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? First thing I thought was some sort
of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
Weird.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:35:08 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:19:47 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:09:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
>>>that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
>>>
>>>The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
>>>Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
>>>reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
>>>Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
>>>actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
>>>hardware.
>>>
>>
>>Have you ever seen someone zapped with high voltage when they touched
>>their computer case? Yes, I know the in most cases the NIC will act as
>>a fuse, but not always.
>
>If the NIC acts as a fuse, the NIC was a piece of shit to begin with.
>What part of "transformer coupled" are you having trouble with? Unless
>someone has screwed up there is NO contact between a twisted pair
>Ethernet cable and any part of the computer case, directly or
>indirectly.
>
It is not designed to act as one, it is just that there is a certain
chip in their that has a high failure rate and has actually save many
computers as a result.
Pulling wires often scuffs insulation with resulting voltage bleed or
high capacitance charge. Don't believe me, then run a megohm test on
the wire to the conduit or attached motors. I have seen more than one
erratic operating piece of equipment that was due to this and it
affect all electronics associated with it.
I have also felt capacitance grounding by touching a computer and
another metal electric device that had a proper ground and not just
some two wire plug.
>Getting zapped by a floating ground with Token Ring or Arcnet or
>coaxial Ethernet are more likely occurrances--all of those use
>shielded cable with the shields grounded to the chassis. But those
>have all been dead for a couple of decades now.
>
That is true as well.
>>>It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
>>>and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
>>>
>>>The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
>>>going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
>>>fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
>>>down the building.
>>>
>>>In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
>>>(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
>>>down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
>>>power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
>>>the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
>>>Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
>>>conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
>>>data cables.
>>>
>>>This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
>>
>>Yes, it is the biggest reason, but when you get network speeds running
>>really slow because of the crap interference, and this being a daily
>>issue it is quite costly.
>
>Quite costly to some guy running cable from his house to his garage?
>OK, tell us exactly how much it costs him, in dollars, to be getting
>500 Mb/sec instead 1000 Mb/sec.
What if he only got 2Mbps? WIFI can eliminate all that, and be less
expensive as well.
>>
>>I've seen T1 data lines running at 2mbits because of it, and a db
>>backup that would take multiple hours as opposed to minutes because of
>>it, add that to normal network traffic and it is ridiculous.
>
>You just blew your cred. T1 is rated for 1.544 Mb/sec. If you were
>getting 2 then it was exceeding its rated performance and you have
>nothing to complain about.
>
It was actually a T3 for that case. You are right, and I have also
been retired more than long enough to forget all the figures on a
moments notice. I'm currently only concerned about what goes on here
at home.
I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>
Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
problems associated with hard wire systems.
If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
updated because I am retired. Get it?
>>In one job I did a log of the bit rates over a period of time to show
>>consistency of the loads and loss of data speed verses what a properly
>>installed data line would do, and they ended up not only paying the
>>money to replace the entire line but upgraded the speed so that there
>>was no negative impact whatever was happening.
>
>That's nice. What does it have to do with some guy running a wire
>from his house to his garage?
>
Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
first place.
>>In that case they thought they could not afford the cost of
>>replacement, and over a period of years they just got used to it and
>>considered in "normal" for that site. So I basically invested my own
>>time to do this and show them what their real costs were. After that
>>their eyes were opened and they started looking at all their remote
>>sites to see if they were getting what they were paying for.
>>
>>I got nothing out of it, but thanks from the employee's that were
>>effected. That was good enough for me.
>
>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>carrying gigabit?
I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
SNIPP
>>>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.
>
>Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
>trend to wired for residential use.
>
>As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
>causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?
Yes. Using public WIFI - at coffee shop or motel, has compromized
several of my customers' laptops, at least one corporate bank account,
and numerous websites when the owner logged onto his server to manage
his website. (Huge damage to the websites -significant cost involved)
We KNOW it was wifi hacks in at least 3 of the cases because of where
the hacker got in from and where the customer was at the time
(Texas/Mexico , Indonesia, and Thailand)
>
>Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
>go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
>computer to actually be worth stealing.
That's "data thieves", but malicious "code kiddies"are another
altogether. They derive "street cred" from their hacks, and when they
get credit card information and passwords, hang on!!!!! Thankfully the
banks take the hit instead of the customer.
I have NO IDEA how anyone got my bank card number and password - it is
ONLY used as identification and my home bank branch (only once at the
ATM) and to log into my electronic banking application (which I had
only done TWICE before someone successfully used it in Mexico and
tried to use it 3 more times )
They got $600 out of my account oin the "trial run" then tried for
several thousand (unsuccessfully, thanks to my bank's security
settings) over the next couple of days. Cost the bank -not me - and
necessitated getting a new bank access card.
Not sure WIFI was involved on this one as I only accessed the
application ONCE on wifi - and that was on my secured home wifi - the
card has never been outside of Canada - muchless been used or
referenced outside of Canada - but to have both my card number and my
14 digit very high security password it had to have been "sniffed"
somewhere.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:20:55 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>I have no trouble running 4K TV over the built-in wifi in my TV. What
>leads you to believe that is has some enormous bandwidth demand?
>
On cable networks they do not have 4K options in most any area. Our
local Cable does not have 4K video anything, any channel, local or
remote and has no current plans to do so. And Fibre Optics is not yet
avail to residences here.
On Direct TV I have two 4k Systems which is only available on 3
channels and I cannot run more than three TV's at the same time
without the system locking the rest out. The latest Genie is
unreliable on 4K
So while you might have a 4k TV, what makes you think you are actually
seeing 4K videos or movies?
>As for "possible speeds", other than bragging rights what do these
>"possible speeds" get you?
>
Greater detail in anything you do, less waiting time for anything.
Also the ability to video conference with the entire family at once
without stepping on each other.
>>Of course with the way my ears are going. :(
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>
> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>
> Weird.
>
>
That air hose fitting makes me wonder if it was for a sprinkler of some
sort. In the winter, they could hook a compressor up to blow the pipes
out.
Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>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 Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 6/1/18 4:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> > On 6/1/18 3:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >> 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,=
=20
> >> next to the driveway pad, in between the pad and where all the=20
> >> vegetation was planted.
> >>
> >> On the far end out near the vegetation, was a PVC threaded end cap=20
> >> with a pipe-thread adapter and a pneumatic male coupler tool=20
> >> connector.=C2=A0 The nipple hole of the coupler had been sealed with w=
hat I=20
> >> think is pipe solder.=C2=A0 I drilled it out and it had the same consi=
stency.
> >>
> >> I sent a plumbing snake up the pipe towards the house and it hits=20
> >> right near the foundation, but not any further in.
> >>
> >> Any ideas what this was used for?=C2=A0 First thing I thought was some=
sort=20
> >> of hand watering quick connect.=C2=A0 But why 1.5" sch.40?
> >>
> >> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
> >>
> >> Weird.
> >>
> >=20
> > I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90=C2=B0 elbow =
coming=20
> > straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
> >=20
> > Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
> > I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it=
=20
> > past the concrete driveway.=C2=A0 The path of this pipe isn't the spot =
I=20
> > wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use=
=20
> > it.=C2=A0=C2=A0 :-)
> >=20
>=20
> Funnier part... finding this pipe under the pad distracted me so much=20
> 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=
=20
> and then another left to go around the end of the septic system's leach=
=20
> field. I don't like the prospect of pulling #6 through those bends on a=
=20
> 100'+ run.
Would you have to pull through the bends in one pull? Could you do it in se=
ctions before you=20
glue(?) the connections? That's how I did the power and cable (TV) out to m=
y shed.
Pull it through a bend into the open air, then slip on a length of straight=
pipe, twist to glue,=20
wash, rinse, repeat until the destination is reached.
>=20
> On the far edge of the driveway is a row of 80ft Poplars. Because I=20
> don't want to dig through their major roots, I can't use a ditch-witch=20
> to trench that path.
>=20
> At the corner of the garage where I intended to start the underground=20
> conduit, there is an expansion joint in the parking area pad with=20
> asphalt expansion joint filler. The path along that joint is far enough=
=20
> away from the leach bed and far enough from the tree roots that I can go=
=20
> straight back along that expansion joint.
> All I have to do is rent a concrete saw and make one cut a few inches=20
> from the existing expansion joint and then fill it back in with=20
> Quickcrete when I'm done laying the conduit.
>=20
> That will be easier than hand digging a trench around 3-4" tree roots=20
> and trying to weave the conduit over and under them.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> -MIKE-
>=20
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> www.mikedrums.com
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:37:33 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:41:44 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>Actually you need a lot more if you are doing multiple TV's on the
>Net, computers, etc.
A lot more than TEN BILLION BITS PER SECOND?
>I have High speed WIFI necessary because things
>move around here a lot, plus we can use it in the back yard and
>garage. With the grand kids here and online video games plus the video
>interaction you need a good home backbone, and I can certainly tell
>the difference between hardwired network to my HO computer verse wifi
>to laptops, phones and tablets.
How old is your wifi? If it's not 802.11n at least, it's time to
upgrade.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> on Fri, 1 Jun 2018 16:39:30 -0500 typed
in rec.woodworking the following:
>
>>
>
>I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
>straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
>
>Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
>I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
>past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
>wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
>it. :-)
Ah yes - "Before we start this project, lets take a look at what
we have, and we'll design it from there."
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:18:40 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:09:16 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:35:08 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:19:47 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:09:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
>>>>>>that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
>>>>>>Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
>>>>>>reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
>>>>>>Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
>>>>>>actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
>>>>>>hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you ever seen someone zapped with high voltage when they touched
>>>>>their computer case? Yes, I know the in most cases the NIC will act as
>>>>>a fuse, but not always.
>>>>
>>>>If the NIC acts as a fuse, the NIC was a piece of shit to begin with.
>>>>What part of "transformer coupled" are you having trouble with? Unless
>>>>someone has screwed up there is NO contact between a twisted pair
>>>>Ethernet cable and any part of the computer case, directly or
>>>>indirectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It is not designed to act as one, it is just that there is a certain
>>>chip in their that has a high failure rate and has actually save many
>>>computers as a result.
>>
>>Which chip in a modern twisted pair network interface would that be?
>>
>
>I don't remember, but if someone posted it I would recall. The same
>circuit is designed into the one chip NIC's as well.
>
>>>Pulling wires often scuffs insulation with resulting voltage bleed or
>>>high capacitance charge. Don't believe me, then run a megohm test on
>>>the wire to the conduit or attached motors. I have seen more than one
>>>erratic operating piece of equipment that was due to this and it
>>>affect all electronics associated with it.
>>
>>So?
>>
>>>I have also felt capacitance grounding by touching a computer and
>>>another metal electric device that had a proper ground and not just
>>>some two wire plug.
>>
>>Perhaps you have, but it did not come through a twiste pair Ethernet
>>cable.
>>
>
>Prove it.
You prove that it did. You are asserting that it happened, so it's up
to you to support your argument.
>>>>Getting zapped by a floating ground with Token Ring or Arcnet or
>>>>coaxial Ethernet are more likely occurrances--all of those use
>>>>shielded cable with the shields grounded to the chassis. But those
>>>>have all been dead for a couple of decades now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is true as well.
>>>
>>>>>>It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
>>>>>>and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
>>>>>>going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
>>>>>>fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
>>>>>>down the building.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
>>>>>>(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
>>>>>>down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
>>>>>>power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
>>>>>>the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
>>>>>>Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
>>>>>>conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
>>>>>>data cables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is the biggest reason, but when you get network speeds running
>>>>>really slow because of the crap interference, and this being a daily
>>>>>issue it is quite costly.
>>>>
>>>>Quite costly to some guy running cable from his house to his garage?
>>>>OK, tell us exactly how much it costs him, in dollars, to be getting
>>>>500 Mb/sec instead 1000 Mb/sec.
>>>
>>>What if he only got 2Mbps? WIFI can eliminate all that, and be less
>>>expensive as well.
>>
>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>
>
>Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
>them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
>stretch the wire messing things up.
So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
or you're just spreading FUD.
>Anyhow, I have had enough or your extreme wisdom and knowledge for
>tonight, and you had better tell Amazon to stop selling what isn't
>made.
What would that be?
>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>wire.
>>
>>>>>I've seen T1 data lines running at 2mbits because of it, and a db
>>>>>backup that would take multiple hours as opposed to minutes because of
>>>>>it, add that to normal network traffic and it is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>You just blew your cred. T1 is rated for 1.544 Mb/sec. If you were
>>>>getting 2 then it was exceeding its rated performance and you have
>>>>nothing to complain about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was actually a T3 for that case. You are right, and I have also
>>>been retired more than long enough to forget all the figures on a
>>>moments notice. I'm currently only concerned about what goes on here
>>>at home.
>>>
>>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>>
>>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>>
>>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>
>>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>>
>>What would justify the expense?
>>
>>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
>>
>>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>>
>>>>>In one job I did a log of the bit rates over a period of time to show
>>>>>consistency of the loads and loss of data speed verses what a properly
>>>>>installed data line would do, and they ended up not only paying the
>>>>>money to replace the entire line but upgraded the speed so that there
>>>>>was no negative impact whatever was happening.
>>>>
>>>>That's nice. What does it have to do with some guy running a wire
>>>>from his house to his garage?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>>first place.
>>
>>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>>things.
>>
>>>>>In that case they thought they could not afford the cost of
>>>>>replacement, and over a period of years they just got used to it and
>>>>>considered in "normal" for that site. So I basically invested my own
>>>>>time to do this and show them what their real costs were. After that
>>>>>their eyes were opened and they started looking at all their remote
>>>>>sites to see if they were getting what they were paying for.
>>>>>
>>>>>I got nothing out of it, but thanks from the employee's that were
>>>>>effected. That was good enough for me.
>>>>
>>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>>carrying gigabit?
>>>
>>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
>>
>>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>>
>>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>>
>>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>>work Excel.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:44:49 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:04:58 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:25:03 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:38:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>>
>>>>The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
>>>>to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
>>>>arcover in the isolation transformers.
>>>>
>>>>Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
>>>>audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
>>>>_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
>>>
>>>It isn't as cut n dry as you might think. Run a scope on the signal
>>>look for the interference. If what you said were true you wouldn't
>>>need a certain amount twists per a foot of Wire.
>>
>>Twisted pair ethernet is unidirectional on a given pair. Gigabit uses
>>four pairs, two carrying signal one way and two carrying it the other
>>way. It's crosstalk on those pairs that is the major driver in the
>>spec.
>
>Why the shielding?
What shielding? CAT1 through 6A are _not_ shielded and 6A is
specified to carry 10 gig Ethernet 100 meters. The first shielded
"CAT" level is CAT7, which is not recognized by EIA/TIA and is not
required by any IEEE standard.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
And you think you have credibility.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
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.
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 16:24:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<[email protected]> wrote:
>-MIKE- <[email protected]> on Fri, 1 Jun 2018 16:39:30 -0500 typed
>in rec.woodworking the following:
>>
>>>
>>
>>I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
>>straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
>>
>>Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
>>I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
>>past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
>>wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
>>it. :-)
>
> Ah yes - "Before we start this project, lets take a look at what
>we have, and we'll design it from there."
Hey, that's better than "Before we figure out what we want to do,
let's take a look at what we have.".
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:56:22 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 07:02:39 -0400, [email protected] 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.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:41:44 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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.
Actually you need a lot more if you are doing multiple TV's on the
Net, computers, etc. I have High speed WIFI necessary because things
move around here a lot, plus we can use it in the back yard and
garage. With the grand kids here and online video games plus the video
interaction you need a good home backbone, and I can certainly tell
the difference between hardwired network to my HO computer verse wifi
to laptops, phones and tablets.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 04:14:30 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Geezus, you don't even know what the Hell you're looking at. That is
>a POWER OVER ETHERNET extender. What it _amplifies_ is the _power_.
>The Ethernet signal is transferred by a switch. If you don't know
>what a "switch" is in this context you really should learn before
>making more of a fool of yourself. That device has an internal 2 port
>switch.
Well Mr. Bright boy, when the power dies, the signal dies with it one
wired systems.
All wire is is an elongated resistor that carries power. Try running
super long extension cords and watch the voltage drop.
One can only have so many repeaters in line, know why?
Those all tell you your signal now can reach 600 hundred feet. Twice
what you said was possible.
And you have a whole lot of learning to do regarding microwave's and I
am not about to waste further time with you on this.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:20:00 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
>>trend to wired for residential use.
>>
>>As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
>>causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?
>>
>>Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
>>go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
>>computer to actually be worth stealing.
>
>You haven't a clue. You can sit in a parking lot and hack into BB or
>HD or any other corp, once in you can go hard wired where you have the
>speed to d/l whatever you accessed.
So tell us exactly how often this has actually happened in the real
world with resulting financial loss?
And how do you "go hard wired once you're in"? Do you somehow
magically make a wire fly through the air?
You are assuming that I don't know how to hack. The question is not
whether a hack is possible, it is whether it is sufficiently likely to
justify avoiding the use of a technology.
Your argument seems to be "Someone who is highly motivated and highly
skilled can potentially hack into a wifi network so everybody should
avoid wifi".
Tell us of ONE incident where someone successfully stole information
from either a Home Depot or a Best Buy by sitting in the parking lot
hacking their wifi. You are asserting that this is a serious risk
that justifies abandoning wifi, and you used Best Buy and Home Depot
as examples, so tell us when it actually happened. Not that they were
hacked "somehow" but specifically that they were hacked by someone
sitting in a parking lot penetrating their wifi.
>As to homes, you can access all their business info, CC's Bank
>accounts, Photo's and video's, whatever they have.
So tell us exactly how many times this has actually happened in the
real world with financial loss? Don't bluster about it, give us a
number.
>Why do you think some people hacked the local CC readers of peoples
>personal accounts like at Target, and with drew a slew of minimal
>amounts from many people and had the money transferred elsewhere?
They didn't hack the "local CC readers of people's personal accounts",
they hacked the whole Target system so they were getting every credit
card that anybody used in any of the 1,828 Target stores. That's a
large enough volume to be worth attacking. And you have not
demonstrated that wifi had _any_ role in that attack.
>Why do people attach CC readers to gas pumps, and bank withdrawal
>systems? They go where ever there is easy money and few are going to
>trace down 500 or 1000 bucks here and there, they just right it off as
>the cost of doing business.
So how many did this by hacking wifi?
>If you are that naive, then you are probable vulnerable.
I am far far more likely to be murdered, die in a car crash, drown,
fall, or experience death in some other manner than to be hacked.
There were less than a thousand documented hacking incidents with
financial loss in 2017.
One takes reasonable precautions but one does not build one's life
around the notion that one can come to grief.
And you have gone far afield from technical issues now.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> 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
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:29:01 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:27:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Reading your post brought back a lot of memories, especially about a
>>fast changing world.
>>
>>I remember designing and building an HO POP in a wall cabinet. Thought
>>it was hot and would save a lot of labor and stuff strewn all about.
>>
>>Six months later it was made so obsolete it was embarrassing.
>>
>>I'm debating just trashing what I have here, don't even know what EBay
>>is doing these days on the stuff, or if 3rd world countries are still
>>behind the scenes and it might be useful there.
>>
>>As to keeping up with the Licensing, unless you worked for a company
>>that supported your training/updating it could be rough.
>>
>>One of the things I liked to do was setup flawed routers and managed
>>switches at home to help others with diagnosing and working out
>>problems. At the time I usually had a prize for those that made it all
>>the way though, that they could download once all the connections were
>>made. That was fun at the time.
>>
>>Times have sure changed.
>>
>>I now prefer woodworking and a garden with edibles, even cooking. :)
>
>
>I worked in Education for a few years. The first half of my working
>life was spent in the automotive repair trade - and I taught it both
>at the secondary and posts secondary (trade) level as well as training
>apprentices in the shop.
>
>Teaching guys how to logically troubleshoot a system was always a
>challenge.
>
>When I shifted to the IT world the troubleshooting didn't get much
>easier!!!!!
Boy HOWDY! Some people have it and many don't.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:40:24 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
>>fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
>>you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
>>and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
>>dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
>>together . . .
>>
>>I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
>>other than sane and straightforward.
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>SNIPP
>>>>
>>>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>>>
>>>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>>>wire.
>>>
>>>8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideband-gigabit-ethernet-over-barbed-wire-catches-fancy-of-national-magazine/
>>
>>IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
>>similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.
>
> That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
>networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!
>>
>>>It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
>>>Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
>>>successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
>>>likely even less than 10BT speeds.
>>
>>I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.
>>
>>Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
>>over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
>>mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
>>like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).
>>
>>Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
>>gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
>>and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
>>was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.
>>
>>It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
>>being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
>>compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
>>right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
>>piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
>>typically happen in somebody's house.
>>
>You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
>cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
>troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
>troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
>suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
>servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
>separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
>challenges.
>The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.
>
Made me remember there were occasional times I'd get incensed about
guys stringing cables near fluorescent lamps, especially when they
were clearly instructed to that very morning. And one of the worst
offenders were variable frequency drives of A/C equipment, pumps, etc.
We did a lot of automation/energy saving jobs.
Or running cables right near a water pump under the flooring in a
server center.
>There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!
>
>>>SNIPP
>>>>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>>>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
>>>still make someone a DANDY network
>>>
>>> About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
>>>CISCO.
>>
>>The devil in me wants to say "good decision".
>>
>>>>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>>>>
>>>>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
>>>most internets)
>>
>>A couple of years ago I'd agree, but at this point any computer you
>>buy has gigabit and the local Best Buy doesn't even have any switches
>>that don't support gigabit--the cheapest is a 5 port for 30 bucks.
>>
>>>>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>>>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>>>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>>>>
>>>>What would justify the expense?
>>>
>>> The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
>>>and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
>>>of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
>>>play - - - -
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>>>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>>>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>>>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
>>>
>>>And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
>>>I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
>>>maintaining currency with their new product.
>>>>
>>>>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>>>>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>>>
>>> I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
>>>to date with current technology.
>>
>>I'm not retired but I've been away from the networking world for a
>>long time, still, knowing what a CAT6 cable actually looks like when
>>you cut it open is pretty basic. Where I get lost these days is with
>>all the wifi variants and the 10gig stuff.
>>
>>>I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
>>>ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
>>>consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
>>>replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
>>>firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
>>>insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
>>>out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
>>>of network switches, routers, servers etc
>>>
>>>The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
>>>offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
>>>all less than 5 years old
>>>>
>>> SNIPP
>>>>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>>>>first place.
>>>>
>>>>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>>>>things.
>>>>
>>>Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
>>>installs.
>>
>>Precisely my point. For this situation I would either use wifi to
>>begin with or run a direct-burial cable (note that in my location the
>>town will be on you if you run an overhead cable).
>>
>>>SNIPP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>>>>carrying gigabit?
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>>>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
>>>
>>>Apples - oranges - Turnips.
>>
>>Yep. Spreading FUD. "You're gonna get electrocuted because you ran a
>>CAT6 cable to the garage". So why don't you get electrocuted when you
>>plug in the hedge trimmer to the outlet in that same garage?
>>
>>>>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>>>>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>>>>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>>>>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>>>>
>>>>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>>>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>>>>
>>>>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>>>>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>>>>work Excel.
>>>
>>>About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
>>>involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
>>>the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
>>>a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
>>>functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.
>>
>>It's hard to keep up with all of it. The sad thing is that the kids
>>running it today seem to be lost. I suspect that there's going to
>>come a time when I bring my cable analyzer to work and show the IT
>>people what's wrong with their damned network.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>SNIPP
>>>Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
>>>them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
>>>stretch the wire messing things up.
>>
>>So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
>>cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
>>mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
>>or you're just spreading FUD.
>
>If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
>NOT autonegotiate down.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
though.
>I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
>packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
>conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
>Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)
Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
actual numbers.
>A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
>Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
>same.
I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
able to detect the high current conductor.
>It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
>deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
>translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
>SNIPPPPP
How much slower, based on actual evidence?
>When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
>COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
>on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
>nineties"
So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
reduce to 100. Why would that be?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:40:24 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
>>fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
>>you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
>>and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
>>dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
>>together . . .
>>
>>I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
>>other than sane and straightforward.
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>SNIPP
>>>>
>>>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>>>
>>>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>>>wire.
>>>
>>>8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideband-gigabit-ethernet-over-barbed-wire-catches-fancy-of-national-magazine/
>>
>>IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
>>similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.
>
> That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
>networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!
>>
>>>It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
>>>Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
>>>successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
>>>likely even less than 10BT speeds.
>>
>>I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.
>>
>>Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
>>over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
>>mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
>>like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).
>>
>>Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
>>gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
>>and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
>>was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.
>>
>>It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
>>being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
>>compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
>>right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
>>piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
>>typically happen in somebody's house.
>>
>You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
>cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
>troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
>troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
>suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
>servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
>separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
>challenges.
>The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.
>
>There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!
The thing is though, that's not the situation we're discussing, we're
discussing running a line from somebody's house to somebody's garage.
Unless it's the Gates Mansion or Mar A Lago or some such that
shouldn't be even coming close to the span limits.
Note, I work in such a building--I should send you a photo of the
tunnel sometime. But fortunately I don't have to maintain the
network--by some weird quirk of fate I am now a finance guy.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> 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!!!
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:13:09 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:35:05 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>SNIPP
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
>>>trend to wired for residential use.
>>>
>>>As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
>>>causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?
>>
>> Yes. Using public WIFI - at coffee shop or motel, has compromized
>>several of my customers' laptops, at least one corporate bank account,
>>and numerous websites when the owner logged onto his server to manage
>>his website. (Huge damage to the websites -significant cost involved)
>>
>>We KNOW it was wifi hacks in at least 3 of the cases because of where
>>the hacker got in from and where the customer was at the time
>>(Texas/Mexico , Indonesia, and Thailand)
>
>Thank you. Someone with actual facts.
>
>>>Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
>>>go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
>>>computer to actually be worth stealing.
>>
>> That's "data thieves", but malicious "code kiddies"are another
>>altogether. They derive "street cred" from their hacks, and when they
>>get credit card information and passwords, hang on!!!!! Thankfully the
>>banks take the hit instead of the customer.
>>
>>
>>I have NO IDEA how anyone got my bank card number and password - it is
>>ONLY used as identification and my home bank branch (only once at the
>>ATM) and to log into my electronic banking application (which I had
>>only done TWICE before someone successfully used it in Mexico and
>>tried to use it 3 more times )
>>They got $600 out of my account oin the "trial run" then tried for
>>several thousand (unsuccessfully, thanks to my bank's security
>>settings) over the next couple of days. Cost the bank -not me - and
>>necessitated getting a new bank access card.
>> Not sure WIFI was involved on this one as I only accessed the
>>application ONCE on wifi - and that was on my secured home wifi - the
>>card has never been outside of Canada - muchless been used or
>>referenced outside of Canada - but to have both my card number and my
>>14 digit very high security password it had to have been "sniffed"
>>somewhere.
>
>How they got the password is the real question.
They HAD to have "sniffed" the internet when and where I was
connecting to the EZWeb interface either when Iset it up (on my wired
internet connection), or when I accessed it (once on wired, and once
on secured home wifi)
Both are behind a NAT firewall.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:29:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 10:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
>Add 30ft. to equation and it's not fast enough anymore.
Nonsense. 30+ feet, through walls and floors. Plenty fast enough for
High definition video and anything Internet.
>I stream video to my garage/shop and it's not fast enough over wifi from
>20ft. away.
You need a better router. Even the one from the cable company covers
my entire house. Three floors, five bedrooms, and >5K ft^2 (including
basement).
>We have the fastest internet in town and the fastest/fastest router.
>When I ran Ethernet from the router to the garage through a wifi
>extender, all of a sudden I'm getting 400mbps when I was only getting
>50-100 from the router.
Evidently not.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:25:03 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:38:01 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>
>>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>
>>The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
>>to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
>>arcover in the isolation transformers.
>>
>>Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
>>audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
>>_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
>
>It isn't as cut n dry as you might think. Run a scope on the signal
>look for the interference. If what you said were true you wouldn't
>need a certain amount twists per a foot of Wire.
Twisted pair ethernet is unidirectional on a given pair. Gigabit uses
four pairs, two carrying signal one way and two carrying it the other
way. It's crosstalk on those pairs that is the major driver in the
spec.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>
>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>> in the microwave range.
>>
>>> We
>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>> miles.
>>>
>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>> little to no problems.
>>
>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>> a very large property.
>>
>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>
>There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>
>http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>
>https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
packets out.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:14:42 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:29:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 10:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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. :-)
>
>What IS driving some people back to wired connections is SECURITY.
>There are facilities where NO WIRELESS connections are allowed for
>just that reason.
One time back in the '80s I looked into what was needed to access the
government's supercomputers for my employer. We realized after a
while that we could probably get our own for less than that would cost
us. Definitely no wireless there. Everything fiber, Faraday cage
around the room in which the access point would be located, specially
certified terminals.
On the other hand my employer doesn't have any problem with
wifi--presumably they've done their homework on setting it up--half a
floor of the building is data security and it's a _big_ building. But
there the scenario of someone sitting in the parking lot sniffing
doesn't happen--the lot is badge-access gated with the closest point
from the building to the fence is over a hundred feet and that fence
is on a four-lane with no parking allowed.
>>> 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.
>>>
>
>>
>>Add 30ft. to equation and it's not fast enough anymore.
>>I stream video to my garage/shop and it's not fast enough over wifi from
>>20ft. away.
>>We have the fastest internet in town and the fastest/fastest router.
>>When I ran Ethernet from the router to the garage through a wifi
>>extender, all of a sudden I'm getting 400mbps when I was only getting
>>50-100 from the router.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:09:54 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>
>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>> in the microwave range.
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>> miles.
>>>>
>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>> little to no problems.
>>>
>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>> a very large property.
>>>
>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>
>>There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>>long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>
>>http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>
>>https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>
>That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
>extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
>take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
>packets out.
Looking further, some of them package the Ethernet packets in some
other signalling to get extended range, and if you look at the specs,
they kill the crap out of performance.
I didn't say that it wasn't possible to make some kind of device that
is not an Ethernet device that can transport Ethernet packets. If you
are willing to accept latency and low bandwidth you can carry Ethernet
packets on a piece of paper in your pocket. But doing so is not
compliant with any of the Ethernet standards so it is not Ethernet.
Further, ALL of the things you point to create a new segment.
You really should learn how things work before you start trying to
prove that somebody is wrong.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
hardware.
It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
down the building.
In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
data cables.
This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:23:00 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:27:26 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>SNIPP
>>>>>Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
>>>>>them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
>>>>>stretch the wire messing things up.
>>>>
>>>>So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
>>>>cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
>>>>mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
>>>>or you're just spreading FUD.
>>>
>>>If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
>>>NOT autonegotiate down.
>>
>>Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
>>replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
>>autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
>>100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
>>though.
>>
>100/10 autonegotiates. Gigabit by definition does not.
IEEE 802.3-2015 section 40.5.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:
"All 1000BASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"
IEEE 802.3-2015 section 55.6.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:
"All 10GBASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"
>>>I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
>>>packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
>>>conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
>>>Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)
>>
>>Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
>>actual numbers.
>
>Gigabit uses all 8 wires in a cat5 /6/7 cable for full duplex mode
>10/100 does not - so with 10-100 you COULD damage 2 pairs without
>affecting the ethernet.
>
>A bad connection in ANY pair will affect data transmission on gigabit
>ethernet.
>
>I don't have numbers - just years of experience troubleshooting
>network cabling.
>>
>>>A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
>>>Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
>>>same.
>>
>>I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
>>able to detect the high current conductor.
>
>It might just be a fluke???
>
>All I know is we had a network speed issue and it was solved when we
>moved the vertical network cable run about 18 inches away from the
>electrical service sub-panel instead of running them behind the panel
So how much current was that sub-panel handling vs how much a
residential garage handles?
>>>It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
>>>deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
>>>translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
>>>SNIPPPPP
>>
>>How much slower, based on actual evidence?
>
>Enough for the database program to fail out on data requests and
>transfers. Off hand I'd say it cut the speed to about 1/10 when the AC
>was on, about half speed at other times.
So that should be down to 100 mb/sec.
>>
>>>When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
>>>COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
>>>on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
>>>nineties"
>>
>>So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
>>to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
>>reduce to 100. Why would that be?
> It is my understanding autonegotiation in gigabit ethernet is based
>on each device reporting (signaling) it's capability (using the base
>link code word) and the devices choosing the fastest mutually
>supported speed/configuration - and then it either works or doesn't.
>If both ends of the segment report giga capability, they ONLY attempt
>connection at giga speeds and can NOT down-switch to 100, unlike the
>somewhat problematic earlier 10/100 protocol that COULD (sometimes, if
>the stars were properly aligned) switch two 100Mbs devices ro 10Mbs if
>the cabling could not support 10Mbs without errors.
>
>I MAY be wrong, but that is my understanding, and how it was described
>to me back when gigabit ethernet came on the scene way back about
>1998?
There does seem to be some confusion on this point. Initial
autonegotiation is supposed to be per Clause 28, which, among other
things, specifies (28.1.4.3) "Provision has been made within
Auto-Negotiation to limit the resulting link configuration in
situations where the cabling may not support the highest common
capability of the two end points.".
Once Clause 28 autonegotiation has determined that all the pieces are
in place to run gigabit, then Clause 40 takes over and works out the
details of the gigabit connection.
By the way, don't know if you're aware of it but 802.3 is a free
download from IEEE after you tell them your life story.
I'm not going to try to dig out all the details--802.3 is over 4000
pages and Clause 28 alone is more than 50 pages.
>The base link code word (from WIKI)
>
>Every fast link pulse burst transmits a word of 16 bits known as a
>link code word. The first such word is known as a base link code word,
>and its bits are used as follows:
>04: selector field: it indicates which standard is used between IEEE
>802.3 and IEEE 802.9;
>512: technology ability field: this is a sequence of bits that encode
>the possible modes of operations among the 100BASE-T and 10BASE-T
>modes;
>13: remote fault: this is set to one when the device is detecting a
>link failure;
>14: acknowledgement: the device sets this to one to indicate the
>correct reception of the base link code word from the other party;
>this is detected by the reception of at least three identical base
>code words;
>15: next page: this bit is used to indicate the intention of sending
>other link code words after the base link code word;
>
>The technology ability field is composed of eight bits. For IEEE
>802.3, these are as follows:
>bit 0: device supports 10BASE-T
>bit 1: device supports 10BASE-T in full duplex
>bit 2: device supports 100BASE-TX
>bit 3: device supports 100BASE-TX in full duplex
>bit 4: device supports 100BASE-T4
>bit 5: pause
>bit 6: asymmetric pause for full duplex
>bit 7: reserved
>
>The acknowledgement bit is used to signal the correct reception of the
>base code word. This corresponds to having received three identical
>copies of the base code word. Upon receiving these three identical
>copies, the device sends a link code word with the acknowledge bit set
>to one from six times to eight times.
>
>The link code words are also called pages. The base link code word is
>therefore called a base page. The next page bit of the base page is 1
>when the device intends to send other pages, which can be used to
>communicate other abilities. These additional pages are sent only if
>both devices have sent base pages with a next page bit set to 1. The
>additional pages are still encoded as link code words (using 17 clock
>pulses and up to 16 bit pulses
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:35:05 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>SNIPP
>>>>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.
>>
>>Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
>>trend to wired for residential use.
>>
>>As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
>>causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?
>
> Yes. Using public WIFI - at coffee shop or motel, has compromized
>several of my customers' laptops, at least one corporate bank account,
>and numerous websites when the owner logged onto his server to manage
>his website. (Huge damage to the websites -significant cost involved)
>
>We KNOW it was wifi hacks in at least 3 of the cases because of where
>the hacker got in from and where the customer was at the time
>(Texas/Mexico , Indonesia, and Thailand)
Thank you. Someone with actual facts.
>>Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
>>go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
>>computer to actually be worth stealing.
>
> That's "data thieves", but malicious "code kiddies"are another
>altogether. They derive "street cred" from their hacks, and when they
>get credit card information and passwords, hang on!!!!! Thankfully the
>banks take the hit instead of the customer.
>
>
>I have NO IDEA how anyone got my bank card number and password - it is
>ONLY used as identification and my home bank branch (only once at the
>ATM) and to log into my electronic banking application (which I had
>only done TWICE before someone successfully used it in Mexico and
>tried to use it 3 more times )
>They got $600 out of my account oin the "trial run" then tried for
>several thousand (unsuccessfully, thanks to my bank's security
>settings) over the next couple of days. Cost the bank -not me - and
>necessitated getting a new bank access card.
> Not sure WIFI was involved on this one as I only accessed the
>application ONCE on wifi - and that was on my secured home wifi - the
>card has never been outside of Canada - muchless been used or
>referenced outside of Canada - but to have both my card number and my
>14 digit very high security password it had to have been "sniffed"
>somewhere.
How they got the password is the real question.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:38:01 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>
>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>
>The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
>to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
>arcover in the isolation transformers.
>
>Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
>audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
>_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
It isn't as cut n dry as you might think. Run a scope on the signal
look for the interference. If what you said were true you wouldn't
need a certain amount twists per a foot of Wire.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:11:21 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:41:57 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 11:03 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>
>>>> There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>> I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>> been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I may end up running a metal conduit along side to get the
>>>shielding for whatever data wire I run out there.
>>>When I was in TCOM, we microwaved everything, so maybe I'll just do
>>>that. :-)
>>
>>There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>
>Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>in the microwave range.
>
Where is the warning for radiation?
Microwaves travel by line of sight.
See how ridiculous this is all getting?
>>We
>>have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>miles.
>>
>>A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>little to no problems.
>
>Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>a very large property.
>
You are full of crap.
https://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-Repeater-Amplifier-Ethernet-TPE-E100/dp/B00SDFF6S0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1528009041&sr=8-3&keywords=ethernet+signal+booster
One of many Price has dropped dramatically. From years ago.
Can't extend it Eh?
https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-DS108-Port-Mbps-Speed/dp/B00000J4L5
100Mbps hub also useful as a type 2 repeater.
This is all small business/HO type equipment. Also available in the
High end systems.
Sorry you are having such a problems with this but when I hit the
switch for my computer tonight this subject with you is over. ;)
>>I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:29:06 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:02:59 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:37:33 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:41:44 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Actually you need a lot more if you are doing multiple TV's on the
>>>Net, computers, etc.
>>
>>A lot more than TEN BILLION BITS PER SECOND?
>
>I should have typed 10Gbps. and a bit is not a byte.
Nobody said it was. Show us that a lot more than that is needed in a
home network.
>>>I have High speed WIFI necessary because things
>>>move around here a lot, plus we can use it in the back yard and
>>>garage. With the grand kids here and online video games plus the video
>>>interaction you need a good home backbone, and I can certainly tell
>>>the difference between hardwired network to my HO computer verse wifi
>>>to laptops, phones and tablets.
>>
>>How old is your wifi? If it's not 802.11n at least, it's time to
>>upgrade.
>
>I always have the latest, and the integration is possible on mine as
>well so I have full usability on the High and low freqs at the same
>time for faster throughput. While the data lines are 1gig, the
>backbone of my switch is high to all the 1 gig on more than one line
>at a time.
>
>On Fiber optics 1 to 100gig is easily possible.
>
>Want to play Name that Tune? :)
You're claiming that your one gig wifi can't handle 4K TV? You
definitely _are_ lying about something.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:44:49 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:04:58 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:25:03 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:38:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>>
>>>>The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
>>>>to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
>>>>arcover in the isolation transformers.
>>>>
>>>>Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
>>>>audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
>>>>_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
>>>
>>>It isn't as cut n dry as you might think. Run a scope on the signal
>>>look for the interference. If what you said were true you wouldn't
>>>need a certain amount twists per a foot of Wire.
>>
>>Twisted pair ethernet is unidirectional on a given pair. Gigabit uses
>>four pairs, two carrying signal one way and two carrying it the other
>>way. It's crosstalk on those pairs that is the major driver in the
>>spec.
>
>Why the shielding?
Sheilding handles the differential mode, while the twist handles the
common mode
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
trend to wired for residential use.
As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?
Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
computer to actually be worth stealing.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:44:12 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
>
>More of your outdated knowledge. Collisions haven't been part of
>Ethernet for a very long time.
Can be with half duplex. That's 10-100 ( not always - but more often
than you would think) or giga over 4 pairs.
Not state of the art by any stretch, but still SURPRISINGLY common -
- - -
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:23:39 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:41:57 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 11:03 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>
>> There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>> I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>> been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>
>
>Well, I may end up running a metal conduit along side to get the
>shielding for whatever data wire I run out there.
>When I was in TCOM, we microwaved everything, so maybe I'll just do
>that. :-)
There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's. We
have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
miles.
A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
little to no problems.
I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:09:16 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:35:08 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:19:47 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:09:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
>>>>that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
>>>>
>>>>The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
>>>>Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
>>>>reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
>>>>Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
>>>>actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
>>>>hardware.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Have you ever seen someone zapped with high voltage when they touched
>>>their computer case? Yes, I know the in most cases the NIC will act as
>>>a fuse, but not always.
>>
>>If the NIC acts as a fuse, the NIC was a piece of shit to begin with.
>>What part of "transformer coupled" are you having trouble with? Unless
>>someone has screwed up there is NO contact between a twisted pair
>>Ethernet cable and any part of the computer case, directly or
>>indirectly.
>>
>
>It is not designed to act as one, it is just that there is a certain
>chip in their that has a high failure rate and has actually save many
>computers as a result.
Which chip in a modern twisted pair network interface would that be?
>Pulling wires often scuffs insulation with resulting voltage bleed or
>high capacitance charge. Don't believe me, then run a megohm test on
>the wire to the conduit or attached motors. I have seen more than one
>erratic operating piece of equipment that was due to this and it
>affect all electronics associated with it.
So?
>I have also felt capacitance grounding by touching a computer and
>another metal electric device that had a proper ground and not just
>some two wire plug.
Perhaps you have, but it did not come through a twiste pair Ethernet
cable.
>>Getting zapped by a floating ground with Token Ring or Arcnet or
>>coaxial Ethernet are more likely occurrances--all of those use
>>shielded cable with the shields grounded to the chassis. But those
>>have all been dead for a couple of decades now.
>>
>
>That is true as well.
>
>>>>It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
>>>>and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
>>>>
>>>>The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
>>>>going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
>>>>fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
>>>>down the building.
>>>>
>>>>In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
>>>>(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
>>>>down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
>>>>power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
>>>>the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
>>>>Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
>>>>conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
>>>>data cables.
>>>>
>>>>This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is the biggest reason, but when you get network speeds running
>>>really slow because of the crap interference, and this being a daily
>>>issue it is quite costly.
>>
>>Quite costly to some guy running cable from his house to his garage?
>>OK, tell us exactly how much it costs him, in dollars, to be getting
>>500 Mb/sec instead 1000 Mb/sec.
>
>What if he only got 2Mbps? WIFI can eliminate all that, and be less
>expensive as well.
If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
wire.
>>>I've seen T1 data lines running at 2mbits because of it, and a db
>>>backup that would take multiple hours as opposed to minutes because of
>>>it, add that to normal network traffic and it is ridiculous.
>>
>>You just blew your cred. T1 is rated for 1.544 Mb/sec. If you were
>>getting 2 then it was exceeding its rated performance and you have
>>nothing to complain about.
>>
>
>It was actually a T3 for that case. You are right, and I have also
>been retired more than long enough to forget all the figures on a
>moments notice. I'm currently only concerned about what goes on here
>at home.
>
>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>
>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>problems associated with hard wire systems.
What would justify the expense?
>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>updated because I am retired. Get it?
I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>>>In one job I did a log of the bit rates over a period of time to show
>>>consistency of the loads and loss of data speed verses what a properly
>>>installed data line would do, and they ended up not only paying the
>>>money to replace the entire line but upgraded the speed so that there
>>>was no negative impact whatever was happening.
>>
>>That's nice. What does it have to do with some guy running a wire
>>from his house to his garage?
>>
>
>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>first place.
What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
things.
>>>In that case they thought they could not afford the cost of
>>>replacement, and over a period of years they just got used to it and
>>>considered in "normal" for that site. So I basically invested my own
>>>time to do this and show them what their real costs were. After that
>>>their eyes were opened and they started looking at all their remote
>>>sites to see if they were getting what they were paying for.
>>>
>>>I got nothing out of it, but thanks from the employee's that were
>>>effected. That was good enough for me.
>>
>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>carrying gigabit?
>
>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
time you dealt with Ethernet.
>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
work Excel.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
I have no trouble running 4K TV over the built-in wifi in my TV. What
leads you to believe that is has some enormous bandwidth demand?
As for "possible speeds", other than bragging rights what do these
"possible speeds" get you?
>Of course with the way my ears are going. :(
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>
>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
arcover in the isolation transformers.
Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:20:55 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>I have no trouble running 4K TV over the built-in wifi in my TV. What
>leads you to believe that is has some enormous bandwidth demand?
>
>As for "possible speeds", other than bragging rights what do these
>"possible speeds" get you?
Exactly. "Good enough" is good enough.
>>Of course with the way my ears are going. :(
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:19:47 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:09:48 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
>>that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
>>
>>The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
>>Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
>>reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
>>Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
>>actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
>>hardware.
>>
>
>Have you ever seen someone zapped with high voltage when they touched
>their computer case? Yes, I know the in most cases the NIC will act as
>a fuse, but not always.
If the NIC acts as a fuse, the NIC was a piece of shit to begin with.
What part of "transformer coupled" are you having trouble with? Unless
someone has screwed up there is NO contact between a twisted pair
Ethernet cable and any part of the computer case, directly or
indirectly.
Getting zapped by a floating ground with Token Ring or Arcnet or
coaxial Ethernet are more likely occurrances--all of those use
shielded cable with the shields grounded to the chassis. But those
have all been dead for a couple of decades now.
>>It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
>>and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
>>
>>The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
>>going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
>>fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
>>down the building.
>>
>>In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
>>(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
>>down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
>>power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
>>the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
>>Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
>>conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
>>data cables.
>>
>>This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
>
>Yes, it is the biggest reason, but when you get network speeds running
>really slow because of the crap interference, and this being a daily
>issue it is quite costly.
Quite costly to some guy running cable from his house to his garage?
OK, tell us exactly how much it costs him, in dollars, to be getting
500 Mb/sec instead 1000 Mb/sec.
>
>I've seen T1 data lines running at 2mbits because of it, and a db
>backup that would take multiple hours as opposed to minutes because of
>it, add that to normal network traffic and it is ridiculous.
You just blew your cred. T1 is rated for 1.544 Mb/sec. If you were
getting 2 then it was exceeding its rated performance and you have
nothing to complain about.
In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>In one job I did a log of the bit rates over a period of time to show
>consistency of the loads and loss of data speed verses what a properly
>installed data line would do, and they ended up not only paying the
>money to replace the entire line but upgraded the speed so that there
>was no negative impact whatever was happening.
That's nice. What does it have to do with some guy running a wire
from his house to his garage?
>In that case they thought they could not afford the cost of
>replacement, and over a period of years they just got used to it and
>considered in "normal" for that site. So I basically invested my own
>time to do this and show them what their real costs were. After that
>their eyes were opened and they started looking at all their remote
>sites to see if they were getting what they were paying for.
>
>I got nothing out of it, but thanks from the employee's that were
>effected. That was good enough for me.
Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
carrying gigabit?
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:09:48 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
>that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
>
>The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
>Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
>reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
>Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
>actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
>hardware.
>
Have you ever seen someone zapped with high voltage when they touched
their computer case? Yes, I know the in most cases the NIC will act as
a fuse, but not always.
>It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
>and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
>
>The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
>going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
>fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
>down the building.
>
>In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
>(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
>down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
>power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
>the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
>Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
>conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
>data cables.
>
>This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
Yes, it is the biggest reason, but when you get network speeds running
really slow because of the crap interference, and this being a daily
issue it is quite costly.
I've seen T1 data lines running at 2mbits because of it, and a db
backup that would take multiple hours as opposed to minutes because of
it, add that to normal network traffic and it is ridiculous.
In one job I did a log of the bit rates over a period of time to show
consistency of the loads and loss of data speed verses what a properly
installed data line would do, and they ended up not only paying the
money to replace the entire line but upgraded the speed so that there
was no negative impact whatever was happening.
In that case they thought they could not afford the cost of
replacement, and over a period of years they just got used to it and
considered in "normal" for that site. So I basically invested my own
time to do this and show them what their real costs were. After that
their eyes were opened and they started looking at all their remote
sites to see if they were getting what they were paying for.
I got nothing out of it, but thanks from the employee's that were
effected. That was good enough for me.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:21:43 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:23:00 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:27:26 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>SNIPP
>>>>>>Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
>>>>>>them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
>>>>>>stretch the wire messing things up.
>>>>>
>>>>>So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
>>>>>cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
>>>>>mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
>>>>>or you're just spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>>>If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
>>>>NOT autonegotiate down.
>>>
>>>Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
>>>replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
>>>autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
>>>100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
>>>though.
>>>
>>100/10 autonegotiates. Gigabit by definition does not.
>
>IEEE 802.3-2015 section 40.5.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:
>
>"All 1000BASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"
>
>IEEE 802.3-2015 section 55.6.1 Support for Auto-Negotiation:
>
>"All 10GBASE-T PHYs shall provide support for Auto-Negotiation"
>
>>>>I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
>>>>packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
>>>>conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
>>>>Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)
>>>
>>>Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
>>>actual numbers.
>>
>>Gigabit uses all 8 wires in a cat5 /6/7 cable for full duplex mode
>>10/100 does not - so with 10-100 you COULD damage 2 pairs without
>>affecting the ethernet.
>>
>>A bad connection in ANY pair will affect data transmission on gigabit
>>ethernet.
>>
>>I don't have numbers - just years of experience troubleshooting
>>network cabling.
>>>
>>>>A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
>>>>Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
>>>>same.
>>>
>>>I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
>>>able to detect the high current conductor.
>>
>>It might just be a fluke???
>>
>>All I know is we had a network speed issue and it was solved when we
>>moved the vertical network cable run about 18 inches away from the
>>electrical service sub-panel instead of running them behind the panel
>
>So how much current was that sub-panel handling vs how much a
>residential garage handles?
About 300 amps per sub panel IIRC
>
>>>>It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
>>>>deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
>>>>translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
>>>>SNIPPPPP
>>>
>>>How much slower, based on actual evidence?
>>
>>Enough for the database program to fail out on data requests and
>>transfers. Off hand I'd say it cut the speed to about 1/10 when the AC
>>was on, about half speed at other times.
>
>So that should be down to 100 mb/sec.
Effective, yes - but not negotiated.
>>>
>>>>When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
>>>>COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
>>>>on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
>>>>nineties"
>>>
>>>So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
>>>to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
>>>reduce to 100. Why would that be?
>
>> It is my understanding autonegotiation in gigabit ethernet is based
>>on each device reporting (signaling) it's capability (using the base
>>link code word) and the devices choosing the fastest mutually
>>supported speed/configuration - and then it either works or doesn't.
>>If both ends of the segment report giga capability, they ONLY attempt
>>connection at giga speeds and can NOT down-switch to 100, unlike the
>>somewhat problematic earlier 10/100 protocol that COULD (sometimes, if
>>the stars were properly aligned) switch two 100Mbs devices ro 10Mbs if
>>the cabling could not support 10Mbs without errors.
>>
>>I MAY be wrong, but that is my understanding, and how it was described
>>to me back when gigabit ethernet came on the scene way back about
>>1998?
>
>There does seem to be some confusion on this point. Initial
>autonegotiation is supposed to be per Clause 28, which, among other
>things, specifies (28.1.4.3) "Provision has been made within
>Auto-Negotiation to limit the resulting link configuration in
>situations where the cabling may not support the highest common
>capability of the two end points.".
>
>Once Clause 28 autonegotiation has determined that all the pieces are
>in place to run gigabit, then Clause 40 takes over and works out the
>details of the gigabit connection.
>
>By the way, don't know if you're aware of it but 802.3 is a free
>download from IEEE after you tell them your life story.
>
>I'm not going to try to dig out all the details--802.3 is over 4000
>pages and Clause 28 alone is more than 50 pages.
I know it is VERY complex, and not all equipment 100% implements the
entire specification. What doesn't appear to be clear is what happens
after Clause 40 does it's negotiation and conditiopns change?
I was told the protocol doesn't change - it just resends lost
packets and retries untill it succedes - which slows the effective
speed, without actually changing the connection protocol.
>
>>The base link code word (from WIKI)
>>
>>Every fast link pulse burst transmits a word of 16 bits known as a
>>link code word. The first such word is known as a base link code word,
>>and its bits are used as follows:
>>04: selector field: it indicates which standard is used between IEEE
>>802.3 and IEEE 802.9;
>>512: technology ability field: this is a sequence of bits that encode
>>the possible modes of operations among the 100BASE-T and 10BASE-T
>>modes;
>>13: remote fault: this is set to one when the device is detecting a
>>link failure;
>>14: acknowledgement: the device sets this to one to indicate the
>>correct reception of the base link code word from the other party;
>>this is detected by the reception of at least three identical base
>>code words;
>>15: next page: this bit is used to indicate the intention of sending
>>other link code words after the base link code word;
>>
>>The technology ability field is composed of eight bits. For IEEE
>>802.3, these are as follows:
>>bit 0: device supports 10BASE-T
>>bit 1: device supports 10BASE-T in full duplex
>>bit 2: device supports 100BASE-TX
>>bit 3: device supports 100BASE-TX in full duplex
>>bit 4: device supports 100BASE-T4
>>bit 5: pause
>>bit 6: asymmetric pause for full duplex
>>bit 7: reserved
>>
>>The acknowledgement bit is used to signal the correct reception of the
>>base code word. This corresponds to having received three identical
>>copies of the base code word. Upon receiving these three identical
>>copies, the device sends a link code word with the acknowledge bit set
>>to one from six times to eight times.
>>
>>The link code words are also called pages. The base link code word is
>>therefore called a base page. The next page bit of the base page is 1
>>when the device intends to send other pages, which can be used to
>>communicate other abilities. These additional pages are sent only if
>>both devices have sent base pages with a next page bit set to 1. The
>>additional pages are still encoded as link code words (using 17 clock
>>pulses and up to 16 bit pulses
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:11:04 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:11:21 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:41:57 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 11:03 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>>> I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>>> been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I may end up running a metal conduit along side to get the
>>>>shielding for whatever data wire I run out there.
>>>>When I was in TCOM, we microwaved everything, so maybe I'll just do
>>>>that. :-)
>>>
>>>There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>
>>Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>in the microwave range.
>>
>
>Where is the warning for radiation?
>Microwaves travel by line of sight.
>
>See how ridiculous this is all getting?
>
>>>We
>>>have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>miles.
>>>
>>>A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>little to no problems.
>>
>>Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>a very large property.
>>
>
>You are full of crap.
>https://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-Repeater-Amplifier-Ethernet-TPE-E100/dp/B00SDFF6S0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1528009041&sr=8-3&keywords=ethernet+signal+booster
>One of many Price has dropped dramatically. From years ago.
Basically a 2 port switch
>
>Can't extend it Eh?
>
>https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-DS108-Port-Mbps-Speed/dp/B00000J4L5
Technically a switch, not a hub
>
>100Mbps hub also useful as a type 2 repeater.
>
>This is all small business/HO type equipment. Also available in the
>High end systems.
>
>Sorry you are having such a problems with this but when I hit the
>switch for my computer tonight this subject with you is over. ;)
>
>>>I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:09:16 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:35:08 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:19:47 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:09:48 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:37:45 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>The important issue is what code says and I believe that code says
>>>>>that data cable must be in a separate conduit from power cable.
>>>>>
>>>>>The crosstalk issue, while real, is much overblown--AC is 60Hz,
>>>>>Ethernet today is 100-250 Mhz. Any 250 Mhz transcierver that can't
>>>>>reject 60Hz is crap. The overvoltage issue is also overblown with
>>>>>Ethernet--modern Ethernet is transformer-coupled and in any case the
>>>>>actual risk if you blow both ends is under a hundred bucks worth of
>>>>>hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you ever seen someone zapped with high voltage when they touched
>>>>their computer case? Yes, I know the in most cases the NIC will act as
>>>>a fuse, but not always.
>>>
>>>If the NIC acts as a fuse, the NIC was a piece of shit to begin with.
>>>What part of "transformer coupled" are you having trouble with? Unless
>>>someone has screwed up there is NO contact between a twisted pair
>>>Ethernet cable and any part of the computer case, directly or
>>>indirectly.
>>>
>>
>>It is not designed to act as one, it is just that there is a certain
>>chip in their that has a high failure rate and has actually save many
>>computers as a result.
>
>Which chip in a modern twisted pair network interface would that be?
>
I don't remember, but if someone posted it I would recall. The same
circuit is designed into the one chip NIC's as well.
>>Pulling wires often scuffs insulation with resulting voltage bleed or
>>high capacitance charge. Don't believe me, then run a megohm test on
>>the wire to the conduit or attached motors. I have seen more than one
>>erratic operating piece of equipment that was due to this and it
>>affect all electronics associated with it.
>
>So?
>
>>I have also felt capacitance grounding by touching a computer and
>>another metal electric device that had a proper ground and not just
>>some two wire plug.
>
>Perhaps you have, but it did not come through a twiste pair Ethernet
>cable.
>
Prove it.
>>>Getting zapped by a floating ground with Token Ring or Arcnet or
>>>coaxial Ethernet are more likely occurrances--all of those use
>>>shielded cable with the shields grounded to the chassis. But those
>>>have all been dead for a couple of decades now.
>>>
>>
>>That is true as well.
>>
>>>>>It was more of an issue with phones--nobody wanted to answer the phone
>>>>>and get a load of high voltage for his trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>>The big issue though is that somewhere down the road some moron is
>>>>>going to assume that there is only data cable in the conduit, run a
>>>>>fish tape down it with the power on, zap himself, and possibly burn
>>>>>down the building.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the early 1980s the Hamilton-Standard factory in Windsor Locks CT
>>>>>(roughly a million square feet, roughly 10,000 employees) was shut
>>>>>down for a day because somebody tried to pull a phone line through a
>>>>>power conduit. He got himself electrocuted (he survived mostly due to
>>>>>the fast action of one of the engineers) and set the building on fire.
>>>>>Part of the factory was shut down for a week due to no power while the
>>>>>conduit was replaced and the wiring pulled and tested, this time sans
>>>>>data cables.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the big reason to keep them isolated.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is the biggest reason, but when you get network speeds running
>>>>really slow because of the crap interference, and this being a daily
>>>>issue it is quite costly.
>>>
>>>Quite costly to some guy running cable from his house to his garage?
>>>OK, tell us exactly how much it costs him, in dollars, to be getting
>>>500 Mb/sec instead 1000 Mb/sec.
>>
>>What if he only got 2Mbps? WIFI can eliminate all that, and be less
>>expensive as well.
>
>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>
Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
stretch the wire messing things up.
Anyhow, I have had enough or your extreme wisdom and knowledge for
tonight, and you had better tell Amazon to stop selling what isn't
made.
>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>wire.
>
>>>>I've seen T1 data lines running at 2mbits because of it, and a db
>>>>backup that would take multiple hours as opposed to minutes because of
>>>>it, add that to normal network traffic and it is ridiculous.
>>>
>>>You just blew your cred. T1 is rated for 1.544 Mb/sec. If you were
>>>getting 2 then it was exceeding its rated performance and you have
>>>nothing to complain about.
>>>
>>
>>It was actually a T3 for that case. You are right, and I have also
>>been retired more than long enough to forget all the figures on a
>>moments notice. I'm currently only concerned about what goes on here
>>at home.
>>
>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>
>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>
>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>
>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>
>What would justify the expense?
>
>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
>
>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>
>>>>In one job I did a log of the bit rates over a period of time to show
>>>>consistency of the loads and loss of data speed verses what a properly
>>>>installed data line would do, and they ended up not only paying the
>>>>money to replace the entire line but upgraded the speed so that there
>>>>was no negative impact whatever was happening.
>>>
>>>That's nice. What does it have to do with some guy running a wire
>>>from his house to his garage?
>>>
>>
>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>first place.
>
>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>things.
>
>>>>In that case they thought they could not afford the cost of
>>>>replacement, and over a period of years they just got used to it and
>>>>considered in "normal" for that site. So I basically invested my own
>>>>time to do this and show them what their real costs were. After that
>>>>their eyes were opened and they started looking at all their remote
>>>>sites to see if they were getting what they were paying for.
>>>>
>>>>I got nothing out of it, but thanks from the employee's that were
>>>>effected. That was good enough for me.
>>>
>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>carrying gigabit?
>>
>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
>
>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>
>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>
>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>work Excel.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
together . . .
I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
other than sane and straightforward.
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>SNIPP
>>
>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>
>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>wire.
>
>8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
Yep.
https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideband-gigabit-ethernet-over-barbed-wire-catches-fancy-of-national-magazine/
IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.
>It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
>Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
>successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
>likely even less than 10BT speeds.
I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.
Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).
Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.
It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
typically happen in somebody's house.
>SNIPP
>>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>>
>
>I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
>still make someone a DANDY network
>
> About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
>CISCO.
The devil in me wants to say "good decision".
>>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>>
>>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>
>
> Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
>most internets)
A couple of years ago I'd agree, but at this point any computer you
buy has gigabit and the local Best Buy doesn't even have any switches
that don't support gigabit--the cheapest is a 5 port for 30 bucks.
>>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>>
>>What would justify the expense?
>
> The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
>and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
>of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
>play - - - -
Yep.
>>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
>
>And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
>I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
>maintaining currency with their new product.
>>
>>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>
> I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
>to date with current technology.
I'm not retired but I've been away from the networking world for a
long time, still, knowing what a CAT6 cable actually looks like when
you cut it open is pretty basic. Where I get lost these days is with
all the wifi variants and the 10gig stuff.
>I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
>ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
>consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
>replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
>firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
>insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
>out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
>of network switches, routers, servers etc
>
>The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
>offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
>all less than 5 years old
>>
> SNIPP
>>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>>first place.
>>
>>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>>things.
>>
>Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
>installs.
Precisely my point. For this situation I would either use wifi to
begin with or run a direct-burial cable (note that in my location the
town will be on you if you run an overhead cable).
>SNIPP
>>>>
>>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>>carrying gigabit?
>>>
>>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
>
>Apples - oranges - Turnips.
Yep. Spreading FUD. "You're gonna get electrocuted because you ran a
CAT6 cable to the garage". So why don't you get electrocuted when you
plug in the hedge trimmer to the outlet in that same garage?
>>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>>
>>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>>
>>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>>work Excel.
>
>About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
>involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
>the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
>a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
>functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.
It's hard to keep up with all of it. The sad thing is that the kids
running it today seem to be lost. I suspect that there's going to
come a time when I bring my cable analyzer to work and show the IT
people what's wrong with their damned network.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:50:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:19:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:42:50 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I have no trouble running 4K TV over the built-in wifi in my TV. What
>>leads you to believe that is has some enormous bandwidth demand?
>>
>
>On cable networks they do not have 4K options in most any area. Our
>local Cable does not have 4K video anything, any channel, local or
>remote and has no current plans to do so. And Fibre Optics is not yet
>avail to residences here.
Up here Bell ofers "Fibe Internet" - touting it as a fiber optics
network - but the fiber ends almost a half mile away and the copper
from there to here is so bad they could not give me a clean phoine
line 5 years ago - and they have no replaced any copper in the
intervening years.
I have my internet on Cable and it's on;y been down (that I caught
it) about 3 times in the last 2 years - for up to about 3 hours but
usually only for a few minutes.
100mb down, 10+mb up with 15ms latency
I get 12.3Mbps on my phone over wifi
>
SNIPP
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>SNIPP
>>
>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>
>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>wire.
>
>8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
>It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
>Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
>successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
>likely even less than 10BT speeds.
>>
>SNIPP
>>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>>
>
>I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
>still make someone a DANDY network
>
> About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
>CISCO.
>>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>>
>>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>
>
> Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
>most internets)
>>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>>
>>What would justify the expense?
>
> The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
>and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
>of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
>play - - - -
>>
>>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
>
>And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
>I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
>maintaining currency with their new product.
>>
>>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>
> I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
>to date with current technology. I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
>ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
>consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
>replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
>firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
>insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
>out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
>of network switches, routers, servers etc
>
>The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
>offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
>all less than 5 years old
>>
> SNIPP
>>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>>first place.
>>
>>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>>things.
>>
>Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
>installs.
>
>SNIPP
>>>>
>>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>>carrying gigabit?
>>>
>>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
>
>Apples - oranges - Turnips.
>>
>>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>>
>>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>>
>>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>>work Excel.
>
>About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
>involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
>the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
>a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
>functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.
Reading your post brought back a lot of memories, especially about a
fast changing world.
I remember designing and building an HO POP in a wall cabinet. Thought
it was hot and would save a lot of labor and stuff strewn all about.
Six months later it was made so obsolete it was embarrassing.
I'm debating just trashing what I have here, don't even know what EBay
is doing these days on the stuff, or if 3rd world countries are still
behind the scenes and it might be useful there.
As to keeping up with the Licensing, unless you worked for a company
that supported your training/updating it could be rough.
One of the things I liked to do was setup flawed routers and managed
switches at home to help others with diagnosing and working out
problems. At the time I usually had a prize for those that made it all
the way though, that they could download once all the connections were
made. That was fun at the time.
Times have sure changed.
I now prefer woodworking and a garden with edibles, even cooking. :)
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 15:11:44 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> 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
Nowadays it is far wiser to Wifi to the garage.
grounding issues are always a problem, and I am speaking about the
earth ground differences. It can create a capacitance that will blow
out a NIC and sometimes the whole computing device electronics.
Even on high rise bldgs over a large footprint the grounding may be
different from one side of the bldg to the other and so you cannot
directly link devices for that reason. I have seen serious signal
degradation even on a 60 ft underground run that really slowed down
communications. Enclosed in water tight conduit and verified it was
dry and no shorts due to scuffing when the cable was pulled.
Just a thought.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:11:04 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:11:21 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:41:57 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 11:03 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>>> I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>>> been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I may end up running a metal conduit along side to get the
>>>>shielding for whatever data wire I run out there.
>>>>When I was in TCOM, we microwaved everything, so maybe I'll just do
>>>>that. :-)
>>>
>>>There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>
>>Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>in the microwave range.
>>
>
>Where is the warning for radiation?
The same place it is on your cell phone, another microwave device.
>Microwaves travel by line of sight.
And you think that wifi works over the horizon? Or perhaps you think
that "line of sight" means something other than what it actually
means.
>See how ridiculous this is all getting?
Yeah, the truth always seems ridiculous to crackpots.
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety#Q1
defines microwaves as being RF emissions from roughly 1 GHz to 30 GHz.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/license-exempt-wireless-applications-public-safety
states that 802.11n uses 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz.
If you think that that is "ridiculous" you might want to show the FCC
their error. I am sure that they will be delighted to recieve your
wisdom.
>
>>>We
>>>have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>miles.
>>>
>>>A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>little to no problems.
>>
>>Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>a very large property.
>>
>
>You are full of crap.
>https://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-Repeater-Amplifier-Ethernet-TPE-E100/dp/B00SDFF6S0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1528009041&sr=8-3&keywords=ethernet+signal+booster
>One of many Price has dropped dramatically. From years ago.
Geezus, you don't even know what the Hell you're looking at. That is
a POWER OVER ETHERNET extender. What it _amplifies_ is the _power_.
The Ethernet signal is transferred by a switch. If you don't know
what a "switch" is in this context you really should learn before
making more of a fool of yourself. That device has an internal 2 port
switch.
>Can't extend it Eh?
>
>https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-DS108-Port-Mbps-Speed/dp/B00000J4L5
>
>100Mbps hub also useful as a type 2 repeater.
A long obsolete device. But you are correct, I had forgotten that
100baseT could be extended to 200 meters with a hub. You can't get to
300 with that device though.
>This is all small business/HO type equipment. Also available in the
>High end systems.
>
>Sorry you are having such a problems with this but when I hit the
>switch for my computer tonight this subject with you is over. ;)
Right, sure it is.
People, don't trust this bozo. He talks a fancy game but he's stuck
in the '60s.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
SNIPP
>
>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>
>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>wire.
8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
likely even less than 10BT speeds.
>
SNIPP
>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>
I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
still make someone a DANDY network
About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
CISCO.
>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>
>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>
Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
most internets)
>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>
>What would justify the expense?
The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
play - - - -
>
>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
maintaining currency with their new product.
>
>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
to date with current technology. I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
of network switches, routers, servers etc
The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
all less than 5 years old
>
SNIPP
>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>first place.
>
>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>things.
>
Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
installs.
SNIPP
>>>
>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>carrying gigabit?
>>
>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
Apples - oranges - Turnips.
>
>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>
>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>
>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>work Excel.
About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.
On 6/1/2018 4:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>
> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>
> Weird.
>
>
Could it have been the conduit for an electric wire to some sort of
light at the end of your driveway
Have you tried to find the point that it enters hits the foundation of
the house? If you have a basement you may be able to find where it
comes through the basement wall.
In one house we had, there was an electrical line that came out of the
vent in the foundation of the house and disappeared under the ground. I
know they had a water feature in the front yard and assumed it was for
the pump.
--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre
On 6/1/18 3:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>
> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>
> Weird.
>
I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
it. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:27:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Reading your post brought back a lot of memories, especially about a
>fast changing world.
>
>I remember designing and building an HO POP in a wall cabinet. Thought
>it was hot and would save a lot of labor and stuff strewn all about.
>
>Six months later it was made so obsolete it was embarrassing.
>
>I'm debating just trashing what I have here, don't even know what EBay
>is doing these days on the stuff, or if 3rd world countries are still
>behind the scenes and it might be useful there.
>
>As to keeping up with the Licensing, unless you worked for a company
>that supported your training/updating it could be rough.
>
>One of the things I liked to do was setup flawed routers and managed
>switches at home to help others with diagnosing and working out
>problems. At the time I usually had a prize for those that made it all
>the way though, that they could download once all the connections were
>made. That was fun at the time.
>
>Times have sure changed.
>
>I now prefer woodworking and a garden with edibles, even cooking. :)
I worked in Education for a few years. The first half of my working
life was spent in the automotive repair trade - and I taught it both
at the secondary and posts secondary (trade) level as well as training
apprentices in the shop.
Teaching guys how to logically troubleshoot a system was always a
challenge.
When I shifted to the IT world the troubleshooting didn't get much
easier!!!!!
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:04:49 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 shitting 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.
Or they want control of the market, like Google (Android) and Apple
(iOS).
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
SNIPP
>>Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
>>them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
>>stretch the wire messing things up.
>
>So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
>cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
>mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
>or you're just spreading FUD.
If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
NOT autonegotiate down.
I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)
A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
same.
It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
SNIPPPPP
When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
nineties"
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:12:04 -0600, Idlehands
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>>
>>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>>> in the microwave range.
>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>>> miles.
>>>>>
>>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>>> little to no problems.
>>>>
>>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>>> a very large property.
>>>>
>>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>>
>>> There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>>> long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>>
>>> http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>>
>>> https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>>
>> That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
>> extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
>> take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
>> packets out.
>>
>
>Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
>the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.
Please tell us what you believe "switch" to mean.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
>fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
>you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
>and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
>dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
>together . . .
>
>I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
>other than sane and straightforward.
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>SNIPP
>>>
>>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>>
>>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>>wire.
>>
>>8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
>
>Yep.
>
>https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideband-gigabit-ethernet-over-barbed-wire-catches-fancy-of-national-magazine/
>
>IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
>similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.
That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!
>
>>It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
>>Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
>>successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
>>likely even less than 10BT speeds.
>
>I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.
>
>Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
>over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
>mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
>like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).
>
>Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
>gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
>and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
>was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.
>
>It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
>being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
>compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
>right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
>piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
>typically happen in somebody's house.
>
You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
challenges.
The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.
There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!
>>SNIPP
>>>>I also still have a few routers, switches and stuff, Cisco commercial
>>>>products, wanna buy them and get them off my hands?
>>>
>>
>>I've got gigabit stuff that's technically obsolete too - but would
>>still make someone a DANDY network
>>
>> About $20,000 worth, at the very minimum when new - and it is NOT
>>CISCO.
>
>The devil in me wants to say "good decision".
>
>>>I suspect that they are well and truly obsolete.
>>>
>>>>>In any case, nobody is going to be running a T1 from their house to
>>>>>their garage on a CAT6 cable. What's going to be running on it, in
>>>>>2018, is gigabit Ethernet.
>>>>>
>>
>> Or even. more commonly, a 100Mb connection (still WAY faster than
>>most internets)
>
>A couple of years ago I'd agree, but at this point any computer you
>buy has gigabit and the local Best Buy doesn't even have any switches
>that don't support gigabit--the cheapest is a 5 port for 30 bucks.
>
>>>>Of course not, the switchgear costs alone would be prohibitive, plus
>>>>the cabling. But he could run fiber optics and never have any of the
>>>>problems associated with hard wire systems.
>>>
>>>What would justify the expense?
>>
>> The only thing that would justify fiber to the shop is EMI issues -
>>and they would have to be BAD - unless you just happen to have a bunch
>>of fiber net equipment gathering dust in the "sandbox" and you want to
>>play - - - -
>
>Yep.
>
>>>>If my creds are so important to you then you can call Cisco and see
>>>>what all I was certified for at the time. I am not keeping my certs
>>>>updated because I am retired. Get it?
>>
>>And the equipment is leaving you WAY behind as well.
>>I never got CISCO certified because you could go broke just
>>maintaining currency with their new product.
>>>
>>>I did not say "creds", I said "cred". You're topping it the expert
>>>here when it's clear that you are far from up to date.
>>
>> I'm basically "retired" for a year and I know I'm already far from up
>>to date with current technology.
>
>I'm not retired but I've been away from the networking world for a
>long time, still, knowing what a CAT6 cable actually looks like when
>you cut it open is pretty basic. Where I get lost these days is with
>all the wifi variants and the 10gig stuff.
>
>>I gave up trying to keep up 5 years
>>ago when I offloaded the network management to a third party
>>consultant - who also prooved to be less than current and has now been
>>replaced by a larger and more proficient network consulting/management
>>firm. I wouldn't know where to start with the current setup in the new
>>insurance office facility. It's all enterprise grade stuff surplussed
>>out from Blackberry's downsizing - well over 1/4 million dollars worth
>>of network switches, routers, servers etc
>>
>>The "obsolete" gear I have sitting here is what came out of the 2
>>offices when they moved in together in the new facility - virtually
>>all less than 5 years old
>>>
>> SNIPP
>>>>Explaining or rationalizing why it is important to do it right in the
>>>>first place.
>>>
>>>What is "right" and what is adequate to the task are two different
>>>things.
>>>
>>Overkill in IT installations is RAMPANT - particularly for home
>>installs.
>
>Precisely my point. For this situation I would either use wifi to
>begin with or run a direct-burial cable (note that in my location the
>town will be on you if you run an overhead cable).
>
>>SNIPP
>>>>>
>>>>>Well that's all well and good. So how much measured degradtation have
>>>>>you experiences in wires run from people's houses to people's garages
>>>>>carrying gigabit?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't do houses expect for friends. But the ground field for the
>>>>bldg is a big issue in such cases which I addressed in another post.
>>
>>Apples - oranges - Turnips.
>
>Yep. Spreading FUD. "You're gonna get electrocuted because you ran a
>CAT6 cable to the garage". So why don't you get electrocuted when you
>plug in the hedge trimmer to the outlet in that same garage?
>
>>>Yeah, you addressed it but didn't give any reason to believe that you
>>>are familiar with transformer-coupled network interfaces which are
>>>standard with modern Ethernet but apparently didn't exist the last
>>>time you dealt with Ethernet.
>>>
>>>>If I gave you my full resume from all the years I've worked you would
>>>>probably call me a liar too. Oh well. what's a guy to do?
>>>
>>>I don't care about your damned resume. You remind me of the mainframe
>>>types who have been in IT for 50 years but can't figure out how to
>>>work Excel.
>>
>>About 27 years and I'm already a dynasaur - and I've never been
>>involved with anything outside the IBM compatible PC world, except for
>>the old 6809 Tandy world. (a bit of Banyan Vines, a bit of Unix Xenix,
>>a bit of Nohell, a touch of OS9 on the 6809 Trash80) - but
>>functionally illiterate outside the MS DOS / Windows world.
>
>It's hard to keep up with all of it. The sad thing is that the kids
>running it today seem to be lost. I suspect that there's going to
>come a time when I bring my cable analyzer to work and show the IT
>people what's wrong with their damned network.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:12:04 -0600, Idlehands
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>>
>>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>>> in the microwave range.
>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>>> miles.
>>>>>
>>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>>> little to no problems.
>>>>
>>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>>> a very large property.
>>>>
>>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>>
>>> There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>>> long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>>
>>> http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>>
>>> https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>>
>> That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
>> extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
>> take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
>> packets out.
>>
>
>Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
>the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.
Do you even know what an ethernet switch is?????
Clue - itis not used to turn it on or off.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 14:23:14 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:44:49 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:04:58 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:25:03 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:38:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>>>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>>>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
>>>>>to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
>>>>>arcover in the isolation transformers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
>>>>>audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
>>>>>_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't as cut n dry as you might think. Run a scope on the signal
>>>>look for the interference. If what you said were true you wouldn't
>>>>need a certain amount twists per a foot of Wire.
>>>
>>>Twisted pair ethernet is unidirectional on a given pair. Gigabit uses
>>>four pairs, two carrying signal one way and two carrying it the other
>>>way. It's crosstalk on those pairs that is the major driver in the
>>>spec.
>>
>>Why the shielding?
>Sheilding handles the differential mode, while the twist handles the
>common mode
With high bandwidth applications on the rise and network systems
venturing into new areas such as factory environments, the need for
shielded Cat 6 cable has also increased. In these new areas of
installation, the environment in which the network cable is run has a
large amount of EMI (Electro-Magnetic Interference). Although Cat 6
cables have improved cable twist to handle gigabit Ethernet and reject
noise, this by itself is not enough for environments that have high
EMI. Using a shielded Cat 6 cable will help in these high EMI
installations.
Which I had mentioned earlier is one of the reasons for separating
main power lines from network cabling.
But enough of this, I am here for the word working, not the trap of
arguments. I am not pointing this at you either.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
On 6/1/2018 5:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 6/1/18 3:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
>> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>>
>> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>>
>> Weird.
>>
>
> I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
> straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
>
> Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
> I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
> past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
> wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
> it.  :-)
>
>
See; I told you that it had an electrical cable;-)
--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre
On 6/1/2018 4:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>
> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>
> Weird.
Other than the "pneumatic male coupler" I'd guess it was put there in
case they wanted to run electric or water under the patio. Also, are
your sure it's a Pneumatic coupler and not a high pressure hose or
water quick connector? They look almost the same but are not.
Regardless, it would appear to me whatever it's purpose it was not used
so most likely put in "just in case".
--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com
On 6/1/2018 5:27 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> In one house we had, there was an electrical line that came out of the
> vent in the foundation of the house and disappeared under the ground. I
> know they had a water feature in the front yard and assumed it was for
> the pump.
Last summer I dug up a clogged gutter drain pipe 50' from my house.
When I pulled out the pipe, there was a 14 gauge electric wire crossing
under the pipe. Luckily I missed chopping up the wire by about an inch.
No idea what it was for, probably an old, long gone driveway lamp. Later
digging next to the house, I found a line coming out of the house about
a foot under ground going who knows where, but I think it is still live.
--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com
On 6/2/18 7:51 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 6/1/2018 4:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
>> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>>
>> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>>
>> Weird.
>
> Other than the "pneumatic male coupler"Â I'd guess it was put there in
> case they wanted to run electric or water under the patio. Also, are
> your sure it's a Pneumatic coupler and not a high pressure hose or
> water quick connector? They look almost the same but are not.
> Regardless, it would appear to me whatever it's purpose it was not used
> so most likely put in "just in case".
>
I agree.
My guess was some sort of handheld watering system, but 1.5" sche40 is
not the way to go for that.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 6/1/18 4:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 6/1/18 3:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
>> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>>
>> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>>
>> Weird.
>>
>
> I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
> straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
>
> Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
> I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
> past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
> wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
> it.  :-)
>
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.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:14:30 -0600, Idlehands
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2018-06-03 10:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:09:54 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>>>> in the microwave range.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>>>> miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>>>> little to no problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>>>> a very large property.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>>>> long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>>>
>>>> https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>>>
>>> That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
>>> extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
>>> take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
>>> packets out.
>>
>> Looking further, some of them package the Ethernet packets in some
>> other signalling to get extended range, and if you look at the specs,
>> they kill the crap out of performance.
>>
>> I didn't say that it wasn't possible to make some kind of device that
>> is not an Ethernet device that can transport Ethernet packets. If you
>> are willing to accept latency and low bandwidth you can carry Ethernet
>> packets on a piece of paper in your pocket. But doing so is not
>> compliant with any of the Ethernet standards so it is not Ethernet.
>>
>> Further, ALL of the things you point to create a new segment.
>>
>> You really should learn how things work before you start trying to
>> prove that somebody is wrong.
>>
>>
>
>Capable of sending real time HD video at 30fps without latency, I do
>know how things work and use them on a daily basis.
>
>You should learn new technology before making your grand generalizations
>about how things are.
What point do you believe you are making?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:10:44 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:12:04 -0600, Idlehands
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>>>> in the microwave range.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>>>> miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>>>> little to no problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>>>> a very large property.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>>>> long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>>>
>>>> https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>>>
>>> That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
>>> extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
>>> take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
>>> packets out.
>>>
>>
>>Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
>>the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.
>
>Please tell us what you believe "switch" to mean.
He doesn't have a clue - - -
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:55:16 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Well Mr. Bright boy
No worries Mr. Clarke is secure in his beliefs, despite evidence in
many a "conversations" I have read here.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:55:16 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 04:14:30 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Geezus, you don't even know what the Hell you're looking at. That is
>>a POWER OVER ETHERNET extender. What it _amplifies_ is the _power_.
>>The Ethernet signal is transferred by a switch. If you don't know
>>what a "switch" is in this context you really should learn before
>>making more of a fool of yourself. That device has an internal 2 port
>>switch.
>
>Well Mr. Bright boy, when the power dies, the signal dies with it one
>wired systems.
Is it your belief that the normal configuration of twisted pair
Ethernet involves powering network devices over Ethernet?
>All wire is is an elongated resistor that carries power. Try running
>super long extension cords and watch the voltage drop.
>
>One can only have so many repeaters in line, know why?
>Those all tell you your signal now can reach 600 hundred feet. Twice
>what you said was possible.
>
>And you have a whole lot of learning to do regarding microwave's and I
>am not about to waste further time with you on this.
Yeah, the FCC and I are idiots and you're the genius.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:54:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:04:49 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
--
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 shitting 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. :)
>Or they want control of the market, like Google (Android) and Apple
>(iOS).
--
If you only knew what unrestrained programmers do either through
ingenuity, or laziness. When Windows NT became dominant a lot of
programs crashed because they wrote directly to the hardware, like
controlling the video card, etc. OR direct read write to the Hard
disk. I had done it myself because normal dos systems were too slow.
The windows put the lid on that with their hardware application layer
that prevented things like that, and many times if would cause a BSOD.
Apple got smart and limited programmers, and perhaps Google is now as
well. It is for good reason, I don't begrudge them one bit, I was
always basically anti Apple but they did get their stuff together, and
I now use their phones and tablets and I don't look back.
Linux is learning the hard way that a certain amount of regulation is
necessary. So I wouldn't begrudge any of them too quickly.
How about us dropping all this for the stuff we have in common, like
wood working?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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!
On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> 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.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:27:37 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:40:24 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:04:11 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 16:56:57 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Clare--I want to make something clear. I am having a problem with the
>>>fellow who is asserting that if you run a CAT6 cable to your garage
>>>you end up with fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers
>>>and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the
>>>dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living
>>>together . . .
>>>
>>>I have never known _you_ to give advice regarding network that was
>>>other than sane and straightforward.
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:48:26 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>SNIPP
>>>>>
>>>>>If he only got 2 Mb/sec out of modern Ethernet he's got a computer in
>>>>>the middle there purposely designed to be a throttle.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gigabit is just not that fragile. It has been shown to run on barbed
>>>>>wire.
>>>>
>>>>8 strands of barbed wire I assume?????
>>>
>>>Yep.
>>>
>>>https://www.wband.com/2002/05/wideband-gigabit-ethernet-over-barbed-wire-catches-fancy-of-national-magazine/
>>>
>>>IIRC Broadcomm was demonstrating their interface chips--they did a
>>>similar one with 100baseT a few years earlier.
>>
>> That was specific to WideBand Corps implementation of 1000Bt
>>networking. Not everyone's implementation was as robust!!!
>>>
>>>>It will NOT downgrade it's speed as required to maintain connectivity.
>>>>Instead it will fail and retry, and fail again, untill it manages to
>>>>successfully pass the packet. This will NOT result in gagabit speeds -
>>>>likely even less than 10BT speeds.
>>>
>>>I was having trouble with the computer I am using right now.
>>>
>>>Periodically Internet access would slow to a crawl. Speed was all
>>>over the map. The network connection would drop from gigabit to 100
>>>mbit. Speedtest would show speeds as low as 5 Mb/sec but usually more
>>>like 50 and sometimes back up to 300 (limit here is my ISP).
>>>
>>>Finally tracked down the problem. There was a patch cable that had
>>>gotten walked on, had furniture run over it, been gnawed by rodents,
>>>and was in a few spots there was bare wire poking out,. Sometimes it
>>>was _still_ carrying 300+ Mb/sec.
>>>
>>>It's not as fragile as people think it is, at least not when it's
>>>being run in a typical residential environment where runs are,
>>>compared to what the spec allows, quite short. If you're working
>>>right at the limit of what it can do, where signal attenuation is
>>>piled on top of everything else it's another story, but that doesn't
>>>typically happen in somebody's house.
>>>
>>You want to try in a 300 ft long building with various itterations of
>>cat5/cat5e cabling running both bundled and helter-skelter, some in
>>troughs, some not - running both over and beside flourescent lamp
>>troughs, down walls behind service panels, under floors, over
>>suspended ceilings, with "noisy" led lighting, you name it - with
>>servers and switches in 2 different areas of the building, with 2
>>separate networks interlinked (one data, one voip) and other
>>challenges.
>>The voip was POE 10/100 - the data mostly 1000BT.
>>
>>There is a reason IT techs like myself keep our hair cut short!!!!
>
>The thing is though, that's not the situation we're discussing, we're
>discussing running a line from somebody's house to somebody's garage.
>Unless it's the Gates Mansion or Mar A Lago or some such that
>shouldn't be even coming close to the span limits.
>
>Note, I work in such a building--I should send you a photo of the
>tunnel sometime. But fortunately I don't have to maintain the
>network--by some weird quirk of fate I am now a finance guy.
For the situation being discussed, an old 10B5 co-ax would likely do
the job - - - -
Regardless, for a cabled connection I WOULD bury it - but I'd be
pretty tempted to run a secured wifi if I was not doing anything
particularly sensitive (ie - no internet banking).
Early in my carreer I had a contract with a software developer locally
with 2 buildings connected by an IR link - back in the co-ax days.
What a total pain in the ass that link was!!!! Same place that had
such a slow network it was painfull. A whole bunch of engineers and
they couldn't figure out if you only needed a 10 ft co-ax drop, a 10
foot drop was infinitely better than a 50 foot coil of co-ax bundled
behind the desk..
I must have taken close to 1000 ft of cable out of that building - and
miraculously the network kicked into over-drive!!! Didn't help the
remote link though - went down every time it rained or snowed, and in
the fall when the leaves started to blow around - - - and it was only
less than 200 feet - - -
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:45:37 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:54:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:04:49 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>--
>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:38:53 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 shitting 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).
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:19:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
HAND
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:27:26 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:10:28 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 03:36:52 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>SNIPP
>>>>Then you don't get what noisy lines are all about, and what can create
>>>>them. Interference. Also just pulling too hard on Ethernet cabling can
>>>>stretch the wire messing things up.
>>>
>>>So tells us of a documented case in which "pulling too hard on the
>>>cable" or "interference" reduced the transfer rate for 1000BaseTX to 2
>>>mb/sec. You're saying "can happen". So show us when it _did_ happen
>>>or you're just spreading FUD.
>>
>>If you pull too hard on a gigabit cable and damage the cable it will
>>NOT autonegotiate down.
>
>Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Depends on the damage. I just
>replaced a network cable that was consistently resulting in
>autonegotiation from 1 gig to 100 meg and then sometimes failing the
>100 meg. It had a lot more problems than "being pulled too hard"
>though.
>
100/10 autonegotiates. Gigabit by definition does not.
>>I have seen it slow the network down SIGNIFICANTLY due to dropped
>>packets and retries - to well below a 2mb equivalent. Any one
>>conductor suffering damage in Gb ethernet WILL slow the network down.
>>Or kill it DEAD (at least the one segment)
>
>Ok, so you have numbers to present that show this? Please show the
>actual numbers.
Gigabit uses all 8 wires in a cat5 /6/7 cable for full duplex mode
10/100 does not - so with 10-100 you COULD damage 2 pairs without
affecting the ethernet.
A bad connection in ANY pair will affect data transmission on gigabit
ethernet.
I don't have numbers - just years of experience troubleshooting
network cabling.
>
>>A kinked Cat5E cable will fail the quality test for GB ethernet.
>>Running the cables parallel to a high current AC conductor will do the
>>same.
>
>I have tried experiments in this regard and Fluke does not seem to be
>able to detect the high current conductor.
It might just be a fluke???
All I know is we had a network speed issue and it was solved when we
moved the vertical network cable run about 18 inches away from the
electrical service sub-panel instead of running them behind the panel
>
>>It won't slow down the bit-rate - but it will definitely cause
>>deterioration in the service via lost packets and retries, which
>>translates to a slower EFFECTIVE bit-rate.
>>SNIPPPPP
>
>How much slower, based on actual evidence?
Enough for the database program to fail out on data requests and
transfers. Off hand I'd say it cut the speed to about 1/10 when the AC
was on, about half speed at other times.
>
>>When talking 10BT /100BT, the troublesome auto-negotiation protocols
>>COULD downgrade a 100BT to 10BT, and often provided better throughput
>>on a reliable 10BT connection than on a flakey 100BT - but 10BT is "so
>>nineties"
>
>So you say that the autonegotiation protocols for 100baseT can reduce
>to 10 but somehow the autonegotiation protocols for gigabit can't
>reduce to 100. Why would that be?
It is my understanding autonegotiation in gigabit ethernet is based
on each device reporting (signaling) it's capability (using the base
link code word) and the devices choosing the fastest mutually
supported speed/configuration - and then it either works or doesn't.
If both ends of the segment report giga capability, they ONLY attempt
connection at giga speeds and can NOT down-switch to 100, unlike the
somewhat problematic earlier 10/100 protocol that COULD (sometimes, if
the stars were properly aligned) switch two 100Mbs devices ro 10Mbs if
the cabling could not support 10Mbs without errors.
I MAY be wrong, but that is my understanding, and how it was described
to me back when gigabit ethernet came on the scene way back about
1998?
The base link code word (from WIKI)
Every fast link pulse burst transmits a word of 16 bits known as a
link code word. The first such word is known as a base link code word,
and its bits are used as follows:
04: selector field: it indicates which standard is used between IEEE
802.3 and IEEE 802.9;
512: technology ability field: this is a sequence of bits that encode
the possible modes of operations among the 100BASE-T and 10BASE-T
modes;
13: remote fault: this is set to one when the device is detecting a
link failure;
14: acknowledgement: the device sets this to one to indicate the
correct reception of the base link code word from the other party;
this is detected by the reception of at least three identical base
code words;
15: next page: this bit is used to indicate the intention of sending
other link code words after the base link code word;
The technology ability field is composed of eight bits. For IEEE
802.3, these are as follows:
bit 0: device supports 10BASE-T
bit 1: device supports 10BASE-T in full duplex
bit 2: device supports 100BASE-TX
bit 3: device supports 100BASE-TX in full duplex
bit 4: device supports 100BASE-T4
bit 5: pause
bit 6: asymmetric pause for full duplex
bit 7: reserved
The acknowledgement bit is used to signal the correct reception of the
base code word. This corresponds to having received three identical
copies of the base code word. Upon receiving these three identical
copies, the device sends a link code word with the acknowledge bit set
to one from six times to eight times.
The link code words are also called pages. The base link code word is
therefore called a base page. The next page bit of the base page is 1
when the device intends to send other pages, which can be used to
communicate other abilities. These additional pages are sent only if
both devices have sent base pages with a next page bit set to 1. The
additional pages are still encoded as link code words (using 17 clock
pulses and up to 16 bit pulses
On 6/2/18 6:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 10:05:50 AM UTC-4, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 6/1/18 4:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 6/1/18 3:56 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> 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? First thing I thought was some sort
>>>> of hand watering quick connect. But why 1.5" sch.40?
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the inside of the pipe was bone cry and fairly clean.
>>>>
>>>> Weird.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
>>> straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
>>>
>>> Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
>>> I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
>>> past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
>>> wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
>>> it.  :-)
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Would you have to pull through the bends in one pull? Could you do it in sections before you
> glue(?) the connections? That's how I did the power and cable (TV) out to my shed.
>
> Pull it through a bend into the open air, then slip on a length of straight pipe, twist to glue,
> wash, rinse, repeat until the destination is reached.
>
That's an option, yes.
I'd rather not do that.
My friend is an electrical engineer with AEP and he's advising me on the
best way to do it. We discussed that option and for varies reasons,
decided against it.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:18:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:50:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:19:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:12:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 20:47:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/articles/print/volume-5/issue-11/crosstalk-feedback/ask-donna/combating-electromagnetic-interference.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 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 23:30:26 -0400, Clare Snyder <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:44:12 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
>>
>>More of your outdated knowledge. Collisions haven't been part of
>>Ethernet for a very long time.
>
> Can be with half duplex. That's 10-100 ( not always - but more often
>than you would think) or giga over 4 pairs.
If you're running half-duplex today there's something wrong.
> Not state of the art by any stretch, but still SURPRISINGLY common -
>- - -
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:14:32 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 21:23:39 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 6/2/18 10:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
Add 30ft. to equation and it's not fast enough anymore.
I stream video to my garage/shop and it's not fast enough over wifi from
20ft. away.
We have the fastest internet in town and the fastest/fastest router.
When I ran Ethernet from the router to the garage through a wifi
extender, all of a sudden I'm getting 400mbps when I was only getting
50-100 from the router.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 6/2/18 11:03 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>
> There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
> I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
> been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>
Well, I may end up running a metal conduit along side to get the
shielding for whatever data wire I run out there.
When I was in TCOM, we microwaved everything, so maybe I'll just do
that. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 6/3/18 12:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
> trend to wired for residential use.
>
All I know is when I ran Ethernet out to a range extender in my garage,
I no longer got any dropouts or buffering. I went from getting low
double-digit Mbps to 400+.
I also went wired on one of our TVs, which is right next to the router
and it improved its performance greatly. Of course, this could be a
limitation in the TVs wifi intake performance.
Wired devices aren't competing for channels either, right?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
www.mikedrums.com
On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>
> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
> in the microwave range.
>
>> We
>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>> miles.
>>
>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>> little to no problems.
>
> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
> a very large property.
>
>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
--
The difference between pizza and your opinion is
I asked for the pizza.
On 2018-06-03 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>
>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>> in the microwave range.
>>>
>>>> We
>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>> miles.
>>>>
>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>> little to no problems.
>>>
>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>> a very large property.
>>>
>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>
>> There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>> long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>
>> http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>
>> https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>
> That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
> extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
> take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
> packets out.
>
Data and power, no switch in the line, just the extender which powers
the POE device and sends data and are transparent to the data.
--
The difference between pizza and your opinion is
I asked for the pizza.
On 2018-06-03 10:25 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 12:09:54 -0400, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 09:35:23 -0600, Idlehands
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-06-03 12:11 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
>>>>
>>>> Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
>>>> in the microwave range.
>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>> have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>>>>> miles.
>>>>>
>>>>> A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>>>>> total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>>>>> setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>>>>> in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>>>>> little to no problems.
>>>>
>>>> Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
>>>> ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
>>>> factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
>>>> correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
>>>> 100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
>>>> and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
>>>> longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
>>>> running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
>>>> a very large property.
>>>>
>>>>> I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
>>>
>>> There are a number of extenders on the market that extend Cat6 POE over
>>> long distances and I have used a number of them successfully.
>>>
>>> http://www.veracityglobal.com/products/ethernet-and-poe-devices.aspx
>>>
>>> https://ethernetextender.com/cat6-repeater/
>>
>> That's POWER OVER ETHERNET. And those extenders use a switch to
>> extend the span of the Ethernet. They don't "boost the signal", they
>> take packets in, adjust the address for the new segment, and send
>> packets out.
>
> Looking further, some of them package the Ethernet packets in some
> other signalling to get extended range, and if you look at the specs,
> they kill the crap out of performance.
>
> I didn't say that it wasn't possible to make some kind of device that
> is not an Ethernet device that can transport Ethernet packets. If you
> are willing to accept latency and low bandwidth you can carry Ethernet
> packets on a piece of paper in your pocket. But doing so is not
> compliant with any of the Ethernet standards so it is not Ethernet.
>
> Further, ALL of the things you point to create a new segment.
>
> You really should learn how things work before you start trying to
> prove that somebody is wrong.
>
>
Capable of sending real time HD video at 30fps without latency, I do
know how things work and use them on a daily basis.
You should learn new technology before making your grand generalizations
about how things are.
--
The difference between pizza and your opinion is
I asked for the pizza.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 you run the power and other lines neatly together it is your
problem.
>>
>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>
>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:42:50 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:20:55 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>I have no trouble running 4K TV over the built-in wifi in my TV. What
>>leads you to believe that is has some enormous bandwidth demand?
>>
>
>On cable networks they do not have 4K options in most any area. Our
>local Cable does not have 4K video anything, any channel, local or
>remote and has no current plans to do so. And Fibre Optics is not yet
>avail to residences here.
Silly me. I thought you actually had some _experience_ running 4K
over a network with all your Heap Big Cisco Certified Expertise.
>On Direct TV I have two 4k Systems which is only available on 3
>channels and I cannot run more than three TV's at the same time
>without the system locking the rest out. The latest Genie is
>unreliable on 4K
That's nice. What of it?
>So while you might have a 4k TV, what makes you think you are actually
>seeing 4K videos or movies?
The fact that the TV is telling me that they are 4K.
You seem to assume that cable companies are the only sources of
content.
>>As for "possible speeds", other than bragging rights what do these
>>"possible speeds" get you?
>>
>
>Greater detail in anything you do,
How do these "possible speeds" give me more detail in Word or Excel or
Photoshop?
>less waiting time for anything.
Less than what? I don't notice any waiting time for much of anything.
>Also the ability to video conference with the entire family at once
>without stepping on each other.
If the entire family can't video conference over standard wifi then
you must have more family than a Fortune 100 financial services
company has employees, because this has not been a problem at work
where everybody conferences over wifi.
>>>Of course with the way my ears are going. :(
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
Of course with the way my ears are going. :(
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 07:02:39 -0400, [email protected] 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 Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:04:58 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:25:03 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:38:01 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>>
>>>>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>>>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>>>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>
>>>The code violation is the real issue. A 250 Mhz circuit is not going
>>>to even see 60Hz unless it's of such magnitude that it generates an
>>>arcover in the isolation transformers.
>>>
>>>Note that phone line considerations are different from data. 60Hz is
>>>audible--if you've got 60Hz interference on a phone line you can
>>>_hear_ it. A 250 MHz data line is another story.
>>
>>It isn't as cut n dry as you might think. Run a scope on the signal
>>look for the interference. If what you said were true you wouldn't
>>need a certain amount twists per a foot of Wire.
>
>Twisted pair ethernet is unidirectional on a given pair. Gigabit uses
>four pairs, two carrying signal one way and two carrying it the other
>way. It's crosstalk on those pairs that is the major driver in the
>spec.
Why the shielding?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:08:36 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>Wired is faster, but how fast do you NEED? I see no evidence of a
>trend to wired for residential use.
>
>As for ease of hacking, this is mostly FUD. Has any data breach
>causing economic harm to anyone _ever_ been traced to a wifi hack?
>
>Most data thieves don't go after Joe Homeowner or Fred's Pizza. They
>go after somebody who is likely to have enough in assets accessible by
>computer to actually be worth stealing.
You haven't a clue. You can sit in a parking lot and hack into BB or
HD or any other corp, once in you can go hard wired where you have the
speed to d/l whatever you accessed.
As to homes, you can access all their business info, CC's Bank
accounts, Photo's and video's, whatever they have.
Why do you think some people hacked the local CC readers of peoples
personal accounts like at Target, and with drew a slew of minimal
amounts from many people and had the money transferred elsewhere?
Why do people attach CC readers to gas pumps, and bank withdrawal
systems? They go where ever there is easy money and few are going to
trace down 500 or 1000 bucks here and there, they just right it off as
the cost of doing business.
If you are that naive, then you are probable vulnerable.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:50:37 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:29:06 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:02:59 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:37:33 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:41:44 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Actually you need a lot more if you are doing multiple TV's on the
>>>>Net, computers, etc.
>>>
>>>A lot more than TEN BILLION BITS PER SECOND?
>>
>>I should have typed 10Gbps. and a bit is not a byte.
>
>Nobody said it was. Show us that a lot more than that is needed in a
>home network.
>
>>>>I have High speed WIFI necessary because things
>>>>move around here a lot, plus we can use it in the back yard and
>>>>garage. With the grand kids here and online video games plus the video
>>>>interaction you need a good home backbone, and I can certainly tell
>>>>the difference between hardwired network to my HO computer verse wifi
>>>>to laptops, phones and tablets.
>>>
>>>How old is your wifi? If it's not 802.11n at least, it's time to
>>>upgrade.
>>
>>I always have the latest, and the integration is possible on mine as
>>well so I have full usability on the High and low freqs at the same
>>time for faster throughput. While the data lines are 1gig, the
>>backbone of my switch is high to all the 1 gig on more than one line
>>at a time.
>>
>>On Fiber optics 1 to 100gig is easily possible.
>>
>>Want to play Name that Tune? :)
>
>You're claiming that your one gig wifi can't handle 4K TV? You
>definitely _are_ lying about something.
I didn't say that and you did not answer by question about what makes
you think you are actually seeing 4K video?
I just opened this post to say I am heading off to bed and by computer
is being shut down, as is this thread with you. HAND
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:43:24 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:32:17 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:12:54 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:06:59 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:34:23 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:41:57 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 11:03 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>>>
>>> There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>>> I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>>> been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
>>>
>>
>>Well, I may end up running a metal conduit along side to get the
>>shielding for whatever data wire I run out there.
>>When I was in TCOM, we microwaved everything, so maybe I'll just do
>>that. :-)
>
>There is that option, as well as WIFI with the right antennae's.
Wifi _is_ microwave. It runs 2.5 or 5 GHz, both of which are solidly
in the microwave range.
>We
>have installed systems at low cost that were acceptable over several
>miles.
>
>A wired system might need a signal booster/repeater depending on the
>total conduit feet run. I'd be tempted to run an above ground test
>setup with a computer at the other end plugged into the power supply
>in that bldg and run a speed test via software and see if there are
>little to no problems.
Signal booster? Repeater? You really are out of touch. Twisted pair
ethernet is rated for 100 meters with timing being the limiting
factor. You can't extend it with a signal booster or repeater. The
correct means of extending the range is to use a switch and another
100 meter run (hubs don't exist for anything above 10baseT--100baseTX
and gigabit are always switched). If you need an uninterrupted run
longer than 100 meters you need to go to fiber for that run. However
running from a house to a garage should not be 100 meters unless it's
a very large property.
>I might have problems with being a bit overcautious here. :)
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:19:36 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:25:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:41:25 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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'.
[email protected] on Fri, 01 Jun 2018 23:01:51 -0400 typed in
rec.woodworking the following:
>On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 16:24:17 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> on Fri, 1 Jun 2018 16:39:30 -0500 typed
>>in rec.woodworking the following:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I dug it up at the foundation of the house and it has a 90° elbow coming
>>>straight up, with a dry-fit cap, just a couple inches under the soil.
>>>
>>>Mystery to me why it was put there, but here's the funny part.
>>>I need to run electric out to my Sharn and am dreading having to get it
>>>past the concrete driveway. The path of this pipe isn't the spot I
>>>wanted to go, but since it's already under the patio pad, I might use
>>>it. :-)
>>
>> Ah yes - "Before we start this project, lets take a look at what
>>we have, and we'll design it from there."
>
>Hey, that's better than "Before we figure out what we want to do,
>let's take a look at what we have.".
Done that too.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:03:30 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 19:53:25 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 6/2/18 7:37 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 16:26:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/18 10:11 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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>
>
>The twist in CAT cables knocks out a lot of noise but not all noise.
>
>There are more technical reasons as well, but I'd have to look it up,
>I just recently threw away all my books, manuals, etc. figuring I have
>been retired long enough that I'd not ever need them again. :)
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:02:59 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:37:33 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:41:44 -0400, J. Clarke
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Actually you need a lot more if you are doing multiple TV's on the
>>Net, computers, etc.
>
>A lot more than TEN BILLION BITS PER SECOND?
I should have typed 10Gbps. and a bit is not a byte.
>
>>I have High speed WIFI necessary because things
>>move around here a lot, plus we can use it in the back yard and
>>garage. With the grand kids here and online video games plus the video
>>interaction you need a good home backbone, and I can certainly tell
>>the difference between hardwired network to my HO computer verse wifi
>>to laptops, phones and tablets.
>
>How old is your wifi? If it's not 802.11n at least, it's time to
>upgrade.
I always have the latest, and the integration is possible on mine as
well so I have full usability on the High and low freqs at the same
time for faster throughput. While the data lines are 1gig, the
backbone of my switch is high to all the 1 gig on more than one line
at a time.
On Fiber optics 1 to 100gig is easily possible.
Want to play Name that Tune? :)
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:29:12 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 6/2/18 10:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. :-)
What IS driving some people back to wired connections is SECURITY.
There are facilities where NO WIRELESS connections are allowed for
just that reason.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Add 30ft. to equation and it's not fast enough anymore.
>I stream video to my garage/shop and it's not fast enough over wifi from
>20ft. away.
>We have the fastest internet in town and the fastest/fastest router.
>When I ran Ethernet from the router to the garage through a wifi
>extender, all of a sudden I'm getting 400mbps when I was only getting
>50-100 from the router.
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 00:21:00 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:50:37 -0400, J. Clarke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:29:06 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:02:59 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:37:33 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:41:44 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually you need a lot more if you are doing multiple TV's on the
>>>>>Net, computers, etc.
>>>>
>>>>A lot more than TEN BILLION BITS PER SECOND?
>>>
>>>I should have typed 10Gbps. and a bit is not a byte.
>>
>>Nobody said it was. Show us that a lot more than that is needed in a
>>home network.
>>
>>>>>I have High speed WIFI necessary because things
>>>>>move around here a lot, plus we can use it in the back yard and
>>>>>garage. With the grand kids here and online video games plus the video
>>>>>interaction you need a good home backbone, and I can certainly tell
>>>>>the difference between hardwired network to my HO computer verse wifi
>>>>>to laptops, phones and tablets.
>>>>
>>>>How old is your wifi? If it's not 802.11n at least, it's time to
>>>>upgrade.
>>>
>>>I always have the latest, and the integration is possible on mine as
>>>well so I have full usability on the High and low freqs at the same
>>>time for faster throughput. While the data lines are 1gig, the
>>>backbone of my switch is high to all the 1 gig on more than one line
>>>at a time.
>>>
>>>On Fiber optics 1 to 100gig is easily possible.
>>>
>>>Want to play Name that Tune? :)
>>
>>You're claiming that your one gig wifi can't handle 4K TV? You
>>definitely _are_ lying about something.
>
>I didn't say that and you did not answer by question about what makes
>you think you are actually seeing 4K video?
Well, let's see, the TV shows me a little icon that says that it's
showing 4K. But what does it know?
>I just opened this post to say I am heading off to bed and by computer
>is being shut down, as is this thread with you. HAND
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> 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.
Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:32:02 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:51:35 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:58:38 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:37:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 15:17:21 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 17:22:40 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 21:46:53 -0700, OFWW <[email protected]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:40:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:23:54 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 6/2/18 9:41 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2018 02:10:39 GMT, Puckdropper <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>Have you ever logged traffic on a network? Including collisions
More of your outdated knowledge. Collisions haven't been part of
Ethernet for a very long time.