On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:45:37 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:54:42 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:04:49 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

--

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.
Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

He is right. Especially when you find out how easy it is to hack WIFI
to the homes and businesses around you, especially on those that
haven't a clue about security. Years ago I used to connect up and
print out messages on their printers to clue them in.

Heavens! Someone will hack my television viewing! Oh, the
humanity!!!

They will and can hack your smart TV software or app's.

So they can then watch my Netflix, too?!!! I'm TERRIFIED, I tell ya'.

LOL actually not netflix per se, but embed voice commands in your
movie to enable your voice command programs without you knowing it.

That's a pretty good trick since I don't have any microphones around.
BTW, you're ****ting bricks over WiFi security and *have* Internet
microphones sprinkled around your house? Amazing!

But I was speaking of the TV itself, I was in contact with Samsung
last week and this is one of the things they mentioned about
increasing the security of their updates for your smart TV's. They are
starting to control the sources of where you can download the app's
for your TV because of hackers.


Bet you're one of those anti big corporation types to.

You bet! Hate em! I get a pension check each month from IBM and
regular paycheck from a very large Japanese company. I won't be happy
until they send me _all_ their money!

Or they want control of the market, like Google (Android) and Apple
(iOS).

"-MIKE-" wrote in message news
I'm getting ready to build a "Florida Room" on the back of our house.
I'm clearing out some bushes and plants to make way for the addition.
I found a 1.5" sch.40 PVC pipe running straight away from the house,
next to the driveway pad, in between the pad and where all the
vegetation was planted.

On the far end out near the vegetation, was a PVC threaded end cap with
a pipe-thread adapter and a pneumatic male coupler tool connector. The
nipple hole of the coupler had been sealed with what I think is pipe
solder. I drilled it out and it had the same consistency.

I sent a plumbing snake up the pipe towards the house and it hits right
near the foundation, but not any further in.

Any ideas what this was used for?

Moonshine bootlegging? ;~)

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:18:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:50:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:19:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
-MIKE- wrote in news

Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much
that I forgot that I had already figured all this out. :-)
I can't use that path because it I would have to take a hard right
turn and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's
leach field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those
bends on a 100'+ run.

On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I
don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch
to trench that path.

At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground
conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with
asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far
enough away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that
I can go straight back along that expansion joint.
All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches
from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with
Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.

That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots
and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.



My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to the
garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be worth
digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a punch down
connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you take
certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you must go
close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded pipe. I
didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I didn't research
them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.

I am Cisco certified, it is not recommended.


60 cycle interference?

In is unsafe to take a chance with high voltage crossing over to a
consumer device. There is also the electromagnetic effect, especially
on an A/C system with its varying loads. On systems with variable
speed drives there are multiple problems, and it is also a Code
violation in most places. It is not even recommended to mix land line
phone lines in the walls, or conduit, and any box.

Then I suppose they don't really make these things.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Carlon-2-Gang-Dual-Voltage-Box-and-Bracket-SC200DVR/100146034


Yes they do, for a phone line and a cable TV hookup on one side and
power on the other side. The EMI On 110 has very little effect on
those items. As to the Satellite TV guys they would refuse to do it
that way, they are trained to keep them separate on Direct TV.

If only Direct TV installers were sharp enough to get out of bed in
the morning.


EMI isn't the issue, here. It's safety and that isn't a big deal
in-wall, either.

If you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.

It's not a problem.

I have run across EMI issues in the past when it was least expected.

Not from AC line to Ethernet.

Yes, I have.

Nonsense.

That only shows your lack of experience or knowledge.

Wrong, of course. It shows I know something about the design of these
things.

DID a quick search for outside confirmation

https://www.cablinginstall.com/artic...erference.html

Plus this was also mentioned here by others as well as my self.

If you don't mind I'd like to consider this the end of the subject.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:23:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

But the fact that there was audio involved is irrelevant. IOW, you
brought it in as a red herring.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
because of it? I have, and that is why I am aware of the variables and
take them all into account. I don't just blow things off as
inconsequential until after inspection.

Collisions? In a switched network? Really? Are you sure the last
time you did this stuff, it wasn't 10base2?

Did I say a switched network?

Can it happen?

"However, it is possible for a collision to occur on a switched
topology if more than one device is connected on the same port of the
switch, like if you connect two PCs to a hub and the hub to a switch
port, but notice that the collision would be possible only because of
the hub."

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:14:32 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:23:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote in news
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

My most recent wiring project was running outdoor rated CAT6 out to
the garage. You're already digging for one set of cable, might it be
worth digging for another? (Cat6 is easy to terminate, just use a
punch down connector and a decent punch tool.)

You can't run network cable close to power cable, though, unless you
take certain precautions. Parallel runs are a bad thing, but if you
must go close to power cables you can enclose the cable in a grounded
pipe. I didn't run in to these problems with my cable run, so I
didn't research them further.

Puckdropper


My buddy is an IT guru and he told me to run CAT10 with the AC and I'd
be fine.



I wasn't aware CAT10 was a thing yet. AFAICT, they're only up to CAT7.

A quick search (I'm not an expert, not even claiming to be) doesn't show
any results for CAT10. Wonder if he meant something different?

FWIW, I'd put the LAN cables in a different conduit as well. You know
that LAN standards will evolve for a while longer and you might decide 20
years down the road it's worth upgrading to faster cable. It'd be easier
to pull the cables out if all that's there is LAN and you don't have
another cable you need to stay put.

While I agree that it's good to have the cables separated, I would be
very surprised if anything above 10GB/sec was common for home use in
20 years. The trend is to wifi, not faster wired networks.


My guy says the trend will be back to wired, because wireless is getting
too clogged up.

I don't believe that at all. Antenna diversity and MIMO solve these
problems in all but the most dense living situations.

Wired is still faster and more reliable and will be for the foreseeable
future or until they find new frequencies. :-)

There is such a thing as "fast enough". We have exactly one wired link
in our house (that the cable company put in), basically because
there's no point in adding any more.

Wait till you see a decent fiber optic system and the possible speeds
and want to run 4k TV on wire for viewing new movies, especially on
more than one TV at a time. with full sound, using limited compression
and loss of musical tones.

Already done. Works fine.

Of course with the way my ears are going.

Audio bandwidth is miniscule.

Music, not voice.

Um, music *is* audio. Even *uncompressed* digital music is only
1.5Mb/channel. I repeat - miniscule bandwidth.

Voice is a whole lot less.

Less than miniscule? OK, it's less than miniscule. So what?

My video audio system has seven channels for sound. Multiply that by
three movies going on at the same time and it starts adding up, then
add the rest of the network traffic to it.

So that's still miniscule bandwidth.

Is it small, yes. Is it something that should be ignored, perhaps, but
if you are not aware of it and your bandwidth seems to be seriously
degrading you need to be aware of it.

It *IS* small. Something that CAN be ignored on GBE.

I have had occasion when doing a video chat that its signal was
seriously degraded due to a busy nic from background downloading of a
major update. It has happened enough times that I now make sure
everything's up to date so I can talk to my kids and grand kids. Then
again, I suppose I could use a managed switch and program it to offset
the issue. But you have to draw the line somewhere to be cost
effective.

But it was NOT the audio that was causing the issue. Good grief!

Of course not, that is why I mentioned Total System Load.

But the fact that there was audio involved is irrelevant. IOW, you
brought it in as a red herring.

Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
because of it? I have, and that is why I am aware of the variables and
take them all into account. I don't just blow things off as
inconsequential until after inspection.

Collisions? In a switched network? Really? Are you sure the last
time you did this stuff, it wasn't 10base2?

Did I say a switched network?

So you are living fifty years in the past. A lot of your statements
are becoming clear.

Can it happen?

Today? No.

"However, it is possible for a collision to occur on a switched
topology if more than one device is connected on the same port of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
switch, like if you connect two PCs to a hub and the hub to a switch
port, but notice that the collision would be possible only because of
the hub."

Only an idiot could even come up with such an argument.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 07:02:39 -0400, wrote:

Did I say a switched network?

So you are living fifty years in the past. A lot of your statements
are becoming clear.

50 years ago a most of these products and or capabilities were non
existent or rare.

I also did not mention of qualify by saying a switched network.


Can it happen?

Today? No.


Not everyone is up to date on their LAN technologies.

"However, it is possible for a collision to occur on a switched
topology if more than one device is connected on the same port of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
switch, like if you connect two PCs to a hub and the hub to a switch
port, but notice that the collision would be possible only because of
the hub."

Only an idiot could even come up with such an argument.


I am sure that those on the Cisco Forum would love to hear you say
that since this I snipped from an ongoing conversation.

I have also ran across just that type of a situation more than once as
people in their haste added computers and so they expanded their
network using what they had at hand, and then called to have the
problems corrected.

I don't live in the same perfect world that you do.
HAND

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:56:22 -0700, OFWW
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 07:02:39 -0400, wrote:

Did I say a switched network?

So you are living fifty years in the past. A lot of your statements
are becoming clear.

50 years ago a most of these products and or capabilities were non
existent or rare.

But your statements may have been true, *then*.

I also did not mention of qualify by saying a switched network.

Everything is switched these days.