That's why it's rated at 100 meters max distance when used for networking. Now before everybody breaks their fingers posting anecdotal evidence to the contrary I have done the same.
It worked out great, till we starting loading that segment down. That 400' run was replaced with fiber inside a month. There's all sorts of stuff people do with CAT5/6 that isn't supposed to be done, like running it parallel to or in the same conduit as AC power. Using it for a transmission line has got to be right up there. Remember, I am only the messenger, the IEEE came up with these "rules". On 05/07/2012 07:07 PM, Rick Karlquist wrote: > I did some careful measurements of CAT5 cable a few years ago > using a 4 port network analyzer (NOT a 2 port VNA with baluns). > On my random sample, the characteristic impedance was within > 5% of 100 ohms. The cable is fairly lossy, which is no > surprise given the tiny wires. There doesn't seem to be > any compelling reason to use it in place of RG-6. > > Rick N6RK > > _______________________________________________ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > -- R. Kevin Stover AC0H _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
