Can’t be a Ubiquiti product ... name doesn’t contain “air” or “tough” or “fi” or “beam”.
How about WormBeam, or AirHole. From: Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X Is that .... Worm with holes ? or Holes in Worms ? Confused :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Matt Hardy" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 9:08:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X Exactly :) On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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.
