Exactly :) On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) < geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
> Wormholes. > > > On 5/4/2015 7:03 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > >> The short burst concept could work. In that case, longer links would be >> better. How many bits(bytes) can you fit into a microsecond? At 10 miles, >> transit time is a little over 53 microseconds. So both ends could start >> transmitting at the same time, and if they shut up at 53 microseconds, the >> incoming would be in the clear. >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> On 5/4/2015 4:51 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >>> But if I try to talk while you're talking, on the assumption that by the >>> time you receive my transmission you will have stopped talking and can now >>> listen, I have the additional problem that I can't talk because I'm >>> listening. >>> >>> The only way I see this working is if we send in extremely short bursts >>> no longer than the time the bits take to fly through the air. So we both >>> send our tiny burst, and just as the first bits get to the other end, we >>> both stop xmt and switch to rcv so we can grab the bits. Modify this to >>> allow for OFDM cyclic prefix and delays due to multipath reflections, etc. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Prince >>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:42 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X >>> >>> Think of the air in between as a storage device. >>> >>> bp >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> On 5/4/2015 4:12 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>>> Ubiquiti claims to have that patent pending HDD mode where it figures >>>> out how long the bits take to fly through the air. >>>> >>>> I think of it as similar to road construction on one lane of a two lane >>>> road, and somehow the flagger at one end will flip his sign from STOP to >>>> SLOW before the guy at the other end. I can't wrap my head around how that >>>> works. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) >>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:03 PM >>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X >>>> >>>> I have one AF5 up running FDD in the DFS band at 3.4 miles. We didn't >>>> want to try to push an AF24 that far. RTT average is around 0.8ms, so >>>> yes, like a licensed radio. >>>> >>>> No idea about the AF5X, haven't bought any. But I'd guess latency would >>>> be similar to the AF5 or 24 in half-duplex mode, which is going to be >>>> like 4-5ms. I have only done FDD though.. because it's moar better. >>>> >>>> On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>> >>>>> So I assume latency in FDD mode is sub millisecond like a licensed >>>>> backhaul? >>>>> >>>>> What's is latency like on the AF5X? Similar to a PTP600, a few >>>>> milliseconds and very constant? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:48 PM >>>>> To: af@afmug.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X >>>>> >>>>> No FDD. Not 48 volt. Not 40+ watts. >>>>> >>>>> On 5/4/2015 5:45 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Can someone point me to a concise explanation somewhere of the >>>>>> difference between AF5 and AF5X? Where you would use each, and what you >>>>>> give up with the X in return for smaller, cheaper, lower power, and >>>>>> drop-in >>>>>> replacement for a Rocket? >>>>>> >>>>>> I know it doesn't have the built-in high isolation TX and RX >>>>>> antennas, and doesn't do a gig of throughput. But I'm sure there's more >>>>>> to >>>>>> it. It's not jumping out at me on the UBNT website. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >