Wiring a Wall Type RJ45 Jack

[Archimedes' Lever]

No reading issues here, it's just that you never stated that there is
'NO SUCH THING'.

Cheers

What part of "surge devices are not for lightning protection" do you not
understand?

So, yes, you DO have reading problems,because your response treated my
post as if I was stating that lightning does get 'arrested' by such
devices. I never made any such statement. Jeez...learn to read.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

No you didn't. All you said is that "Surge protection devices" are not
"for Lightning Protection" but you did not address whether there is
some other device suitable "for Lightning Protection"

Inside your house? No, there isn't. If your house is struck, it can
cause damage to any device inside the home, depending on where it strikes
and how big it is.

I have seen it hit a barn's lightning rod and produce three nice ball
lightning phenomena at about 9 inches in diameter each. I have seen it
hit a roof of a two story and make a man standing on the back porch pull
a spasm leap several feet, and he was drunk.

That one killed our 1962 Zenith floor model that lasted all the way
until 73. So even tube type circuits are susceptible.

Those voltages can get wherever they want. It made it all the way down
here from all the way up there. There isn't anything down here that you
can use to isolate it, unless you have huge plastics casting facilities
that can do a mold a couple hundred feet tall.

All we do in the home is suppress surges.

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:22:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

:
:>Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs, not
:>swap wires within each pair.
:
:They get tighter as you move up, away from the blue/white pair. On a
:25 pair CAT 5 arrangement, the last pair, voilet/grey, is twisted so
:tight it's hard to unravel. At the frequency most establishments run
:at, the impedance difference between the O/W and G/W doesn't add up to
:a hill of beans.
:
:I'm not into the arguments used in favour of twisted pair cable. The
nly reason they are getting away with twisted pair at 100 Mhz is
:through liberal use of bs. For one, the signals are digital and even a
:barely legible digital signal can be picked out of background noise
:with a Schmidt trigger. Try connecting a high-frequency analog signal
:through twisted pair and see how far you get.
:
:Another matter is the claimed throughput as opposed to the actual
:throughput. Most telecom signals are regulated to 30 Mhz to prevent
:broadcasting of signals to adjacent equipment. That means the 100 MHZ
:claimed for CAT 5 regular is never used at that frequency. It could
:be, theoretically, but it never is because signals are multiplexed to
:get that throughput while running at a much slower frequency. A good
:example of that is the DSL signals sent down a normal telephone
:twisted pair which is rated at about 10 Mhz on a good day. DSL is
:accomplished with quadrature modulation, which piggy-backs signals on
:top of each other.
:
:Talking about 1 Ghz twisted pair is a serious joke. They get that by
:using all 4 pairs on the cable, plus multiplexing. There's simply no
:way that twisted pair will ever catch up with coaxial cable and you
:simply cannot use a twisted pair line at 1 Ghz. The big push on
:twisted pair is due to how much more easily it can be installed than
:coax. It makes far more sense to install twisted pair in a hub
:arrangement than it does coax. It's far more economical.
:
:Now we're seeing a push towards SATA over PATA. Although a hard drive
:is a serial device, and a PATA signal has to be serialized to write to
:the hard drive, I don't see what's being accomplished by converting to
:SATA. Again, the only real advantage is a skinnier cable and the
:ability to hot-plug the units.
:
:It just makes no sense to push data transfer one bit at a time when
:you can do it 32 or 64 bits at a time in parallel. Then again, I wont
:be making the kind of money Intel will by cornering the market with
:unnecessary SATA technology. We should remember what happened to IBM
:and OS2 when they tried to foist a technology on a public that did not
:want it.
:


AIUI, the lan cabling base rates are UTP (or STP) ethernet 10BaseT, 100BaseT or
1000BaseT. This means that the "data transfer rate" is either 10Mb/s, 100mb/s or
1000Mb/s.

There is no MHz transmission bandwidth involvement at all.

 

[FatBytestard]

They get tighter as you move up, away from the blue/white pair. On a
25 pair CAT 5 arrangement, the last pair, voilet/grey, is twisted so
tight it's hard to unravel. At the frequency most establishments run
at, the impedance difference between the O/W and G/W doesn't add up to
a hill of beans.

I'm not into the arguments used in favour of twisted pair cable. The
only reason they are getting away with twisted pair at 100 Mhz is
through liberal use of bs. For one, the signals are digital and even a
barely legible digital signal can be picked out of background noise
with a Schmidt trigger. Try connecting a high-frequency analog signal
through twisted pair and see how far you get.

Another matter is the claimed throughput as opposed to the actual
throughput. Most telecom signals are regulated to 30 Mhz to prevent
broadcasting of signals to adjacent equipment. That means the 100 MHZ
claimed for CAT 5 regular is never used at that frequency. It could
be, theoretically, but it never is because signals are multiplexed to
get that throughput while running at a much slower frequency. A good
example of that is the DSL signals sent down a normal telephone
twisted pair which is rated at about 10 Mhz on a good day. DSL is
accomplished with quadrature modulation, which piggy-backs signals on
top of each other.

Talking about 1 Ghz twisted pair is a serious joke.

You're an idiot.

They get that by
using all 4 pairs on the cable, plus multiplexing. There's simply no
way that twisted pair will ever catch up with coaxial cable and you
simply cannot use a twisted pair line at 1 Ghz.

It isn't "at 1GHz" idiot.

The big push on
twisted pair is due to how much more easily it can be installed than
coax.

No, it isn't. It is for a more easily managed full duplex mode.

It makes far more sense to install twisted pair in a hub
arrangement than it does coax. It's far more economical.

Yes. It is also because that is all that is needed.

Now we're seeing a push towards SATA over PATA. Although a hard drive
is a serial device, and a PATA signal has to be serialized to write to
the hard drive, I don't see what's being accomplished by converting to
SATA.
Obviously.

Again, the only real advantage is a skinnier cable and the
ability to hot-plug the units.

You're an idiot. Optics are serial too, yet they can reach speeds that
are beyond the comprehension of a twit like you... apparently.

It just makes no sense to push data transfer one bit at a time when
you can do it 32 or 64 bits at a time in parallel.

You're an idiot. The interface is far faster than the read speed of the
drive. Serial attachment is fine.

Then again, I wont
be making the kind of money Intel will by cornering the market with
unnecessary SATA technology.

Your retarded opinions are what is unnecessary.

We should remember what happened to IBM
and OS2 when they tried to foist a technology on a public that did not
want it.

What? The Power PC CPU is one of the most successful on the market.
They never "tried to foist" a goddamned thing on us, you dumbfucking
retard.

Where do you get your bullshit statistics from?

 

[Ecnerwal]

OK show me a lighting arrestor for Cat6(5e).

Simplicity itself. 1000 baseT to fiber. Run fiber between buildings,
then fiber to 1000 baseT. Hurts the wallet. Works. Don't use fiber that
has conductors bundled with it. In the case of a direct strike, you are
always screwed, but not putting conductors out there where they can
cause pickup helps, and the fiber link would at least keep the damage to
whichever building got struck. Of course, if you are connecting power
between the buildings, that can serve as a method for lightning pickup.

For people with budgets, surge suppressors are more practical, but far
less bombproof. I use:

http://www.bb-elec.com/bb-elec/literature/EIRSP1-2207ds.pdf

In the case of a direct strike, I expect them to be vaporized. But a
direct strike is not all that common.

 

[Tim Williams]

Now we're seeing a push towards SATA over PATA. Although a hard drive
is a serial device, and a PATA signal has to be serialized to write to
the hard drive, I don't see what's being accomplished by converting to
SATA. Again, the only real advantage is a skinnier cable and the
ability to hot-plug the units.

See also: PCI-E. Supposedly, at insane data rates (real circuit bandwidth >
1GHz), even if signal quality can be managed, propagation skew between bus
lines is ever more difficult (have you seen all the squiggles on a
motherboard between processor, northbridge and RAM?). So why not skip bus
width altogether, crank the clock rate (pushing circuit bandwidth even more
though), and use multiple asynchronous channels. The advantage lies in
clocking each stream at its own rate, rather than clocking 32 or 64 bits at
an identical rate. Bytes could arrive out-of-order, but buffering done
on-chip is a lot faster than a maze of wires on-board.

Tim

 

[FatBytestard]

Simplicity itself. 1000 baseT to fiber. Run fiber between buildings,
then fiber to 1000 baseT. Hurts the wallet. Works. Don't use fiber that
has conductors bundled with it. In the case of a direct strike, you are
always screwed, but not putting conductors out there where they can
cause pickup helps, and the fiber link would at least keep the damage to
whichever building got struck. Of course, if you are connecting power
between the buildings, that can serve as a method for lightning pickup.

This guy actually knows what is going on. Fiber IS the ultimate
"creepage distance".

 

[FatBytestard]

See also: PCI-E. Supposedly, at insane data rates (real circuit bandwidth >
1GHz), even if signal quality can be managed, propagation skew between bus
lines is ever more difficult (have you seen all the squiggles on a
motherboard between processor, northbridge and RAM?). So why not skip bus
width altogether, crank the clock rate (pushing circuit bandwidth even more
though), and use multiple asynchronous channels. The advantage lies in
clocking each stream at its own rate, rather than clocking 32 or 64 bits at
an identical rate. Bytes could arrive out-of-order, but buffering done
on-chip is a lot faster than a maze of wires on-board.

Tim

This 'reflects' proper avenues as clock rates climb (a little data
transfer joke there). Definitely the right way. Managing little capture
buffers is far better than managing errant data. I'll bet that serial
allows one to downsize error correction overhead as well... or
could/should anyway.

 

[FatBytestard]

There is no advantage of using
SATA over PATA,

You're a goddamned retarded twit.

 

[FatBytestard]

**** off you dumb shit.

Bwuahahahahah! Ever make it past the age of 13 mentally?

 

[FatBytestard]

Thanks!! Now I can't get information from Intel, Silicon Image,
Microsoft or LG Electronics. They dump this crap on you with the spin
that they are new technology and will improve things. When I heard
that about twisted-pair technology, I nearly crapped. People bought
into it, some thinking twisted pair had suddenly become superior to
coax, just because they twisted it better. Anyone believing that has a
serious issue with technological understanding, like the fatbytestard.

I installed Thomas Conrad Network Systems networks 15 years ago. The
hubs were VERY expensive(several thousand dollars each), and the cards
were half a grand each. They were a mere 100 Mb/s claimed speed, and
that only with their proprietary transfer protocol. So there wasn't a
whole lot of bang for that buck.

The current (at the time) 10 base T solutions were a lot cheaper and
used industry wide transfer protocols, and THAT is why businesses bought
twisted pair, you retarded little piece of shit. Running light weight,
cheap twisted pair is a LOT cheaper than running coax was, and coax
topped out at 2Mb/s back then as it was ABANDONED by the ETHERNET
standard, and was a hell of a lot harder to make the drops for.

 

[Jasen Betts]

The current (at the time) 10 base T solutions were a lot cheaper and
used industry wide transfer protocols, and THAT is why businesses bought
twisted pair, you retarded little piece of shit. Running light weight,
cheap twisted pair is a LOT cheaper than running coax was, and coax
topped out at 2Mb/s back then as it was ABANDONED by the ETHERNET
standard, and was a hell of a lot harder to make the drops for.

10base2 was about 5 times faster than that over RG58A/U coax.

perhaps you are thinking of arcnet.

 

[FatBytestard]

10base2 was about 5 times faster than that over RG58A/U coax.

That is what *I* said!

perhaps you are thinking of arcnet.

Arcnet was 360kb/s!

Read it again.

 

[FatBytestard]

No, you said coax Ethernet "topped out at 2Mb/s." 10base2 is (thin)
coax Ethernet running 10Mb/s. As Jasen said, "5 times faster" than
what you said.

10base Ethernet is 10Mb/s whether it's twisted pair (-T) or coax (2 or
5) or fiber (-FL). That's what the "10" means.

Except that the coax implementations were tied to the cards they were
attached to and those were 2Mb/s. By the time the 10Mb/s stuff hit the
streets, folks were buying twisted pair solutions, and coax was
practically completely abandoned. The card makers stopped putting coax
I/O ports on the cards, and rj45 became all you could get, Ethernet wise.

TCNS and MS had some proprietary protocol Star configurations, and
there were a few others, but Ethernet ended up winning because it kept up
speed wise, and was considerably cheaper. Now, I don't even know if any
other methods exist, except for fiber, of course. What other wired
solutions are there currently?

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Maybe whatever the heck you had was 2Mb/s but my Ethernet cards were
10Mb/s and I've still got the cards, cable, and T connectors around
here somewhere but it's been so long I don't recall where that 'old
parts' box ended up.


The 10Mb/s cards with both coax and RJ45 connectors I can still find
because some are in the PCI 'old parts' box.

Coax connectors on the cards ended with 100Mb/s

I still have a 4 computer network running with 10base ethernet on coax,
ending at a NetGear Etherhub, to connect to my router(Speedtouch).

And the speed is 10 Megabyte/sec, or 100Megabit/second, which it
achieves without a problem.

 

[FatBytestard]

Maybe whatever the heck you had was 2Mb/s but my Ethernet cards were
10Mb/s and I've still got the cards, cable, and T connectors around
here somewhere but it's been so long I don't recall where that 'old
parts' box ended up.

10 was the hardware speed of the twisted pair connection. "Cheapernet"
used the same card, but the comm protocols meant that you would only see
about 2, and that only on a good day.

The 10Mb/s cards with both coax and RJ45 connectors I can still find
because some are in the PCI 'old parts' box.

Yes, and the RJ45 DOES do 10Mb/s, but the coax does NOT.

Coax connectors on the cards ended with 100Mb/s

Not in Ethernet. TCNS and a couple other proprietary bits of hardware
made it out, but Ethernet was twisted pair only by the time is was
actually able to push the 10Mb/s streams it touted itself as being able
to push. The coax never did from my memory.

What other wired

Not even going to try?

 

[Nobody]

I still have a 4 computer network running with 10base ethernet on coax,
ending at a NetGear Etherhub, to connect to my router(Speedtouch).

And the speed is 10 Megabyte/sec, or 100Megabit/second, which it
achieves without a problem.

Ethernet is specified in Mbits/sec. 10-base-<anything> is 10 Mbits/sec.

10base2 is coax with RG-58A/U connectors.
10base5 is thick coax with vampire taps.
10baseT is Cat5 with RJ-45 connectors.

All of the above are 10Mbit/sec.

100baseT is 100Mbit/sec, and uses Cat5 with RJ-45 connectors; there
are no coax versions.

 

[FatBytestard]

I still have a 4 computer network running with 10base ethernet on coax,
ending at a NetGear Etherhub, to connect to my router(Speedtouch).

And the speed is 10 Megabyte/sec, or 100Megabit/second, which it
achieves without a problem.

Absolute Bullshit.

The interface (Ethernet) is declared in BITS per second, and they were
NOT EVER 100 Mb/s on 10 base T. Not ever at any time.