Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.dcom.cabling > #125
| From | "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.internet.wireless, comp.dcom.cabling, comp.dcom.lans.ethernet |
| Subject | Re: Shielded RJ-45: Internal vs External Ground? |
| Date | 2015-01-13 12:33 -0600 |
| Organization | me |
| Message-ID | <m93oc5$t5m$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <p0h0bapljsh0qags00cfhv45cvq0fvj2oq@4ax.com> <1de1ba98b5a4o1sun0bcing0hgbsrv5t92@4ax.com> <vmc2bapjnpb31q1isbqak03mijt93o5k27@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
X-posting to Cabling newsgroups "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message news:vmc2bapjnpb31q1isbqak03mijt93o5k27@4ax.com... > Per Char Jackson: >>>I have seen the light and am going to replace the regular Cat5 cables on >>>my radio links with shielded - using Ubiquiti's ToughCable Pro. >> >>I'm curious, where is this discussion taking place where they're >>recommending shielded cable? I wonder what's the basis for the >>recommendation. Yes, I'm skeptical. > > So was I. > > But the manual says that shielded cable is important. viz Page 4 of > http://setuprouter.com/router/ubiquiti/nanostation-m5/manual-877.pdf > > Self-serving promo for their house brand? That was my kneejerk > reaction.... but now I know that there are several threads in the > Ubiquiti fora that make it pretty clear that electrostatic discharge is > a consideration. For example: http://tinyurl.com/m5vttf3 > > Now I realize that I cannot afford to be skeptical because I just don't > know enough. > > The facts are: > > - Every so often 3 cams become unreachable from a remote site over > a radio link. > > - A fourth cam never, ever has any problems > > - The 3 problem cams immediately become reachable once both > ends of the radio link are re-booted. > > - One of the links is attached to the top of a 15-foot windsurfer > mast only about 50' from a large bay - i.e. it gets some > serious weather. > > Add to the above that it is starting to look like there is a correlation > between the failures and high winds at the site and you see where I > am.... > > But, like I said, I'm clueless except that I know that those three > things are clearly happening.... And the pros on the Ubiquiti site are > telling me that grounded/shielded cable to an outside radio is > absolutely standard practice. > > I have withdrawn from the discussion where this is taking place because > I was starting to irritate at least one of the gurus there with my > incessant beginner-type questions. The guys who matter there are > mostly professionals and it is now clear to me that I was abusing the > environment. There are also amateurs there, but I seem to be more > verbose and less inclined to research before asking than most. > > But my basic question remains: how can a radio-link problem be > camera-specific? > > Greater Minds Than Mine have said "No problem... see it all the time." > > But I have yet to get specifics... to that end, I just pulled the > trigger on a smart switch that I will swap in down at the problem site > when I get down that way. Then I will be able to test the obvious > suggestion that it is something to do with bandwidth (not!...but I need > to prove it) and also to put WireShark on both ends of the link. > > Whatever happens, I am going to come out of this knowing significantly > more than when I went in. > > The thread is at: http://tinyurl.com/m6pyfje > -- > Pete Cresswell
Back to comp.dcom.cabling | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: Shielded RJ-45: Internal vs External Ground? "ps56k" <pschuman_no5pam_m3@interserv.com> - 2015-01-13 12:33 -0600
csiph-web