All tower radios need that. 



----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




----- Original Message -----

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 5:21:37 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions? 


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: 

<blockquote>

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: 



<blockquote>



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. 







</blockquote>


</blockquote>


Reply via email to