Anything faster I can run on Thinnet?

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there anything
faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable? It doesn't have
to be standard or even Ethernet as I only need to connect 2 ends for a
short period of time.

Thanks.

sPh
50 answers Last reply
More about anything faster thinnet
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    > > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    > > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    anything
    > > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >
    > Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    there
    > were obstructions that would make this impossible.

    Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    facility/environment.

    sPh
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    sphealey wrote:
    > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there anything
    > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable? It doesn't have
    > to be standard or even Ethernet as I only need to connect 2 ends for a
    > short period of time.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > sPh
    >

    Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if there
    were obstructions that would make this impossible. Depending on
    distance and many other factors, you might be able to get real-world
    speeds better than 10Mpbs using 802.11a or 802.11g.
    You can use Ethernet-to-wireless bridges for non-wireless-capable
    equipment too.

    Good luck,
    Jonathan
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    sphealey wrote:

    >> > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >> > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    > anything
    >> > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>
    >> Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    > there
    >> were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >
    > Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    > facility/environment.

    In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to carry
    the wifi signal. I've never heard of it being tried but it would be an
    interesting experiment.

    > sPh

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?

    I'd get a couple of WiFi devices and see if I could couple them to the
    cable. Depending on their specs and the cable length you might want
    to add some attenuators, but it might work to just get coax
    adapters...
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Begin <1108751122.984684.275860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
    On 2005-02-18, sphealey <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there anything
    > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable? It doesn't have
    > to be standard or even Ethernet as I only need to connect 2 ends for a
    > short period of time.

    Telco equipment, like DS3, E3, or T3 linecards, but it expects 75 Ohm
    (RG59) instead of 50 Ohm (RG58) cable. It is rather expensive unless you
    can pick up second hand stuff cheaply, or borrow stuff. Oh, and you'll
    need two cables, not just one.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith wrote:

    > "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >>faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >
    > I'd get a couple of WiFi devices and see if I could couple them to the
    > cable. Depending on their specs and the cable length you might want
    > to add some attenuators, but it might work to just get coax
    > adapters...

    Something I should have mentioned--be careful with the wifi boards if you do
    that--some of the connectors are remarkably fragile--I've had a couple of
    them pull right out of the board just hooking up an antenna
    cable--fortunately it's just the ferrule--shoving it back on hard with a
    little epoxy seems to take care of the problem as long as you don't put any
    strain on them, although I wouldn't vouch for the impedence being right.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1108751122.984684.275860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    sphealey <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there anything
    >faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable? It doesn't have
    >to be standard or even Ethernet as I only need to connect 2 ends for a
    >short period of time.

    back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter. I don't know if
    you could find one of those anymore.

    I've got a span of coax running out of a power plant, with no way to
    re-run fiber in the path (the active bus off the generator is in the same
    cabletray), so if you find anything that works, let me know ;-)


    --
    Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX
    Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:56:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >sphealey wrote:
    >
    >>> > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >>> > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    >> anything
    >>> > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>>
    >>> Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    >> there
    >>> were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >>
    >> Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    >> facility/environment.
    >
    >In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to carry
    >the wifi signal.

    No. You would not.
    Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)

    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote:
    >Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    >practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    >Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)

    So you're saying that the OP's cable has more than (say) 120dB loss at
    2.4GHz? Even without knowing the cable type or length?

    Belden 9907, for instance, has 14.8dB loss per 100 feet at 1GHz...
  10. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Gerard Bok wrote:

    > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:56:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>sphealey wrote:
    >>
    >>>> > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >>>> > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    >>> anything
    >>>> > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>>>
    >>>> Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    >>> there
    >>>> were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >>>
    >>> Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    >>> facility/environment.
    >>
    >>In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to
    >>carry the wifi signal.
    >
    > No. You would not.
    > Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    > practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    > Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)

    ROF,L. If your source for that information is a book, burn it. If it's a
    teacher, drop the class. If it's your boss, be very afraid.

    Thinnet cable is typically RG-58 coax, which is an RF cable _rated_ for over
    a GHz and capable of carrying a good deal more than that with reasonable
    attenuation.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  11. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <v7he11ho7ei40shpgfduqkbf4smhmjpnje@4ax.com>,
    <William P.N. Smith> wrote:
    >bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote:
    >>Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    >>practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    >>Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)
    >
    >So you're saying that the OP's cable has more than (say) 120dB loss at
    >2.4GHz? Even without knowing the cable type or length?
    >
    >Belden 9907, for instance, has 14.8dB loss per 100 feet at 1GHz...
    >

    The belden spec tops out at 1GHz. It's going to be lots gigher at
    2.4Ghz. A google for generic RG58 found 1.1DB/m at 2GHz. It could be
    wrong.

    I looked that up for a query about a 600ft/200M run, which I think the
    path loss (maybe 200DB down) rules a WiFi hack for that user.

    It's possible that for some path that's not a clear shot (say indoors)
    for WiFI, or slightly outside the WiFI range (say 300 Ft) the
    radio-over-coax might work. A max-length TW run seems to be beyond
    the reach of a WiFI radio.

    Since the OP has 10Mb/sec TW ethernet running "b" wifi isn't as fast.
    It would have to be "g", which is in the same RF band.


    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    J. Clarke wrote:

    > In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to
    > carry the wifi signal.  I've never heard of it being tried but it would be
    > an interesting experiment.

    RG-58 is very lossy at WiFi frequencies.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Gerard Bok wrote:

    > No. You would not.
    > Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    > practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    > Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)

    RG-58 cables, which is what's used for ethernet, is usable at much higher
    frequencies than 100 MHz. However, it becomes very lossy at higher
    frequencies, so that it's only suitable for short distances. According to
    my catalog, at 900 MHz, the loss is about 22 dB at 100 feet or almost 66 dB
    at 100 metres. For rough estimates, 20 dB = 99% loss and 60dB = 99.9999%
    loss. The figures will be much higher for 2.4 GHz. At WiFi frequencies,
    you'd only use RG-58 for short patch cords.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith wrote:

    > Belden 9907, for instance, has 14.8dB loss per 100 feet at 1GHz...

    However, it's not likely to have been used for ethernet.

    BTW, Belden 9311 would be a bit better and use the same hardware as RG-58.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith wrote:

    > "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >>faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >
    > I'd get a couple of WiFi devices and see if I could couple them to the
    > cable. Depending on their specs and the cable length you might want
    > to add some attenuators, but it might work to just get coax
    > adapters...

    You might want to read some of the other posts, to find out that attenuators
    are the last thing you need. WiFi over coax will not likely work as far as
    WiFi through the air.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William wrote:
    > "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > >faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >
    > Bail us out here, and tell us how long the existing cable is! 8*)
    >
    >

    Sorry dudes - I had to go back and look at my own original post as I
    thought I had included that information. Which I had not ;-(

    Length is over 100m - about 125 I think. Longer than 10' for sure.

    sPh
  17. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:03:03 -0500, William P.N. Smith wrote:

    >bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote:
    >>Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    >>practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    >>Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)
    >
    >So you're saying that the OP's cable has more than (say) 120dB loss at
    >2.4GHz? Even without knowing the cable type or length?

    What I am saying is, that for Wifi frequencies a Pringle can
    probably outperforms any thinnet cable :-)


    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  18. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:19:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >Gerard Bok wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:56:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    >> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>sphealey wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >>>>> > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    >>>> anything
    >>>>> > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    >>>> there
    >>>>> were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >>>>
    >>>> Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    >>>> facility/environment.
    >>>
    >>>In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to
    >>>carry the wifi signal.
    >>
    >> No. You would not.
    >> Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    >> practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    >> Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)
    >
    >ROF,L. If your source for that information is a book, burn it. If it's a
    >teacher, drop the class. If it's your boss, be very afraid.

    It's even worse than you imagine :-)

    >Thinnet cable is typically RG-58 coax, which is an RF cable _rated_ for over
    >a GHz and capable of carrying a good deal more than that with reasonable
    >attenuation.

    I am talking about the stuff that typically came out of the box
    labeled 'thinnet cable'. Typical specs:
    RG58 c/u
    capacity 93.5 pf/m
    attenuation at 100 MHz 174 dB/km (= 278 dB per mile)

    In my opinion you cannot even characterize this stuff at 2.4 GHz
    as its behavour is no longer that of a 'coaxial cable'.
    I would imagine that you could even get better performance if you
    just connect a single wire; either the core or the shield.


    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  19. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Gerard Bok wrote:

    > On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:19:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    > <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>Gerard Bok wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:56:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    >>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>sphealey wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >>>>>> > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    >>>>> anything
    >>>>>> > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    >>>>> there
    >>>>>> were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    >>>>> facility/environment.
    >>>>
    >>>>In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to
    >>>>carry the wifi signal.
    >>>
    >>> No. You would not.
    >>> Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    >>> practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    >>> Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)
    >>
    >>ROF,L. If your source for that information is a book, burn it. If it's a
    >>teacher, drop the class. If it's your boss, be very afraid.
    >
    > It's even worse than you imagine :-)
    >
    >>Thinnet cable is typically RG-58 coax, which is an RF cable _rated_ for
    >>over a GHz and capable of carrying a good deal more than that with
    >>reasonable attenuation.
    >
    > I am talking about the stuff that typically came out of the box
    > labeled 'thinnet cable'. Typical specs:
    > RG58 c/u
    > capacity 93.5 pf/m
    > attenuation at 100 MHz 174 dB/km (= 278 dB per mile)
    >
    > In my opinion you cannot even characterize this stuff at 2.4 GHz
    > as its behavour is no longer that of a 'coaxial cable'.
    > I would imagine that you could even get better performance if you
    > just connect a single wire; either the core or the shield.

    I fail to see your point. Belden Thinnet cable, purpose made, is rated for
    16 dB/100 feet at 1 GHz. Their RG58 is rated 14-22 depending on which
    particular variety. 1671A, a purpose-made microwave cable rated to 20 GHz,
    has 19.4, 1672A, a purpose-made high-frequency video cable, has 26.

    Now you can "imagine" anything you want to but in the real world cables with
    that performance have been carrying signals in those frequency ranges for
    decades.

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  20. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
    >William P.N. Smith wrote:
    >> Belden 9907, for instance, has 14.8dB loss per 100 feet at 1GHz...

    >However, it's not likely to have been used for ethernet.

    My mistake then, I went to the Belden site and typed "thinnet" into
    their search tool.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
    >William P.N. Smith wrote:

    >> I'd get a couple of WiFi devices and see if I could couple them to the
    >> cable. Depending on their specs and the cable length you might want
    >> to add some attenuators, but it might work to just get coax
    >> adapters...

    >You might want to read some of the other posts, to find out that attenuators
    >are the last thing you need. WiFi over coax will not likely work as far as
    >WiFi through the air.

    What, no attenuators for the OP's 10 feet of cable? Hunh, I'd at
    least have kept an open mind, but maybe that's just me.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?

    Bail us out here, and tell us how long the existing cable is! 8*)

  23. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:36:04 -0500, "J. Clarke"
    <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

    >>>>>sphealey wrote:
    >>>>>>> > Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >>>>>>> > fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    >>>>>> anything
    >>>>>>> > faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    >>>>>> there
    >>>>>>> were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    >>>>>> facility/environment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to
    >>>>>carry the wifi signal.
    >>>>
    >>>> No. You would not.
    >>>> Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is
    >>>> practically useless above say 100 MHz.
    >>>> Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)

    >>>Thinnet cable is typically RG-58 coax, which is an RF cable _rated_ for
    >>>over a GHz and capable of carrying a good deal more than that with
    >>>reasonable attenuation.
    >>
    >> I am talking about the stuff that typically came out of the box
    >> labeled 'thinnet cable'. Typical specs:
    >> RG58 c/u
    >> capacity 93.5 pf/m
    >> attenuation at 100 MHz 174 dB/km (= 278 dB per mile)
    >>
    >> In my opinion you cannot even characterize this stuff at 2.4 GHz
    >> as its behavour is no longer that of a 'coaxial cable'.
    >> I would imagine that you could even get better performance if you
    >> just connect a single wire; either the core or the shield.

    >I fail to see your point. Belden Thinnet cable, purpose made, is rated for
    >16 dB/100 feet at 1 GHz.

    Wich would be some 30 dB per 100 feet at 3 GHz, I guess ?
    A stretch of 10Base-2 is limited to 600 feet so...

    >Their RG58 is rated 14-22 depending on which particular variety.

    Some browsing revealed that over 50 dB per 100 feet at 3GHz is
    not an uncommon figure for commercial grade RG 58 C/U thinnet
    cable. (Which actually surprises me. I didn't expect any testing
    to be done on this cable in the GHz region. As I wouldn't even
    expect it to be '50 ohms' at this type of frequencies.)

    >1671A, a purpose-made microwave cable rated to 20 GHz,
    >has 19.4, 1672A, a purpose-made high-frequency video cable, has 26.

    Great! But the original poster doesn't have either 'purpose-made
    microwave cable' or 'purpose-made high-frequency video cable''.
    He has a cable rated as 'thinnet cable' preinstalled.

    >Now you can "imagine" anything you want to but in the real world cables with
    >that performance have been carrying signals in those frequency ranges for
    >decades.

    Sure. I don't claim that you cannot run 2.4 GHz over any coax
    cable. (Although it is not always easy).
    I just stated that it is very unlikely that OP can effectively
    run a 2.4 GHz link over coax that is thinnet rated.

    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  24. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Gerard Bok wrote:

    > Some browsing revealed that over 50 dB per 100 feet at 3GHz is
    > not an uncommon figure for commercial grade RG 58 C/U thinnet
    > cable. (Which actually surprises me. I didn't expect any testing
    > to be done on this cable in the GHz region. As I wouldn't even
    > expect it to be '50 ohms' at this type of frequencies.)

    A length of coax can greatly improve the performance of a dummy load, used
    in testing UHF or microwave transmitters.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >Length is over 100m - about 125 I think.

    Ah, in that case the wireless thing probably wouldn't work for you.
    What kind of cable do you have installed?
  26. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote:
    > What I am saying is, that for Wifi frequencies a Pringle
    > can probably outperforms any thinnet cable :-)

    An interesting statement.

    How many dB of loss are there in closely coupled transmitting
    & receiving antennae ? 100 dB in antenna efficiency? Add to
    that the inverse-square losses of ~400ft of air (52db?)

    -- Robert
  27. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <N0RRd.14838$D34.4118@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
    Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
    :Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote:
    :> What I am saying is, that for Wifi frequencies a Pringle
    :> can probably outperforms any thinnet cable :-)

    :An interesting statement.

    :How many dB of loss are there in closely coupled transmitting
    :& receiving antennae ? 100 dB in antenna efficiency? Add to
    :that the inverse-square losses of ~400ft of air (52db?)

    http://www.signull.com/fsc.php

    and choose a consumer access point specification such as +15 dBm
    transmission and -80 dBm sensitivity. The result is 0.1 miles
    which is greater than the 0.08 miles which is 400'.

    Thus, with a plain inexpensive AP of no great quality, using
    only the standard omnidirectional diversity antenna, one can
    go the necessary distance.

    That's with omnidirectional. If one using a Pringles can antenna,
    then the EIRP is much more focused and one can go considerably further.

    How much further? Well, under contest conditions in Utah, up to 0.8
    miles using jury-rigged antennae.

    http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64440,00.html
    --
    100% of all human deaths occur within 100 miles of Earth.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
    > http://www.signull.com/fsc.php
    >
    > and choose a consumer access point specification such as
    > +15 dBm transmission and -80 dBm sensitivity. The result is
    > 0.1 miles which is greater than the 0.08 miles which is 400'.

    > Thus, with a plain inexpensive AP of no great quality,
    > using only the standard omnidirectional diversity antenna,
    > one can go the necessary distance.

    I don't doubt that. What I wonder is if direct coupling
    antennae feeds with coax has lower attenuation. All
    sort of different numbers are floating around for
    coax attenuation at 2.4 GHz.

    It would be relatively interesting that a fairly decent
    direct-coupled copper line has higher losses than
    indirect EMF over the air.

    -- Robert
  29. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote:
    >> What I am saying is, that for Wifi frequencies a Pringle
    >> can probably outperforms any thinnet cable :-)
    >
    > An interesting statement.
    >
    > How many dB of loss are there in closely coupled transmitting
    > & receiving antennae ? 100 dB in antenna efficiency? Add to
    > that the inverse-square losses of ~400ft of air (52db?)

    Then again, using a cable probably has fewer calories. ;-)
  30. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith wrote:

    > What, no attenuators for the OP's 10 feet of cable?  Hunh, I'd at
    > least have kept an open mind, but maybe that's just me.

    I don't recall any mention of 10' of cable. He did mention 10 Mb.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
    >I don't recall any mention of 10' of cable.

    Exactly my point. Without knowledge of the cable length and
    characteristics, the whole discussion was degenerating into "We don't
    know nothing, but it can't possibly work over 165 meters of the lowest
    quality Thinnet cable, we think...."
  32. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:45:36 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

    >> Thus, with a plain inexpensive AP of no great quality,
    >> using only the standard omnidirectional diversity antenna,
    >> one can go the necessary distance.

    Provided you have clear line of sight :-)

    >I don't doubt that. What I wonder is if direct coupling
    >antennae feeds with coax has lower attenuation.

    I think the first question would be: what happens if you attempt
    to feed 2.4 GHz into commercial thinnet coax.
    Are you actually feeding signal into a transmission line or are
    you chooking your source by connecting some weird object, mainly
    a huge lumb capacitor to it ?

    >It would be relatively interesting that a fairly decent
    >direct-coupled copper line has higher losses than
    >indirect EMF over the air.

    There is no direct EMF over the air.
    Either you couple your output directly into a proper antenna or
    you feed it into a 50 ohms transmission line :-)

    Note: output data for your wifi device is only valid if it is
    terminated as in one of the above situations :-)

    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  33. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    > back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter.

    I have been been able to find some mention of that technology, but no
    part numbers or product line names. Would anyone happen to remember
    what they were called and/or a part number?

    Thanks.

    Sorry about leaving the length out on my original post; I thought I had
    included it. There is no usable specification information that I can
    find on the cable.

    sPh
  34. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1108934978.001018.114540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > > back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter.
    >
    > I have been been able to find some mention of that technology, but no
    > part numbers or product line names. Would anyone happen to remember
    > what they were called and/or a part number?
    >

    There was an early proposal for a version of FDDI that ran over coax; it
    was referred to as LDDI. DEC also made a proprietary product (pre-FDDI)
    that ran on thick Ethernet coaxial cable; it was used for the back-end
    connection in the original VAXCluster product.


    --
    Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
    21885 Bear Creek Way
    (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
    (408) 228-0803 FAX

    Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com
  35. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1108934978.001018.114540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    sphealey <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >> back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter.
    >
    >I have been been able to find some mention of that technology, but no
    >part numbers or product line names. Would anyone happen to remember
    >what they were called and/or a part number?
    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >Sorry about leaving the length out on my original post; I thought I had
    >included it. There is no usable specification information that I can
    >find on the cable.
    >
    >sPh
    >


    Wait a moment while I whip out my DEC Network Buyer's Guide 1992-1993
    (several hundred pages) Here it is, Chapter 3.

    You have the DECbridge 500/600/700 (FDDI ring to 10mb 802.3 ethernet)
    and the DECconcentrator 500 (FDDI ring to FDDI devices)

    You'd need two cables because FDDI requires a ring, or better
    yet 4 for a dual ring.


    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    > Wait a moment while I whip out my DEC Network
    > Buyer's Guide 1992-1993 (several hundred
    > pages) Here it is, Chapter 3.

    I don't know which is worse: that you have that in your possession, or
    that I envy you for having it when I don't! Must .... hide ......
    sickness ... from .... spouse. Must .... hide .......

    sPh
  37. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Do you have any phone lines between the buildings?

    Long range ethernet operates at up to 15Mbps full duplex
    (well 15 is more than 10). Speed though depends on the
    *cabling* and *distance*.

    Have a quick look at
    http://www.cisco.com/nobel/initiative/docs/NNI_CP_02.pdf
    Then look up the costs.

    Why do you need more than 10Mbps?

    If you for example have an old network using repeaters
    you might be able to get by with installing a switch
    or router to control the traffic, eliminate unwanted
    broadcasts, whatever. Maybe you can use data compression?

    You can get laser links that will do the job however
    they are prone to interruption by birds, rain, have
    a read, just google on [laser ethernet] for example.

    In the UK non-omni antenna are illegal for 802.xyz (I
    think anyway) however there may well be commecial
    solutions available in the US.

    google [802.11 directional antenna]

    http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/antennas_2400_out_directional.php
    There you go! I would thing a couple of these would
    sort you out.

    http://www.fab-corp.com/
    HAve amplifiers too - I would go for antennas first.

    I am sure that one of the previous contributors to this
    thread can quickly work out which one of these beasts
    would do the job for you. I might be able to attempt
    it but it would take me hours or days and I don't
    know yet how much confidence I might have in the result:)

    Wireless can be affected by weather (maybe other posters
    can contribute?) so I wouldn't go for the mimimum possible
    solution.

    You can always keep the coax link on 10M as a backup.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <1108997416.774125.309870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    sphealey <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >> Wait a moment while I whip out my DEC Network
    >> Buyer's Guide 1992-1993 (several hundred
    >> pages) Here it is, Chapter 3.
    >
    >I don't know which is worse: that you have that in your possession, or
    >that I envy you for having it when I don't! Must .... hide ......
    >sickness ... from .... spouse. Must .... hide .......
    >
    >sPh
    >


    Everything shows up on ebay, eventually.

    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:10:33 -0800, Rich Seifert
    <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:

    >In article <1108934978.001018.114540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    > "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >> > back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter.
    >>
    >> I have been been able to find some mention of that technology, but no
    >> part numbers or product line names. Would anyone happen to remember
    >> what they were called and/or a part number?
    >>
    >
    >There was an early proposal for a version of FDDI that ran over coax; it
    >was referred to as LDDI. DEC also made a proprietary product (pre-FDDI)
    >that ran on thick Ethernet coaxial cable; it was used for the back-end
    >connection in the original VAXCluster product.

    But the crucial question hete is: would this product run more
    than 10 Mbps over 'thinnet coax' ? :-)

    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  40. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <4219c80b.541526@News.Individual.NET>,
    Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote:
    >On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:10:33 -0800, Rich Seifert
    ><usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <1108934978.001018.114540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    >> "sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> > back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter.
    >>>
    >>> I have been been able to find some mention of that technology, but no
    >>> part numbers or product line names. Would anyone happen to remember
    >>> what they were called and/or a part number?
    >>>
    >>
    >>There was an early proposal for a version of FDDI that ran over coax; it
    >>was referred to as LDDI. DEC also made a proprietary product (pre-FDDI)
    >>that ran on thick Ethernet coaxial cable; it was used for the back-end
    >>connection in the original VAXCluster product.
    >
    >But the crucial question hete is: would this product run more
    >than 10 Mbps over 'thinnet coax' ? :-)
    >
    >--
    >Kind regards,
    >Gerard Bok


    The FDDI-ethernet version had 10mb ethernet interfaces so you'd
    get no speed increase on any single system.

    The FDDI ring to fddi computer version requires a FDDI card for one of
    yoru systems (at both ends). It's possible that the standards are
    good enough that you could get any PCI fddi card and hook it up.

    And, as I said before, FDDI requires a ring so you'd need two TW
    cables to form one.


    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <4219c80b.541526@News.Individual.NET>,
    bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:10:33 -0800, Rich Seifert
    > <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > >There was an early proposal for a version of FDDI that ran over coax; it
    > >was referred to as LDDI. DEC also made a proprietary product (pre-FDDI)
    > >that ran on thick Ethernet coaxial cable; it was used for the back-end
    > >connection in the original VAXCluster product.
    >
    > But the crucial question hete is: would this product run more
    > than 10 Mbps over 'thinnet coax' ? :-)

    Since the impedance of 'thinnet coax' is identical to that of thick
    Ethernet coax, clearly any system that will run on one will run on the
    other; the only question is the reduction in length for acceptable
    levels of operation.

    (Remember, other than the connector used to attach to the medium, a
    'thinnet' transceiver is *IDENTICAL* to a thick Ethernet transceiver.)


    --
    Rich Seifert Networks and Communications Consulting
    21885 Bear Creek Way
    (408) 395-5700 Los Gatos, CA 95033
    (408) 228-0803 FAX

    Send replies to: usenet at richseifert dot com
  42. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:43:07 -0800, Rich Seifert
    <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:

    >In article <4219c80b.541526@News.Individual.NET>,
    > bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:10:33 -0800, Rich Seifert
    >> <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >> >There was an early proposal for a version of FDDI that ran over coax; it
    >> >was referred to as LDDI. DEC also made a proprietary product (pre-FDDI)
    >> >that ran on thick Ethernet coaxial cable; it was used for the back-end
    >> >connection in the original VAXCluster product.
    >>
    >> But the crucial question hete is: would this product run more
    >> than 10 Mbps over 'thinnet coax' ? :-)
    >
    >Since the impedance of 'thinnet coax' is identical to that of thick
    >Ethernet coax, clearly any system that will run on one will run on the
    >other; the only question is the reduction in length for acceptable
    >levels of operation.

    Sorry, but I have to disagree here.
    Basically, both cables should at least comply to the same specs.
    That, I agree to.

    But from a practical point of view:
    A typical thicknet cable is Belden 9880.
    6.9 dB per 100 feet attenuation at 1000 MHz, 11.5 dB at 2.5 GHz
    (So it would be suitable for 'Wifi')

    A typical thinnet cable is Belden 9907
    14.8 dB per 100 feet at 1000 MHz, 2.5 GHz not even specified :-)

    As you see: size does matter, at least if you want to run
    something else over an existing cable.

    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
  43. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <421a0b11.3798725@News.Individual.NET>,
    Gerard Bok <bok118@zonnet.nl> wrote:
    >On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:43:07 -0800, Rich Seifert
    ><usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <4219c80b.541526@News.Individual.NET>,
    >> bok118@zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:10:33 -0800, Rich Seifert
    >>> <usenet@richseifert.com.invalid> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >There was an early proposal for a version of FDDI that ran over coax; it
    >>> >was referred to as LDDI. DEC also made a proprietary product (pre-FDDI)
    >>> >that ran on thick Ethernet coaxial cable; it was used for the back-end
    >>> >connection in the original VAXCluster product.
    >>>
    >>> But the crucial question hete is: would this product run more
    >>> than 10 Mbps over 'thinnet coax' ? :-)
    >>
    >>Since the impedance of 'thinnet coax' is identical to that of thick
    >>Ethernet coax, clearly any system that will run on one will run on the
    >>other; the only question is the reduction in length for acceptable
    >>levels of operation.
    >
    >Sorry, but I have to disagree here.
    >Basically, both cables should at least comply to the same specs.
    >That, I agree to.
    >
    >But from a practical point of view:
    >A typical thicknet cable is Belden 9880.
    >6.9 dB per 100 feet attenuation at 1000 MHz, 11.5 dB at 2.5 GHz
    >(So it would be suitable for 'Wifi')
    >
    >A typical thinnet cable is Belden 9907
    >14.8 dB per 100 feet at 1000 MHz, 2.5 GHz not even specified :-)
    >
    >As you see: size does matter, at least if you want to run
    >something else over an existing cable.
    >
    >--
    >Kind regards,
    >Gerard Bok


    The spec ifor TW is primarily impedance and mechanical dimensions
    which just have to match the BNC connector used on each end (N for
    thickwire cable).

    The loss specification is either "don't care" for small networks or
    "lower the better" if you are pushing the distance limits. These
    belden part numbers are used for applications other than Thinwire and
    designers need to know loss numbers. I don't imagine there is a big
    market for TW, or thickwire, these days.

    You are not talking about pulling new wire. You've gotta use what
    you've got which, ISTR you've said has no identifying info on it. I
    hope it didn't come from Rat Shack.

    Your only hope to use your cable, ISTM, is to buy a pair of "g" wifi
    APs that have screw-on antenna connectors and coax adapters
    (SMC-to-BNC, or whatever) to connect to the cable and go for it. It
    might work. This is not big bucks and if the test fails you can sell
    the APs to someone. I guess you set them up as a mesh bridge.

    IMO, on a good day, "g" will be modestly faster than 10mb ethernet,
    measured by actual thruput.


    --

    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
  44. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Gerard Bok wrote:

    >>Since the impedance of 'thinnet coax' is identical to that of thick
    >>Ethernet coax, clearly any system that will run on one will run on the
    >>other; the only question is the reduction in length for acceptable
    >>levels of operation.
    >
    > Sorry, but I have to disagree here.
    > Basically, both cables should at least comply to the same specs.
    > That, I agree to.
    >
    > But from a practical point of view:
    > A typical thicknet cable is Belden 9880.
    > 6.9 dB per 100 feet attenuation at 1000 MHz, 11.5 dB at 2.5 GHz
    > (So it would be suitable for 'Wifi')
    >
    > A typical thinnet cable is Belden 9907
    > 14.8 dB per 100 feet at 1000 MHz, 2.5 GHz not even specified :-)
    >
    > As you see: size does matter, at least if you want to run
    > something else over an existing cable.

    1) Last I heard, ethernet over coax does not use frequencies anywhere near
    2.5 GHz.

    b) I guess you missed the point "the only question is the reduction in
    length for acceptable levels of operation".
  45. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    James Knott wrote:

    > Gerard Bok wrote:
    >
    >>>Since the impedance of 'thinnet coax' is identical to that of thick
    >>>Ethernet coax, clearly any system that will run on one will run on the
    >>>other; the only question is the reduction in length for acceptable
    >>>levels of operation.
    >>
    >> Sorry, but I have to disagree here.
    >> Basically, both cables should at least comply to the same specs.
    >> That, I agree to.
    >>
    >> But from a practical point of view:
    >> A typical thicknet cable is Belden 9880.
    >> 6.9 dB per 100 feet attenuation at 1000 MHz, 11.5 dB at 2.5 GHz
    >> (So it would be suitable for 'Wifi')
    >>
    >> A typical thinnet cable is Belden 9907
    >> 14.8 dB per 100 feet at 1000 MHz, 2.5 GHz not even specified :-)
    >>
    >> As you see: size does matter, at least if you want to run
    >> something else over an existing cable.
    >
    > 1) Last I heard, ethernet over coax does not use frequencies anywhere near
    > 2.5 GHz.

    Ethernet over coax doesn't. It was suggested that 802.11a, b, or g be
    tried. Those run at 2.5 or 5 GHz.

    > b) I guess you missed the point "the only question is the reduction in
    > length for acceptable levels of operation".

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  46. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    sphealey wrote:
    >>>Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a
    >>>fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there
    >
    > anything
    >
    >>>faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>
    >>Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if
    >
    > there
    >
    >>were obstructions that would make this impossible.
    >
    >
    > Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that
    > facility/environment.
    >
    > sPh

    Well don't dismiss it too quickly. If you know you have lots of 2.4Ghz
    noise, for example, use 802.11a (5.8Ghz). Or vice-versa.

    Considering you can get clean, LOS ranges of several miles outdoors with
    commonly-available antennae, I bet there's a chance you can make this
    work indoors. What's the approximate distance?

    -Jonathan
  47. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    sphealey wrote:
    > William wrote:
    >
    >>"sphealey" <sphealey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable?
    >>
    >>Bail us out here, and tell us how long the existing cable is! 8*)
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > Sorry dudes - I had to go back and look at my own original post as I
    > thought I had included that information. Which I had not ;-(
    >
    > Length is over 100m - about 125 I think. Longer than 10' for sure.
    >
    > sPh
    >


    125m is definitely a possibility for wireless, as long as you have LOS.
    Even if it's somewhat noisy, I think you stand a good chance of being
    able to get over 10mbps. You will need some good Pringles antennas. :-)

    -Jonathan
  48. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    > 125m is definitely a possibility for wireless, as long
    > as you have LOS. Even if it's somewhat noisy, I think
    > you stand a good chance of being able to get over 10mbps.
    > You will need some good Pringles antennas.

    This is a factory environment with changes of levels, metal grating,
    steel roofing, and a welding shop with what amounts to a faraday cage
    around it in between! No LOS here I am afraid. That is why we are
    putting in fiber, but finding fiber contractors willing to do
    industrial quality work in rural locations for less than the book value
    of the entire facility is difficult.

    I think we are going to have to call this one dead and buried. Anyone
    know where I can go to fiber splicing school?

    sPh
  49. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    sphealey wrote:

    >> 125m is definitely a possibility for wireless, as long
    >> as you have LOS. Even if it's somewhat noisy, I think
    >> you stand a good chance of being able to get over 10mbps.
    >> You will need some good Pringles antennas.
    >
    > This is a factory environment with changes of levels, metal grating,
    > steel roofing, and a welding shop with what amounts to a faraday cage
    > around it in between! No LOS here I am afraid. That is why we are
    > putting in fiber, but finding fiber contractors willing to do
    > industrial quality work in rural locations for less than the book value
    > of the entire facility is difficult.
    >
    > I think we are going to have to call this one dead and buried. Anyone
    > know where I can go to fiber splicing school?

    If I might make a suggestion, _try_ two pulls of UTP, one for your longest
    run and one that you believe to be your worst case for interference, and
    see what happens. You may be pleasantly surprised. And if you aren't you
    haven't spent much.

    If the regs where you are located allow you to pull your own fiber, then one
    option would be to measure out the pulls and order connectorized cable in
    appropriate lengths, and just be careful not to pull it too hard, bend it
    too tight, or bust the connectors. Don't know if it's still the case but
    once you needed about a thousand bucks worth of tooling to put connectors
    on fiber.

    > sPh

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ask a new question

Read More

Connection Ethernet Card Cable Networking