Ethernet cable (Was: Sun3 valuations?)
pete at petelancashire.com
Tue Jan 23 15:42:54 CST 2018
It was back in the days when $'s were very very tight, and I did 90% 80 and
40. Loss was greater but the cost was the major point.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> I hope they all weren't on that yellow cable. @60 devices on a single
> collision domain would likely not have worked very well.
> I also can't believe you used Ethernet RG8 for ham radio. I read the
> spec and even tried some (I had reels of that stuff at one time) and
> found it way too lossy even at HF frequencies. It was very low quality
> From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Pete Lancashire
> via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 3:51 PM
> To: Noel Chiappa; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Ethernet cable (Was: Sun3 valuations?)
> A side story. I was the only 'customer' of a long run of that yellow cable,
> when we moved the 260 + 3/50's to a different location, I asked
> if they were going to reuse the cable. "Nope, cost to much to get it out of
> the roof trusses." I forget but it was a LONG run. Tektronix
> back in those days was still an engineering oriented company and all I had
> to do was mention it one day in the main cafeteria. Next
> thing I know I was followed back to the building with at least 10 engineers
> following me. I called and asked one one the facility department
> guys that knew about the cable no longer being used, and his reply was
> something like if it not there Monday I know nothing about it.
> The bottom of the trusses were a good 15 if not more feet up. Five of us
> got it down and I came home with the cable on Sunday.
> My helpers would not take anything in $'s, the challenge was good enough.
> Make a great cable for my ham radio hobby.
> Today one would never get away with such ....
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk <
> cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > > From: Paul Koning
> > > The nominal OD of RG-8/U is .. within spec for Ethernet cable.
> > Oh, OK. I was just used to the 10Mb cable we used being slightly larger
> > than
> > the 3Mb cable we used.
> > > Also, Ethernet requires a solid inner conductor (for the tap) while
> > > RG-8/U may come stranded. (Maybe only in some variants, I'm not
> > sure.)
> > As can be seen in the photos, the 3Mb stuff (at least, the stuff we used)
> > was
> > also solid. The diameter of the center was a little smaller on the 3Mb
> > than on
> > the 10Mb; .16mm versus .23mm; not sure if that was just happenstance, or
> > what.
> > Noel
More information about the cctalk