external data cable
pj
allowing internet to be shared. The route i would like to take
requires digging a trench and the total cable distance comes to about
70m inluding going around walls etc.
External grade armoured cable seems to be obscenely expensive so would
some kind of outdoor grade cable within a conduit be acceptable?
also the garage and house are on completely different electricity
mains supplies with different meters etc. Is this a problem in terms
of linking them because they have seperate grounds?
thank you for your help
Pete
Simon
news:6b802620-e904-4170...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Have you considered using Homeplug units? They work very well for me over a
distance of about 30 metres between a house and a barn, although they do
share the same meter. Using Homeplug would remove any worries over earthing
and lightning strikes.
Andrew Gabriel
pj <pe...@nemesisx.com> writes:
> I would like to link our house and garage using cat5/6 data cable
> allowing internet to be shared. The route i would like to take
> requires digging a trench and the total cable distance comes to about
> 70m inluding going around walls etc.
> External grade armoured cable seems to be obscenely expensive so would
> some kind of outdoor grade cable within a conduit be acceptable?
I would lay a duct, and then for starters just pull standard
cat5/6 cable through it. If it dies quickly, then consider
something more expensive.
> also the garage and house are on completely different electricity
> mains supplies with different meters etc. Is this a problem in terms
> of linking them because they have seperate grounds?
Only if you are passing signals between the buildings which
carry a ground. Twisted pair ethernet is completely isolated
at both ends, so that's OK. Phone cables carry a ground, but
it should never be exposed by the phone instruments.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Bob Eager
We'll have w_tom along in a minute!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
stevelup
Wouldn't wireless be a lot easier and cheaper?
An access point at each end with a couple of directional aerials. The
whole lot should come to about £120 and would take an hour to install.
dennis@home
"Simon" <dsfd...@eeee.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:48301c22$0$659$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> Using Homeplug would remove any worries over earthing
> and lightning strikes.
As in if lightning strikes the mains they blow up the same as any other kit
there at the time?
John Stumbles
You should not use copper for data links between buildings. If
you've got separate electrical supplies you may have enough
potential difference between ends to exceed the common-mode
rejection of the ethernet receivers and cause data problems.
And in the event of nearby lightning discharges you may get
enough energy picked up in the cable to damage the equipment at each end
(fried chips, ha ha: I've seen one whose black epoxy package was reduced
to white ash by a cloud-to-cloud lightning discharge overhead).
Depending on the value of the your kit at each end you might suck it and
see, but the pukka way to go is either fibre (you can get pre-terminated
lengths made up to your specified length, which you can pull through a
suitably-sized duct) or - as others have suggested - wireless. Powerline
probably won't work if house and garage are on separate supplies.
--
John Stumbles
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
David Hansen
<pe...@nemesisx.com> wrote this:-
>I would like to link our house and garage using cat5/6 data cable
>allowing internet to be shared. The route i would like to take
>requires digging a trench and the total cable distance comes to about
>70m inluding going around walls etc.
A distance of say 40m in a straight line between buildings is not
good for connecting by copper data cables, for the reasons others
have given. There are precautions which can be taken, but these add
to the cost.
If against this advice you really want to do it then I suggest
<http://www.netshop.co.uk/productcategorydetail.aspx?categoryid=51540>.
This could be buried in the ground, at a suitable depth, with
protection against rodents where it emerges from the ground.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> You should not use copper for data links between buildings. If
> you've got separate electrical supplies you may have enough
> potential difference between ends to exceed the common-mode
> rejection of the ethernet receivers and cause data problems.
Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines between
building were copper. And indeed around the country. Of course most of
these lines were fed via a balancing transformer which would provide low
voltage isolation - but certainly not from high voltage or lightening. And
I'd guess later equipment used electronic balancing.
--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Chip
<dsfd...@eeee.invalid.com> spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:
>"pj" <pe...@nemesisx.com> wrote in message
>news:6b802620-e904-4170...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> also the garage and house are on completely different electricity
>> mains supplies with different meters etc. Is this a problem in terms
>> of linking them because they have seperate grounds?
>>
[snip]
>
>Have you considered using Homeplug units? They work very well for me over a
>distance of about 30 metres between a house and a barn, although they do
>share the same meter. Using Homeplug would remove any worries over earthing
>and lightning strikes.
>
Would homeplug units not have a problem with the garage and house
being on different supplies? Or are they radio units?
--
_
( ) ASCII ribbon campaign against html e-mail
X and usenet posts
/ \
Andrew Gabriel
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> In article <AmWXj.19175$4B6....@newsfe14.ams2>,
> John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> You should not use copper for data links between buildings. If
>> you've got separate electrical supplies you may have enough
>> potential difference between ends to exceed the common-mode
>> rejection of the ethernet receivers and cause data problems.
>
> Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines between
> building were copper. And indeed around the country. Of course most of
> these lines were fed via a balancing transformer which would provide low
And [twisted pair] ethernet works exactly the same way -- there's
an isolating transformer at both ends of the cable (rated to 4kV
each IIRC).
> voltage isolation - but certainly not from high voltage or lightening.
It won't survive a direct or very close-by hit.
The cost of equipment which does would be considerably more
than the cost of replacing some ethernet cards and routers.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4fa1764...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> > In article <AmWXj.19175$4B6....@newsfe14.ams2>,
> > John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> You should not use copper for data links between buildings. If
> >> you've got separate electrical supplies you may have enough
> >> potential difference between ends to exceed the common-mode
> >> rejection of the ethernet receivers and cause data problems.
> >
> > Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines
> > between building were copper. And indeed around the country. Of course
> > most of these lines were fed via a balancing transformer which would
> > provide low
> And [twisted pair] ethernet works exactly the same way -- there's an
> isolating transformer at both ends of the cable (rated to 4kV each IIRC).
That's what I guessed - in the same way as a router or modem is isolated
from the BT line.
> > voltage isolation - but certainly not from high voltage or lightening.
> It won't survive a direct or very close-by hit.
> The cost of equipment which does would be considerably more
> than the cost of replacing some ethernet cards and routers.
Indeed.
--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *
Dave Liquorice
> Would homeplug units not have a problem with the garage and house
> being on different supplies?
If they are different phases or the interconnect point between the same
single phase to each building is at a distance then I suspect homeplug
type stuff will struggle or not work.
> Or are they radio units?
Radio as in they inject a carrier onto the mains wiring but not radio as
in wireless. B-)
--
Cheers
Dave.
pj
the electric circuits are completely seperate making homeplug
inoperable. I would like if possible to keep a physical data link as
ive had bad experiences with wireless reliability, plus using cat5 i
can go up to gigabit if needs be.
As with the comments above everyone seems to have conflicting views on
whether its a good idea to link buildings. Im not interested in using
fibre as its WAY too expensive for this project. A cheapo £20 switch
will be at either end of the line so im not too bothered if the risk
of it blowing is there, as long as it isnt a common occurance!
I'm torn as i would like to try it but dont want to do anything
dangerous in any way. The building is being done up and will have an
office in the end of it that requires internet access as well as
reasonable transfer speed for backup purposes.
thank you for your comments
Pete
PCPaul
Have you looked at including one (or two) of these?
<http://www.wifigear.co.uk/viewProduct.aspx?
product=6FE139BA-6946-4CFB-93A6-EA916D797F90>
They would need to be installed with a serious earth spike each to be any
use, but that's basically only a metal rod into the ground. That would
make it absolutely safe.
When I did the same thing (from a stable block office to a farmhouse) I
just ran outdoor spec Cat-5 in a buried PVC pipe then had a cheap switch
each end, away from anything flammable... sound familiar?
pj
have a similar effect? or a UPS? also both buildings run off the same
transformer and are about 10m away from each other - surely it
shouldnt be this hard to link them
John Stumbles
> Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines
> between building were copper. And indeed around the country.
In the real Old Days (TM) they used valves, so no problem.
I gather that when the USAnians started trying to make their military
electronics EMP-proof so that they could chuck nukes around and still keep
flying etc, they found that the Soviets were way ahead of them: the MiGs
etc used miniature valves in their avionics!
--
John Stumbles
A: Because it messes up the order in which people read text.
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?
John Stumbles
> And [twisted pair] ethernet works exactly the same way -- there's
> an isolating transformer at both ends of the cable (rated to 4kV
> each IIRC).
Really? I thought 10 and 100BASE-T used basically RS422 Tx/Rx and 1000BASE
upward more or less followed suit with more fancy signalling. Squeezing
the higher rates through transformers whilst still being
backward-compatible with the lower rates is a feat that boggles my little
mind!
--
John Stumbles
Testiculate [v.t]
To wave one's arms around while talking bollocks.
dennis@home
"John Stumbles" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UZ2Yj.29945$4B6...@newsfe14.ams2...
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:56:20 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>> And [twisted pair] ethernet works exactly the same way -- there's
>> an isolating transformer at both ends of the cable (rated to 4kV
>> each IIRC).
>
> Really? I thought 10 and 100BASE-T used basically RS422 Tx/Rx and 1000BASE
> upward more or less followed suit with more fancy signalling. Squeezing
> the higher rates through transformers whilst still being
> backward-compatible with the lower rates is a feat that boggles my little
> mind!
Nope, there is an isolating pulse transformer at each end of each signal and
and isolating DC-DC convertor in the PSU for each Ethernet TP interface (if
it is done correctly). The transformer usually looks like a DIL pack but a
bit higher than normal.
There are a few variants of 100M too some which use two pairs and some that
use four pairs, don't mix them as they wont work.
The four pair variant (100base4) was supposed to be for older cat 3 cable
runs AIUI but IME people just plug it in and if it doesn't work they run a
new cat5 anyway.
1000M uses the four pairs IIRC.
Dave Plowman (News)
John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines
> > between building were copper. And indeed around the country.
> In the real Old Days (TM) they used valves, so no problem.
True - but transistors were around for a long time while the majority of
landlines etc were still copper twisted pairs. Indeed, most of our houses
are still connected to the local telephone exchange in this way.
> I gather that when the USAnians started trying to make their military
> electronics EMP-proof so that they could chuck nukes around and still
> keep flying etc, they found that the Soviets were way ahead of them: the
> MiGs etc used miniature valves in their avionics!
I can remember Russia selling valve equipment for the domestic market long
after solid state had become the norm - and at the bottom end of it too.
Guess they had factories they just had to keep employed. ;-)
--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
The Natural Philosopher
Use a bit of conduit and standard cable. Seal with foam if fussy.
No isue in linking since e=ethernet is balanced mode and not earthed
anywy: yiucanalos get isloatio baluns if you are worried.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 04:53:25 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be pj
> <pe...@nemesisx.com> wrote this:-
>
>> I would like to link our house and garage using cat5/6 data cable
>> allowing internet to be shared. The route i would like to take
>> requires digging a trench and the total cable distance comes to about
>> 70m inluding going around walls etc.
>
> A distance of say 40m in a straight line between buildings is not
> good for connecting by copper data cables, for the reasons others
> have given. There are precautions which can be taken, but these add
> to the cost.
>
Gosh: you had better tell BT that, since most of the country is fed by
copper cables in excess of a kilometer long.
Underground copper is totally fine: you wont get gigabit speeds, but
should get 100Mbps, and if worried abut comon mode voltage stuff, use
baluns.
>
>
David Hansen
Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote this:-
>> A distance of say 40m in a straight line between buildings is not
>> good for connecting by copper data cables, for the reasons others
>> have given. There are precautions which can be taken, but these add
>> to the cost.
>
>Gosh: you had better tell BT that, since most of the country is fed by
>copper cables in excess of a kilometer long.
Gosh: I never knew that [1].
See my last thirteen words. I will expand on my last thirteen words
by saying that one of the items included in a telephone master
socket is a surge arrestor which adds (a little) to the cost
compared to a secondary socket. The reason this is included is as a
precaution against one of the things others mentioned by other
people.
Nice try, but you have made a fool of yourself again. Whether you
want to continue to do so is up to you.
[1] note for the stupid, there is a fair degree of sarcasm in those
words.
David Hansen
<pe...@nemesisx.com> wrote this:-
>also both buildings run off the same
>transformer and are about 10m away from each other - surely it
>shouldnt be this hard to link them
I find this statement difficult to reconcile with your earlier one
that, "The route i would like to take requires digging a trench and
the total cable distance comes to about 70m inluding going around
walls etc."
Is there really no way of doing a shorter run, even if it means
digging up some concrete or going under a wall? A lot of the
problems people have mentioned become less as the distance between
buildings reduces.
meow...@care2.com
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:16:14 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
> Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote this:-
> >> A distance of say 40m in a straight line between buildings is not
> >> good for connecting by copper data cables, for the reasons others
> >> have given. There are precautions which can be taken, but these add
> >> to the cost.
> >
> >Gosh: you had better tell BT that, since most of the country is fed by
> >copper cables in excess of a kilometer long.
>
> Gosh: I never knew that [1].
>
> See my last thirteen words. I will expand on my last thirteen words
> by saying that one of the items included in a telephone master
> socket is a surge arrestor which adds (a little) to the cost
> compared to a secondary socket. The reason this is included is as a
> precaution against one of the things others mentioned by other
> people.
>
> Nice try, but you have made a fool of yourself again. Whether you
> want to continue to do so is up to you.
>
>
>
> [1] note for the stupid, there is a fair degree of sarcasm in those
> words.
Overhead phone lines use a GDT at each end. The cost of adding
one is trivial, and theyre widely available (remove from a phone
socket). The cost of a cut price version (a spark gap) is zero.
NT
David Hansen
<pe...@nemesisx.com> wrote this:-
>also both buildings run off the same
>transformer and are about 10m away from each other - surely it
>shouldnt be this hard to link them
It isn't hard. Four ways of doing so have been offered; radio,
fibre, internal grade twisted pair protected by a duct and outdoor
grade twisted pair. There are others but one of those four should be
suitable and all should work. All have their particular strengths
and weaknesses, which the sensible have put forward arguments for
and against.
It is up to you to consider all this information/opinion and decide
for yourself. Only you know the two buildings.
I know how I have linked two buildings 10m apart (and it is not the
way some of the usual suspects may imagine), but I may have come to
a different solution if looking at your two buildings.
meow...@care2.com
> In article <_V2Yj.29825$4B6...@newsfe14.ams2>,
> John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines
> > > between building were copper. And indeed around the country.
>
> > In the real Old Days (TM) they used valves, so no problem.
>
> True - but transistors were around for a long time while the majority of
> landlines etc were still copper twisted pairs. Indeed, most of our houses
> are still connected to the local telephone exchange in this way.
>
> > I gather that when the USAnians started trying to make their military
> > electronics EMP-proof so that they could chuck nukes around and still
> > keep flying etc, they found that the Soviets were way ahead of them: the
> > MiGs etc used miniature valves in their avionics!
>
> I can remember Russia selling valve equipment for the domestic market long
> after solid state had become the norm - and at the bottom end of it too.
> Guess they had factories they just had to keep employed. ;-)
AIUI The soviet bloc never abandoned valves like we did. I forget the
reasons why. They came up with the valve IC in the late 80s,
something the west would never even attempt.
I gather soviet goods were always low ticket items here because
there were simply so many problems with them. New goods
needed testing and often repair and refinishing, the
businesses that handled them were less than reassuring, and of
course the various consumer fashions that sell so many goods here
were completely ignored, with goods routinely looking like
something out of the 50s or 60s.
NT
pj
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:57:41 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be pj
>
> >also bothbuildingsrun off the same
> >transformer and are about 10m away from each other - surely it
> >shouldnt be this hard to link them
>
> I find this statement difficult to reconcile with your earlier one
> that, "The route i would like to take requires digging a trench and
> the total cable distance comes to about 70m inluding going around
> walls etc."
>
> Is there really no way of doing a shorter run, even if it means
> digging up some concrete or going under a wall? A lot of the
> problems people have mentioned become less as the distancebetweenbuildingsreduces.
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
the majority of the distance is inside - the two switches are at the
furthest end away from each other of each building (does that make
sense?!).
tony sayer
s.com>, meow...@care2.com scribeth thus
>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <_V2Yj.29825$4B6...@newsfe14.ams2>,
>> John Stumbles <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > Wonder how broadcasting got round this in the old days - all lines
>> > > between building were copper. And indeed around the country.
>>
>> > In the real Old Days (TM) they used valves, so no problem.
>>
>> True - but transistors were around for a long time while the majority of
>> landlines etc were still copper twisted pairs. Indeed, most of our houses
>> are still connected to the local telephone exchange in this way.
>>
>> > I gather that when the USAnians started trying to make their military
>> > electronics EMP-proof so that they could chuck nukes around and still
>> > keep flying etc, they found that the Soviets were way ahead of them: the
>> > MiGs etc used miniature valves in their avionics!
>>
>> I can remember Russia selling valve equipment for the domestic market long
>> after solid state had become the norm - and at the bottom end of it too.
>> Guess they had factories they just had to keep employed. ;-)
>
>
>AIUI The soviet bloc never abandoned valves like we did. I forget the
>reasons why.
They stand up much better to the effects of EMP
(Electro Magnetic Pulse) from nuclear explosions..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
s.com>, pj <pe...@nemesisx.com> scribeth thus
>I would like to link our house and garage using cat5/6 data cable
>requires digging a trench and the total cable distance comes to about
>70m inluding going around walls etc.
>some kind of outdoor grade cable within a conduit be acceptable?
>
>also the garage and house are on completely different electricity
>mains supplies with different meters etc. Is this a problem in terms
>of linking them because they have seperate grounds?
>
>thank you for your help
>Pete
If you want to user Radio then I'd recommend 5.8 Ghz point to point
equipment's from Solwise.
NOC 8610 over that range .. they'll do very well and I very much doubt
that they'd be interfered with as there is a part of then band for fixed
point to point links..!..
Avoid 2.4 Ghz waay too crowed these days unless your out in the sticks.
Or armoured direct bury can be had from 2 quid a metre, might be cheaper
then cable plus duct..
Or ordinary CAT 5 outdoor grade might be better longer term in a duct,
which will get water in it unless its very well connected on the joins.
Make sure that the ends are well sealed and the mice don't get in there
or else good by cables the barstards will go thorough standard cables
with no bother..
Advisable to get the draw rope in as you lay it, rather difficult to
push through that distance;!..
Should worry about lightning and isolation. Not too much of a problem
underground. The PC will have an isolated switch mode power unit and
will be earthed as will your shed one and CAT 5 is on isolators in most
cards etc..
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News)
<022bf1b0-40ae-4eb9...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
<meow...@care2.com> wrote:
> > I can remember Russia selling valve equipment for the domestic market
> > long after solid state had become the norm - and at the bottom end of
> > it too. Guess they had factories they just had to keep employed. ;-)
> AIUI The soviet bloc never abandoned valves like we did. I forget the
> reasons why.
To keep workers employed at all cost. It was thus in the old days. Valves
were largely hand assembled so very labour intensive - semiconductors not.
> They came up with the valve IC in the late 80s,
> something the west would never even attempt.
Rightly so I'd guess. ;-)
> I gather soviet goods were always low ticket items here because
> there were simply so many problems with them. New goods
> needed testing and often repair and refinishing, the
> businesses that handled them were less than reassuring, and of
> course the various consumer fashions that sell so many goods here
> were completely ignored, with goods routinely looking like
> something out of the 50s or 60s.
I bought a Rigonda radiogram in the '60s. All valve. And most of the
valves had a very poor life. Replacing them with Mullard etc sorted it.
--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.
dennis@home
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YY51YZDv...@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <6b802620-e904-4170...@m36g2000hse.googlegroup
> s.com>, pj <pe...@nemesisx.com> scribeth thus
>>I would like to link our house and garage using cat5/6 data cable
>>allowing internet to be shared. The route i would like to take
>>requires digging a trench and the total cable distance comes to about
>>70m inluding going around walls etc.
>>External grade armoured cable seems to be obscenely expensive so would
>>some kind of outdoor grade cable within a conduit be acceptable?
>>
>>also the garage and house are on completely different electricity
>>mains supplies with different meters etc. Is this a problem in terms
>>of linking them because they have seperate grounds?
>>
>>thank you for your help
>>Pete
>
> If you want to user Radio then I'd recommend 5.8 Ghz point to point
> equipment's from Solwise.
Or something like http://www.ebuyer.com/product/144712
802.11a should manage 10m with ease even with the APs indoors.
Steve Firth
>
> I know how I have linked two buildings 10m apart (and it is not the
> way some of the usual suspects may imagine)
Eco-friendly carrier pigeon?
Dave Plowman (News)
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > I know how I have linked two buildings 10m apart (and it is not the
> > way some of the usual suspects may imagine)
> Eco-friendly carrier pigeon?
Fooking things are anything but friendly to the paint on my car. Took ages
to get the shite off this morning. I'm going to cut that tree down...
--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
Steve Firth
> In article <1ih6us1.sxg8nnqft41aN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I know how I have linked two buildings 10m apart (and it is not the
> > > way some of the usual suspects may imagine)
>
> > Eco-friendly carrier pigeon?
>
> Fooking things are anything but friendly to the paint on my car. Took ages
> to get the shite off this morning. I'm going to cut that tree down...
At the moment, it's swallows here. They seem to love garages and hate
classic cars.
Adrian
At least the local 'super-territorial' male blue-tit seeoms to be
occupied elsewhere.
For a couple of months he was hanging onto the car doors and headbutting
the rear-view mirrors - and, judging by the evidence he left behind,
getting very, very upset !
The joys of living in the country <g>
Adrian
dennis@home
"Huge" <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0rvl6$4n9$3...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> You should worry. The male pheasant who lords it over my garden spent a
> lot of
> time adoring/attacking himself in the French windows, and he's a
> slack-bowelled
> sod.
Did he knock all seven shades out?
David Hansen
<pe...@nemesisx.com> wrote this:-
>> >also bothbuildingsrun off the same
>> >transformer and are about 10m away from each other - surely it
>> >shouldnt be this hard to link them
>>
>> I find this statement difficult to reconcile with your earlier one
>> that, "The route i would like to take requires digging a trench and
>> the total cable distance comes to about 70m inluding going around
>> walls etc."
>
>the majority of the distance is inside - the two switches are at the
>furthest end away from each other of each building (does that make
>sense?!).
I see. In that case it may make sense to adopt a mixed solution,
with internal cables going to the walls nearest to the other
building and something else to bridge the gap.
What does the gap consist of? How easy would it be to dig something
under the ground? Are there any obstructions to a radio link using
directional aerials?
How easy would it be to run a data cable through each building,
perhaps in a loft?
David Hansen
meow...@care2.com wrote this:-
>I gather soviet goods were always low ticket items here because
>there were simply so many problems with them.
I have a soviet made moving coil meter. Well made and robust. The
leads would frighten modern "safety" people, but are fine as long as
one treats them with respect.
tony sayer
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> scribeth thus
If your going 5.b Ghz make sure it does the 5.7 to 5.8 part of the band
and conform to the Ofcom IR 2008 regs..
--
Tony Sayer
dennis@home
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:T0N3TIA9...@bancom.co.uk...
802.11a is OK in the UK, its doesn't need a license unless it interferes
with an essential service.
It won't as it such low power but they wanted to cover themselves when they
allowed its use.
> --
> Tony Sayer
>
>
Andy Wade
> AIUI The soviet bloc never abandoned valves like we did. I forget the
> reasons why. They came up with the valve IC in the late 80s,
> something the west would never even attempt.
By "valve IC" do you mean a multiple valve with resistors and capacitors
integrated in the envelope? That idea originated in Germany in 1926 -
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loewe_3NF.
--
Andy
w_tom
> As with the comments above everyone seems to have conflicting views on
> whether its a good idea to link buildings. Im not interested in using
> fibre as its WAY too expensive for this project. A cheapo £20 switch
> will be at either end of the line so im not too bothered if the risk
> of it blowing is there, as long as it isnt a common occurance!
Do what BT does. Every building interconnects to theirs - the same
problem repeated 10,000+ times.. BT must never have damage because
every wire (inside every cable) gets connected to earth. Having no
damage was routine even 100 years ago. Protection is not provided by
surge protectors. Protection is about earthing every wire to the same
earth ground. Either a wire connects directly to earth OR a surge
protector makes that earthing connection.
View these protectors:
http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse19.htm
http://www.tripplite.com/products/product.cfm?productID=151
Each has what provides protection - a green ground wire. What makes
the protector effective? That ground wire must be as short as
possible to earth. Earth is where surge energy gets dissipated
harmlessly.
When a wire interconnects two buildings, then one building can act
like a lightning rod; second building act as an earth ground. Then
anything connected to that wire gets damage. As Andrew Gabriel noted,
communication ports have significant internal protection rated at 2000
or 15,000 volts. This protection exists in ethernet ports, in
telephone equipment, etc. So why are these devices harmed? That
protection can be overwhelmed by the typically destructive surge. If
every wire entering or leaving a building connects (ie less than 3
meters) to earth ground, then that protection inside electronics will
not be overwhelmed - as BT demonstrates in every town.
Single point earth ground. That ethernet wire is earthed (via a
protector) to the same ground used by AC electric - and that earthing
wire must be short. Then surges out of one building will not destroy
electronics inside the other.
BT has been doing this protection for how long? Effetive protection
from direct lightning strikes has been routine for how long? Why do
so many not know this (the reason for so many confusing answers)?
Bob Eager
(his usual lengthy stuff)
See, I told Simon that he'd stir up w_tom again...
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
Dave Plowman (News)
<349890ec-01d4-41aa...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> Do what BT does. Every building interconnects to theirs - the same
> problem repeated 10,000+ times.. BT must never have damage because
> every wire (inside every cable) gets connected to earth. Having no
> damage was routine even 100 years ago. Protection is not provided by
> surge protectors. Protection is about earthing every wire to the same
> earth ground. Either a wire connects directly to earth OR a surge
> protector makes that earthing connection.
Must be something wrong with my telephone - and every other one I've seen.
No local earth. Nor would you expect one with a balanced line.
Oh - if you earth every wire it will cease to be of any use...
--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *
David Hansen
<w_t...@usa.net> wrote this:-
>BT must never have damage because
>every wire (inside every cable) gets connected to earth.
You may think they have no damage, but in reality they do have
damage which is why they employ people to fix things.
>Having no damage was routine even 100 years ago.
Open wires on pole routes suffer rather more damage than conductors
in cables. That is why the Post Office and their predecessors
employed people to fix things.
w_tom
wrote:
> Must be something wrong with my telephone - and every other one I've seen.
> No local earth. Nor would you expect one with a balanced line.
First, you are in the UK where BT only installs earthing on their
end. In North America, every phone line is earthed at both ends.
BT's switching computer is challenged by maybe 100 surges during
every thunderstorm - and no damage. New master socket installations
do not have that earthing - that is even required by code in North
America.
Second, balanced line remains because - well read the previous post
with care. Every wire in every phone line cable gets earthed through
a protector - therefore remains a balance line. What does a protector
do? Performs like an open switch. Only connects a wire to earth when
a surge exists.
Surge protectors don't stop or block surges. See the examples at:
http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse19.htm
http://www.tripplite.com/products/product.cfm?productID=151
The effective protector makes that short (ie less than 3 meter)
connection to earth - that green wire. Each ethernet wire gets
connected to earth ground only during surges. Then that surge need
not find earth ground, destructively, via any switch or network card.
Then that surge will not overwhelm thousands of volts protection in
every ethernet interface.
Third, does BT shutdown service for five days while they replace
that £multi-million switching computer? Of course not. Hundreds of
surges during every thunderstorm and no switching computer must be
damaged. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Earth
ground provides ethernet protection.
Another industry professional demonstrates this solution in an
application note:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Routine is to connect communication wires between buildings and have
no damage. Those who would deny this also claim surge damage is
acceptable. Nonsense.
Dave Plowman (News)
<fc19b892-065c-4dd9...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> On May 20, 3:17 am, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Must be something wrong with my telephone - and every other one I've
> > seen. No local earth. Nor would you expect one with a balanced line.
> First, you are in the UK where BT only installs earthing on their
> end. In North America, every phone line is earthed at both ends.
So they don't use balanced lines?
> BT's switching computer is challenged by maybe 100 surges during
> every thunderstorm - and no damage. New master socket installations
> do not have that earthing - that is even required by code in North
> America.
Obviously different ways of skinning a cat.
> Second, balanced line remains because - well read the previous post
> with care. Every wire in every phone line cable gets earthed through
> a protector - therefore remains a balance line. What does a protector
> do? Performs like an open switch. Only connects a wire to earth when
> a surge exists.
Right. So they're not actually earthed, then? You should have made that
clear. What happens in a fault condition is something else.
> Surge protectors don't stop or block surges. See the examples at:
> http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse19.htm
> http://www.tripplite.com/products/product.cfm?productID=151
> The effective protector makes that short (ie less than 3 meter)
> connection to earth - that green wire. Each ethernet wire gets
> connected to earth ground only during surges. Then that surge need
> not find earth ground, destructively, via any switch or network card.
> Then that surge will not overwhelm thousands of volts protection in
> every ethernet interface.
> Third, does BT shutdown service for five days while they replace
> that £multi-million switching computer? Of course not. Hundreds of
> surges during every thunderstorm and no switching computer must be
> damaged. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Earth
> ground provides ethernet protection.
> Another industry professional demonstrates this solution in an
> application note:
> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
> Routine is to connect communication wires between buildings and have
> no damage. Those who would deny this also claim surge damage is
> acceptable. Nonsense.
Do we actually speak the same language?
--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?
Bob Eager
See, I said you'd stir him up again!
dennis@home
"w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:fc19b892-065c-4dd9...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Third, does BT shutdown service for five days while they replace
> that £multi-million switching computer?
I bloody well hope not, I didn't do my job very well if it did.
Even if it did there were some switches built into containers that could be
installed.
They were used following a few disasters like fires.
tony sayer
s.com>, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> scribeth thus
>On May 18, 4:51 pm, pj <p...@nemesisx.com> wrote:
>> As with the comments above everyone seems to have conflicting views on
>> whether its a good idea to link buildings. Im not interested in using
>> fibre as its WAY too expensive for this project. A cheapo £20 switch
>> will be at either end of the line so im not too bothered if the risk
>> of it blowing is there, as long as it isnt a common occurance!
>
> Do what BT does. Every building interconnects to theirs - the same
>problem repeated 10,000+ times.. BT must never have damage because
>every wire (inside every cable) gets connected to earth.
I reckon you ought to come over here and see what plant BT actually have
and how they go about all this earthing;!...
I don't think they are that much bothered these days;(..
> Effetive protection
>from direct lightning strikes has been routine for how long? Why do
>so many not know this (the reason for so many confusing answers)?
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
>wrote:
>> Must be something wrong with my telephone - and every other one I've seen.
>> No local earth. Nor would you expect one with a balanced line.
>
> First, you are in the UK where BT only installs earthing on their
>end. In North America, every phone line is earthed at both ends.
>
Course a lot of comms stuff in the UK is on fibre now, doesn't seem that
bothered by Jove's bolts;)...
And a lot of BT copper disappears in the night with the Pikey's
spiriting it away;!..
--
Tony Sayer
Rod
If any of them read uk.d-i-y, they'll be after HiFi speaker cables...
--
Rod
Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
w_tom
> Course a lot of comms stuff in the UK is on fibre now, doesn't seem that
> bothered by Jove's bolts;)...
Therefore all those switches were damaged when fiber did not exist?
Of course, not. It is routine to interconnect buildings with wires
and not have damage. There is zero reason to solve this problem with
fiber. A solution is so simple as to be standard even long before
the transistor existed.
Many have confused the OP with recommendations and futility that did
not exist and was not necessary even 70 years ago. It is routine and
simple to have surges without damage. Defined was effective
protection for ethernet cables. But as the many professionals note,
earthing must exist for all incoming wires. Every incoming utility
must connect to earth ground directly or via a surge protector.
w_tom
wrote:
> So they don't use balanced lines?
> Right. So they're not actually earthed, then? You should have made that
> clear. What happens in a fault condition is something else.
How earthing is accomplished was plainly stated and easily read in
that first post:
> Protection is about earthing every wire to the same earth
> ground. Either a wire connects directly to earth OR a
> surge protector makes that earthing connection.
How could you not understand that? Amazing how one knows, but never
bothers to learn or read the science.
Also bluntly stated was that telephone lines are balanced lines
while each wire makes a connection to earth ground. Why is that so
difficult? If you still don't know what a protector does - if you are
still listening to popular myths that promote ineffective protectors -
then how earthed phone lines (via protectors) remain balanced would
confuse you. Those myths can only survive if you ignore details –
such as ignoring what was in the first post.
Posted were concepts that have been standard protection without
damage for over 100 years. A superior solution that also costs less
money. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground, so that
(thousands of volts) protection inside routers and NICs is not
overwhelmed. That single point earth ground provides protection.
Provided were examples of effective protectors to make that connection
from each ethernet wire to earth – to do what BT also does in every
telco switching station.
tony sayer
So how do you <earth> a fibre cable then?..
--
Tony Sayer
David Hansen
<w_t...@usa.net> wrote this:-
> Many have confused the OP
Mind reading is also one of your "talents"? Fascinating.
funkmish
>
> If you want to user Radio then I'd recommend 5.8 Ghz point to point
> equipment's from Solwise.
>
> that they'd be interfered with as there is a part of then band for fixed
> point to point links..!..
>
> Avoid 2.4 Ghz waay too crowed these days unless your out in the sticks.
>
> Or armoured direct bury can be had from 2 quid a metre, might be cheaper
> then cable plus duct..
>
I've seen it done with 2.4Ghz wi-fi directional antennas at each end of an
empty duct underground. Worked fine and the ground shielded it from interference...
w_tom
wrote:
> Open wires on pole routes suffer rather more damage than conductors
> in cables. That is why the Post Office and their predecessors
> employed people to fix things.
Squirrels, manufacturing defects, downed wires, customer changes,
rain, vibration, etc mean that people are employed for the rare and
infrequent failures. Near zero failures times how many subscribers
means a busy and tiny repair staff.. No protection is perfect. What
happens when surges do damage? What did Orange County FL finally do
when direct lightning strikes caused damage to the emergency
communication equipment? They employed people to fix things. They
fixed the reason for that surge damage. They - corrected defective
earth ground:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Yes, due to age, earth ground must be repaired to terminate surge
damage. Why? Damage from direct lightning strikes is unacceptable.
When that rare failure occurs, employees eliminate that failure AND
defect that permitted it to occur. Earthing is why hundreds of surges
during every thunderstorm can never cause damage in any telephone
switching station. Earthing is how an ethernet cable is routed
between buildings to eliminate router and NIC damage - a solution that
makes the fiber optic solution rediculous, expensive, wasteful, and
unnecessary. A protector without earthing provides ineffective
ethernet protection.
w_tom
> I've seen it done with 2.4Ghz wi-fi directional antennas at each end of an
> empty duct underground. Worked fine and the ground shielded it from
> interference...
A most intriguing solution. What were dimensions of that duct -
both width and height, and the length? What material was used?