Wiring a Wall Type RJ45 Jack...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/WallType_RJ45.jpg

for a pass-through into another room.

I presume I should use the "A" terminals, though I have not a clue,
I've never done anything but plug CAT-5 cables together before ;-)

Which is correct?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"When the government fears the People, that is Liberty.
When the People fear the Government, that is Tyranny."
- attributed to Thomas Jefferson by his contemporaries

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to
restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to
restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and
interests." - Patrick Henry

Jim Thompson writes:
I presume I should use the "A" terminals, though I have not a clue,
I've never done anything but plug CAT-5 cables together before ;-)

Which is correct?

They're two different standards, both "correct". I use the B
configuration, which AFAIK is more reliable for higher speed ethernet.
Check your existing cables and see which they use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA/EIA-568-B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable

I had one long cable that didn't work with the A wiring (packet loss),
but did work with the B wiring. YMMV.

On 19 May 2009 20:31:23 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


Jim Thompson writes:
I presume I should use the "A" terminals, though I have not a clue,
I've never done anything but plug CAT-5 cables together before ;-)

Which is correct?

They're two different standards, both "correct". I use the B
configuration, which AFAIK is more reliable for higher speed ethernet.
Check your existing cables and see which they use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA/EIA-568-B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable

I had one long cable that didn't work with the A wiring (packet loss),
but did work with the B wiring. YMMV.

Aha! The cable says CAT5e, which, from the Wiki article, should be
the "B" configuration.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Stormy on the East Coast today... due to Bush's failed policies.

On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:01:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Wiring a Wall Type RJ45 Jack...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/WallType_RJ45.jpg

for a pass-through into another room.

I presume I should use the "A" terminals, though I have not a clue,
I've never done anything but plug CAT-5 cables together before ;-)

Which is correct?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson


Buy a wall plate that has a jack on both sides, and wire like you are
used to wiring.

Which is correct?

they are both correct, depending on the specification. If you are
passing it through the wall from an existing connector, just copy what
is on the existing connector.

If you've removed the connector and don't know which one to use,
you'll need a working device to plug into it. Try the 'A' first, and
if it doesn't work, switch it to 'B'. Only the W/G and W/O pairs are
being reversed. Normally, TIA 568A is used in buildings I've worked
on, but 568B is used sometimes. The TIA standard is specified when the
wiring is installed.

If it's for telephone, normally the B/W pair is used and that pair
corresponds to the R/G pair on telephone wiring. Green = Tip1 =
White/Blue, Red = Ring1 = Blue/white. The second pair on telephone is
normally Black/Yellow, so Tip2 = Black = White/Orange and Ring2 =
Yellow = Orange/White.

note: white/blue refers to a white wire with a blue stripe and
blue/white is a blue wire with a white stripe.


What are you using it for? I doubt if you're using it at 100 Mhz, so
the wiring wont be critical. If it is, the specs say no more than 3/4"
of twisted pair can be unwound at each punch-down terminal. That's the
TIA standard.

On 2009-05-20, Jim Thompson wrote:
Wiring a Wall Type RJ45 Jack...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/WallType_RJ45.jpg

for a pass-through into another room.

I presume I should use the "A" terminals, though I have not a clue,
I've never done anything but plug CAT-5 cables together before ;-)

T568A is the standard, you shouild use that unless you have a good reason
not to.

(electrically it doesn't matter so long as you are consistant about it.)

On 19 May 2009 20:31:23 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


Jim Thompson writes:
I presume I should use the "A" terminals, though I have not a clue,
I've never done anything but plug CAT-5 cables together before ;-)

Which is correct?

They're two different standards, both "correct". I use the B
configuration, which AFAIK is more reliable for higher speed ethernet.

AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Check your existing cables and see which they use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIA/EIA-568-B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_6_cable

I had one long cable that didn't work with the A wiring (packet loss),
but did work with the B wiring. YMMV.

Interesting... Actually as I think about this it may be possible, but
I'd suspect that there was a hidden flaw in the cable that changing
the wiring coincidentially fixed? Might that be possible?

PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs, not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs may
result in less crosstalk.

On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs, not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs, not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more).

Absolutely not. ALL pairs are ALL made EXACTLY the same.

If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs may
result in less crosstalk.

No. Wiring it wrong gets you half duplex operation (sometimes) AND
un-terminated lines exhibiting the stray signals that end up getting
referred to as cross-talk.

http://www.networkclue.com/hardware/...rmination.aspx

Also how well the terminations are made matter too.

If you have more than say a half inch of untwisted wires exposed at the
ends when you terminate, it will fail GbE tests, and you will get 100
base T or less performance.

Terminations should also be of the metallic shielded variety, as
opposed to the old plastic plug and crimpers method.

FatBytestard writes:
Absolutely not. ALL pairs are ALL made EXACTLY the same.

I figured someone would say that, so I grabbed an orange pair and a
green pair off my work table and compared them before I posted to make
sure. I just re-checked, green is about 3.5 half-twists per inch,
orange is about 4.5. It's pretty consistent along the 2.5-foot
lengths I happened to have handy.

So no, all the pairs are not all exactly the same.

No. Wiring it wrong gets you half duplex operation (sometimes) AND
un-terminated lines exhibiting the stray signals that end up getting
referred to as cross-talk.

Only if you wire one end wrong. If you wire both ends the same wrong
way, you don't get the same type of problems.

http://www.networkclue.com/hardware/...rmination.aspx

That page disagrees with you:

"One thing that I have noticed though is that in CAT5e, the orange
and green pairs are twisted tighter than the blue and brown
pairs. So do not expect to get the CAT5e quality on the network drop
using the split pairs (brown and blue)."

In my case, blue 3.8 htpi, brown 2.8 htpi.

DJ Delorie wrote:
"One thing that I have noticed though is that in CAT5e, the orange
and green pairs are twisted tighter than the blue and brown
pairs. So do not expect to get the CAT5e quality on the network drop
using the split pairs (brown and blue)."

I guess that's to reduce cross-talk between pairs, at the expense of
lower immunity to external interference.

As far as I recall, without sacrificing any long chunks of cable to
check, which pairs are twisted more depends where you are in the cable -
they use "variable twist rate" (in at least some cat5e). A two-foot
sample would not show this.

Happily getting 1000 baseT with no errors from "old fashioned plastic".

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

In article ,
PeterD wrote:
I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage

You might want to pick up a set of ethernet surge suppressors. In any
case make sure that the grounding between the two buildings is good.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

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
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. 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.

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

If it interests you, that's cool, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
There's absolutely no detectable difference. AFAIK, the difference is
in the approach of IBM versus other telecom producers. In the 1980's
and 1990's, it was a headache trying to keep up with each system and
its unique connectors.

Also, it depends on the kind of equipment you will be attaching. If
you're equipment wants to see TIA 568A and you wire for 568B, you will
possibly have problems.

All 4 pairs are seldom used. The TIA standard was an attempt to
conventionalize building wiring, that's all. If you look at the RJ-45
connector head on, the blue white pair is always the centre 2 pins on
both TIA 568 A and B. That represents tip 1 and ring 1 (T1, R1).
Surrounding those centre pins is the or O/W pair on T568A and the G/W
on T568B.

So, starting from one end, the pins are numbered 1 to 8, with B/W on
pins 4 and 5. Pins 3 and 6 become O/W on T568A and G/W on T568B.

Here's T568A(hope this comes out):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T3 R3 T2 R1 T1 R2 T4 R4

w/g g/w w/o bu/w w/bu o/w w/br br/w

note that the w/bu pair are reversed in the middle pins with the o/w
pair around them. The w/g pair is on pins 1 and 2 while the b/w pair
is on pins 7 and 8.

Here's T568B:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 T4 R4

w/o o/w w/g bu/w w/bu o/w w/br br/w

note the b/w and w/br are in the same place on both. So, it's the g/w
and o/w pairs that move. If you regard this arrangment without colour,
there is virtually no difference. They all connect to the same pins on
either end, wire for wire. The difference is in which twisted pair
connects where.

If you have an open-wiring system, the equipment should not care
provided it is connecting to equipment out in the field which uses the
same category. Where it would make a difference is in a system where
the wiring was dedicated from a jack field to specific equipment.
That's not something I think you'd encounter.

On 20 May 2009 20:59:58 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:

I figured someone would say that, so I grabbed an orange pair and a
green pair off my work table and compared them before I posted to make
sure. I just re-checked, green is about 3.5 half-twists per inch,
orange is about 4.5. It's pretty consistent along the 2.5-foot
lengths I happened to have handy.


Jeez, dude, just go look up the friggin cat5e spec... and shutup.

The Internet is pretty goddamned handy.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:47:53 -0400, PeterD wrote:

[snip]

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

I'll second the recommendations for surge protection. Also watch out
for voltage differences between building grounds. I did such a run
for GenRad Portable Products Division (nee Omnicomp) in the mid '80's,
and observed about 15VAC between the two building "grounds" :-(

Ended up devising my own transformer drive/receive scheme.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Stormy on the East Coast today... due to Bush's failed policies.

"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs, not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:49 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"PeterD" wrote in message
.. .
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs, not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

Lighting protection?

Surge devices are not for "Lightning Protection" as a lightning stroke
would indeed make it all the way into your product if it hit.

Surge protection devices are just that. Protection from surges, and
only then, up to a certain point.

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:49 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"PeterD" wrote in message
. ..
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity
of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs,
not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs
may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

Lighting protection?

Surge devices are not for "Lightning Protection" as a lightning
stroke
would indeed make it all the way into your product if it hit.

Surge protection devices are just that. Protection from surges, and
only then, up to a certain point.

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

On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:43:22 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:49 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity
of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs,
not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs
may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

Lighting protection?

Surge devices are not for "Lightning Protection" as a lightning
stroke
would indeed make it all the way into your product if it hit.

Surge protection devices are just that. Protection from surges, and
only then, up to a certain point.

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


That is what I said. I said that there is NO SUCH THING.

Do you have reading issues?

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:43:22 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:49 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"PeterD" wrote in message
m...
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity
of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire
B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs,
not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the
blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs
may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable
than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

Lighting protection?

Surge devices are not for "Lightning Protection" as a lightning
stroke
would indeed make it all the way into your product if it hit.

Surge protection devices are just that. Protection from surges,
and
only then, up to a certain point.

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


That is what I said. I said that there is NO SUCH THING.

Do you have reading issues?

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

Cheers

On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:22:18 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:43:22 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:49 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"PeterD" wrote in message
om...
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity
of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire
B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs,
not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the
blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs
may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable
than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

Lighting protection?

Surge devices are not for "Lightning Protection" as a lightning
stroke
would indeed make it all the way into your product if it hit.

Surge protection devices are just that. Protection from surges,
and
only then, up to a certain point.

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


That is what I said. I said that there is NO SUCH THING.

Do you have reading issues?

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.

On Thu, 21 May 2009 23:08:48 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 17:04:58 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 19:43:22 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:18:49 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:



"PeterD" wrote in message
om...
On 20 May 2009 11:38:46 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:


PeterD writes:
AFAIK, both are exactly the same electrically, only the polarity
of
the wires (vis-a-vis color codes) is different. Were you to wire B
to
B or A to A it is straight through. Wire A to B then it is a
cross-over.

Actually, not at all. Swapping green and orange swap whole pairs,
not
swap wires within each pair.

I think the difference is in the number of twists per foot in the
green and orange pairs (orange has more). If the TPF match the blue
or brown pairs, you get more crosstalk, so using the correct pairs
may
result in less crosstalk.

No question we have to do a full analysis of all factors! bg

I'm going to be doing a 200+ ft run in a month or so to the new
garage, and will try both ways and see if one is more reliable than
the other (I've got four cables run, only need one of them...)

Here is a LCOM link that would help on lighting protection.
http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6385

Cheers

Lighting protection?

Surge devices are not for "Lightning Protection" as a lightning
stroke
would indeed make it all the way into your product if it hit.

Surge protection devices are just that. Protection from surges, and
only then, up to a certain point.

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


That is what I said. I said that there is NO SUCH THING.

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.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:22:01 -0700, 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.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:22:01 -0700, 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.

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:22:01 -0700, 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
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 dumb****ing
retard.

Where do you get your bull**** statistics from?

On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:22:01 -0700, 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
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 dumb****ing
retard.

Where do you get your bull**** statistics from?

In article ,
"Martin Riddle" wrote:

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/liter...SP1-2207ds.pdf

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

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

In article ,
"Martin Riddle" wrote:

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/liter...SP1-2207ds.pdf

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

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

wrote in message
...
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

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

wrote in message
...
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

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:16:55 -0400, Ecnerwal
wrote:

In article ,
"Martin Riddle" wrote:

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.

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

On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:06:59 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
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

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.

On Fri, 22 May 2009 10:06:59 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
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

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.

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.

I get boggled between MB's and Mb's so I tend to think in Mhz or Ghz.
To me, a bit is a transition from 0 V to max +ve (maybe 5V or 15V)
then back to 0. IMHO, the only time to worry is when a constant stream
of 1's and 0's is being sent. Then the voltage is being switched on
and off regularly with a 0 between 1's. That to me is a full cycle
which can be expressed as 1 hz, with the negative cycle missing.

I realize it's not technically correct but we're not concerned with
the number of bits as much as we're concerned about the bandwidth,
frequency-wise. In other words, what would be the difference between a
100 Mhz analog square wave transmission and a 100 Mb/s transmission of
alternating 1's and 0's?

With respect to what you said about the data transfer rate, you have
to be a lot more careful. Data is not necessarily 1's and 0's, it
could be ASCII throughput which is measured in bytes per second. Data
has to be meaningful and you have to specify whether it's being sent
on a carrier. In fact, the modulation protocol determines a lot about
the transmission, and that's why the MMC code, etc., was developed.

Schemes like that get higher throughput by manipulating the data. When
several 1's appear in a sequence, or several 0's, they have a way of
transmitting that information at a lower throughput.

When they measure CAT 5 throughput, they are talking bandwidth, which
is the number of 'bits' you can transfer in 1 second. There is no such
thing in CAT5 or 6 technology as a 1 Gb/s throughput on a single
pair. It is simply not possible. I was questioning their claims for an
actual 100 Mb/s throughput since that kind of frequency is generally
not seen in practice. I'm sure it has been done in the lab and that it
can be reproduced, but at 100 Mh/z you have a lot more to worry about
in a big system such as overall radiation from the wiring system.

Like I said, many systems are regulated by governments that limit them
to a throughput of 30 Mhz. Even if CAT 5 can pass 100 Mhz on a single
pair in a lab, where is that ever used in practice? DSL is being
passed on cable with bandwidths that can't exceed 10 Mhz. How is that
done? It's done with modulation tricks that pass more information on a
lower bandwidth line.

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.

I get boggled between MB's and Mb's so I tend to think in Mhz or Ghz.
To me, a bit is a transition from 0 V to max +ve (maybe 5V or 15V)
then back to 0. IMHO, the only time to worry is when a constant stream
of 1's and 0's is being sent. Then the voltage is being switched on
and off regularly with a 0 between 1's. That to me is a full cycle
which can be expressed as 1 hz, with the negative cycle missing.

I realize it's not technically correct but we're not concerned with
the number of bits as much as we're concerned about the bandwidth,
frequency-wise. In other words, what would be the difference between a
100 Mhz analog square wave transmission and a 100 Mb/s transmission of
alternating 1's and 0's?

With respect to what you said about the data transfer rate, you have
to be a lot more careful. Data is not necessarily 1's and 0's, it
could be ASCII throughput which is measured in bytes per second. Data
has to be meaningful and you have to specify whether it's being sent
on a carrier. In fact, the modulation protocol determines a lot about
the transmission, and that's why the MMC code, etc., was developed.

Schemes like that get higher throughput by manipulating the data. When
several 1's appear in a sequence, or several 0's, they have a way of
transmitting that information at a lower throughput.

When they measure CAT 5 throughput, they are talking bandwidth, which
is the number of 'bits' you can transfer in 1 second. There is no such
thing in CAT5 or 6 technology as a 1 Gb/s throughput on a single
pair. It is simply not possible. I was questioning their claims for an
actual 100 Mb/s throughput since that kind of frequency is generally
not seen in practice. I'm sure it has been done in the lab and that it
can be reproduced, but at 100 Mh/z you have a lot more to worry about
in a big system such as overall radiation from the wiring system.

Like I said, many systems are regulated by governments that limit them
to a throughput of 30 Mhz. Even if CAT 5 can pass 100 Mhz on a single
pair in a lab, where is that ever used in practice? DSL is being
passed on cable with bandwidths that can't exceed 10 Mhz. How is that
done? It's done with modulation tricks that pass more information on a
lower bandwidth line.

Talking about 1 Ghz twisted pair is a serious joke.

You're an idiot.

I smell Hallerts. Is that you you dumb-**** Pommy *******? You knew
nothing about audio last time I swore at you and now you're trying to
talk telecom. **** off!!

I'm not interested in your pathetic opinions or your ad homs. Any
dickhead can call someone an idiot, trying to appear as if he has a
clue what he's on about. Obviously your just a troll who knows nothing
about basic telecom.


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.


You can't even tell the difference between a Ghz and Gb/s and that's
because you don't understand basic eectronics. That's what kind of
technically challenged dumbass you are. Go back to school clown.


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.


Oh, my...the troll knows big words. Full-duplex and half duplex have
got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you were using coax,
you'd use a data highway with taps on it. You can't run twisted pair
like that because it has a length limit of 100 metres, including the
patch cables. So you run it as a hub because the individual lengths
are unlikely to exceed 100 metres in a hub.

Have you ever asked yourself why twisted pair has such a limit? Do you
understand waveguide theory, or what capacitance and inductance does
to twisted pair at high frequency? Do you understand skin effect? The
only skin you're likely to know anything about is what might be left
on the end of your dick.

You understanding of telecom is about zilch. I'm used to fat, ****
trolls like you who have no life and nothing better to do than comment
on blogs and newsgroups.


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.


Holy ****. I've seen some dumb trolls but you're in the running to
take the cake. 'Optics??'. You're talking about the transmission of
light down a glass rod. What has that to do with twisted pairs of
copper? Are you really that stupid?

Charges travelling through copper have to contend with the impedance
of the conductor pairs.That impedance increases dramaticaly with
frequency and is limiting well below 1 Ghz. Also, at higher
frequencies, the charges start to use the skin layer of the copper.
Coax is designed for that and it can handle 1 Ghz with ease.

Why you would compare either of those to photons of light travelling
down a glass rod beats me. Can you seriously not understand why light
travels faster in a serial mode than electrical charges in a copper
medium? What a dumbass.


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.


That was my point **** face. You need to buffer them anyway, but the
processor needs to do more work than being involved in data transfers.
It leaves much of it up to the DMA controller but the faster you can
transfer data the better all around. There is no advantage of using
SATA over PATA, other than smaller cables and hot-plugging, so why
change technology in mid-stream? If you weren't so stupid, you'd be
able to see that it's make people a lot of money.

It's been a long time since I kicked a troll's ass. Thanks for being
my bum boy.

Talking about 1 Ghz twisted pair is a serious joke.

You're an idiot.

I smell Hallerts. Is that you you dumb-**** Pommy *******? You knew
nothing about audio last time I swore at you and now you're trying to
talk telecom. **** off!!

I'm not interested in your pathetic opinions or your ad homs. Any
dickhead can call someone an idiot, trying to appear as if he has a
clue what he's on about. Obviously your just a troll who knows nothing
about basic telecom.


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.


You can't even tell the difference between a Ghz and Gb/s and that's
because you don't understand basic eectronics. That's what kind of
technically challenged dumbass you are. Go back to school clown.


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.


Oh, my...the troll knows big words. Full-duplex and half duplex have
got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If you were using coax,
you'd use a data highway with taps on it. You can't run twisted pair
like that because it has a length limit of 100 metres, including the
patch cables. So you run it as a hub because the individual lengths
are unlikely to exceed 100 metres in a hub.

Have you ever asked yourself why twisted pair has such a limit? Do you
understand waveguide theory, or what capacitance and inductance does
to twisted pair at high frequency? Do you understand skin effect? The
only skin you're likely to know anything about is what might be left
on the end of your dick.

You understanding of telecom is about zilch. I'm used to fat, ****
trolls like you who have no life and nothing better to do than comment
on blogs and newsgroups.


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.


Holy ****. I've seen some dumb trolls but you're in the running to
take the cake. 'Optics??'. You're talking about the transmission of
light down a glass rod. What has that to do with twisted pairs of
copper? Are you really that stupid?

Charges travelling through copper have to contend with the impedance
of the conductor pairs.That impedance increases dramaticaly with
frequency and is limiting well below 1 Ghz. Also, at higher
frequencies, the charges start to use the skin layer of the copper.
Coax is designed for that and it can handle 1 Ghz with ease.

Why you would compare either of those to photons of light travelling
down a glass rod beats me. Can you seriously not understand why light
travels faster in a serial mode than electrical charges in a copper
medium? What a dumbass.


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.


That was my point **** face. You need to buffer them anyway, but the
processor needs to do more work than being involved in data transfers.
It leaves much of it up to the DMA controller but the faster you can
transfer data the better all around. There is no advantage of using
SATA over PATA, other than smaller cables and hot-plugging, so why
change technology in mid-stream? If you weren't so stupid, you'd be
able to see that it's make people a lot of money.

It's been a long time since I kicked a troll's ass. Thanks for being
my bum boy.