WormBeam for the win.
Matt Hardy and Ben Moore better be taking notes.
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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 9:23 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
