Anything faster I can run on Thinnet?

Trying to patch a bad situation for a few months until we can get a fiber contractor into our semi-rural mfg facility. Is there anything faster than 10 Mb that I can run over Thinnet cable? It doesn't have to be standard or even Ethernet as I only need to connect 2 ends for a short period of time.

Thanks.

sPh

Reply to
sphealey
Loading thread data ...

anything

Good thought, but I truely doubt wireless would work in that facility/environment.

sPh

Reply to
sphealey

Can you go wireless? You didn't say what the distance was, or if there were obstructions that would make this impossible. Depending on distance and many other factors, you might be able to get real-world speeds better than 10Mpbs using 802.11a or 802.11g. You can use Ethernet-to-wireless bridges for non-wireless-capable equipment too.

Good luck, Jonathan

Reply to
Jonathan Sturges

In principle you could with suitable fittings use the Thinnet cable to carry the wifi signal. I've never heard of it being tried but it would be an interesting experiment.

Reply to
J. Clarke

I'd get a couple of WiFi devices and see if I could couple them to the cable. Depending on their specs and the cable length you might want to add some attenuators, but it might work to just get coax adapters...

Reply to
William P.N. Smith

Telco equipment, like DS3, E3, or T3 linecards, but it expects 75 Ohm (RG59) instead of 50 Ohm (RG58) cable. It is rather expensive unless you can pick up second hand stuff cheaply, or borrow stuff. Oh, and you'll need two cables, not just one.

Reply to
jpd

Something I should have mentioned--be careful with the wifi boards if you do that--some of the connectors are remarkably fragile--I've had a couple of them pull right out of the board just hooking up an antenna cable--fortunately it's just the ferrule--shoving it back on hard with a little epoxy seems to take care of the problem as long as you don't put any strain on them, although I wouldn't vouch for the impedence being right.

Reply to
J. Clarke

back in about '91 DEC made an FDDI over coax converter. I don't know if you could find one of those anymore.

I've got a span of coax running out of a power plant, with no way to re-run fiber in the path (the active bus off the generator is in the same cabletray), so if you find anything that works, let me know ;-)

Reply to
Daniel J McDonald

So you're saying that the OP's cable has more than (say) 120dB loss at

2.4GHz? Even without knowing the cable type or length?

Belden 9907, for instance, has 14.8dB loss per 100 feet at 1GHz...

Reply to
William P.N. Smith

ROF,L. If your source for that information is a book, burn it. If it's a teacher, drop the class. If it's your boss, be very afraid.

Thinnet cable is typically RG-58 coax, which is an RF cable _rated_ for over a GHz and capable of carrying a good deal more than that with reasonable attenuation.

Reply to
J. Clarke

The belden spec tops out at 1GHz. It's going to be lots gigher at

2.4Ghz. A google for generic RG58 found 1.1DB/m at 2GHz. It could be wrong.

I looked that up for a query about a 600ft/200M run, which I think the path loss (maybe 200DB down) rules a WiFi hack for that user.

It's possible that for some path that's not a clear shot (say indoors) for WiFI, or slightly outside the WiFI range (say 300 Ft) the radio-over-coax might work. A max-length TW run seems to be beyond the reach of a WiFI radio.

Since the OP has 10Mb/sec TW ethernet running "b" wifi isn't as fast. It would have to be "g", which is in the same RF band.

Reply to
Al Dykes

No. You would not. Your thinnet cable is designed for 10 MHz operation and is practically useless above say 100 MHz. Wifi operates at 2400 MHz. So go figure :-)

Reply to
Gerard Bok

I fail to see your point. Belden Thinnet cable, purpose made, is rated for

16 dB/100 feet at 1 GHz. Their RG58 is rated 14-22 depending on which particular variety. 1671A, a purpose-made microwave cable rated to 20 GHz, has 19.4, 1672A, a purpose-made high-frequency video cable, has 26.

Now you can "imagine" anything you want to but in the real world cables with that performance have been carrying signals in those frequency ranges for decades.

Reply to
J. Clarke

RG-58 is very lossy at WiFi frequencies.

Reply to
James Knott

RG-58 cables, which is what's used for ethernet, is usable at much higher frequencies than 100 MHz. However, it becomes very lossy at higher frequencies, so that it's only suitable for short distances. According to my catalog, at 900 MHz, the loss is about 22 dB at 100 feet or almost 66 dB at 100 metres. For rough estimates, 20 dB = 99% loss and 60dB = 99.9999% loss. The figures will be much higher for 2.4 GHz. At WiFi frequencies, you'd only use RG-58 for short patch cords.

Reply to
James Knott

However, it's not likely to have been used for ethernet.

BTW, Belden 9311 would be a bit better and use the same hardware as RG-58.

Reply to
James Knott

You might want to read some of the other posts, to find out that attenuators are the last thing you need. WiFi over coax will not likely work as far as WiFi through the air.

Reply to
James Knott

Sorry dudes - I had to go back and look at my own original post as I thought I had included that information. Which I had not ;-(

Length is over 100m - about 125 I think. Longer than 10' for sure.

sPh

Reply to
sphealey

What I am saying is, that for Wifi frequencies a Pringle can probably outperforms any thinnet cable :-)

Reply to
Gerard Bok

A length of coax can greatly improve the performance of a dummy load, used in testing UHF or microwave transmitters.

Reply to
James Knott

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.