No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this before)?
Thanks

In article ,
p says...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

http://www.homepcnetwork.com/makecablef.htm


I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this before)?

Make sure all your PCs are in the same workgroup if you want to share
files/printers.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

Hywel Jenkins wrote:
In article ,
p says...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help,
but for the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how
to wire the CAT5e (to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

http://www.homepcnetwork.com/makecablef.htm

That's exactly what I wanted, thanks. Wish my IDC had a cutter like that ...

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory
and the software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to
this detail. Would quite like to get this running this evening if
poss. Belkin switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once
a BitTorrent d/l has finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of
generally (not done this before)?

Make sure all your PCs are in the same workgroup if you want to share
files/printers.

I want to connect
-a ME notebook to an XP PC and
-share the XP printer with the ME notebook and
-give the XP PC access to the notebook's HDD but not the other way around.

But first things first, find the IDC... ;-)

Errrrrr - but will anyone be using cable (rather than wireless) in a few
years time? Doubt it, myself - except in hostile (EM) environments... So
why not go wireless now? It's cheap, easy and far more flexible!

Colin
"Tenex" wrote in message
...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the
CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and
the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l
has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this before)?
Thanks

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:25:32 +0100, "Colin Cooper"
wrote:

Errrrrr - but will anyone be using cable (rather than wireless) in a few
years time? Doubt it, myself - except in hostile (EM) environments... So
why not go wireless now? It's cheap, easy and far more flexible!

Colin

It depends on what is required.

Wireless networks are certainly very useful in a number of
applications, but there are limitations.

- Taking gross (rather than real) bandwidths, wireless networks are in
the 10 - 50Mbit range while wired is in the 100-1000 Mbit range
currently.

- The current wireless technology produces a shared network, so the
bandwidth is shared among all users. A cabled network can be switched
and achieve higher performance. This effect can be ameliorated
somewhat by increasing the density of access points and connecting
them to switches but this increases the cost of course.

- There are security issues with WiFi that may be at an acceptable
level for a home user but are not for business purposes without the
use of additional encryption and other security techniques.


So, yes, I think that people will be using wired networks and adding
wireless for a long time to come.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

try this link
http://www.tlc-direct/technical/netw...networking.htm

basically you wire pin to pin on all connections
HTH Jeff,Leeds

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:23:54 +0100, Mindwipe wrote:

basically you wire pin to pin on all connections

But not in "daisy chain" topography and you need to keep the pairs as
pairs.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

At a simple level take aloofly at a look section in the SelfBuild FAQ
http://www.borpin.co.uk/sbfaq


"Tenex" wrote in message
...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the
CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and
the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l
has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this before)?
Thanks

Colin Cooper wrote:

Errrrrr - but will anyone be using cable (rather than wireless) in a few
years time? Doubt it, myself - except in hostile (EM) environments... So
why not go wireless now? It's cheap, easy and far more flexible!


Yes. Wireless is insecure, and somewhat more expensive, and somewhat
more prone to problems with metal in the walls etc.

Its also more limited on bandwidth.

If everybody used gigabit wirelss to connect up their home networks,
there would be horrendous problems with adjacent properties

No problem tho with wire or fiber.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:00:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

If everybody used gigabit wirelss to connect up their home networks,
there would be horrendous problems with adjacent properties

Not necessarily.With current technology maybe that's true, but I
imagine in the years ahead the wireless options will expand and the
wireless devices will be hugely more configurable.

Model aircraft don't have a problem flying together, unless some divot
happens to choose the same frequency as someone else.

PoP

PoP wrote:

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:00:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


If everybody used gigabit wirelss to connect up their home networks,
there would be horrendous problems with adjacent properties


Not necessarily.With current technology maybe that's true, but I
imagine in the years ahead the wireless options will expand and the
wireless devices will be hugely more configurable.

Model aircraft don't have a problem flying together, unless some divot
happens to choose the same frequency as someone else.


Don't be dumb. Bitrates on model aircfat are at best 2400 baud, and
limited to about 30 channels on the band. Channels are 10Khz apart, so
useable BW is les than 5Khz. You won't get 100Mbps on that.

The ONLY way to get higher BW on radio is to use ever higher frequencies
- cellphonse use 900Mhz or 1.8Ghz, WiFi is 2.4Ghz, and even then, its
gettng crowded.

Waveguides - be they wire, hollow pipes, or glass fibres, allow the use
of the same carriers and the full broadband spectrum without
interference. They will ALWAYS be able to carry more signal with less
interference than an equivalent broadcast system at similar bandwidth.


You can get at least 8 GBPS down a fiber. The best of microwave
technology using large aerials and big towers and highly directional
links, is a few hundred Mbps at best.

Wifi as currently constituted is a shared space collison detectieon
'Ethernet' of typically 10Mbps, up to maybe 50Mbps. Any piece of cat 5
will do 100Mbps short range and no collision problems at all if a switch
is used and there is no coincidence of traffic between nodes.


You only hgave to listen to e.g. a cellphone qality versus a decent
analog or digital phone over landlines, to hear the difference between a
clear unobstructed 64Kbps channel and a highly contended bandwidth
limiteed compressed to the nth degree and frequency spread system.

Bandwidth is always tight with radio. There is never enough space to do
what you want. Sometmes its a cheap way to elimninate wires or fibers,
but its never ever the BEST way for a duplex system. Broadcast? yes. It
works well for TV and radio, it basically sucks with bi-directional data.

It is however, a very cheap way to work if limited performance is
acceptable, and the cost of laying lines is exceptionally high, which is
why half of the long haul data in this country goes via microwaves.
However, these are getting congested already, and fiber is the answer -
it just costs a ****load of money - mostly in terms of obtaining
permission - to lay it.

If you have a chance to rewire, lay in cables, or better still, fiber.

I wnxer why we still have TV downleads. Surely we should be able to do
it by wireless links :-) In fact, I wonder whay we still use any cables
at all. :-) :-)

Cos they work BETTER than most other things at delivering a clean signal
through and unpredictable environment.





PoP

Hi The Natural Philosopher
In you wrote:
You can get at least 8 GBPS down a fiber.

You can get a whole lot more than that in one fibre! 100x 2.5Gbps channels
(wavelength division multiplexing). Way over the top for home use. 10Gbps
is probably more in the DIYer's range.

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
Do you trip over cordless phones too?

In uk.d-i-y, Colin Cooper wrote:
Errrrrr - but will anyone be using cable (rather than wireless) in a few
years time? Doubt it, myself - except in hostile (EM) environments... So
why not go wireless now? It's cheap, easy and far more flexible!

Colin

As explained in another post, there's always more effective capacity
for shifting signals around if you actively guide them (through cable)
than if you radiate them through free space (even if you try to do it
directionally). There'll always be an economic tradeoff between fixed
wiring (higher up-front cost, larger ultimate capacity, cheaper
interfaces, longer-lasting infrastructure) and wireless stuff (less
up-front cost, incremental cost greater, data rate limited to whatever
you buy first time round). It's naive to suggest that fixed copper/fibre
is going away any time soon. For home use, many may find wireless more
convenient; but it's kinda self-limiting, as more and more devices
crowd into that little bit of "no-license-needed" spectrum around
2.4GHz.

Stefek

In uk.d-i-y, Mindwipe wrote:

try this link
http://www.tlc-direct/technical/netw...networking.htm

basically you wire pin to pin on all connections
HTH Jeff,Leeds

But it's *important* to use pairs between the right pins, or the
crosstalk/interference-rejection performance goes right out of the
window. You need a Proper Pair for each of the two sets of outer
pins (1,2 and 7,8), a Proper Pair for the innermost pair of pins
(4,5), and the last Proper Pair for the remaining pins (3,6).
No, it's not intuitive. Reasons are buried in the mists of old-style
telecom practice on 4-pin RJ11's (equivalent to the inner 4) and
badness of separating pairs too far to carry on the "next outermost
pair" pattern when you get to bigget RJ45 plugs. (No BellSystem
pedants about Proper Names for RJ11/RJ45, please!).

Once you accept - as you really must - this need for keeping the
pairs in order, you may as well go the whole hog and stick to exactly
one of the two accepted schemes: from memory, it's blue pair for 1/2,
brown pair for 7/8, and then a matter of religion (-A or -B) as to
whether your green pair goes 4/5 and the orange 3/6, or t'other way
round. *Functionally*, provided you pair consistently, the colours
you use, and which way round you do solid vs stripe, doesn't matter
at all: electrons are colour-blind. But failing to stick to exactly
one of the two standard wiring schemes is pretty well guaranteed to
bite a future maintainer - including yourself in a few months' time
- *hard* on the bum.

Stefek

On 30 Sep 2003 18:11:05 GMT, wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Mindwipe wrote:

try this link
http://www.tlc-direct/technical/netw...networking.htm

basically you wire pin to pin on all connections
HTH Jeff,Leeds

But it's *important* to use pairs between the right pins, or the
crosstalk/interference-rejection performance goes right out of the
window. You need a Proper Pair for each of the two sets of outer
pins (1,2 and 7,8), a Proper Pair for the innermost pair of pins
(4,5), and the last Proper Pair for the remaining pins (3,6).
No, it's not intuitive. Reasons are buried in the mists of old-style
telecom practice on 4-pin RJ11's (equivalent to the inner 4) and
badness of separating pairs too far to carry on the "next outermost
pair" pattern when you get to bigget RJ45 plugs. (No BellSystem
pedants about Proper Names for RJ11/RJ45, please!).

Once you accept - as you really must - this need for keeping the
pairs in order, you may as well go the whole hog and stick to exactly
one of the two accepted schemes: from memory, it's blue pair for 1/2,
brown pair for 7/8, and then a matter of religion (-A or -B) as to
whether your green pair goes 4/5 and the orange 3/6, or t'other way
round. *Functionally*, provided you pair consistently, the colours
you use, and which way round you do solid vs stripe, doesn't matter
at all: electrons are colour-blind. But failing to stick to exactly
one of the two standard wiring schemes is pretty well guaranteed to
bite a future maintainer - including yourself in a few months' time
- *hard* on the bum.

Stefek


This page shows the two T568 variants, and the point about T568-B
being more common in equipment that you buy such as patch panels seems
to be the case.

http://www.aptcommunications.com/ncode.htm

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Fishter wrote:

Hi The Natural Philosopher
In you wrote:

You can get at least 8 GBPS down a fiber.


You can get a whole lot more than that in one fibre! 100x 2.5Gbps channels
(wavelength division multiplexing). Way over the top for home use. 10Gbps
is probably more in the DIYer's range.



I wasn't going to complicate things with WDM. :-)

AND the MUX gear is not cheap for that. Last time I checked a single SDH
circuit was up to about 8Gbps. That's expensive enough!

BTW I think you meant 10Mbps for d-i-y, not 10Gbps. 10 GBPs is probably
the total UK internet bandwidth ;-)

"Colin Cooper" wrote in message
...
Errrrrr - but will anyone be using cable (rather than wireless) in a few
years time? Doubt it, myself - except in hostile (EM) environments... So
why not go wireless now? It's cheap, easy and far more flexible!

Colin

I am doing up my house and adding minumum of 2 points on every room. Patch
panel in celler for all points. Also at least 1 sat quality coax to every
room too. I can use the cat5 for phone, video (via adaptors that are
available, which also allow remote control data) hard wire a link etc. All
configurable and secure!






"Tenex" wrote in message
...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but
for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the
CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and
the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l
has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this
before)?
Thanks

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:22:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Fishter wrote:

Hi The Natural Philosopher
In you wrote:

You can get at least 8 GBPS down a fiber.


You can get a whole lot more than that in one fibre! 100x 2.5Gbps channels
(wavelength division multiplexing). Way over the top for home use. 10Gbps
is probably more in the DIYer's range.



I wasn't going to complicate things with WDM. :-)

AND the MUX gear is not cheap for that. Last time I checked a single SDH
circuit was up to about 8Gbps. That's expensive enough!

BTW I think you meant 10Mbps for d-i-y, not 10Gbps. 10 GBPs is probably
the total UK internet bandwidth ;-)



It's a touch more than that. ;-)

There is considerable fibre capacity under the Atlantic that was built
during the .com boom and has never been lit.

Under some London streets, especially around Docklands, there is so
much fibre, that if it ever were lit, the paving slabs would glow.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 30 Sep 2003 18:11:05 GMT, wrote:

But it's *important* to use pairs between the right pins, or the
crosstalk/interference-rejection performance goes right out of the
window.
snip
*Functionally*, provided you pair consistently, the colours
you use, and which way round you do solid vs stripe, doesn't matter
at all: electrons are colour-blind.

But the pairs are physicaly located in a different place in the cable.
I suspect this could make a difference when really pushing the abilty
of the cable to carry the signal without to much degredation.

later
Checked the construction of a bit of CAT5, the pairs are arranged:

org
grn blu
brn

The wiring is:

T568A T568B
grn 1/2 org 1/2
org 3/6 grn 3/6
blu 4/5 blu 4/5
brn 7/8 brn 7/8

As can be seen the change in the org/grn wiring is not symetrical in
the cable, so a signal on the org pair is now physically closer to the
brn pair, like wise more separation greater for the grn/brn.

Now ethernet (10/100Mbps, not sure about Gigabit) only uses two pairs
the other two are not connected so it's probably not an issue with
ethernet but could be with other uses of CAT5.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

is the link i posted incorrect then guys?
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
. 1...
On 30 Sep 2003 18:11:05 GMT, wrote:

But it's *important* to use pairs between the right pins, or the
crosstalk/interference-rejection performance goes right out of the
window.
snip
*Functionally*, provided you pair consistently, the colours
you use, and which way round you do solid vs stripe, doesn't matter
at all: electrons are colour-blind.

But the pairs are physicaly located in a different place in the cable.
I suspect this could make a difference when really pushing the abilty
of the cable to carry the signal without to much degredation.

later
Checked the construction of a bit of CAT5, the pairs are arranged:

org
grn blu
brn

The wiring is:

T568A T568B
grn 1/2 org 1/2
org 3/6 grn 3/6
blu 4/5 blu 4/5
brn 7/8 brn 7/8

As can be seen the change in the org/grn wiring is not symetrical in
the cable, so a signal on the org pair is now physically closer to the
brn pair, like wise more separation greater for the grn/brn.

Now ethernet (10/100Mbps, not sure about Gigabit) only uses two pairs
the other two are not connected so it's probably not an issue with
ethernet but could be with other uses of CAT5.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:37:39 +0100, Mindwipe wrote:

is the link i posted incorrect then guys?

There is a lot of information on that page, which bit are you worried
about? The T568A/B colours are correct.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:22:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Fishter wrote:


Hi The Natural Philosopher
In you wrote:


You can get at least 8 GBPS down a fiber.


You can get a whole lot more than that in one fibre! 100x 2.5Gbps channels
(wavelength division multiplexing). Way over the top for home use. 10Gbps
is probably more in the DIYer's range.



I wasn't going to complicate things with WDM. :-)

AND the MUX gear is not cheap for that. Last time I checked a single SDH
circuit was up to about 8Gbps. That's expensive enough!

BTW I think you meant 10Mbps for d-i-y, not 10Gbps. 10 GBPs is probably
the total UK internet bandwidth ;-)




It's a touch more than that. ;-)

There is considerable fibre capacity under the Atlantic that was built
during the .com boom and has never been lit.

Under some London streets, especially around Docklands, there is so
much fibre, that if it ever were lit, the paving slabs would glow.



You misunderstand. I didn;t say maxiumum fiber bandwidth, I said maximum
uK internet bandwidth.

Last time I talked to the ISP's it was a couble of 100Mbps peering links
between ISP's in Telehouse etc. I think its getting to be fibers now,
but they aren't running their internationals much more than a few
hundred Mbps at the moment AFAIK.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On 30 Sep 2003 18:11:05 GMT, wrote:


But it's *important* to use pairs between the right pins, or the
crosstalk/interference-rejection performance goes right out of the
window.

snip

*Functionally*, provided you pair consistently, the colours
you use, and which way round you do solid vs stripe, doesn't matter
at all: electrons are colour-blind.


But the pairs are physicaly located in a different place in the cable.
I suspect this could make a difference when really pushing the abilty
of the cable to carry the signal without to much degredation.

later
Checked the construction of a bit of CAT5, the pairs are arranged:

org
grn blu
brn

The wiring is:

T568A T568B
grn 1/2 org 1/2
org 3/6 grn 3/6
blu 4/5 blu 4/5
brn 7/8 brn 7/8

As can be seen the change in the org/grn wiring is not symetrical in
the cable, so a signal on the org pair is now physically closer to the
brn pair, like wise more separation greater for the grn/brn.

Now ethernet (10/100Mbps, not sure about Gigabit) only uses two pairs
the other two are not connected so it's probably not an issue with
ethernet but could be with other uses of CAT5.


AFAICR the center pairs are Ethernet. 4/5 and 3/6. These must be pairs,
and must be wired pin to pin etc.
The outers are used for telephony in structured systems.

I have used all of them to get a serial signal around - Cisco routers
come with RJ45 serial consoles for example.

Hi The Natural Philosopher
In you wrote:

BTW I think you meant 10Mbps for d-i-y, not 10Gbps. 10 GBPs is probably
the total UK internet bandwidth ;-)

Fingers faster than brain ;-)

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
If you were a package I bet you would tick

Hi Fishter
In you wrote:
BTW I think you meant 10Mbps for d-i-y, not 10Gbps. 10 GBPs is probably
the total UK internet bandwidth ;-)

Fingers faster than brain ;-)

And Again! I meant to write 1Gbps (with Gigabit Ethernet).

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
I just wish teflon w*rked as well with eggs as your brain does with ideas

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:15:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


BTW I think you meant 10Mbps for d-i-y, not 10Gbps. 10 GBPs is probably
the total UK internet bandwidth ;-)




It's a touch more than that. ;-)

There is considerable fibre capacity under the Atlantic that was built
during the .com boom and has never been lit.

Under some London streets, especially around Docklands, there is so
much fibre, that if it ever were lit, the paving slabs would glow.



You misunderstand. I didn;t say maxiumum fiber bandwidth, I said maximum
uK internet bandwidth.

Last time I talked to the ISP's it was a couble of 100Mbps peering links
between ISP's in Telehouse etc. I think its getting to be fibers now,
but they aren't running their internationals much more than a few
hundred Mbps at the moment AFAIK.



No I knew what you meant .

The operational internet bandwidth is also considerably more than 10G
today for direct transAtlantic links, and if you count bandwidth
accessible via peerings to locations elswhere in Europe, even more
than that.

Of course the effect that an individual user might see will depend on
the destination addresses of given accesses. It will also depend on
the transit and peering agreements that the ISP has. In the earlier
days of the internet when most capacity was provided by research and
academic organisations, routes were determined predominantly on
technical "cost" and merit of the routes. Nowadays there is a
considerable commercial factor based on peering and transit agreements
that determines which routes and capacity are available to given ISPs.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Tim Morley" wrote in message
...

I can use the cat5 for ... video (via adaptors that are
available, which also allow remote control data) hard wire a link etc.

Haven't come across this before. Can you say a little more about video via
Cat 5, please? What adaptors? Where / price? Or a URL?

TIA


--
Martin

[remove barrier to reply]

"Martin" wrote in message
...

"Tim Morley" wrote in
message
...

I can use the cat5 for ... video (via adaptors that are
available, which also allow remote control data) hard wire a link etc.

Haven't come across this before. Can you say a little more about video
via
Cat 5, please? What adaptors? Where / price? Or a URL?

TIA


--
Martin

[remove barrier to reply]





Eh !!!! You haven't heard of it ? You want to buy a system ? :-))

Seriuosly though, it's been available for many years.

http://www.scene-double.co.uk/sdlink.htm


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/03

In uk.d-i-y, Martin wrote:

Haven't come across this before. Can you say a little more about video via
Cat 5, please? What adaptors? Where / price? Or a URL?

Baluns, for feeding the 300MHz baseband video signal over twsited-pair.
Canford Audio will happily add to your debt burden at about 80 quid a
pop (you need a pair, so that's 160 quid; probably plus VAT). Canford Cat
not to hand, so price is ballpark from memory. In the spirit of uk.d-i-y,
someone (Mr Liquorice, mayhap) may soon be along to tell you exactly
which pair of transformer-looking-affairs from the guts of a 45-quid Asda
video recorder would perform almost as well ;-)

HTH, Stefek

"Tenex" wrote in message
...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the
CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and
the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l
has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this before)?
Thanks



Just go along to B&Q and buy a home network cabling starter kit -- all
cabling bits and tools you need plus decent instruction -- Screwfix and
Maplin do similar kits but B&Q are on special offer and they also throw in
a free mouse.

"AWM" wrote in message
...

"Tenex" wrote in message
...
No doubt other problems will arise and I'll be seeking your help, but
for
the moment the cable is in but I don't have a guide on how to wire the
CAT5e
(to which pins) can anyone point me to one?

I've checked practicallynetworked and helmig and they discuss theory and
the
software side but I can't see the hard stuff explained to this detail.
Would quite like to get this running this evening if poss. Belkin
switch/router and Blueyonder connection to share (once a BitTorrent d/l
has
finished .... ;-) Anything to beware of generally (not done this
before)?
Thanks



Just go along to B&Q and buy a home network cabling starter kit -- all
cabling bits and tools you need plus decent instruction -- Screwfix and
Maplin do similar kits but B&Q are on special offer and they also throw
in
a free mouse.



Is the mouse trained to pull the cable under the floor ? :-))

(so sorry, I'm just being silly. I'll get me coat)


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/03

On 1 Oct 2003 08:58:04 GMT, wrote:

In the spirit of uk.d-i-y, someone (Mr Liquorice, mayhap) may soon
be along to tell you exactly which pair of
transformer-looking-affairs from the guts of a 45-quid Asda
video recorder would perform almost as well ;-)

Not me squire. I can't see why a video recorder would need video
baluns to start with. However on Canford...

They have a range available:

2 x audio =A376.94
4 x audio =A3117.50
1 x video =A336.63
3 x video =A3108.30
1 x video, 2 x audio =A377.85
2 x video, 2 x audio =A392.24
1 x S video, 2 x audio =A3130.70

All above sold as single units, two required to complete a link.

1 x VGA to 1 monitor =A3252.00
1 x VGA to 2 monitors =A3396.20

As a set of send and receive units, inc PSU for the 2 monitor version.

Distances & Bandwidth:

Audio: 750m (10Hz to 20kHz)
Video, composite: 675m (DC to 60MHz)
Video, Y/C: 600m (Flat to 60MHz)
Video, RGB: 150m (Flat to 60MHz)
Video, VGA: 105m (Flat to 60MHz)
Video, Broadband: variable 200 to 55m (20MHz to 850MHz)

Prices plus delivery and VAT.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:19:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

AFAICR the center pairs are Ethernet. 4/5 and 3/6.

Nope... The TLC site is broken unless you have a windoze browser,
can't be arsed to find the window box.

But anyway the wiring of pairs for ethernet is on that networking
information page. ISTR from last night that it's 3/6 and one of the
outer ones 7/8 or 1/2 (7/8 rings the bigger bell).

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Martin wrote:

Haven't come across this before. Can you say a little more about video via
Cat 5, please? What adaptors? Where / price? Or a URL?

A technical paper entitled "Non-Data Applications for Category 5
Cable" might be of interest:
http://bwcecom.belden.com/college/techpprs/ndac5ctp.htm

--
Selah

Tenex wrote:

That's exactly what I wanted, thanks. Wish my IDC had a cutter like that ...

See the bottom of the page for a krone tool with cutter:

http://www.solwise.co.uk/telesun.htm

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Nope... The TLC site is broken unless you have a windoze browser,
can't be arsed to find the window box.

But anyway the wiring of pairs for ethernet is on that networking
information page. ISTR from last night that it's 3/6 and one of the
outer ones 7/8 or 1/2 (7/8 rings the bigger bell).

This is another site for all things cable, connector, wiring, and pinouts:-

http://www.hardwarebook.net/


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:00:55 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

This is another site for all things cable, connector, wiring, and
pinouts:-

http://www.hardwarebook.net/

Magic, 3 year old snapped the moulded PS/2 mouse connector the other
day. At least I now know the pins to use if not the cores in the
cable...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"BigWallop" wrote in message
...

I can use the cat5 for ... video (via adaptors that are
available, which also allow remote control data) hard wire a link etc.

Haven't come across this before. Can you say a little more about video
via
Cat 5, please? What adaptors? Where / price? Or a URL?


Eh !!!! You haven't heard of it ? You want to buy a system ? :-))

Will think about that, thanks, but by all means send me one for "field
trials". I'll then report back in a couple of years ;-)


Seriuosly though, it's been available for many years.

http://www.scene-double.co.uk/sdlink.htm



Thanks, Pillow Bag and Stephen.

I hadn't stopped to think about the word "video". Have I understood the
links correctly in thinking that squirting the (analogue) video o/p from my
VCR to a tv via Cat5E is not really feasible?


--
Martin

[remove barrier to reply]

In uk.d-i-y, Martin wrote:

I hadn't stopped to think about the word "video". Have I understood the
links correctly in thinking that squirting the (analogue) video o/p from my
VCR to a tv via Cat5E is not really feasible?

It's feasible technically, but the price of the necessary kit is
(well) over the top. There's nothing deeply, inherently exotic
about the kit, it's little more than a couple of well-built specialist
miniature transformers. But they're made in small quantities and used
only in "professional"/commerical/industrial situations (where there
happens to be a ton of Cat5e already installed) that it's much more
cost-effective, for domestic video distribution, to put in a couple of
lengths of decent-quality coax, which domestic kit is all set up
to feed. If you already have the Cat5e in place, can't face recabling,
and fancy a go - by all means spend the money...

Hope that helps - Stefek

"Martin" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
...

I can use the cat5 for ... video (via adaptors that are
available, which also allow remote control data) hard wire a link
etc.

Haven't come across this before. Can you say a little more about
video
via
Cat 5, please? What adaptors? Where / price? Or a URL?


Eh !!!! You haven't heard of it ? You want to buy a system ? :-))

Will think about that, thanks, but by all means send me one for "field
trials". I'll then report back in a couple of years ;-)


Seriuosly though, it's been available for many years.

http://www.scene-double.co.uk/sdlink.htm



Thanks, Pillow Bag and Stephen.

I hadn't stopped to think about the word "video". Have I understood the
links correctly in thinking that squirting the (analogue) video o/p from
my
VCR to a tv via Cat5E is not really feasible?


--
Martin

[remove barrier to reply]




You can use UTP CAT5 Cable through the SCART connections to transfer video
and sound from any other appropriate outputs on other appliances. It is
more convenient than running separate coaxial and data cabling if you want
to use remote switching of receiver boxes and things, but, as you have
already quest, the appliances have to be compatible with each other to make
it work fully.

It's also possible to take the output for the Audio and PC monitor, PS/2 or
S-Video output to the SCART socket over UTP CAT5 Cable if you want to show
DVD's from the PC and save yourself buying a separate player for under the
Tele'.


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/03