I had mentioned great stuff but someone aserted it was porous.  I had suggested 
a piece of pvc and using that at both ends

Sent via BlackBerry 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Greg Sevart" <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:22:49 
To: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H] Insane method for protecting an ethernet join in a hole of
        water

Interesting idea, but I'd confirm that the Crisco is really non-conductive. 
Being essentially a fat, it would also decompose over time.

You could also consider trying a closed-cell expanding foam (ie: Great Stuff) 
or silicone...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of CW
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [H] Insane method for protecting an ethernet join in a hole of water
> 
> Ok, have a location where a 1000' splice of ethernet runs and makes a turn.
> Due to a really poorly cut conduit by the client, this has never been right 
> since
> the beginning.  So, wire people out, we're trying to think of a unique
> solution.  We had a wild brainstorm today.
> 
> Here's the deal.  At 600', a box in the ground (about 2' down) joins.  Cable
> comes in both ways.  Joins there (just couplers basically).  But the box fills
> with water every single night all the way.
> 
> The wire installer tried a weathertight box (still leaked in once submerged,
> more designed to resist rain) and they've tried wrapping with electrical tape,
> etc.. in the end, same thing happens, short across live wires and down she
> goes.
> 
> So, a guy at the meeting, the sprinkler systems person proposed something I
> thought was ridiculous but I've thought about since all day.   Get a can of
> Crisco, wrap the wires, and run them down into the crisco can, seal the top,
> let go.  Crisco would hold out the water and it's non-conductive.   This is 
> after
> they suggested peanutbutter.
> 
> We all laughed like crazy when these were suggested.   Now I'm wondering
> how dumb of an idea this would actually be...  worst case, you're just out the
> $5 to try...

Reply via email to