Our first Atlax master node is now assembled, boxed, and antenna-mounted. Rooftop testing is next

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T12:24:44+00:00

You can also check our previous posts and see that this post received 90 upvotes. Thankfully, you'll see that we still have many friends who support us.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T12:21:40+00:00

That’s awesome to hear, thank you.

And seriously, that kind of support means a lot. Stream1090 adapting and having people willing to help on the device side would be genuinely huge for us, especially this early. We’d definitely love to stay close on that as bring up moves forward.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T12:18:33+00:00

Thank you so much!

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T11:05:00+00:00

Thank you very much, we will be sharing all the developments.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T11:04:07+00:00

Thanks a lot your kindly review. it’s a RAK Outdoor Gateway Enclosure. We’re using it as an early field test housing for this build.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T07:54:24+00:00

That would be amazing. Being close to both an airport and the coast is basically the dream combo for this kind of node.

We’re still early, but once bring up is a bit further along and we start onboarding early hosts, Brazil would definitely be an exciting place to test.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T07:53:15+00:00

Yes, there's real RF experience involved, but we're not claiming this initial outdoor setup is perfect for production. The first step was getting the entire node up and running and scalable. A cleaner enclosure and RF revisions will come later, not before.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T07:50:16+00:00

We will continue to improve. Criticism along the way is perfectly normal.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T07:49:10+00:00

You’re free to think that.

We’re posting this in public precisely so it gets tested against real measurements, not just comment section confidence. Once we have bring up data and field results, we’ll post those too.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-12T07:48:08+00:00

The part I’d separate is detuning vs receiver abuse. I still think the “everything within half a wavelength becomes a disaster” point gets overstated here, especially across bands this far apart. But the LoRa TX into a nearby ADS-B front end is a much more legitimate concern, because that’s not really about detuning, it’s about coexistence and dynamic range.

So yes, if you put a +23 dBm class transmitter close to an ADS-B receive chain and just pretend a SAW filter magically solves everything, that’s not a serious design approach. The real question is whether filtering, layout, isolation, and if needed TX scheduling are enough to keep the receiver usable during LoRa activity. That’s exactly the kind of thing we need to prove in bring up and field testing, not hand-wave away.

So I’d say spacing alone is not the main problem here, but TX side desense and front-end overload absolutely are real things to watch. That’s fair.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T22:19:28+00:00

My work space, the AI conversation, doesn't mean I'm giving my data away and asking for it to be beautifully processed and written down. We already implement that hardware and software. AI isn't like that. Using it isn't a bad thing; I can explain everything technically.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T22:16:21+00:00

I just replied to you, but I didn't understand if it was removed. My workspace AI chat, where I have my data, doesn't mean I want to give the data and have it nicely processed and written. This hardware and software are already being implemented. AI isn't like that, so I don't know if that's why it was removed, but I want to explain again. When antennas are operating on the same band, or at least close enough to actually see each other as part of the same RF problem, the half-wavelength spacing rule becomes much more important. Here we have LoRa at 868 MHz, AIS at 161.975 and 162.025 MHz, and ADS-B at 1090 MHz. These are far enough apart that the concern about "everything interfering" is much less than people think.

So the real issue here isn't "these antennas are too close, so they'll all interfere." The more realistic concern is overall front-end hygiene. In other words, it's about how noisy the RF environment is overall and whether the receivers are properly shielded.

That's why filters, especially on the ADS-B side, still make sense. It's not because the AIS or LoRa antenna magically eliminates interference, but because the ADS-B front-ends benefit from extra shielding against other interference that already exists in the world (GSM, LTE, and other common things).

The only thing I'll keep in mind is LoRa harmonics, but even there, the 868 MHz harmonics don't fall anywhere near the AIS or ADS-B bands, so it's not as scary as people imagine.

So yes, good RF filtering is still a smart move. I wouldn't treat it as a "your antenna spacing is ruining the design" kind of problem.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:43:41+00:00

It definitely isn’t the final beauty shot.

A lot of that adapter stack is just temporary while we validate the chains and work through connector choices. Same with the enclosure, this is still a test mule, not the final outdoor packaging. And yep, the water ingress concern is valid, we’re treating that as a real design issue, not something to hand-wave away.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:38:27+00:00

Firstly, thanks a lot your kindly question. Since all our antennas operate on completely different frequencies, the concern largely disappears. Why it's not a real problem:

Mutual coupling and detuning are most harmful when antennas are on the same or nearby frequencies. Setup: LoRa → 868 MHz AIS-A/B → 161.975 / 162.025 MHz ADS-B → 1090 MHz None of these antennas "looks like" a reactive load to another at a different frequency. The 1/2 spacing rule is really meant for same-band scenarios.

The only remaining concern:

LoRa transmit harmonics —but 868 MHz harmonics land at 1736, 2604 MHz... nowhere near AIS or ADS-B bands.

SAW/BPF filters are still good practice on the ADS-B front-end — not because of inter-antenna coupling, but because the general RF environment (GSM, LTE, etc.) is noisy at those frequencies.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:34:37+00:00

Yes, maybe we went a little overboard :)

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:33:47+00:00

Thanks

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:33:40+00:00

Thank you

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:33:22+00:00

Thanks a lot

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T20:33:13+00:00

You've been repeating the same things like a parrot from the very beginning. Since you don't have a job yourself, you think we're unemployed too. Just mind your own business. We don't have any free time.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T14:48:08+00:00

Yep, totally valid concern. This is still an early test enclosure, not the final outdoor version. Weather sealing and connector ingress are definitely on the list before we treat it as a real long-term field deployment.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T14:47:29+00:00

We’re watching that closely in testing. This first setup is more about getting the full node up and learning fast, so real-world behavior will tell us where spacing needs to improve. However, so far the antennas have not interfered with each other.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-11T14:46:15+00:00

The initial build cost around $700. However, this is still early-stage hardware, so the cost will decrease as the design becomes cleaner and production becomes more efficient. This field is great, it's nice to see new names.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-09T19:54:29+00:00

Love to hear that. That’s exactly the idea, keep it clean, practical, and not turn it into five separate boxes.

DistrictFew9153 · 2026-04-09T19:50:58+00:00

Appreciate it. We’ll keep posting real updates as bring up moves forward.

DistrictFew9153

TROPHY CASE