Wish they made an AF24X...
(just sayin')
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 6/30/2017 2:49 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I wouldn't be confusing an AF5X with an AF24... Have been using AF24
for rooftop to rooftop links since firmware v1.0. They get nice and
warm if you put a palm to their heatsink and it certainly feels like
50W. :-)
I do have a brand new pair of AF24 here with v3.2.3 on them, just for
fun I checked, and with max Tx power an AF24 with an active link
measures as 55W from the wall using a kill-a-watt.
I'm assuming the factory default ubnt PoE injector is about 84%
efficient, so if powered from a dc-dc poe injector with slightly less
loss in the DC conversion, the load is probably right at 50W.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
Rory
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
*Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board
revisions?
Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before
they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and
maybe I'm not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X
use less power than the older ones.
This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a
kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going
through it, but as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same
amount whether or not it's under load, since the AF architecture
is constantly sending/receiving frames whether or not they have an
ethernet data payload.
