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 < [email protected]> 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 > RG8. > > bill > KB3YV > > ________________________________ > From: cctalk <[email protected]> on behalf of Pete Lancashire > via cctalk <[email protected]> > 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 .... > > -pete > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk < > [email protected]> 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 > > > > > >
