Look at pic. Cut off one of those N connectors. Past the cut N connector down the side and width of the radio. Figure out l/w of regular N connector. Multiply.
End result = close enough :) On Mar 17, 2016 12:54 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > It does look like it's a bit bigger to me, but probably still relatively > small (as far as 11ghz radios go). > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote: > >> Hard to get scale from that pic though. >> >> On 3/17/2016 12:26 PM, Jeremy wrote: >> >> Pic: >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> wrote: >> >>> When you say form factor I am thinking is it more like AF24/HD or more >>> like AFx. It's obviously connectorized and more like X, but likely thicker >>> to handle the N bulkheads. As far as absolute dimensions, I don't think >>> those have been documented or mentioned anywhere. >>> On Mar 17, 2016 12:22 PM, "Nate Burke" <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Is it the same form factor? I can't see 2 N-Connectors fitting on the >>>> current form factor. Maybe same shape but dimensionally bigger? >>>> >>>> The Sales Email from UBNT says available Summer 2016. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/17/2016 12:19 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes no unsure, I believe by summer >>>> On Mar 17, 2016 12:16 PM, "Josh Baird" < <joshba...@gmail.com> >>>> joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I missed the UBNT session.. Is the form-factor of this radio the same >>>>> as the other AirFiberX radios? Does it have a SFP interface? When will >>>>> they be available? >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>> <j...@kyneticwifi.com>j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There was discussion about waveguide - I pushed for it. I mentioned >>>>>> the RF Elements adapters as well... >>>>>> >>>>>> In the end, it was decided that N connectors were more universal and >>>>>> adaptable to various antennas. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, George Skorup < <geo...@cbcast.com> >>>>>> geo...@cbcast.com> wrote: >>>>>> > Yup, I believe the B11 is ac based. The AF will do true FDD so you >>>>>> can >>>>>> > license standard coordinated channel pairs. And to top it off, they >>>>>> went the >>>>>> > Exalt path with field replaceable diplexers. And looks like you can >>>>>> reverse >>>>>> > the diplexer for high or low side. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The N connector thing is kinda odd. As Chuck said, they would've >>>>>> been better >>>>>> > off with SMA @ 11GHz. Or even better, a f'n waveguide interface! >>>>>> C'mon UBNT! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 3/17/2016 10:40 AM, Mathew Howard wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I'm pretty sure Mimosa actually is 802.11 based, but yeah the >>>>>> airFiber >>>>>> > certainly is not. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Also, do NOT compare airFiber quality with anything else UBNT >>>>>> makes... it's >>>>>> > on a completely different level than the airMax stuff. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>> <j...@kyneticwifi.com>j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Mimosa isn't 802.11 based as far as I know. UBNT is doing this on >>>>>> >> AirFiber FPGA. Who's making 802.11 based 11G radios? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, TJ Trout < <t...@voltbb.com> >>>>>> t...@voltbb.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> > is anyone else concerned about the quality and reliability that >>>>>> comes >>>>>> >> > with >>>>>> >> > these low cost 802.11 based 11ghz radios?? >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>> <j...@kyneticwifi.com>j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>>>>> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> When we bought our SAF stuff a few years back, we had to show >>>>>> our >>>>>> >> >> distributor our coordination docs before they would ship gear. >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Lewis Bergman >>>>>> >> >> < <lewis.berg...@gmail.com>lewis.berg...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >> > I don't know about turning sellers into enforcement arms of >>>>>> the FCC. >>>>>> >> >> > All >>>>>> >> >> > of >>>>>> >> >> > that is really the FCC's job. Has there really been a problem? >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016, 10:17 AM Cassidy B. Larson < >>>>>> <c...@infowest.com>c...@infowest.com> >>>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> That would be an awesome idea to limit random joes from >>>>>> lighting up >>>>>> >> >> >> un-registered/coordinated links. But shouldnt they do that >>>>>> for 3.65 >>>>>> >> >> >> as >>>>>> >> >> >> well? >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Brian Sullivan >>>>>> >> >> >> > <installe...@foxvalley.net> >>>>>> >> >> >> > wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> > Can't they force some sort of compliance with license keys >>>>>> you get >>>>>> >> >> >> > after >>>>>> >> >> >> > you prove your FCC application/coordination? >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
