I am talking about all wires being one polarity.  I think I can get 12 amps 
without melting anything.  

From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 5:41 PM
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux & 450M Timing

Let me be more clear. 


The circuit that is pins 4,5 (+), and pins 7,8 (-) is one circuit. Total of .75 
amps.

The circuit that is pins 1,2 (-), and pins 3,6 (+) is one circuit. Total of .75 
amps.

That puts 375 milliamps on each pin and each wire. That's because the 
power/current that is going in on pins 7 & 8, has to return on pins 4 & 5. You 
can't double that.


Possibly more than I would be comfortable with anyway.




bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 11/14/2016 12:18 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

  Half an amp per wire on one chart, 3.5 amps on another chart.  Heating and 
insulation temperature rating are going to be the limiting factors there.  
  Jacks I use have a 1.5 amp rating per pin.  

  So, I think you can get 12 amps total if the cable is short enough.  

  From: Bill Prince 
  Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:11 PM
  To: [email protected] 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux & 450M Timing

  Each pair is one half of a power circuit. So there are 4 halves. There are 
two issues; how much current can each wire carry, and how much current can each 
connector pin can carry. 


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 11/14/2016 11:59 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

    There are four pairs.  AF5x and the H in 24vh or 48vh POE ports of Netonix 
do power over all four pairs.  Speaking with Ubnt support last week, AF5x 
should ideally do four pairs when possible. 

    48v (0.75*4a) = 144 watts


    Josh Luthman
    Office: 937-552-2340
    Direct: 937-552-2343
    1100 Wayne St
    Suite 1337
    Troy, OH 45373

    On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote:

      At 48 volts, and .75 amps per pair of power wires, that would be 36 watts 
+ 36 watts, or 72 watts total?

      Just noodling here.



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 11/14/2016 11:38 AM, George Skorup wrote:

        For the record, 
http://store.packetflux.com/powerinjector-plus-sync-gigabit-version/ says: 1A 
per port maximum power.  (48 watts at 48 Volts)

        So.. is the electronic over-current protection the 1A limit? Or is this 
just outdated info? Pretty sure it's >1A because I've "tested" it (cable 
leaking water into the GigE-APC, the port didn't trip, and the card was hot as 
hell).

        I was also unaware that Cambium won't be supporting sync-over-power on 
the 450m. I imagine the ringing/bounce issue killed that idea due to the high 
power consumption.


        On 11/14/2016 1:00 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

          The current products should power the 450M just fine.  The rating is 
1A per pair per port, so at the 48V you're good up to 96W. 


          On Nov 14, 2016 7:50 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote:

            The 450m pulls 70 watts. The current 
SyncInjector/PowerInjector+Sync is around 1A max per port. What you could do 
for now is a GigE-POE-APC and the new aux port version SyncBox Junior. 


            On 11/14/2016 12:34 PM, Matt wrote:

              Shouldn't the sync over power for the 450M be the same as PMP450i?

              How is the 1u sync injector coming?



              On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
              <[email protected]> wrote:

                All of the currently shipping syncbox product line are 
compatible.  For sync
                over power, I have the specs, but the design isn't done yet.


                On Nov 14, 2016 5:40 PM, "Sam Lambie" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

                  A question for Forrest mostly. Have you come up with a timing 
product for
                  the 450m AP yet? If not, have you got a timeline for release?

                  Sam

                  --
                  --
                  Sam Lambie
                  Taosnet Wireless Tech.
                  575-758-7598 Office
                  www.Taosnet.com












Reply via email to