Who is to say a wormBeam isn't already in the works? ;) I have to admit...I am partial to AirHole...
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *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]> <[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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > >
