I always assumed people were over zealous in RMAs *shrug*
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > Customers. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 4, 2017 8:48:20 AM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board > revisions? > > Customers or Vendors? > We have almost zero returns. We do give an RMA number to the customer for > logging purposes, but if they don’t put the number on the box it is no big > deal because we are expecting it. I see maybe one return per quarter. > > *From:* Mike Hammett > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 04, 2017 6:25 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board > revisions? > > I'll never understand why people are resistant to doing RMAs. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" <[email protected]> > *To: *"af" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 4, 2017 1:37:53 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board > revisions? > > We've never done a RMA on one to my knowledge, at least in recent > history. Or if we have, it's been so few that I haven't become aware of > it. I'd have to look though the pile of RMAed hardware to be sure. I > vaguely remember some sort of software or manufacturability issue on the > first few that went out..there may have been some swapped way back then, > but that was so long ago I don't remember what it was. > > I'd really be surprised if there was a general systemic issue with these. > The hardware are in all ways that matter identical to a powerinjector plus > sync which we've been shipping for years in various forms. Just remove > the rj45's and the sync inputs, and add one more port. Of course, I am > prepared to be surprised. > > Just to repeat what I've said in the past, I really need to see the > failures which do occur in order to be able to fix problems. Every product > which we've shipped which is similar enough to a currently shipping product > is eligible for RMA at no cost. In some cases this means that even > products which are years old are still convered. About the only exclusions > are water damage and earlier revisions of products which have enough design > changes that failures are no longer interesting. It certainly doesn't hurt > to send a request in. > > On Jul 3, 2017 7:45 AM, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oops...nevermind. Looks like they are still on there. They were great >> for powering Chuck's GIGE-POE-APC injectors, if only they were more >> reliable. Perhaps he has worked out the bugs by now, as ours were >> purchased years ago when the product was first released. >> >> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power- >>> distribution-unit/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board >>> revisions? >>> >>> >>> George, >>> >>> What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site except >>> 4 and 8 port injectors. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements to >>>> be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 watts. >>>> Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts. >>>> And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while >>>> the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough. >>>> All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode. >>>> I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry >>>> about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will handle. >>>> >>>> On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 Fax: +49 941 942798-9 >>>>>>> <%2B49%20941%20942798-9> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > >
