Remote/Wireless POE Switch?

TonyR said:
+1^^^.
Assuming you have clear LOS (Line Of Sight) between the 2 points a pair of the above, configured as a Layer 2 Transparent Bridge, would work very well. If the distance between the house and shed is minimal, you'll likely have to lower their power a bit. Below is the schema I've used a lot and successfully:

View attachment 188849
Click to expand...

Correction : I would NOT do the Nanostation M5 loco posted above.

Instead get this one, the Nanostation loco. You’ll need 2. I think the hardware is the same but has newer software.

These are only $50/each. Cheaper than the older version oddly enough.

One important thing I’m not sure was mentioned was that Nanostation Loco M5 and Loco AC require 24v passive PoE. If you’re using a standard PoE switches on both sides or the gap, you’ll need an adapter for each unit.

Outdoor rated adapter:
Indoor rated adapter:

Alternatively you can use 24v PoE injectors (not included with the nano stations). While I don’t like injectors because they’re messy, the ubiquiti ones are nice in that they walk mount. A 12 watt model is the minimum you should be using if you use injectors.

I don’t spend much time looking at Ubiquiti’s non UniFi products so I forget they actually update those products too.
 
AGPharmD said:
I second this. I haven’t used this product in particular but I am big fan of Ubiquity/UniFi hardware.
Click to expand...
I have installed several sets of these as in my drawing in post # 7 and they performs very well when properly configured and installed.
AGPharmD said:
Correction : I would NOT do the Nanostation M5 loco posted above.

Instead get this one, the Nanostation loco. You’ll need 2. I think the hardware is the same but has newer software.
Click to expand...
If you mean the newer and cheaper NanonStation 5AC Loco then I must disagree. It may be a little faster but the hardware is NOT the same and setup is difficult because of software changes. I have installed a set of those and the older, more expensive (> $15) NanoStation M5 Loco's and I'd go with the older one hands down. It's the one @looney2ns linked and I show in my drawing. :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AGPharmD and looney2ns
The Nanostation LOCO M5 sold by BHP for $67. comes with the 24v passive Poe injector.
The LOCO AC for $49. does not include the injector.
The M5 is old school in that it has 10/100 Ethernet where the AC is gigabit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: looney2ns and TonyR
Broachoski said:
The Nanostation LOCO M5 sold by BHP for $67. comes with the 24v passive Poe injector.
The LOCO AC for $49. does not include the injector.
The M5 is old school in that it has 10/100 Ethernet where the AC is gigabit.
Click to expand...
All good and correct info, thanks.
That said, I've installed, configured and setup both types and cannot recommend the newer, faster AC version......but maybe that's just me. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: looney2ns and Broachoski
TonyR said:
I've installed, configured and setup both types and cannot recommend the newer, faster AC version......but maybe that's just me. :cool:
Click to expand...
I did not mean for "old school" to be bad. I have lots of cameras running on the 10/100 systems and do not even have any gigabit units.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TonyR
UBNT Loco M2 & M5 are still the mainstay of the local WISP in my area. They use them for PTP drops where cable access impossible or impractical. I've used them for temp data links and on our ranch for various needs. They're pretty reliable, but watch out for firmware on some older models (as well as other UBNT APs). They've had security breaches on some models' firmware (much the same as IP cam issues). If not used in an internet connected environment, maybe not a problem.. but for internet access, better check and update the firmware. I started using similar type TP Link (CP) series APs, finding them a bit more reliable, easier to set up - although ultimately I think the UBNT Loco's have more config options, and more sophisticated firmware. But, either way, they beat the heck out of stringing overhead cable with all its associated risks, or digging/trencing for direct burial...

Re: the "phase" argument... "phases" (L1 & L2), "split phase", and "legs" all correct from my E/Tech perspective. Electricians? Probably argue over that forever... splitting hairs IMHO. All depends of reference point. Since the standard US 120/240 residential mains supply comes off a center-tapped, neurtal-tied transformer, there are 2 phases which happen to be the same FREQ, but oppposite polarity - so technically split phase is likely more correct when referencing 120V: Single phase when referencing 240V. But all the terms loosely describe the nomenclature adequately for most purposes. Electricians would try to impress me with the phases talk (incl 3 phase, delta and wye configs). OK, nice. Three phases. Try keeping up with hundreds of phases, many asynchronous, on mainframe CPU/memory and IO backplanes. Whether the mains supply is seen as 1/2, 1, 2, or 3 phase... sorry, just not that complicated to me. Just my .02
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyR
Oldtechguy66 said:
UBNT Loco M2 & M5 are still the mainstay of the local WISP in my area. They use them for PTP drops where cable access impossible or impractical. I've used them for temp data links and on our ranch for various needs. They're pretty reliable, but watch out for firmware on some older models (as well as other UBNT APs). They've had security breaches on some models' firmware (much the same as IP cam issues). If not used in an internet connected environment, maybe not a problem.. but for internet access, better check and update the firmware. I started using similar type TP Link (CP) series APs, finding them a bit more reliable, easier to set up - although ultimately I think the UBNT Loco's have more config options, and more sophisticated firmware. But, either way, they beat the heck out of stringing overhead cable with all its associated risks, or digging/trencing for direct burial...

Re: the "phase" argument... "phases" (L1 & L2), "split phase", and "legs" all correct from my E/Tech perspective. Electricians? Probably argue over that forever... splitting hairs IMHO. All depends of reference point. Since the standard US 120/240 residential mains supply comes off a center-tapped, neurtal-tied transformer, there are 2 phases which happen to be the same FREQ, but oppposite polarity - so technically split phase is likely more correct when referencing 120V: Single phase when referencing 240V. But all the terms loosely describe the nomenclature adequately for most purposes. Electricians would try to impress me with the phases talk (incl 3 phase, delta and wye configs). OK, nice. Three phases. Try keeping up with hundreds of phases, many asynchronous, on mainframe CPU/memory and IO backplanes. Whether the mains supply is seen as 1/2, 1, 2, or 3 phase... sorry, just not that complicated to me. Just my .02
Click to expand...
It gets interesting when you bring up the "stinger" leg in a 240V, 3-Φ , 4-wire Delta service with 120V to neutral......and that the stinger (phase B) is 208V to neutral!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldtechguy66
TonyR said:
It gets interesting when you bring up the "stinger" leg in a 240V, 3-Φ , 4-wire Delta service with 120V to neutral......and that the stinger (phase B) is 208V to neutral!
Click to expand...

Ironically, was dealing with some 3ph fun today in a commercial facility, 3ph/208/120. Just love it when someone fails to mark same color conductors, and leaves so little wire in a fixture that you can barely get a connector on it. Fun enough to work on the ground, but 40 ft up in a bouncing lift...a weee bit aggravating. :rolleyes:

Watching utility line crews in our area replacing all the distribution lines, poles, and hardware - all done HOT. Bad enough messing around with live 208/240, 277, etc... but 3ph 13.2KV & 21KV, and working it hot??!! Nope, no way. NOT enough money. Only thing crazier are those helicopter riding suicide jockeys hot sticking transmission lines. That's the definition of insane. 500KV is x-ray territory... if the voltage doesn't get you, you'll glow in the dark from x-rays. :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyR
Why not go overhead with a catenary wire between the house and shed, then suspend an rj45 from this. Way cheaper and more reliable than a wireless link.
 
Stevev said:
Why not go overhead with a catenary wire between the house and shed, then suspend an rj45 from this. Way cheaper and more reliable than a wireless link.
Click to expand...
One short but important word...."lightning". :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldtechguy66 and looney2ns
Luther Harlow said:
Thought about that but I'm also a ham radio operator and have wire antennas strung across that area and I want to avoid any issues with resonance on the network cable.
Click to expand...
In that case lightening is the least of your issues and any electrical device can interfere with the antennas so you are back a square one find a route underground
 
Oh I know all about interference! Ground loops, common mode, all that fun stuff. Wifi and other high GHz frequency devices haven't caused any issues since the ham frequencies I use are on the low end of the spectrum.
Ended up getting one of the APs mentioned here and it's been working great! Thanks for all the help guys!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldtechguy66 and looney2ns
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom