On 12/24/2011 12:04 AM, Chuck Banshee wrote:
This is my first time installing cat5 cable in my house and I am unsure
how to connect to RJ45 jacks that I need to put in the wall.

I've installed a WISP antenna 75 feet from the house& will be routing
the outdoor cat5 cable into the middle of the house (another 25 or so
feet) - but I have a few 'design' questions I'd like to ask those more
experienced than I am.

Pictured here is what I have in the wall in the middle of the house:
http://picturepush.com/public/7212874
or
www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7212874/1024/Anonymous/cat5-questions.gif

I'm not sure if it's best to route the wire all the way from the antenna
to the middle of the house (about 75 feet to the house and another 25 or
30 feet zig-zagging to the crawl space and then up to the newly drilled
hole at the wall).

I'm going to put a wall plate at the wall in the middle of the house; but
should I also put a wall plate where the wire enters the house?

Does breaking the line into sections degrade the signal?

If I do put a wall plate at the entrance to the house, I'll likely put
the POE (power over ethernet) at the wall inside the house (otherwise it
will go in the middle of the house next to the WRT54G router).

When I put a wall plate in the middle of the house, would you add a
second female jack (just in case for future use?). Or does that also
degrade the signal?

In summary, I'm not sure if I should strive to keep the line intact and
how I should terminate it.

Any advice?

I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are
you paralleling?

I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house
and run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays
if you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.


Kind of old school here. I think today you would just wire data. Forget
the RF unless you insist on cable.
http://www.swhowto.com/


http://www.computercablestore.com/12..._PID48600.aspx

I've only see these in rack mounts, i.e. office environments. Wall
mounts is what would make more sense for a house.

I'd put in the highest speed wire and patch you can afford. Also, there
are issues with how you radius the wire. I don't think this is rocket
science, but you do need to be scientific about it.

Your AM radio may hear these wires sing, but streaming radios are the
way to go. I haven't used a broadcast radio other than shortwave in 4 or
5 years.

There are shielded cables to reduce the EMI. Probably OK for a short
distance. There are ground mismatch issues with shielded cables.

Cat 6 is commonplace. Cat 7 is out there, though I don't recall seeing
it in stores. A twisted pair guru told me (and I have no way to verify
this) that once a company can do cat X, eventually everything the sell
is Cat X, even if it is labeled Cat (X-1). Once you have the twist
(balance) down, you eventually make everything to that grade as
machinery gets fixed.

Some of the cat 7 wire has teflon insulation. I'd certainly rest easier
at night knowing the wires in the wall are good for high temperature.

Incidentally I have a very old Zircon stud finder. They called it the
video sensor. It works well. But your magnet trick looks good to me.
http://www.zircon.com/discontinued/s...eoscanner.html

This device even found a shallow buried pipe that some rancher gypsy
installed.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:41:58 -0800, miso wrote:


Cat 6 is commonplace. Cat 7 is out there, though I don't recall seeing
it in stores. A twisted pair guru told me (and I have no way to verify
this) that once a company can do cat X, eventually everything the sell
is Cat X, even if it is labeled Cat (X-1). Once you have the twist
(balance) down, you eventually make everything to that grade as
machinery gets fixed.

Cat 5 or 6 cannot be made on the same machinery as cat7 because cat7
uses individually shielded wires, twiisted together into a sheilded
cable. REALLY nasty stuff to work with. And 3 standards - cat7, cat7a
and cat7f.

Some of the cat 7 wire has teflon insulation. I'd certainly rest easier
at night knowing the wires in the wall are good for high temperature.

Incidentally I have a very old Zircon stud finder. They called it the
video sensor. It works well. But your magnet trick looks good to me.
http://www.zircon.com/discontinued/s...eoscanner.html

This device even found a shallow buried pipe that some rancher gypsy
installed.

"miso" wrote in message
...
I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are you
paralleling?

I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house and
run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays if
you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.


All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
router and forego wiring the house.

All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
router and forego wiring the house.


I do wireless now, but given my druthers, I'd do it up all wired and put
a server/Drobo/whatever in that closet. New construction has structured
wiring as an add-on.

Cat 5 or 6 cannot be made on the same machinery as cat7 because cat7
uses individually shielded wires, twiisted together into a sheilded
cable. REALLY nasty stuff to work with. And 3 standards - cat7, cat7a
and cat7f.

OK. I was told that in the cat 5e era, with cat 6 coming online.

With electronics, sometimes items are truly different and sometimes they
are tested and selected for grade. If the construction is different,
they can't be the same obviously. If the components are selected for
grade, then often they sell "A" grade on the "B" grade line just to fill
orders. In the IC business, the procedure is known as "paint and remark".

Now if 7, 7a, and 7f use the same materials, then there is a chance at
some point they are the same quality.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:23:26 -0800, miso wrote:


All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
router and forego wiring the house.

I do wireless now, but given my druthers, I'd do it up all wired and put
a server/Drobo/whatever in that closet. New construction has structured
wiring as an add-on.

I agree. Wireless should be used when other methods (CAT5 or fiber)
are not available. The reliability and speed of the connection is
well worth the effort running the wires or fiber. If speed is less of
an issue than convenience, consider using HomePlug or HomePNA.

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done. Bundles of CAT5, fiber, station wire,
alarm wire, intercom wire, thermocouple wire, and coax cable are
available for those who fail to appreciate conduit. Actually, it's
not the usual PVC electrical conduit but rather "smurf tube" or HDPE
(high density polyethylene) pipe:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=901909
http://store.cablesplususa.com/networking-infrastructure-premier-conduit-raceway.html

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.


I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:48:06 -0500, "Justin Time"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.

I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I
derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.

It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
design.

Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless
PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He
slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He
goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he
can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the
office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
(ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This
doesn't happen with a wired LAN.

Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call
from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside
of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As
long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the
dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.

Need more stories? Just ask.

However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and
creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
problems.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus
topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or
token ring.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers
improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data
simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks
just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of
the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large
distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than
just around the house.

The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just
isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also
not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats
chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.

The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very
familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type
topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just
tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work
with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable
ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just
wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the
style of the POTS phone.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.
Cannot run ring topology ethernet except on Co-ax.. AKA Slo-ax

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:02:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:48:06 -0500, "Justin Time"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
. ..

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.

I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I
derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.

It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
design.

Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless
PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He
slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He
goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he
can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the
office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
(ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This
doesn't happen with a wired LAN.

Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call
from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside
of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As
long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the
dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.

Need more stories? Just ask.

However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and
creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
problems.


You want to try the job I had last year. Moved an insurance agency
into a new build ing that had been pre-wired by the original tennant -
who went bankrupt - and the IT guys that had not been paid for the
server etc came in and lopped off all the cables 2 feet from the
ceiling. 78 cable runs - undocumented - and half wired to "A" spec and
half to "B". I ended up putting a switch rack above the door to the
former server room, terminating all those cables - then tracing them
back to their end-points, testing them, and re-wiring all of them that
ended up "crossed".

Then running "home runs" from the switch rack to the relocated server
room.

Then we added another kilometer of cable into a trough in the floor to
serve another 12 workstations.

Half of the cables for corporate network - the other half for VOIP
phone system (with POE).

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:15:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Yep. That's the ONLY way to do ethernet over twisted pair. Bus
topology is for 10base2 coax and POTS phones. Ring is for fiber or
token ring.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ethernet+topology&tbm=isch

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

Not really. Ring topology is used for fiber because it offers
improved reliability. Break the ring at any point, and the data
simply goes around the long way until the break is fixed. Two breaks
just means a small section of the ring is inaccessible. The rest of
the ring still works. It really makes more sense over a large
distance, such as going around the entire SF Bay area, rather than
just around the house.

"Rings" in reality, aren't. They're double "stars", with a pair of channels,
one each direction from a central hub to the points of the star. This is done
for serviceability. The network can be managed from a central point. The
original Token Ring was a true ring but it was quickly found that the network
got unmanageable. In fact, Token Ring over CAT-5 isn't uncommon at all (if
you can say Token Ring isn't "uncommon" anymore ;-).

The problem with home networks and fiber rings is that there just
isn't any affordable hardware available to make it happen. It's also
not really necessary at home, unless you have kids, puppies, or rats
chewing on the cables and need improved uptime.

The reason I keep mentioning star topology is that many users are very
familiar with the common POTS (plain old telephone service) bus type
topology. Find the cable that's snaking through the walls, and just
tap in with the phone instrument. That's convenient, but doesn't work
with 10/100baseT ethernet. It DOES work with 10base2 coax cable
ethernet, but that's limited to 10Mbits/sec half-duplex. I just
wanted to make sure that the OP doesn't try to wire his house in the
style of the POTS phone.

Most POTS is wired in a star, today. It's easier in new construction, to put
all the communications stuff together. Of course telephones don't care what
the wire looks like. If it made it the five miles from the CO, you could have
barbed wire in the house and it would work. ;-)

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:41:58 -0800, miso wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are
you paralleling?

I think I'm confused too so that's why it's hard to help me.

Mainly I was worried whether I should BREAK the line at the entrance to
the house (and put the POE there) or if I should keep the cat5 line
continuous to the middle of the house (another 25 feet snaked about).

I was worried whether the break adds appreciable degradation?

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0500, Justin Time wrote:
Centralize a wireless router and forego wiring the house.

That's essentially what I'm attempting.

I'll wire from the WISP antenna to the house (~ about 75') and then from
the house to the center of the house (~ another 25') where I'll put a
Linksys WRT54G wireless router.

I was mostly wondering if it was a good idea to BREAK the line at the
point where it entered the house (and put a jack there plus the POE power
supply) ... or ... if I should strive to keep the line intact up to the
router in the center of the house.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:19:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren wrote:
Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.

Cannot run ring topology ethernet except on Co-ax.. AKA Slo-ax

Well, not exactly:

Methods of using Ethernet in a ring topology
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/43116
There's also RRPP (Rapid Ring Protection Protocol), RRST (Rapid Ring
Spanning Tree), and others designed to facilitate ethernet rings.
However, they are all intended for metro LAN's and large server farms,
not for home use.

Incidentally, don't under estimate coax cable. I've run 10base2
(10Mbits/sec) for about 1500ft using RG6a/u coax and a pair of
dedicated transceivers. Yes, it's 75 ohms, not 50 ohms. With
10base2, it's called CheaperNet.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Dec 24, 11:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:48:06 -0500, "Justin Time"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

However, if you enjoy dealing with interference from the neighbors,
municipal wi-fi, wireless security cameras, TIVO, wireless TV,
microwave ovens, etc, wireless is for you.

I often hear/read about those rebuttals to wireless, but after many years of
using wireless, I have yet to have any major issues. In fact, I had several
machines connected. Some were wired and some wireless. I had more problems
with some of the wired than I did with wireless. It's not foolproof, but it
doesn't have the major interference problems you and many have stated.

Well, what can I say? *My experience has been quite the opposite. *I
derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
I just see more wireless horror stories than you. *Dunno.

It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
above. *There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
design.

Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. *Customer has a wireless
PC laptop. *He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. *He
slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. *He
goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. *One problem... he
can't connect. *A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
wireless access point that's not there. *If the IP address of the
office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
(ARP cache). *The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
renewal. *There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. *This
doesn't happen with a wired LAN.

Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. *I get a call
from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
assorted wireless laptops work better. *I arrive and find the outside
of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. *As
long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. *I leave it to the
dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.

Need more stories? *Just ask.

However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
hardware. *Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
does take some practice. *I see far too many partial crimps and
creative wiring. *Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
problems.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
#http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS



Agree with your comments about wireless. Wireless is great
when it's impractical for a wired connection and it works. But
it's no subsitute for a direct wired connection. My
experience with both in several environments is consistent
with yours.

To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of
security. That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for
wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired. If
you have no security, then anyone within range can access
your network. If you use encryption, not only does it
usually impact performance, but it also adds another
issue everytime you add or replace a device on the
network. Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember
and find the encryption key. Sounds easy, but I've seen
folks who spent hours trying to find the key,
get it entered correctly, etc.

With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is
reliable and inherrently secure. High end wireless routers,
ie 802.11N that are "gigabit"
actually only support that rate on the wired connections.
For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits.
And you might get near that if the two points are in the
same room. Across the house, it's doubtful.

So, if I had an easy wire run, no question I'd do it.

On Dec 25, 1:41*am, Chuck Banshee wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0500, Justin Time wrote:
Centralize a wireless router and forego wiring the house.

That's essentially what I'm attempting.

I'll wire from the WISP antenna to the house (~ about 75') and then from
the house to the center of the house (~ another 25') where I'll put a
Linksys WRT54G wireless router.

I was mostly wondering if it was a good idea to BREAK the line at the
point where it entered the house (and put a jack there plus the POE power
supply) ... or ... if I should strive to keep the line intact up to the
router in the center of the house.

I think others have already responded that every time you put a
connection in a cable, you introduce one more place for problems
to occur. Put that connection outside, where the cable enters
the house and it's even more susceptable to problems.

Another secondary issue is each time you break the cable,
make a splice or use another connector there is some signal
loss. In this case, I think that's a minor point though.

Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection.
Since the antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is
directly grounded and I'd also put some kind of surge protection
on the wires entering the house. Exactly what kind is
available off-the-shelf for this application I don't know.

Justin Time wrote the following:
"miso" wrote in message
...
I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what are you
paralleling?

I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house and
run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring bays if
you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the closet.


All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a wireless
router and forego wiring the house.



My wireless experience.
When I installed another computer in the basement, after already having
a computer in each of our 3 bedrooms running off a wired router in the
master bedroom (2 daughters with their own computer in their bedrooms),
I elected to replace the wired router with a wireless router because the
basement was 3 floors down and on the opposite side of the house from
the master bedroom. This would have required running the cat cable up
though the MB wall into the upper attic, then across the attic rafters
to the other side of the upper attic, then down one floor into the lower
attic, then down though that attic wall 2 floors into the basement. I
didn't want to go though all that destruction.
After the wireless router was hooked up, I had a lot of problems with
the wireless signal in the basement, basically because the signal had to
go though walls and floors some 60 feet away. I tried moving the
wireless receiver all around the basement, including hanging it from the
ceiling in various places, trying to find the best place to get a good
signal. But wherever I put it, I would get a wavering signal, good one
time then bad another, sometimes within minutes of moving it. Kinda like
my cell phone signal in the basement which wavers from 1 bar to 4.
I finally moved the receiver across the room to the opposite side of the
basement without leaving my computer chair. Of course, the modem, being
in several pieces now, didn't get any signal at all. :-)
I then reluctantly went through the trouble of threading a cat5 cable
through the house.
The wireless router is still used because even though we lost 2 wired
computers when the girls moved out, we have a wireless laptop in the
kitchen for those times when you need the internet to look something up,
or connecting to one of the social networking services (not me) without
having to run up or down stairs. Besides, it can be used throughout the
main floor, or hooked up to the LED HDTV.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

willshak wrote the following:
Justin Time wrote the following:
"miso" wrote in message
...
I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what
are you paralleling?

I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house
and run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring
bays if you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the
closet.


All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a
wireless router and forego wiring the house.


My wireless experience.
When I installed another computer in the basement, after already having
a computer in each of our 3 bedrooms running off a wired router in the
master bedroom (2 daughters with their own computer in their bedrooms),
I elected to replace the wired router with a wireless router because the
basement was 3 floors down and on the opposite side of the house from
the master bedroom. This would have required running the cat cable up
though the MB wall into the upper attic, then across the attic rafters
to the other side of the upper attic, then down one floor into the lower
attic, then down though that attic wall 2 floors into the basement. I
didn't want to go though all that destruction.
After the wireless router was hooked up, I had a lot of problems with
the wireless signal in the basement, basically because the signal had to
go though walls and floors some 60 feet away. I tried moving the
wireless receiver all around the basement, including hanging it from the
ceiling in various places, trying to find the best place to get a good
signal. But wherever I put it, I would get a wavering signal, good one
time then bad another, sometimes within minutes of moving it. Kinda like
my cell phone signal in the basement which wavers from 1 bar to 4.
I finally moved the receiver across the room to the opposite side of the
basement without leaving my computer chair. Of course, the ///modem///,

Sorry, I meant 'receiver'.

being
in several pieces now, didn't get any signal at all. :-)
I then reluctantly went through the trouble of threading a cat5 cable
through the house.
The wireless router is still used because even though we lost 2 wired
computers when the girls moved out, we have a wireless laptop in the
kitchen for those times when you need the internet to look something up,
or connecting to one of the social networking services (not me) without
having to run up or down stairs. Besides, it can be used throughout the
main floor, or hooked up to the LED HDTV.




--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

willshak wrote:
Justin Time wrote the following:
"miso" wrote in message
...
I'm a bit confused here. It should be one device per line, so what
are you paralleling?

I'd put the router someplace like a closet in the middle of the house
and run wires to each room as needed. There are "structured" wiring
bays if you want to get fancy, rather than have wires dangling in the
closet.


All computer and Internet devices are wireless and the rest of the
electronic technology is close behind, such as TVs. Centralize a
wireless router and forego wiring the house.


My wireless experience.
When I installed another computer in the basement, after already having
a computer in each of our 3 bedrooms running off a wired router in the
master bedroom (2 daughters with their own computer in their bedrooms),
I elected to replace the wired router with a wireless router because the
basement was 3 floors down and on the opposite side of the house from
the master bedroom. This would have required running the cat cable up
though the MB wall into the upper attic, then across the attic rafters
to the other side of the upper attic, then down one floor into the lower
attic, then down though that attic wall 2 floors into the basement. I
didn't want to go though all that destruction.
After the wireless router was hooked up, I had a lot of problems with
the wireless signal in the basement, basically because the signal had to
go though walls and floors some 60 feet away. I tried moving the
wireless receiver all around the basement, including hanging it from the
ceiling in various places, trying to find the best place to get a good
signal. But wherever I put it, I would get a wavering signal, good one
time then bad another, sometimes within minutes of moving it. Kinda like
my cell phone signal in the basement which wavers from 1 bar to 4.
I finally moved the receiver across the room to the opposite side of the
basement without leaving my computer chair. Of course, the modem, being
in several pieces now, didn't get any signal at all. :-)
I then reluctantly went through the trouble of threading a cat5 cable
through the house.
The wireless router is still used because even though we lost 2 wired
computers when the girls moved out, we have a wireless laptop in the
kitchen for those times when you need the internet to look something up,
or connecting to one of the social networking services (not me) without
having to run up or down stairs. Besides, it can be used throughout the
main floor, or hooked up to the LED HDTV.

Hmmm,
My house is small enough to cover with a wireless router. Desk top,
Laptop PCs, a Macbook, wireless AIO printer and Home theater, Xbox, etc.
scattered around the house. All of them play well. Router is
Netgear WNDR3700V2 with OpenWrt firmware which even drives NAS box.
Router is located in the loft located in the top floor.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:41:34 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0500, Justin Time wrote:
Centralize a wireless router and forego wiring the house.

That's essentially what I'm attempting.

I'll wire from the WISP antenna to the house (~ about 75') and then from
the house to the center of the house (~ another 25') where I'll put a
Linksys WRT54G wireless router.

I was mostly wondering if it was a good idea to BREAK the line at the
point where it entered the house (and put a jack there plus the POE power
supply) ... or ... if I should strive to keep the line intact up to the
router in the center of the house.
With that distance, and setup, one piece to the center of the house
would be my recommendation.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:56:53 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of
security.

Cringe. I promised myself that I would not get involved in any more
security discussions. However, since this is a holiday...

That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for
wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired. If
you have no security, then anyone within range can access
your network. If you use encryption, not only does it
usually impact performance, but it also adds another
issue everytime you add or replace a device on the
network. Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember
and find the encryption key. Sounds easy, but I've seen
folks who spent hours trying to find the key,
get it entered correctly, etc.

The real problem with Wi-Fi security is the shared key. All wireless
clients on your network use the same shared key. If the key is
compromised, so is the entire network. There are complex ways to
sniff the traffic and recover the WEP/WPA key, but it's much easier to
simply borrow a laptop on the network, and recover a hashed key from
the registry:
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html
In other words, the very concept of a shared key is lacking.

What's needed is a one time key, which does not need to be remembered.
This is accomplished with WPA-RADIUS. The user is presented with a
unique per-user login and password. The RADIUS server then delivers a
one-time, per session, and unique key. You could sniff the key, but
it would only be good for that session. Few home networks offer this
level of key management, although it's common in corporate networks.

With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is
reliable and inherrently secure. High end wireless routers,
ie 802.11N that are "gigabit"
actually only support that rate on the wired connections.
For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits.

Chuckle. I've been tempted to offer a prize to anyone that can
demonstrate a streaming wireless connection that will do 300Mbits. I
know that it's been done in the lab (controlled environment) and with
dual band channel bonding, but I seriously doubt it can be done in the
presence of interference and uncontrolled reflections. The only
reason manufacturers offer gigabit ethernet ports is that they would
look rather foolish offering 100Mbits/sec ports on a router
theoretically capable of 300Mbits/sec wireless.

As for wired being more secure, I beg to differ. I have a small
collection of ethernet taps, that I use to sniff traffic for network
troubleshooting. If I wanted to sniff your network, I would install
one between your broadband connection and router. Taping a single
ethernet LAN port won't work because it will only see traffic on that
port and broadcast traffic.
http://www.netoptics.com/products/network-taps

And you might get near that if the two points are in the
same room. Across the house, it's doubtful.

I've done about 700Mbits/sec. I forgot the exact hardware but I do
recall that I had to tune both the client and server computers IP
stack to get decent performance. Out of the box, I think it was about
300Mbits/sec. For testing, I use iPerf and JPerf.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-howto/30408-measuring-network-performance-jperf

So, if I had an easy wire run, no question I'd do it.

I've never seen an easy run on a rework job. There's always some
complication involved. The easier it looks, the more complicated it
will become.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:19:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:29:24 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:21:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For new installations, I usually recommend running conduit in the
walls from a central location (star topology). This is roughly the
way structured wiring is done.

You've mentioned the star topology twice now. I agree it is the best
way to build the wired network. If one segment goes down, the rest of
the network is still up. Easier to trouble shoot a single segment.

Using a ring topology means more troubleshooting.
Cannot run ring topology ethernet except on Co-ax.. AKA Slo-ax

Well - only if you define the domain as a single segment - and star
based Ethernet these days uses switches, and i think you are
explaining about topology in a single wiring closet, where a star on 1
switch is the easiest way to set it up.

But the topology between Ethernet switches can be pretty arbitary once
you hvae nore than 1 device - as long as you stay with a tree, or run
1 of the protocols designed to make sure any loops do not cause
problems (spanning tree, 802.1s/w RPR, etc)
--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

Well, what can I say? My experience has been quite the opposite. I
derive a fair part of my income from fixing wireless problems. Perhaps
I just see more wireless horror stories than you. Dunno.

It's not just the interference problems, some of which I itemized
above. There's also some rather strange wireless clients, buggy
wireless router firmware, compatibility issues, and just plain bad
design.

Here's an easy one, that I hear all to often. Customer has a wireless
PC laptop. He uses the laptop successfully on the office WLAN. He
slams the lid shut, putting the laptop into standby or hibernate. He
goes home, opens the lid, and the laptop resumes. One problem... he
can't connect. A bit of tinkering finds that the laptop still thinks
he's on the office WLAN, and is desperately looking for the office
wireless access point that's not there. If the IP address of the
office router and home router are the same, it's even more confusing
(ARP cache). The DHCP lease time hasn't expired yet, so the DHCP
client isn't going to break the RFC and initiate a premature DHCP
renewal. There are plenty of ways to fix this (IPCONFIG, reboot, turn
power on/off to the wireless card in the laptop), but it will usually
drive one into frustration mode the first time they see it. This
doesn't happen with a wired LAN.

Plenty of other ways to have wireless drive one nuts. I get a call
from a dentists office wondering if I could do something to make their
assorted wireless laptops work better. I arrive and find the outside
of the adjacent building festooned with wireless security cameras. As
long as they are running, Wi-Fi isn't working. I leave it to the
dentist to convince the neighbor to switch the cameras to wired.

Need more stories? Just ask.

However, you are correct that there are also plenty of wired issues.
I've had to deal with a few wiring and connector issues on network
hardware. Learning to crimp CAT5 into an RJ45 is fairly easy, but
does take some practice. I see far too many partial crimps and
creative wiring. Still, they're minor compared to the wireless
problems.


Since you're in the business, I can't dispute your experience and I'm sure
you've had your fair share. Perhaps my location provides an interference
free area thus serving my satisfaction of wireless. Being I work within a
University, the connection is fairly sound as well, though, don't get me
wrong, has had it's fair share of problems. Overall, I think it's safe to
assume the location plays a role when going wireless and I won't dispute
wired having a greater advantage over wireless. I just didn't think it was
as bad as the rebuttal. It won't be the first time I'm wrong.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:58:22 -0500, "Justin Time"
wrote:

Being I work within a
University, the connection is fairly sound as well,

University services vary but are generally better than the typical
home wireless derrangement. They're always centrally managed,
properly configured, and tend to use better than average hardware.
Corporate style services, such as RADIUS authentication, logging,
traffic management, SNMP and Netflow monitoring, etc are common.
Channel layout is usually well controlled. Firmware updates are
maintained. Over powered amplifiers, repeaters, and monster antennas
are proscribed. (So is hiding users behind a firewall or sharing a
connection). Backhaul capacity is well above the level found in most
homes. However, the main reason you're not seeing wireless problems
is that considerable effort was put into planning and engineering
before it was deployed. It has to work on paper, before it will work
in the field.

Locally, we have UCSC (Univ of Calif Santa Cruz).
http://its.ucsc.edu/wireless/index.html
Plenty of hot spots:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/its2/service_catalog/cruznet/locations.php
I couldn't find traffic reports that are publicly visible.

Overall, I think it's safe to
assume the location plays a role when going wireless and I won't dispute
wired having a greater advantage over wireless.

Well, my view is that it's not so much the location, as it is the
planning, design, use of high end hardware, monitoring, and
maintenance. If university systems were planned and installed in the
same manner as the average home wireless system, I would expect
serious problems.

I just didn't think it was
as bad as the rebuttal. It won't be the first time I'm wrong.

Chuckle. No, it's not that bad. The problem with being in the repair
and service biz is that I only see the broken machines and networks.
I'm sure there are systems that work right out of the box, but I don't
see many of those. I just see the problems. From the repair persons
point of view, everything is broken.

On the other foot, 802.11 wireless is nothing more than ethernet
packets encapsulated in 802.11 packets. Spend some time with
WireShark sniffing wireless to see how it works. Every problem that
you might experience with a wired ethernet LAN, you can also
experience with an 802.11 WLAN. All that wireless adds is additional
layers of problems on top of the ethernet problems.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:01:15 -0800, wrote:
Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection. Since the
antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is directly grounded and I'd
also put some kind of surge protection on the wires entering the house.

Oh oh. I thought that by virtue of the fact the steel mast is stuck into
the ground that it was 'protected' from lightning.

What kind of surge protection goes on a cat5 cable?

On Dec 25, 1:31*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 05:56:53 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
To the points you've already covered, I'd add the issue of
security.

Cringe. *I promised myself that I would not get involved in any more
security discussions. *However, since this is a holiday...

That's one more layer of stuff to deal with for
wirless that you don't have to worry about with wired. *If
you have no security, then anyone within range can access
your network. *If you use encryption, not only does it
usually impact performance, but it also adds another
issue everytime you add or replace a device on the
network. *Add a Tivo or PC and now you have to remember
and find the encryption key. *Sounds easy, but I've seen
folks who spent hours trying to find the key,
get it entered correctly, etc.

The real problem with Wi-Fi security is the shared key. *All wireless
clients on your network use the same shared key. *If the key is
compromised, so is the entire network. *There are complex ways to
sniff the traffic and recover the WEP/WPA key, but it's much easier to
simply borrow a laptop on the network, and recover a hashed key from
the registry:
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wireless_key.html
In other words, the very concept of a shared key is lacking.

What's needed is a one time key, which does not need to be remembered.
This is accomplished with WPA-RADIUS. *The user is presented with a
unique per-user login and password. *The RADIUS server then delivers a
one-time, per session, and unique key. *You could sniff the key, but
it would only be good for that session. *Few home networks offer this
level of key management, although it's common in corporate networks.

With wired I can do a 1 gig Ethernet connection that is
reliable and inherrently secure. *High end wireless routers,
ie 802.11N *that are "gigabit"
actually only support that rate on the wired connections.
For wireless the theoretical data rate is 300Mbits.

Chuckle. *I've been tempted to offer a prize to anyone that can
demonstrate a streaming wireless connection that will do 300Mbits. *I
know that it's been done in the lab (controlled environment) and with
dual band channel bonding, but I seriously doubt it can be done in the
presence of interference and uncontrolled reflections. *The only
reason manufacturers offer gigabit ethernet ports is that they would
look rather foolish offering 100Mbits/sec ports on a router
theoretically capable of 300Mbits/sec wireless.

As for wired being more secure, I beg to differ. *I have a small
collection of ethernet taps, that I use to sniff traffic for network
troubleshooting. *If I wanted to sniff your network, I would install
one between your broadband connection and router. *Taping a single
ethernet LAN port won't work because it will only see traffic on that
port and broadcast traffic.
http://www.netoptics.com/products/network-taps

No question that wired can be compromised too. But installing
a tap in a wired line is IMO a big step beyond connecting to
a wireless LAN. If you put up a wireless LAN with no security
enabled, it can be accessed by anyone within the wireless
range. Like the kid in the apartment next door. For that kid
to install a tap would not only require a lot more effort, but
I think in most hackers minds, actually attaching something
to someone's network is something they would not do for
a variety of reasons. Being a physical thing, if found,
there's direct evidence of tapping, which everyone knows is
a crime and more likely to get police attention. Also, while
it's not true, folks have a sense that anything they can
connect to wirelessly is open territory.

On Dec 25, 10:01*pm, Chuck Banshee wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:01:15 -0800, wrote:
Another issue I'd be concerned about is lightning protection. Since the
antenna is outside, I'd make sure the mast is directly grounded and I'd
also put some kind of surge protection on the wires entering the house.

Oh oh. I thought that by virtue of the fact the steel mast is stuck into
the ground that it was 'protected' from lightning.

Most of the antennas out there that are installed on a metal
pole in the ground probably rely on the above. If the pole goes
4 ft into reasonable soil that's probably good enough. If
you want really sound protection then a real ground rod
driven into the earth and connected to the mast would be
additional safety. The one thing you don't want is a metal
mast on say a roof that is not earthed at all.





What kind of surge protection goes on a cat5 cable?

Here's one example:

http://metrix.net/cat-5-lightning-arrestor-p-23.html

Google is your friend.

Also, looks like you may have found a reason to put a connection in
the line where it enters the house.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:29:04 -0800, wrote:

Also, looks like you may have found a reason to put a connection in the
line where it enters the house.

I'm still seesawing on putting the POE in the garage where the line comes
into the house ... or in the office.

But, that's not really a big design decision because I most here said
breaks in the line aren't a signal degradation issue (per se).

The 'big' (to me) design decision was how to make the "Y"!

I was confused how one signal input could be then wired to give both the
office and the game room power.

Now I realize it's a bunch of Y's together - in a star network - with the
broadband router's LAN ports as the center of the hub!

What was initially incomprehensible to me was the fact that the router's
LAN ports were NOT part of the wired system.

I didn't comprehend the existence of 'dead' wires in the house (i.e., one
'live' wire from the antenna, and then all the rest being 'dead' until
powered by the router's LAN ports).

That's the fundamental concept I didn't realize when I first asked!

Thanks to all for the education! Now it's time to finish drilling holes
and buying something to staple the wires in place properly.

On Dec 26, 12:22*pm, Chuck Banshee wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:29:04 -0800, wrote:
Also, looks like you may have found a reason to put a connection in the
line where it enters the house.

I'm still seesawing on putting the POE in the garage where the line comes
into the house ... or in the office.

But, that's not really a big design decision because I most here said
breaks in the line aren't a signal degradation issue (per se).

The 'big' (to me) design decision was how to make the "Y"!

I was confused how one signal input could be then wired to give both the
office and the game room power.

Oh no! Just when it was getting better, more confusion.
A signal input is NOT providing power. You have a power
supply that powers the electronics outside at the antenna
via one cable. The other wired connections, eg to the
game room, are ethernet only, no power.



Now I realize it's a bunch of Y's together - in a star network - with the
broadband router's LAN ports as the center of the hub!

What was initially incomprehensible to me was the fact that the router's
LAN ports were NOT part of the wired system.

They are part of the wired system.



I didn't comprehend the existence of 'dead' wires in the house (i.e., one
'live' wire from the antenna, and then all the rest being 'dead' until
powered by the router's LAN ports).

Of course anything not connected is dead. But if it is
connected to the router LAN port, it has signals on it,
not power. Capiche?


That's the fundamental concept I didn't realize when I first asked!

Thanks to all for the education! Now it's time to finish drilling holes
and buying something to staple the wires in place properly.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:29:04 -0800, wrote:

Also, looks like you may have found a reason to put a connection in the
line where it enters the house.

I'm still seesawing on putting the POE in the garage where the line comes
into the house ... or in the office.

If you put the POE adapter in the garage, you can have wired Ethernet
in the garage without running a second cable, although it would
require a switch to do so.

So the choices for wired Ethernet in the garage a
1. POE adapter & switch in garage, single cable to the office/router
2. POE adapter anywhere, two cables between garage and office

Since you have a bunch of cable, the choice is probably #2...

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:40:36 -0600, Char Jackson wrote:
So the choices for wired Ethernet in the garage a 1. POE adapter &
switch in garage, single cable to the office/router 2. POE adapter
anywhere, two cables between garage and office

Since you have a bunch of cable, the choice is probably #2...

Sorry I haven't responded sooner.

The whole setup was dead until just now.

I ended up with #2.

I put the POE adapter & the router in the central office.

This first ethernet setup of mine was harder than I originally envisioned
(I had to wire it twice) but with all your help - it's finally working!

I'll post pictures separately.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 05:29:04 -0800, wrote:
Most of the antennas out there that are installed on a metal pole in the
ground probably rely on the above. If the pole goes 4 ft into
reasonable soil that's probably good enough.

UPDATE:
Last night was a 'storm' (in California terms, which isn't much of a
'real' storm after all) ... but nonetheless, I heard a crashing shaking
the roof and thought it was thunder. Turns out a roof tile fell down from
one roofline to another!

In addition, the antenna, which is just stuck into the ground into an abs
plastic 2"-to-3" bushing reducer, twisted a bit in the storm - so my
reception dropped from -64dBm to -88dBm. Yuck.

I twisted it back into place (about a half inch of twist) but now I know
I need to better secure the antenna base so it doesn't twist (we get
100mph gusts at times).

I watched the antenna in the wind & rain last night, and it didn't 'bend'
the 2" thick water pipe at all. I don't think I need guy wires at all as
it's pretty sturdy. The only problem is that it's a 2" pipe stuck three
feet into a 3.5" hole!

Here's a picture this morning (in the early morning light) of the antenna.
- http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7393289.gif

Notice the oak tree probably twisted it more so than the wind did:
- http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7393293.gif

And, here's a picture of the 2" mast stuck three feet in a 3" hole with a
2"-to-3" abs plastic reducer at the top attempting to keep it from
twisting in the wind.
- http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7393299.gif

I'm surprised that flimsy bushing works at all given how heavy the mast
is. So, the only engineering problem left is to prevent the mast from
twisting in the wind from the wind or more likely the trees.

BTW, do you think this slight sidewise tilt of the planar antenna matters?
- http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7393319.gif

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:23:00 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
wrote:

I twisted it back into place (about a half inch of twist) but now I know
I need to better secure the antenna base so it doesn't twist (we get
100mph gusts at times).

Attach some kind of radial arm to the base of the pipe that is long
enough to clear the concrete base. Unistrut and several hose clamps
will suffice. Pound a spike into the ground at the end of the radial
arm. How much good that will do against the force of the oak tree
branches hitting the panel antenna is dubious. Having the pipe twist
when the oak branches hit the antenna probably saved your antenna from
destruction (as seems evident by the antenna tilt). If the pipe were
secured in place, I'm fairly sure that the sheet metal mounting
contrivance on the back of the panel antenna would now be twisted into
a pretzel.

Incidentally, I would NOT pound a wooden wedge into the base bushing
as it's like to split or deform the bushing.

I'm surprised that flimsy bushing works at all given how heavy the mast
is. So, the only engineering problem left is to prevent the mast from
twisting in the wind from the wind or more likely the trees.

Trim the trees.

BTW, do you think this slight sidewise tilt of the planar antenna matters?
- http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7393319.gif

Nope. It's fine (but ugly). The loss caused by polarization mismatch
is fairly minor until you approach 90 degrees.
Polarization Mismatch Loss in dB = 20 log (cos angle)
For a 15 degree tilt, that's only 0.3dB. Even 45 degrees will only
cause a 3dB drop.

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7393299/img/7393299.gif
Ummm... is that the Home Despot CAT5 on the ground? What happened to
the waterproof direct burial CAT5? It will probably last through the
winter, but all it takes is for you to walk on the cable, or some
critter to chew on it, and water will get in. After that, it's just a
matter of time before the copper corrodes into an intermittent.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:23:00 +0000, Chuck Banshee wrote:

Turns out a roof tile fell down from one roofline to another!

I forgot to post the picture I took in the morning of the broken roof!
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7394088.gif

Now I have yet another repair item to learn how to fix!

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:24:03 +0000 (UTC), Chuck Banshee
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:23:00 +0000, Chuck Banshee wrote:

Turns out a roof tile fell down from one roofline to another!

I forgot to post the picture I took in the morning of the broken roof!
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/...mg/7394088.gif

Now I have yet another repair item to learn how to fix!

The trick is not to slip off the roof. Walking on tile is also a
problem. You'll need some plywood or boards to distribute your mass.
I've helped with a tile roof repair, but that was 30 years ago.

http://www.practicalpressure.com/How_to_Repair_a_Tile_Roof.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgajyIO2sKA
http://www.realtor.com/home-garden/do-it-yourself/roofing/repairing-clay-tile.aspx
etc. Plenty more found with Google.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:54:59 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Trim the trees.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the suggestions! You're a kind heart.

Since the antenna is 16 feet high, I need to research the cost/
versatility of having either a 20 foot (or so) orchard ladder versus a 20
foot (or so) chainsaw-on-a-pole for tree trimming overall.

I would think the home-repair guys would know which is best, from a cost/
utility standpoint since many of them probably have one or the other (or
both). I can't afford both so I'll have to choose one of the two, always
planning more for general use than for the specific one-time application.

Polarization Mismatch Loss in dB = 20 log (cos angle)
For a 15 degree tilt, that's only 0.3dB.

Now that's very interesting! Yes, this tilt is minor, so, all it does,
based on your calculation result, is look ugly! Thanks for the
edification!

What happened to the waterproof direct burial CAT5?

I made a big mistake when I first spec'd out this job.

I bought 500 feet of uv-outdoor cat5e from Home Depot for $75. Turns out
I 'should' have bought about 100 feet of waterproof, and then another 100
feet of interior cat5e. That would have been cheaper, better, and easier!

If only I knew then what (you've taught me) I know now!