oh... I just occurred to me. The majority of the traffic on the one that's running 10.5 watts is being transmitted, but the on the one running 8 watts, it's almost all received.
Yeah... the one running at 8 watts is currently has about 10Mbps TX and 110Mbps RX going through it, and the run running at 10 watts is doing about 90Mbps TX and 9Mbps RX... so apparently the current draw does change quite a bit under load on these. On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe slightly different, but not much... I'm pretty sure they're both > under 10 feet. > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Different cable lengths? >> >> *From:* Mathew Howard >> *Sent:* Friday, June 30, 2017 4:36 PM >> *To:* af >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >> revisions? >> >> Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them >> going drawing that much from the wall. >> >> Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one site, >> where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX PoE, so >> they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths, etc. and >> one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The interesting >> thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has less load >> going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also slightly newer. >> I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring current >> (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would expect >> them to at least be kinda consistent. >> >> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months ago, >>> drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter that >>> it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of kill-a-watt >>> seems to be better. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios have >>>> always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 3-4W. >>>>> SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +0000 >>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ----- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net ------ >>>>> Genias Internet >>>>> Stefan Englhardt Email: [email protected] >>>>> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20 D-93051 Regensburg >>>>> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0> Fax: +49 941 >>>>> 942798-9 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
