I think sticking with 4 port and 12 port for the DIN rail version makes the most sense. If we only need 8 ports, we can just use two 4 ports, since it doesn't sound like an 8 port version would save much in the way of space or cost over two 4 ports anyway.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in > either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending > on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.....all of these will be > upwardly expandable. > > So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit. > Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy. > > On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today. Mechanically 12 > ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need > one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm > thinking that way. I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can > of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential > need for a different din rail mounting kit). > > It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work > for many, if not most sites. Is that fair? > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port >> injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe >> even an 8 port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count. >> >> If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only. >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> >> On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: >> >> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port >> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors).... >> >> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up >> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U >> >> And then we have the item the question is about. >> >> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable >> enclosure. If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each >> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm >> talking about. >> >> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product. My thought >> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site, >> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution.... >> >> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as >> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device. >> >> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you >> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit? >> >> -- >> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* >> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >> <forre...@imach.com>forre...@imach.com | <http://www.packetflux.com/> >> http://www.packetflux.com >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> >> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* > Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 > forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> > <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> > >