeaters, they stay stable at distances of six to eight thousand feet without LoS due to elevation change. In the particular set I checked recently, the bridge was operating at the 32.5Mbps data rate (not throughput) over a 5Mhz wide channel, with 25dBm output power on the borer AP (100Mbps data rate was at 20MHz channel widths). The root has a 26dBi antenna, and the repeaters 12dBi. I didn’t have a chance to grab the models and power settings on those though.
Just for fun, here’s an idea of the perspective of the borer AP:
So these are significant (though unquantified) improvements from the 1242 and 1310 Cisco bridges. Had I thought to keep specs from then, perhaps I would have been able to provide more than just anecdotal commentary. But there are a few points that make it clear we’re not making an apples to apples comparison:
- 3Ghz is not Wi-Fi At a rough level, it also goes farther with less loss.
- 5Mhz wide channels are also not Wi-Fi. While there are some benefits to narrower channels being a little more robust against interference, interference generally isn’t a concern in this environment
- Ubiquiti isn’t exactly known for playing by the rules in general. There are some proprietary enhancements at play – the data sheet for the M3 lists it as a MIMO TDMA protocol device
I’m no Ubiquiti fan. I know their gear is a lower quality hardware, and that they’ve caused some trouble in the unlicensed space. But that’s not the point.
This is a unique environment. Disposable hardware is favoured – service contracts are less useful here, so spares are kept on the shelf for quick deployment, which means low cost is a bonus. Performance is priority, and we’re not constrained by the rules of the surface world.
The engineers and technicians on site like a lot of things about the Ubiquiti bridges, including the simple (yet effective) GUI, and the physical signal strength indicators on the bridge, which simplify aiming.
In the end, I guess it comes back to designing for requirements. Each solution may shine or fail horribly in different scenarios.
I’m not the most experienced Wi-Fi engineer, but I’m learning, and I found this an interesting educational experience. I am curious to hear what the more experienced member of the Wi-Fi community think about Ubiquiti and their place in these less traditional deployments.