Wish they made an AF24HD with an SFP port, 100BaseTX management port and direct DC terminals.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > wrote: > >> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time. >> >> >> >> Rory >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM >> *To:* [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. >> >> >> >> >> > > >
