info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Shielded RJ-45: Internal vs External Ground?
34 views
Skip to first unread message
ps56k
Jan 13, 2015, 1:32:33 PM1/13/15
to
X-posting to the Cabling newsgroups
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:p0h0bapljsh0qags0...@4ax.com...
>I have seen the light and am going to replace the regular Cat5 cables on
> my radio links with shielded - using Ubiquiti's ToughCable Pro.
>
> With shielded RJ-45 plugs, I see "Internal" and "External" as in
> Internal: http://www.platinumtools.com/products/100020.php?cat=5
>
> External: http://www.platinumtools.com/products/100022.php?cat=5
>
> For somebody who doesn't use that many - as in a hundred being a
> lifetime supply - the no-brainer would seem to be the "External" style
> because it can be used anywhere, not just with devices that
> automagically forward the ground from the shell of the connector their
> AC ground wire.
>
> Does this make sense? Or am I missing something.
>
> Ubiquiti NanoStations with POE Injectors.
> --
> Pete Cresswell
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:p0h0bapljsh0qags0...@4ax.com...
>I have seen the light and am going to replace the regular Cat5 cables on
> my radio links with shielded - using Ubiquiti's ToughCable Pro.
>
> With shielded RJ-45 plugs, I see "Internal" and "External" as in
> Internal: http://www.platinumtools.com/products/100020.php?cat=5
>
> External: http://www.platinumtools.com/products/100022.php?cat=5
>
> For somebody who doesn't use that many - as in a hundred being a
> lifetime supply - the no-brainer would seem to be the "External" style
> because it can be used anywhere, not just with devices that
> automagically forward the ground from the shell of the connector their
> AC ground wire.
>
> Does this make sense? Or am I missing something.
>
> Ubiquiti NanoStations with POE Injectors.
> --
> Pete Cresswell
ps56k
Jan 13, 2015, 1:33:07 PM1/13/15
to
X-posting to Cabling newsgroups
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:vmc2bapjnpb31q1is...@4ax.com...
> Per Char Jackson:
>>recommending shielded cable? I wonder what's the basis for the
>>recommendation. Yes, I'm skeptical.
>
> So was I.
>
> But the manual says that shielded cable is important. viz Page 4 of
> http://setuprouter.com/router/ubiquiti/nanostation-m5/manual-877.pdf
>
> Self-serving promo for their house brand? That was my kneejerk
> reaction.... but now I know that there are several threads in the
> Ubiquiti fora that make it pretty clear that electrostatic discharge is
> a consideration. For example: http://tinyurl.com/m5vttf3
>
> Now I realize that I cannot afford to be skeptical because I just don't
> know enough.
>
> The facts are:
>
> - Every so often 3 cams become unreachable from a remote site over
> a radio link.
>
> - A fourth cam never, ever has any problems
>
> - The 3 problem cams immediately become reachable once both
> ends of the radio link are re-booted.
>
> - One of the links is attached to the top of a 15-foot windsurfer
> mast only about 50' from a large bay - i.e. it gets some
> serious weather.
>
> Add to the above that it is starting to look like there is a correlation
> between the failures and high winds at the site and you see where I
> am....
>
> But, like I said, I'm clueless except that I know that those three
> things are clearly happening.... And the pros on the Ubiquiti site are
> telling me that grounded/shielded cable to an outside radio is
> absolutely standard practice.
>
> I have withdrawn from the discussion where this is taking place because
> I was starting to irritate at least one of the gurus there with my
> incessant beginner-type questions. The guys who matter there are
> mostly professionals and it is now clear to me that I was abusing the
> environment. There are also amateurs there, but I seem to be more
> verbose and less inclined to research before asking than most.
>
> But my basic question remains: how can a radio-link problem be
> camera-specific?
>
> Greater Minds Than Mine have said "No problem... see it all the time."
>
> But I have yet to get specifics... to that end, I just pulled the
> trigger on a smart switch that I will swap in down at the problem site
> when I get down that way. Then I will be able to test the obvious
> suggestion that it is something to do with bandwidth (not!...but I need
> to prove it) and also to put WireShark on both ends of the link.
>
> Whatever happens, I am going to come out of this knowing significantly
> more than when I went in.
>
> The thread is at: http://tinyurl.com/m6pyfje
> --
> Pete Cresswell
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> Per Char Jackson:
>>>I have seen the light and am going to replace the regular Cat5 cables on
>>>my radio links with shielded - using Ubiquiti's ToughCable Pro.
>>
>>I'm curious, where is this discussion taking place where they're
>>>my radio links with shielded - using Ubiquiti's ToughCable Pro.
>>
>>recommending shielded cable? I wonder what's the basis for the
>>recommendation. Yes, I'm skeptical.
>
> So was I.
>
> But the manual says that shielded cable is important. viz Page 4 of
> http://setuprouter.com/router/ubiquiti/nanostation-m5/manual-877.pdf
>
> Self-serving promo for their house brand? That was my kneejerk
> reaction.... but now I know that there are several threads in the
> Ubiquiti fora that make it pretty clear that electrostatic discharge is
> a consideration. For example: http://tinyurl.com/m5vttf3
>
> Now I realize that I cannot afford to be skeptical because I just don't
> know enough.
>
> The facts are:
>
> - Every so often 3 cams become unreachable from a remote site over
> a radio link.
>
> - A fourth cam never, ever has any problems
>
> - The 3 problem cams immediately become reachable once both
> ends of the radio link are re-booted.
>
> - One of the links is attached to the top of a 15-foot windsurfer
> mast only about 50' from a large bay - i.e. it gets some
> serious weather.
>
> Add to the above that it is starting to look like there is a correlation
> between the failures and high winds at the site and you see where I
> am....
>
> But, like I said, I'm clueless except that I know that those three
> things are clearly happening.... And the pros on the Ubiquiti site are
> telling me that grounded/shielded cable to an outside radio is
> absolutely standard practice.
>
> I have withdrawn from the discussion where this is taking place because
> I was starting to irritate at least one of the gurus there with my
> incessant beginner-type questions. The guys who matter there are
> mostly professionals and it is now clear to me that I was abusing the
> environment. There are also amateurs there, but I seem to be more
> verbose and less inclined to research before asking than most.
>
> But my basic question remains: how can a radio-link problem be
> camera-specific?
>
> Greater Minds Than Mine have said "No problem... see it all the time."
>
> But I have yet to get specifics... to that end, I just pulled the
> trigger on a smart switch that I will swap in down at the problem site
> when I get down that way. Then I will be able to test the obvious
> suggestion that it is something to do with bandwidth (not!...but I need
> to prove it) and also to put WireShark on both ends of the link.
>
> Whatever happens, I am going to come out of this knowing significantly
> more than when I went in.
>
> The thread is at: http://tinyurl.com/m6pyfje
> --
> Pete Cresswell
ps56k
Jan 13, 2015, 1:34:19 PM1/13/15
to
X-posting - for those in the Cabling world -
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:vjq2bah1h654phjj0...@4ax.com...
> is quite low. My guess(tm) is 20% or less. That's not a problem in
> the bay area, and certainly not in a wet marine environment.
>
> Shielding does do well for EMI/RFI protection. If you're near a
> transmitter of any significant power level, I would use shielded
> cable. Even so, I doubt if it would do any good because most of the
> Ubiquiti radios use unshielded plastic case.
>
> Note that there are aftermarket products that provide shielding if
> needed.
> <http://www.rfelements.com/en/products/shields/rockshield/>
> If you're using it for cellular backhaul, it's probably a good idea.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:vjq2bah1h654phjj0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:45:52 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Self-serving promo for their house brand? That was my kneejerk
>>reaction.... but now I know that there are several threads in the
>>Ubiquiti fora that make it pretty clear that electrostatic discharge is
>>a consideration. For example: http://tinyurl.com/m5vttf3
>
> Static buildup on metal structures is only a problem when the humidity
> wrote:
>
>>Self-serving promo for their house brand? That was my kneejerk
>>reaction.... but now I know that there are several threads in the
>>Ubiquiti fora that make it pretty clear that electrostatic discharge is
>>a consideration. For example: http://tinyurl.com/m5vttf3
>
> is quite low. My guess(tm) is 20% or less. That's not a problem in
> the bay area, and certainly not in a wet marine environment.
>
> Shielding does do well for EMI/RFI protection. If you're near a
> transmitter of any significant power level, I would use shielded
> cable. Even so, I doubt if it would do any good because most of the
> Ubiquiti radios use unshielded plastic case.
>
> Note that there are aftermarket products that provide shielding if
> needed.
> <http://www.rfelements.com/en/products/shields/rockshield/>
> If you're using it for cellular backhaul, it's probably a good idea.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
0 new messages