| Author |
Message |
Roy Smith
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:56 am Post subject:
Re: Does anybody have 10base5, 1base5, starlan1, or 10broad3 |
|
|
In article <vuSdnZLUBqSxya3fRVn-rQ@rogers.com>,
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
| Quote: | JD wrote:
It takes a brave man to admit he was behind this device of torture.
And yes, I cursed.
Jay Drew
Rich Seifert wrote:
SNIP
This author would have saved every Ethernet user a lot of grief by not
specifying that [expletive deleted] slide-latch connector (used on the
cable between the station and the transceiver). "We really had good
intentions. I was fed up with RS-232 connectors that fell off because
the tiny screwdriver necessary to tighten them down was never handy. I
just never realized that the slide latch was so flimsy and unreliable
until it was too late. Ethernet installers around the world must curse
me every day."
I didn't have much experience with those latches on ethernet, but some
terminals I used to service used them. They were certainly a royal pain in
the...
|
Arrrhhhhh. Yes, the slide locks. Good concept, terrible execution. Loose
AUI connectors were my #1 cause of network failures. The xceiver cables
were so stiff and heavy they just pulled the connectors right out of the
slide lock. At the trunk cable end, you could solve the problem by lashing
the xceiver cable to the trunk cable with 2 or 3 nylon wire ties, but at
the desktop end it was a disaster.
Back in those days, my .signature was "the connector is the network", a
parody on Sun's "the network is the computer". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:02 am Post subject:
Re: Does anybody have 10base5, 1base5, starlan1, or 10broad3 |
|
|
Roy Smith wrote:
(snip)
| Quote: | Arrrhhhhh. Yes, the slide locks. Good concept, terrible execution. Loose
AUI connectors were my #1 cause of network failures. The xceiver cables
were so stiff and heavy they just pulled the connectors right out of the
slide lock. At the trunk cable end, you could solve the problem by lashing
the xceiver cable to the trunk cable with 2 or 3 nylon wire ties, but at
the desktop end it was a disaster.
|
In some cases where connecting plenum rated cable onto computers I would
use a short (very short) ribbon cable with appropriate connectors. Yes,
the impedance is wrong, but if it is short enough it works, and takes
the strain off the connector. Especially with desktop computers it was
hard to find enough room for the cable to bend.
I did once try a longer ribbon cable along with a long 78 ohm cable,
and that one did fail. It has to be pretty short.
-- glen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Eighth Doctor
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun May 15, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Does anybody have 10base5, 1base5, starlan1, or 10broad3 |
|
|
In article <QeudnY24WqLQBLPfRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, gah@ugcs.caltech.edu
says...
| Quote: |
Rich Seifert wrote:
(snip)
are the three tranceivers I have that have a pass through connection
appearing to be for RG-8 actually a variation on thinnet? Or did later
installations use REAL RG-8 and these tranceivers but not use vampire
taps? The more I learn the more ignorant I become...
No standards-compliant installation used RG-8, or PL-259 connectors.
Some commercial products used Type N inline connections, but most used
the vampire tap.
The first 10base2 installations I saw used those transceivers
with N to BNC adapters on them. At one point I did use one
at the end of a thick ethernet cable with type N connectors.
If you want to add to your collection, I have some 100baseT4
transceivers.
-- glen
Hello from the Eighth Doctor |
Glen? Still have those things? Yes I would! Please contact me off of this NG to
discuss the methods for shipping. Plus anything you can dispose of that's network
related. And you might remember me from other groups from my style of posting.
---
Gregg drwho8 atsign att dot net
"This signature disavows itself." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in