8219 better for thin wire than RG58C/U?

Thread View: net.lan

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by Bob Cunningham Wed, 20 Aug 1986 17:58

#1133

Author: Bob Cunningham
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1986 17:58

23 lines
1741 bytes

Digital, 3COM et al recommend RG58C/U for "thin wire" Ethernets.  RG58C/U
various only slightly in construction from (the 70% more expensive) more
common RG58A/U.  The major difference is that C/U has a "non-contaminating"
vinyl jacket...which apparently means that if it catches fire the fumes are
less harmful to humans.

Trying to decide which cable to buy in bulk, I came across another RG58A/U
type cable (trade/Belden number 8219) with a cellular (foamed) polyethylene
internal insulation and a higher velocity propagation (.78c instead of .66c
for regular RG58A/U and C/U).  Curiously enough it seems to have exactly
the same electrical characteristics as regular "thick" Ethernet cable (same
capacitance and apparently same LC).

Assuming I don't need non-contaminating jacketed C/U, this looks like the
cable of choice for thin Ethernet.

Question:  has anybody tried it?  Are thinwire transceivers (e.g. 3COM
units) really tuned specifically for C/U-A/U cables, or is it reasonable to
suspect that 8219 is actually a better cable for thinwire applications?
-- 
Bob Cunningham  {humu|ihnp4}!{islenet|uhmanoa}!bob
		cunninghamr%haw.sdscnet@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads