PoE Switch Suggestion List

[Teken]

Back on the subject, I am not really not finding many/any consumer grade PoE+s that meet @Teken 's advice of total watts/ports >= 30W.

The only one on the suggestion list I'm seeing is this one: IPCP-8P2G-AT - 8 Port POE Plus Switch W/ 2 Gigabit Uplinks which would be exactly what I'm looking for but it doesn't seem to be a real IPCamPower switch. That's the only result for it on google and it says "By ICOMTECH" at the end of the listing

I'll be completely honest with you and say there isn't enough money being spent to do this right. If you really want to run that distance in a single run you'll need to increase your budget. The PFT300 I believe you're talking about isn't outdoor rated and doesn't carry any kind of safety rating.

For this one super long run I would suggest you purchase a high power POE (BT) injector (60-90 watts). One side will connect to the LAN of your switch and the other will output data and power to the first leg. The second leg will use a outdoor rated POE extender that is at least IP67 rated.

You simply need to add more POE extenders at 328 feet intervals or (100 meters).

Given the extreme distance you better be using shielded direct burial cable and a SPD / TVSS (Surge Protective Device) at each video camera. If you don't have any equipment, shelving, racking, cabinets, that have a ground strap. You're wasting your time with the shielded cable as the entire infrastructure must be bonded to the single point Earth ground of the electrical service panels ground wire.

Otherwise when the first lightning strike appears expect a collect call from God.

I am with @sebastiantombs in saying low voltage wiring should be used for the IR lighting / other. 12-2 would probably be the limit given the distance you intend to span but IR doesn't require a huge amount of power and they often have a huge 25% +/- power (voltage) allowance to operate.

Regardless, 10-2 of OFC low voltage direct burial cable would meet the required distance.

 

[EvanVanVan]

Spending money isn't really an issue lol...I just need to be pointed in the right direction.

I got two of these PFT1300 extenders directly from Andy. They're not outdoor rated but are designed to be installed inside (the waterproof) PFA130-E mount.

I finally stumbled on this Netgear switch with 190W over 8 ports (23.75W), so almost there...

I'm not using shielded cable. But I will invest in surge suppressors, Sebastiantombs already mentioned them too. Fortunately, Vermont is also 47th in the nation in lighting strikes lol..

 

[Teken]

Spending money isn't really an issue lol...I just need to be pointed in the right direction.

I got two of these PFT1300 extenders directly from Andy. They're not outdoor rated but are designed to be installed inside (the waterproof) PFA130-E mount.

I finally stumbled on this Netgear switch with 190W over 8 ports (23.75W), so almost there...

I'm not using shielded cable. But I will invest in surge suppressors, Sebastiantombs already mentioned them too. Fortunately, Vermont is also 47th in the nation in lighting strikes lol..

If you haven’t purchased any of the cable this would be a good time to do so. As this is part of an entire system which starts with shielded cable & RJ45 connectors.

Next is a SPD properly grounded to the end devices. All of that is connected and tied to the homes single point earth ground.

You miss one part of this integrated grounding system you’re just buying time. Put another way do you want to do it right once or keep doing it again?

 

[looney2ns]

Spending money isn't really an issue lol...I just need to be pointed in the right direction.

I got two of these PFT1300 extenders directly from Andy. They're not outdoor rated but are designed to be installed inside (the waterproof) PFA130-E mount.

I finally stumbled on this Netgear switch with 190W over 8 ports (23.75W), so almost there...

I'm not using shielded cable. But I will invest in surge suppressors, Sebastiantombs already mentioned them too. Fortunately, Vermont is also 47th in the nation in lighting strikes lol..

You will be using LOTS of cuss words if you try to use the extender in a PFA130-E along with a cameras pigtail. I doubt you can cram all of that into it.

 

[Teken]

Ill add the maker states the PFT1300 or similar hardware requires at least a 60 watt POE Injector. It also states the maximum power the camera should consume is less than 8 watts?? I want everyone to sit there and really understand what they are saying vs what's being advertised.

This device is advertised as POE AF / AT . . .

AF is a maximum of 15 watts, AT is a maximum of 30 watts.

One thing which I don't recall anyone ever calling out is these devices some times require one or more to be powered up in sequence. If one of the device doesn't receive the power and handshake in the expected time frame. It won't pass data to the other units.

Lastly, they are 100 Mbps and also increase the lag in reception of the video content.

 

[EvanVanVan]

You will be using LOTS of cuss words if you try to use the extender in a PFA130-E along with a cameras pigtail. I doubt you can cram all of that into it.

haha ok, I could add a waterproof junction box below the PFA1300, thank you

Ill add the maker states the PFT1300 or similar hardware requires at least a 60 watt POE Injector. It also states the maximum power the camera should consume is less than 8 watts?? I want everyone to sit there and really understand what they are saying vs what's being advertised.

This device is advertised as POE AF / AT . . .

AF is a maximum of 15 watts, AT is a maximum of 30 watts.

One thing which I don't recall anyone ever calling out is these devices some times require one or more to be powered up in sequence. If one of the device doesn't 'treceive the power and handshake in the expected time frame. It won pass data to the other units.

Lastly, they are 100 Mbps and also increase the lag in reception of the video content.

That is unfortunate if it does require the PFT1200, I was hoping that was for the ePoE distances...but we'll see, if I need one I'll get it. I also thought these cameras wouldn't hit 100 Mpbs by themselves.

 

[Teken]

haha ok, I could add a waterproof junction box below the PFA1300, thank you



That is unfortunate if it does require the PFT1200, I was hoping that was for the ePoE distances...but we'll see, if I need one I'll get it. I also thought these cameras wouldn't hit 100 Mpbs by themselves.

Let me put it this way you started off with a big pipe 1 GB line. Now you have restricted it to be a small pipe of 100 Mbps. Everything else that isn't in place is only going to compound the problem as it relates to throughput, latency, and data integrity (dropped packets and errors).

We aren't even talking about power or the threat of induced voltage from lightning yet.

People who use so called ePOE are just trying to band aid a poorly laid out network infrastructure that exceeds the industry standards and best practices.

 

[Sybertiger]

For a 100Mbps channel the maximum rate that data "can be" moved across that dedicated highway between the camera and the switch is theoretically 100Mbps (12,500kbps). Jacking that rate maximum rate up to 1Gbps isn't going to make the data arrive any faster. Yes, these are theoretical numbers and there will be retransmission due to lost or erroneous data. But, it's like having a dedicated highway for a car to travel 100 mph but if the fastest the car can go is 75 mph then upgrading the highway for speeds up to 200 mph isn't going to make the car arrive any sooner.

My 4MP cams are sending data at 8Mbps and they'll never be able to utilize the full bandwidth of the 100 Mbps dedicated lines to the switch.

As long as you aren't multiplexing other cams on the same line then 100 Mbps will be plenty. However, the uplink from the switch to the computer of course will be multiplexed data. So if you have an 16-port switch with 16 cams pumping 8Mbps each then that uplink will be 16 ports times 8Mbps or 128Mbps (theoretically for simple math). You would certainly want the uplink from the POE switch to be 1Gbps and of course the ethernet port on the computer to also be 1 Gbps.

Here's a mix of 4MP and 2MP data rates from cams I have. 1000kBytes/s = 8Mbps.

 

[Teken]

For a 100Mbps channel the maximum rate that data "can be" moved across that dedicated highway between the camera and the switch is theoretically 100Mbps (12,500kbps). Jacking that rate maximum rate up to 1Gbps isn't going to make the data arrive any faster. Yes, these are theoretical numbers and there will be retransmission due to lost or erroneous data. But, it's like having a dedicated highway for a car to travel 100 mph but if the fastest the car can go is 75 mph then upgrading the highway for speeds up to 200 mph isn't going to make the car arrive any sooner.

My 4MP cams are sending data at 8Mbps and they'll never be able to utilize the full bandwidth of the 100 Mbps dedicated lines to the switch.

As long as you aren't multiplexing other cams on the same line then 100 Mbps will be plenty. However, the uplink from the switch to the computer of course will be multiplexed data. So if you have an 16-port switch with 16 cams pumping 8Mbps each then that uplink will be 16 ports times 8Mbps or 128Mbps (theoretically for simple math). You would certainly want the uplink from the POE switch to be 1Gbps and of course the ethernet port on the computer to also be 1 Gbps.

Here's a mix of 4MP and 2MP data rates from cams I have. 1000kBytes/s = 8Mbps.

View attachment 136259

The OP intends to have a single Ethernet run with three cameras connected. All of this (cable run) also exceeds the 328 feet / 100 meter maximum distance called out by the industry. To help push that maximum distance he intends to use POE extenders.

This doesn't even address what he intends to use to power the line.

This doesn't even address if the cable is 23 AWG solid copper never mind shielded cable. This doesn't even come close to addressing how to mitigate the real threat of induced voltage from lightning. So when people say 100 Mbps will never ever be seen or saturated this ASSUMES everything in the chain is to spec.

Not even close . . .

When you start off with a switch that offers only 10/100 you already lost the war. You add in a under powered switch that offers dubious output power and voltage you surely lost any chance of a solid connection. The only reason things Seem to work for most folks is the network and power standards have a huge leeway in terms of how things happen in the real world.

When people have already pushed the limits of any basics and continue to exceed what's normal.

Whelps, you might as well throw darts on a wall with eyes closed and hope for a bullseye.

Hope don't float . . .

 

[EvanVanVan]

The OP intends to have a single Ethernet run with three cameras connected. All of this (cable run) also exceeds the 328 feet / 100 meter maximum distance called out by the industry. To help push that maximum distance he intends to use POE extenders.

Lol not exactly. One camera, possibly also powering 2 IR Illuminators. The other two cameras were on their own dedicated cat6 cables (without the need for extenders).

On the plus side, if I need a PFT1200 60W injector all of a sudden those IR Illuminators might have sufficient power I'm thinking? lol

(Cable is 23 solid copper cat6.)

 

[tigerwillow1]

Out of curiosity I crunched some numbers for running low voltage vs. POE voltage on an extended run. Subject to calculation errors, it favors using POE voltage. I used a 500 foot run, requiring 1000 feet of wire, and 25 watt load. The result is directly scaled to any other length or power consumption.

1000' of awg 23 copper is 20.36 ohms, but since power is doubled up on 2 conductors, it's really 10.18 ohms
1000' of awg 12 copper is 1.588 ohms
1000' of awg 14 copper is 2.525 ohms

For 23 awg 10.18 ohms at 48 volts, 25 watts, current is 0.52 amps, voltage drop 5.3 or 11%, power loss in wire 2.76 watts
For 12 awg 1.588 ohms at 12 volts, 25 watts, current is 2.08 amps, voltage drop 3.3 or 27.5%, power loss in wire 6.9 watts
For 14 awg 2.525 ohms at 12 volts, 25 watts, current is 2.08 amps, voltage drop 5.25 or 43.8%, power loss in wire 10.9 watts

 

[Teken]

Out of curiosity I crunched some numbers for running low voltage vs. POE voltage on an extended run. Subject to calculation errors, it favors using POE voltage. I used a 500 foot run, requiring 1000 feet of wire, and 25 watt load. The result is directly scaled to any other length or power consumption.

1000' of awg 23 copper is 20.36 ohms, but since power is doubled up on 2 conductors, it's really 10.18 ohms
1000' of awg 12 copper is 1.588 ohms
1000' of awg 14 copper is 2.525 ohms

For 23 awg 10.18 ohms at 48 volts, 25 watts, current is 0.52 amps, voltage drop 5.3 or 11%, power loss in wire 2.76 watts
For 12 awg 1.588 ohms at 12 volts, 25 watts, current is 2.08 amps, voltage drop 3.3 or 27.5%, power loss in wire 6.9 watts
For 14 awg 2.525 ohms at 12 volts, 25 watts, current is 2.08 amps, voltage drop 5.25 or 43.8%, power loss in wire 10.9 watts

This isn't just about power loss but data integrity or the lack thereof . . .

 

[Sybertiger]

https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-NanoBeam-High-Performance-airMAX-NBE-5AC-Gen2-US/dp/B0713XMHH9?

 

[sebastiantombs]

The problem is that there is no power out there. It might be an idea to run power instead of ethernet to the midpoint. CAT cable from there to the further cameras and use a NanoBeam to get all the data back to the house. Total isolation on the data connections at least that way.

 

[Alaska Country]

Or for half the price per end for a Ubiquiti link use the following at $65 per end.

Ubiquiti airMAX Lite Beam
Gen 2 5AC 5GHz 23dBi CPE US
LBE-5AC-Gen2 US

 

[Sybertiger]

Sounds crazy but power via POE since you've got it out there for IR lights anyway....LOL

 

[sebastiantombs]

Yeah, but he's going through extenders to get that far out. Extenders don't/won't pass enough power seems to be the case.

 

[Sybertiger]

Yeah, but he's going through extenders to get that far out. Extenders don't/won't pass enough power seems to be the case.

Ah man, I can't solve all the world's problems.

 

[tigerwillow1]

This isn't just about power loss but data integrity or the lack thereof . . .

You're assuming running a single network cable through an extender. Nothing wrong with running a second network cable off of an extra switch port or injector, then using a POE splitter on the other end to convert it to 12 volts. Can save more than a camera's worth of power going up in heat, and nothing whatsoever to do with the data transmission.

 

[Teken]

You're assuming running a single network cable through an extender. Nothing wrong with running a second network cable off of an extra switch port or injector, then using a POE splitter on the other end to convert it to 12 volts. Can save more than a camera's worth of power going up in heat, and nothing whatsoever to do with the data transmission.

Your example was based on power loss. My reply to you was this isn’t just about power but also data integrity.

Nobody has to convince me using a higher voltage offers great advantages. The main points I’ve stressed from the onset is using and following standards! This is why they exists and when people don’t follow any of the standards this results in a bad outcome and loss of time & resources.

Do it right - Do it once . . .