Is there any reason you couldn't just feed DC directly into the ethernet port? I'm thinking just wire the appropriate pairs in a cat5 cable directly to DC and skip using a power injector.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote: > We isolate Ethernet from power internally so even if the ESD protection we > put on Ethernet for any reason failed to protect the Ethernet PHY you > should be in good shape if you're using fiber. Should continue to take > power. > > Nonetheless we're looking at some clean solutions to adapt direct DC > easily in to avoid full PoE solutions at the top of the tower. > > To Stefans point any converter would work too. > > On Oct 24, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I can see your point, but it seems that you are missing part of the idea > of why we run direct DC and fiber, to avoid ESD issues frying the sensitive > Ethernet components. We already have direct -48vdc and fiber sitting in > our tower box, ready for future expansion. You simply needed one > additional small connector and you could have made everyone happy. There > are already a number of manufacturers out there who not only support POE, > but also have direct DC connectors as well. AFAIK, The connector part is > less than a buck. Consider this my request for a future hardware revision > that adds the small direct DC connector as an option. > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote: > >> Yes it is powered via 802.3at PoE. You do not need Ethernet PHY >> operational though once you've configured the SFP, it just accepts power >> through the circuit at that point. >> >> Unfortunately not everyone has gone to fiber yet so PoE is still needed >> for some transitionally. >> >> Jaime >> >> On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I do not see the direct DC connector on any of the marketing photos. Do >> these still need to be powered via POE? >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Mike. >>> >>> Yes the aggregates Mike quoted are roughly correct as well, but…it’s a >>> bit different when you’re using our Auto-TDMA mode. Assuming you’re not >>> fully loaded, users running speedtests get results at a Gigabit in up and >>> down direction and around 1 ms RT latency, so it feels higher speed >>> aggregate since we’re adapting to actual usage on the fly. In other words >>> we fill up the underutilized directional demand with the direction that’s >>> in demand (usually downstream of course). >>> >>> That’s opposed to locking down the MAC/PHY layer at 50/50 like FDD does, >>> or 75/25 TDMA modes, etc. >>> >>> Jaime >>> >>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mike Hammett < >>> af...@ics-il.net> >>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:33 PM >>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> 1200 - 1500 aggregate. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"TJ Trout" <t...@voltbb.com> >>> *To: *af@afmug.com >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:00:16 PM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber >>> >>> Jamie; >>> >>> Is the b11 based on 802.11 silicone? >>> >>> Is the b11 capable of 750fd or 1500fd? >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> And Mike quits sending you nasty emails because you think copper was >>>> sent to us by an evil entity from another dimension. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rory >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:27 AM >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Two reasons: >>>> >>>> 1) Peace of mind regarding *future* EMI problems >>>> 2) It's pretty sexy these days to tell people you have fiber to the >>>> antenna, >>>> >>>> On 10/21/2015 1:35 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: >>>> >>>> Mimosa recommends these SFP modules: >>>> >>>> AFBR-5710APZ >>>> <http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Avago-Technologies/AFBR-5710APZ/?qs=%2fha2pyFaduhaC58MVLqFl44%252bx6hS5cz1YhojZqdUVyI7Wp%252bPDPG4Rg%3d%3d>ï¿1Ž2 >>>> 1.25 GBd MMF Transceiver for Gigabit Ethernet, SFP, Bail de-latch, Ext Temp >>>> (-40 to 85C) >>>> >>>> AFCT-5715ALZ >>>> <http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Avago-Technologies/AFCT-5715ALZ/?qs=%2fha2pyFadujhJvt9bnk9ES81EX7WBD7ZrbBItK6kCZLHNEN0X0r%2fGA%3d%3d> >>>> 1.25 GBd SMF Transceiver with DMI for Gigabit Ethernet, SFP, Std de-latch, >>>> Ext Temp (-40 to 85C) >>>> >>>> FTLF8519P3BTL >>>> <http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Finisar/FTLF8519P3BTL/?qs=%2fha2pyFaduh7nd4n5kIrSHIvC1uJRiq8EwAcMil5upKcc76M2JIwDQ%3d%3d> >>>> Fiber Optic Transmitters, Receivers, Transceivers GigE 1x/2x FC, 2.129 Gb/s >>>> trnscvr, 550m >>>> >>>> FTLF1318P3BTL >>>> <http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Finisar/FTLF1318P3BTL/?qs=%2fha2pyFaduikXVilIKTQvJhiq4n%2fsUYWQAU7K0qEJnA1f%252bqIw1quUw%3d%3d> >>>> Fiber Optic Transmitters, Receivers, Transceivers 1310nmFP GigE 1x FC >>>> 1.25Gb/s trnscvr10km >>>> >>>> ï¿1Ž2 >>>> >>>> Assuming cable length and EMI are not issues, is there any benefit to >>>> using fiber over copper? >>>> >>>> ï¿1Ž2 >>>> >>>> `S >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
