Exactly :)
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) <
geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
> Wormholes.
>
>
> On 5/4/2015 7:03 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
>> The short burst concept could work. In that case, longer links would be
>> better. How many bits(bytes) can you fit into a microsecond? At 10 miles,
>> transit time is a little over 53 microseconds. So both ends could start
>> transmitting at the same time, and if they shut up at 53 microseconds, the
>> incoming would be in the clear.
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>> On 5/4/2015 4:51 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>>> But if I try to talk while you're talking, on the assumption that by the
>>> time you receive my transmission you will have stopped talking and can now
>>> listen, I have the additional problem that I can't talk because I'm
>>> listening.
>>>
>>> The only way I see this working is if we send in extremely short bursts
>>> no longer than the time the bits take to fly through the air. So we both
>>> send our tiny burst, and just as the first bits get to the other end, we
>>> both stop xmt and switch to rcv so we can grab the bits. Modify this to
>>> allow for OFDM cyclic prefix and delays due to multipath reflections, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Prince
>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:42 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X
>>>
>>> Think of the air in between as a storage device.
>>>
>>> bp
>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>
>>> On 5/4/2015 4:12 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ubiquiti claims to have that patent pending HDD mode where it figures
>>>> out how long the bits take to fly through the air.
>>>>
>>>> I think of it as similar to road construction on one lane of a two lane
>>>> road, and somehow the flagger at one end will flip his sign from STOP to
>>>> SLOW before the guy at the other end. I can't wrap my head around how that
>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:03 PM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X
>>>>
>>>> I have one AF5 up running FDD in the DFS band at 3.4 miles. We didn't
>>>> want to try to push an AF24 that far. RTT average is around 0.8ms, so
>>>> yes, like a licensed radio.
>>>>
>>>> No idea about the AF5X, haven't bought any. But I'd guess latency would
>>>> be similar to the AF5 or 24 in half-duplex mode, which is going to be
>>>> like 4-5ms. I have only done FDD though.. because it's moar better.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/4/2015 5:53 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So I assume latency in FDD mode is sub millisecond like a licensed
>>>>> backhaul?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's is latency like on the AF5X? Similar to a PTP600, a few
>>>>> milliseconds and very constant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:48 PM
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5 vs AF5X
>>>>>
>>>>> No FDD. Not 48 volt. Not 40+ watts.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/4/2015 5:45 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can someone point me to a concise explanation somewhere of the
>>>>>> difference between AF5 and AF5X? Where you would use each, and what you
>>>>>> give up with the X in return for smaller, cheaper, lower power, and
>>>>>> drop-in
>>>>>> replacement for a Rocket?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know it doesn't have the built-in high isolation TX and RX
>>>>>> antennas, and doesn't do a gig of throughput. But I'm sure there's more
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> it. It's not jumping out at me on the UBNT website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
