You RMA'ed two of my 5-ch distribution boxes, but they were ordered from the very first batch at release. I'd have to dig up the emails between you and I, but it seems like you found an issue with the early hardware and were changing suppliers on a part or something. One of my replacements ended up doing the same thing after a few months, so I never ordered any more. Sounds like whatever the issue was, it has been worked out now. I'll have to swap out the few I have with issues and give them another try!
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < [email protected]> wrote: > 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-dist >>> ribution-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 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0> Fax: +49 941 >>>>>>> 942798-9 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
