Re: [AFMUG] OT Heat pipe cooled LED array

[Bill Prince]

You look a lot younger than I remember...


bp


On 6/30/2017 4:56 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Progress is slow, but am making progress.  This array is designed to 
replace all my 1000 watt metal halide high bay lights.  It burns 330 
watts.  Trying to eliminate fans etc.  If was was going to use fans I 
would have been done by now.  But no fan is going to last 20 years. 

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Jay Weekley]

But you also have marijuana!

Sean Heskett wrote:
Also if anyone else on the list who is very knowledgeable with OSPF, 
BGP etc. is looking for a good job in CO, hit me up.


I don't want to poach any employees from other WISPs tho so your 
current boss would need to be ok with it etc.


Also you MUST like snow and cold because we have a lot of both lol.

-Sean


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM Sean Heskett > wrote:


We'd be interested in talking to him.  We are in steamboat
springs, co.

Please have him send his resume to res...@zirkel.us
 and he can CC me at s...@zirkel.us


-Sean Heskett
Zirkel Wireless



On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:12 PM Adair Winter
>
wrote:

I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible
good with networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He
currently works for an IT company that does crop insurance
readjusting and wants to move to Colorado. Specifically the
Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)

If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach
out to me and I'll put you in touch.

Thanks


-- 


Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
C: 806.231.7180
http://www.amarillowireless.net 




 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[George Skorup]

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 > 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
> 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
> 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 +
 Rory Conaway > wrote:

I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W
all the time.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
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: s...@genias.net

Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0 Fax:
+49 941 942798-9 

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Mike Hammett]

All tower radios need that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
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 < part15...@gmail.com > wrote: 




Wish they made an AF24X... 
(just sayin') 

bp
 
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 < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 







I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time. 

Rory 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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. 

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Adair Winter]

I'll have him check. Thanks!

On Jun 30, 2017 6:13 PM, "Steve Jones"  wrote:

> Old school it guys, assuming they are accepting of the virtual workplace,
> are ideal remote guys, contract, etc. He might find progent com an ideal
> fit
>
> On Jun 30, 2017 5:12 PM, "Adair Winter" 
> wrote:
>
> I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible good with
> networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He currently works for an IT
> company that does crop insurance readjusting and wants to move to Colorado.
> Specifically the Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
> Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)
>
> If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach out to me and
> I'll put you in touch.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> Adair Winter
> VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
> Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071 <(806)%20316-5071>
> C: 806.231.7180 <(806)%20231-7180>
> http://www.amarillowireless.net
> 
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Adair Winter]

Cool. Will do. Thanks!

On Jun 30, 2017 7:14 PM, "Sean Heskett"  wrote:

> We'd be interested in talking to him.  We are in steamboat springs, co.
>
> Please have him send his resume to res...@zirkel.us and he can CC me at
> s...@zirkel.us
>
> -Sean Heskett
> Zirkel Wireless
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:12 PM Adair Winter 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible good with
>> networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He currently works for an IT
>> company that does crop insurance readjusting and wants to move to Colorado.
>> Specifically the Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
>> Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)
>>
>> If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach out to me and
>> I'll put you in touch.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Adair Winter
>> VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
>> Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071 <(806)%20316-5071>
>> C: 806.231.7180 <(806)%20231-7180>
>> http://www.amarillowireless.net
>> 
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Sean Heskett]

Also if anyone else on the list who is very knowledgeable with OSPF, BGP
etc. is looking for a good job in CO, hit me up.

I don't want to poach any employees from other WISPs tho so your current
boss would need to be ok with it etc.

Also you MUST like snow and cold because we have a lot of both lol.

-Sean


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM Sean Heskett  wrote:

> We'd be interested in talking to him.  We are in steamboat springs, co.
>
> Please have him send his resume to res...@zirkel.us and he can CC me at
> s...@zirkel.us
>
> -Sean Heskett
> Zirkel Wireless
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:12 PM Adair Winter 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible good with
>> networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He currently works for an IT
>> company that does crop insurance readjusting and wants to move to Colorado.
>> Specifically the Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
>> Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)
>>
>> If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach out to me and
>> I'll put you in touch.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Adair Winter
>> VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
>> Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
>> C: 806.231.7180
>> http://www.amarillowireless.net
>> 
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Sean Heskett]

We'd be interested in talking to him.  We are in steamboat springs, co.

Please have him send his resume to res...@zirkel.us and he can CC me at
s...@zirkel.us

-Sean Heskett
Zirkel Wireless



On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:12 PM Adair Winter 
wrote:

> I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible good with
> networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He currently works for an IT
> company that does crop insurance readjusting and wants to move to Colorado.
> Specifically the Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
> Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)
>
> If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach out to me and
> I'll put you in touch.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
>
> Adair Winter
> VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
> Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
> C: 806.231.7180
> http://www.amarillowireless.net
> 
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Adam Moffett]

This explanation sounds right.

If the Link Planner software says "down tilt" without specifying 
mechanical, I would assume you subtract the electrical down tilt.




-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 6/30/2017 2:55:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

I'm thinking it's not taking the built in downtilt into account. I'm 
planning with an online downtilt calculator, and it's showing the outer 
radius as only being 1.45 miles at 200' and 4.5 degrees downtilt.


Those have a 6 degree vertical beam, so I'd normally shoot for around 
2.5-3 degrees total downtilt (using the reasoning that there aren't 
going to be any customers floating around in the sky). Personally, I'd 
just put it at somewhere between 0.5 and 1 degree mechanical downtilt 
and call it a day.




On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Steve Jones 
 wrote:
we have always gone between 0 and 1 degree downtil after drive 
testing. we never cranked it down that extreme though.
maybe some cambium guy can clarify whether the link planner antenna 
pattern takes into account the built in tilt


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:
Yeah, I would think Linkplanner would know about that... but there is 
2 degrees of electrical downtilt on those antennas, so that's like 
4.5 degrees total... seems excessive to me.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Steve Jones 
 wrote:
its just what linkplanner says when I run the tilt calc. I assume 
this means mechanical elevation


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

Is that in addition to the built in downtilt?

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Steve Jones 
 wrote:

we are running these at 8 miles
sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 
mile and 8 mile (15foot)
Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want, 
even with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 
feet to 200 feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.


That seems like a lot to me

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Chris Wright]

That’ll do it!

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:04 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

 

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  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,  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  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  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  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 +
Rory Conaway  wrote:

I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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: s...@genias.net
Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0  Fax: +49 941 942798-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Steve Jones]

Old school it guys, assuming they are accepting of the virtual workplace,
are ideal remote guys, contract, etc. He might find progent com an ideal
fit

On Jun 30, 2017 5:12 PM, "Adair Winter"  wrote:

I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible good with
networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He currently works for an IT
company that does crop insurance readjusting and wants to move to Colorado.
Specifically the Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)

If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach out to me and
I'll put you in touch.

Thanks

-- 

Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071 <(806)%20316-5071>
C: 806.231.7180 <(806)%20231-7180>
http://www.amarillowireless.net

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Mathew Howard]

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  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,  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 
>> 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 
>>> 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 
 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 +
> Rory Conaway  wrote:
>
>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> 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: s...@genias.net
> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0>Fax: +49 941
> 942798-9 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9>
>


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Mathew Howard]

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,  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 
> 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 
>> 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 
>>> 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 +
 Rory Conaway  wrote:

> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>
> Rory
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> 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: s...@genias.net
 Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
 Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0>Fax: +49 941 942798-9
 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9>

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[chuck]

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  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  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  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 +
  Rory Conaway  wrote:

I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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: s...@genias.net
  Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
  Tel: +49 941 942798-0Fax: +49 941 942798-9

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Mathew Howard]

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  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 
> 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  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 +
>>>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>>>
 I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.

 Rory

 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
 Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 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: s...@genias.net
>>> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
>>> Tel: +49 941 942798-0Fax: +49 941 942798-9
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Eric Kuhnke]

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  wrote:

> Wish they made an AF24X...
>
> (just sayin')
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Anyone Hiring in the Colorado Springs Area

[Adair Winter]

I have a customer who is an IT Professional who is incredible good with
networking, cisco and other infrastructure. He currently works for an IT
company that does crop insurance readjusting and wants to move to Colorado.
Specifically the Colorado Springs area. (really he's open to anything but
Denver) He is an older gentleman, so he's uber reliable. :)

If anyone would like to get in touch with him, please reach out to me and
I'll put you in touch.

Thanks

-- 

Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
C: 806.231.7180
http://www.amarillowireless.net

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Bill Prince]

Wish they made an AF24X...

(just sayin')


bp


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 > wrote:


I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
*Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*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.

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Eric Kuhnke]

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  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  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 +
>>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> 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: s...@genias.net
>> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
>> Tel: +49 941 942798-0Fax: +49 941 942798-9
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Eric Kuhnke]

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 
wrote:

> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *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.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Holding the epmp2000 sync cablein place

[Mike Hammett]

I gave them feedback on the size of the Ethernet cable hole and mounting to 
older ePMP (RF-Elements sourced) sectors. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Steve Jones"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:27:39 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Holding the epmp2000 sync cablein place 


It looks crummy and adds to assembly time to tape these and over the years i 
assume it will come off. Is there a better way of keeping these in the channel 
than 3 wraps x4 of tape? It does make the aps look a little menacing on the 
tiwer though like angry isp 

Re: [AFMUG] Holding the epmp2000 sync cablein place

[Mathew Howard]

I tried using the holder thing on top of the ePMP 2000 antennas once, but I
couldn't see any decent way to make the cable stay in the channel, so I
just gave up on it and stuck it wherever was the most convenient. It would
be nice to keep everything all self contained though... I guess glueing the
cable into the channel or something like that could work.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> I just have it come out of the radio and magnet to the side of the lower
> mount.  Haven't had any issues with EPMP2000 that way, and few issues with
> EPMP1000.  Then just leave all the excess cable coiled up.
>
>
> On 6/30/2017 1:27 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
>> It looks crummy and adds to assembly time to tape these and over the
>> years i assume it will come off. Is there a better way of keeping these in
>> the channel than 3 wraps x4 of tape? It does make the aps look a little
>> menacing on the tiwer though like angry isp
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Holding the epmp2000 sync cablein place

[Nate Burke]

I just have it come out of the radio and magnet to the side of the lower 
mount.  Haven't had any issues with EPMP2000 that way, and few issues 
with EPMP1000.  Then just leave all the excess cable coiled up.


On 6/30/2017 1:27 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
It looks crummy and adds to assembly time to tape these and over the 
years i assume it will come off. Is there a better way of keeping 
these in the channel than 3 wraps x4 of tape? It does make the aps 
look a little menacing on the tiwer though like angry isp

Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Mathew Howard]

I'm thinking it's not taking the built in downtilt into account. I'm
planning with an online downtilt calculator, and it's showing the outer
radius as only being 1.45 miles at 200' and 4.5 degrees downtilt.

Those have a 6 degree vertical beam, so I'd normally shoot for around 2.5-3
degrees total downtilt (using the reasoning that there aren't going to be
any customers floating around in the sky). Personally, I'd just put it at
somewhere between 0.5 and 1 degree mechanical downtilt and call it a day.



On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> we have always gone between 0 and 1 degree downtil after drive testing. we
> never cranked it down that extreme though.
> maybe some cambium guy can clarify whether the link planner antenna
> pattern takes into account the built in tilt
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I would think Linkplanner would know about that... but there is 2
>> degrees of electrical downtilt on those antennas, so that's like 4.5
>> degrees total... seems excessive to me.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> its just what linkplanner says when I run the tilt calc. I assume this
>>> means mechanical elevation
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Is that in addition to the built in downtilt?

 On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:

> we are running these at 8 miles
> sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 mile
> and 8 mile (15foot)
> Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want,
> even with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 feet to
> 200 feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.
>
> That seems like a lot to me
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Steve Jones]

we have always gone between 0 and 1 degree downtil after drive testing. we
never cranked it down that extreme though.
maybe some cambium guy can clarify whether the link planner antenna pattern
takes into account the built in tilt

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Yeah, I would think Linkplanner would know about that... but there is 2
> degrees of electrical downtilt on those antennas, so that's like 4.5
> degrees total... seems excessive to me.
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> its just what linkplanner says when I run the tilt calc. I assume this
>> means mechanical elevation
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is that in addition to the built in downtilt?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 we are running these at 8 miles
 sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 mile
 and 8 mile (15foot)
 Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want, even
 with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 feet to 200
 feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.

 That seems like a lot to me

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, I would think Linkplanner would know about that... but there is 2
degrees of electrical downtilt on those antennas, so that's like 4.5
degrees total... seems excessive to me.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> its just what linkplanner says when I run the tilt calc. I assume this
> means mechanical elevation
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Is that in addition to the built in downtilt?
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> we are running these at 8 miles
>>> sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 mile
>>> and 8 mile (15foot)
>>> Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want, even
>>> with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 feet to 200
>>> feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.
>>>
>>> That seems like a lot to me
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Steve Jones]

its just what linkplanner says when I run the tilt calc. I assume this
means mechanical elevation

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Is that in addition to the built in downtilt?
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> we are running these at 8 miles
>> sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 mile and
>> 8 mile (15foot)
>> Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want, even
>> with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 feet to 200
>> feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.
>>
>> That seems like a lot to me
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Mathew Howard]

Is that in addition to the built in downtilt?

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> we are running these at 8 miles
> sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 mile and
> 8 mile (15foot)
> Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want, even
> with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 feet to 200
> feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.
>
> That seems like a lot to me
>

[AFMUG] epmp 2000 downtilt

[Steve Jones]

we are running these at 8 miles
sticking sms in along the bore and the edges at 1 mile, 3 mile 5 mile and 8
mile (15foot)
Linkplanner keeps telling us 2.5 degrees downtilt is what we want, even
with removing the 1 mile and 3 mile sets. this is the same 80 feet to 200
feet AGL, mostly flat terrain.

That seems like a lot to me

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik BTest Server

[Joe Novak]

https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=104266


Friend of mine hosts the planetcoop server, 10g server, 5min traffic
sustained. If you want to do a longer test I can put you in contact with
him.


Joe

On Jun 30, 2017 11:48 AM, "Colin Stanners"  wrote:

> Saw this before, posted by Jason but I don't know who the original author
> is:
>
> Jason Wilson jason @ remotelylocated.com via
>  amazonses.com
> 10/21/16
> to af
> Subject: Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server
> *EDIT: Feb 24 2016 --- Now supports up to 3.5 Gig speedtest - read all the
> posts *
> *EDIT: October 7th 2016 --- This btest server now supports 3.6 Gig for
> both send and receive tests - please read through all the posts*
>
>
> I have setup a public accessible Bandwidth test server. It is available
> for temporary testing through the Internet.
>
> To use this server to test your Mikrotik devices through the Internet you
> agree not to abuse it.
>
> Here are the details for my server:
> - x86 ROS hosted on VMware ESXi server (with 10-gig connection to the
> Internet)
> - Burstable to 250 Meg up/down
> - Sustained traffic is limited to 100 Meg up/down (after about 30 to 60
> seconds)
> - Your maximum connection time for testing is not to exceed 10 minutes.
> - IP Address: 207.32.195.2
> - btest user authentication needed: User: btest Password: btest
> - You may NOT winbox to this machine - you may bandwidth test to it.
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a BTest server that I can hit with a couple hundred megs
>> of traffic for a couple of minutes?  I'm in Illinois.  Offlist if necessary.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik BTest Server

[Colin Stanners]

Saw this before, posted by Jason but I don't know who the original author
is:

Jason Wilson jason @ remotelylocated.com via
 amazonses.com
10/21/16
to af
Subject: Public-Mikrotik-Bandwidth-Test-Server
*EDIT: Feb 24 2016 --- Now supports up to 3.5 Gig speedtest - read all the
posts *
*EDIT: October 7th 2016 --- This btest server now supports 3.6 Gig for both
send and receive tests - please read through all the posts*


I have setup a public accessible Bandwidth test server. It is available for
temporary testing through the Internet.

To use this server to test your Mikrotik devices through the Internet you
agree not to abuse it.

Here are the details for my server:
- x86 ROS hosted on VMware ESXi server (with 10-gig connection to the
Internet)
- Burstable to 250 Meg up/down
- Sustained traffic is limited to 100 Meg up/down (after about 30 to 60
seconds)
- Your maximum connection time for testing is not to exceed 10 minutes.
- IP Address: 207.32.195.2
- btest user authentication needed: User: btest Password: btest
- You may NOT winbox to this machine - you may bandwidth test to it.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have a BTest server that I can hit with a couple hundred megs
> of traffic for a couple of minutes?  I'm in Illinois.  Offlist if necessary.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Tower base question

[Lewis Bergman]

I think I quoted a 100' 25G for less than that turnkey.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:48 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> It's in Hobbs, NM..we have requested numbers...we are doing the tower
> monkey stuff installing antennas, cabling, radios, lightning protection and
> alignment.  The guys there thought electrical contractor who is in charge
> of erecting towers price is high...even with crane it seems high.
>
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> On Jun 29, 2017 3:43 PM,  wrote:
>
> Seems high to me.  What is the cubic volume and how much do you pay for
> concrete there?
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:22 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Tower base question
>
> What are you guys paying for concrete base for a  Rohn RS 60 ft. Self
> supported tower?  16,000.00 is what they quoted someone...seems high
>
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Netonix rebooting over and over

[Mathew Howard]

The specs say 65 watts, but ccording to what I've seen from others that
have measured them, the Baicells eNB should be more like 35 watts... but
that even seems to be a bit higher than what I'm seeing.

I have a 1-watt eNB powered by a Packetflux PDU, which is showing around
350ma @53.5v... but that's with it sitting mostly idle and only two clients
connected. If I start pushing data through one of those connections, I'm
seeing it peak as high as 540ma, but average is more like 425-450ma (this
is with 50-60mbps going through it to one client).



On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> The Baicells 1-watt eNB @ 3.5/3.6GHz is about 65 watts. I haven't actually
> measured this, but I can next week when I'm at one of those sites. So.. 4
> of those would be 260 watts.
>
> And I thought the Netonix 48VH POE mode is limited to 0.75A per port...?
> Those eNBs are going to pull well over 1A per port.
>
>
> On 6/29/2017 9:48 PM, Craig House wrote:
>
>> We install the DC powered Netonix 12 port switch today on the water tower
>> power off of 48 V power supply.   The only device is powered off of the
>> switch are Baicells sectors all four of them are power off of 48 V ports
>> 123 and 4.  When we first installed them all of them powered up
>> individually on the CAT5 cables one at a time. We are using a 48 V POE
>> splitter that works fine at several of our other locations. At one point we
>> rebooted the DC powered switch and noticed that over and over and over it
>> would power on the ports in a soon as the radios would start power up the
>> entire switch with power cycle again.  This happened about eight times
>> before I unplugged all four of the CAT5 cables from ports one through
>> four.  Wants the switch had completely powered up I  plug-in one cable at a
>> time and all of them powered up properly with gigabit ethernet links.
>>  What I'm curious is. Number one why would the switch power cycle over and
>> over unless the initial build up of the LTE base stations is substantially
>> more than the power draw to run it on average normally?  And if that's the
>> case is there a way that the switch can be configured so that the ports
>> don't power on all at the same time and I can set up a power on delay for
>> each port so that they each power on 5 to 10 seconds after each other.  ??
>> Has anyone else experienced this and what was your solution I can switch
>> back to an AC powered unit to see if that resolves the problem but it seems
>> that there shouldn't be that much of a voltage draw to affect the DC power
>> unit.  Now that all four radios have been running for several hours
>> straight it's only showing 100 what's of the draw on a device that should
>> be able to handle 250
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Mathew Howard]

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  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 +
>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>
>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> 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: s...@genias.net
> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
> Tel: +49 941 942798-0Fax: +49 941 942798-9
>

Re: [AFMUG] Netonix rebooting over and over

[Chuck McCown]

They will do 2 amps for a minute or so.

-Original Message- 
From: Jon Langeler

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Netonix rebooting over and over

1.5amp on VH ports I believe. Maybe your  power supply or power cord isn't 
supplying enough amps to the switch.


Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


On Jun 29, 2017, at 11:42 PM, George Skorup  
wrote:


The Baicells 1-watt eNB @ 3.5/3.6GHz is about 65 watts. I haven't actually 
measured this, but I can next week when I'm at one of those sites. So.. 4 
of those would be 260 watts.


And I thought the Netonix 48VH POE mode is limited to 0.75A per port...? 
Those eNBs are going to pull well over 1A per port.



On 6/29/2017 9:48 PM, Craig House wrote:
We install the DC powered Netonix 12 port switch today on the water tower 
power off of 48 V power supply.   The only device is powered off of the 
switch are Baicells sectors all four of them are power off of 48 V ports 
123 and 4.  When we first installed them all of them powered up 
individually on the CAT5 cables one at a time. We are using a 48 V POE 
splitter that works fine at several of our other locations. At one point 
we rebooted the DC powered switch and noticed that over and over and over 
it would power on the ports in a soon as the radios would start power up 
the entire switch with power cycle again.  This happened about eight 
times before I unplugged all four of the CAT5 cables from ports one 
through four.  Wants the switch had completely powered up I  plug-in one 
cable at a time and all of them powered up properly with gigabit ethernet 
links.   What I'm curious is. Number one why would the switch power cycle 
over and over unless the initial build up of the LTE base stations is 
substantially more than the power draw to run it on average normally? 
And if that's the case is there a way that the switch can be configured 
so that the ports don't power on all at the same time and I can set up a 
power on delay for each port so that they each power on 5 to 10 seconds 
after each other.  ??  Has anyone else experienced this and what was your 
solution I can switch back to an AC powered unit to see if that resolves 
the problem but it seems that there shouldn't be that much of a voltage 
draw to affect the DC power unit.  Now that all four radios have been 
running for several hours straight it's only showing 100 what's of the 
draw on a device that should be able to handle 250


Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Stefan Englhardt]

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 +
 Rory Conaway  wrote:
I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W 
all the time.


Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric 
Kuhnke

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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: s...@genias.net
Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0Fax: +49 941 942798-9

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Rory Conaway]

I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
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.