Alternative Ethernet Connector

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

"Emtech" <noaddress> wrote:
>Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
>other than the standard RJ45?

Well, you can run it on anything that meets the Cat-5 specs (and some
things that aren't, cf. the barbed wire discussion that comes up
frequently), but then it isn't Ethernet, is it?

What problem are you trying to solve? What's wrong with RJ45 in your
application? There are (for instance) weathertight RJ45 connectors...

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

Well, if you were doing a lot of wiring, and wanted to save money, I
don't see why you couldn't use telephone type connectors. Just make
sure you are consistant and get the polarity correct. You might want
to avoid the center two contacts in case soembody plugged in a single
line phone. And make the next two contacts be the inbound signal. I
had thought of that so that I could wire my home with jacks, but then
decided I didn't care if I just had wires coming out of holes in the
walls. The official RJ45 wall jacks are a lot more expensive than
phone jacks.

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

sqrfolkdnc wrote:

> Well, if you were doing a lot of wiring, and wanted to save money, I
> don't see why you couldn't use telephone type connectors. Just make
> sure you are consistant and get the polarity correct. You might want
> to avoid the center two contacts in case soembody plugged in a single
> line phone. And make the next two contacts be the inbound signal. I
> had thought of that so that I could wire my home with jacks, but then
> decided I didn't care if I just had wires coming out of holes in the
> walls. The official RJ45 wall jacks are a lot more expensive than
> phone jacks.

If you really want to save money use four line phone jacks.
That is, ones that aren't Cat 5 certified but will probably
work fine for 10baseT, and if you are a little careful in
wiring them at 100baseTX.

-- glen

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

"Emtech" <noaddress> writes:

> Hi
>
> Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
> other than the standard RJ45?

Some industrial Ethernet systems run Ethernet on 4-pin M12 plug-in connector.

Three companies announce support for M12 connector for Ethernet
http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/article/CA305874


--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
http://www.epanorama.net/

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

Thanks guys.

William
I have looked at several weathertight RJ45 connectors, but none
of them (that I've seen) are very weathertight unless the RJ45 plug
is connected. This is for an automotive application and hence
robustness is very important. Also, if I can route Ethernet via the
main connector I don't need an RJ45 on the box, just one more
conveniently located somewhere on the dash.

I will be doing some CAT5 testing on several connectors (reques-
ted by customer) although I expect the connectors to work, never
theless it will be interesting.

"Emtech" <noaddress> wrote in message news:431ecbab$1@news.eftel.com...
> Hi
>
> Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
> other than the standard RJ45?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

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

William P. N. Smith wrote:
(snip)

> That should be fairly straightforward, keep the pairs together and
> separated from other pairs, and specify the cables and wiring
> properly, and all you should have to do is meet the Cat5E spec.

If they wires of a pair are on adjacent pins, and the impedance is
anywhere close to 100 ohms, it should be fine. The effect of
connector impedance becomes increasingly important as the wavelength
approaches the length of the connector.

> I'd have to guess that any decent Cat5E certification tool will give
> you crosstalk margins, which will be your main concern. Loss (and
> length) will probably be nowhere near the spec in a car, unless
> someone wants to hook a 90M patch cable up...

I am not sure about the standard itself, but for actual use
it is much easier with short cables. The primary problem is
attenuation on long cables, which causes the near end crosstalk
margin problem. If the received signal is strong the margin will
be large even with a lot of crosstalk.

-- glen