I want to add my 0.02.... Every current generation packetflux product is warranted from all failures regardless of the cause. Lightning. Water. Random failures. And so on. Pretty much everything shipped within the last three or so years falls under this. Heck, we even pay round trip shipping in the U.S.
I WANT to see them back. Every one is specifically analyzed for the cause of the failure and if I see more than a couple failures of a specific cause then I make changes to address them. As a specific example, rev c injectors often came back with a specific trace blown on the bottom of the board. We determined that this was being blown by the energy from lightning strikes using that particular path to ground in systems where the dc power plant was grounded. Although the trace was far bigger than was needed for normal use, the thousands of amps of a lightning strike was too much for it. A change to the board layout has eliminated that failure mode. I could name other similar issues which have been taken care of as a result of failure analysis. The current rev injectors pretty much only come back with either severe widespread lightning damage from direct strikes (rare) or damage from water ingress through the cables (far more often), both of which are problems which one could argue aren't really my problem, but I'm still looking for solutions. On Sep 26, 2014 8:54 AM, "Adam Moffett via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: > Strangely enough, I've had the opposite experience with reliability. > I've had more mysterious deaths from sync injectors.....haven't had a CMM > failure in years. > > You really prefer the CMM? I use to have tons of issues with CMMs > losing sync, losing power, dying. It seems to me like the sync injectors > are a fraction of the cost and are almost an 'install and forget it' type > of product. They just keep on working. I actually prefer the cheaper > version that Packetflux offers, having used both extensively. > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Adam Moffett via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> .....also the PMP100 SyncInjector from Packetflux ought to work with >> ePMP. You might want the gigE version, but in the real world with a mix of >> subscribers at different MCS levels I'm not sure how likely you are to >> exceed 100x100. >> >> The CMM4 is a much more rugged beast. It is expensive, but you are not >> likely to go back and wish you'd bought the cheap one. >> >> My plan is to hook up the internal GPS and have it available, but also to >> provide sync over power. Once you are using GPS sync to re-use channels it >> becomes critical that it's always working, so better to have two timing >> sources available IMO. >> >> They have built in GPS if youre on a budget, not sure why alot of >> people are so die hard against using it >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jeremy Grip via Af <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I’m looking at ePMP w/channel reuse from a cost-comparison standpoint. >>> Trying to figure out how much I need to spend on GPS synch for a 4 AP/ 2 >>> channel cluster. Does it need to be a CMM4? I will want to be synching >>> multiple POPs… >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Grip >>> North Branch Networks,LLC >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >> >> >> > >
