«

Gordon wrote:
> Cat5 is rated to 100MB/s

No it isn't. It's rated to 100Mb/s.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

-=rjh=- wrote:
> Bret wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:04:07 +1300, "Craig Whitmore"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> From the same site:
>>>>
>>>> CAT5 is rated to 100M
>>>> CAT5e is rated to 350M
>>>>
>>>
>>> M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think it means metres ?
>>
>
> No, Craig is correct - my mistake, though the site probably could have
> made it clearer.

Hehe, its both

In <> NZed wrote:

> Thanks Mathew for the reply.
> Pardon my ignorance ...whats a cat5 cable ?
> Is this a standard Lan cable ?
> NZed

Cat 5 is an abbreviation for category 5 unshielded twisted pair (UTP)
cable, as used for modern Ethernet cabling.

The various UTP categories were set out by a standards body so everyone
can just say 'category 5' instead of having to say 'unshielded twisted
pair cable, four pairs, 100 ohms impedance, meets Ethernet requirements
for transmission at up to 100 megahertz'.

Category 3 and 4 cables are suitable for the slower 10Base-T Ethernet.
Category 5e is 'enhanced category 5', an interim specification for
1000Base-T (gigabit Ethernet), although category 6 cables are now
available.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://roger.geek.nz/
__________________________________________________ ______________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"

David wrote:
> -=rjh=- wrote:
>
>> Bret wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:04:07 +1300, "Craig Whitmore"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> From the same site:
>>>>>
>>>>> CAT5 is rated to 100M
>>>>> CAT5e is rated to 350M
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it means metres ?
>>>
>>
>> No, Craig is correct - my mistake, though the site probably could have
>> made it clearer.
>
>
> Hehe, its both

Nope; m = metres, m = 10^-3, M = 10^6

NZed wrote:
> I have an application where I have to run approx 40 m of cable. Whats the
> max length I can run without having to run a booster ?
>
> NZed
>
>

100m officially.

but 150m could be possible depends on interference., plus you can do
power over ethernet.

regards

Thing

thingy wrote:

> 100m officially.
>
> but 150m could be possible depends on interference.

No - depends on timing.

--
EMB

EMB wrote:
> thingy wrote:
>
>> 100m officially.
>>
>> but 150m could be possible depends on interference.
>
>
> No - depends on timing.
>
So what are the options for longer runs? Would you need a hub/switch? Or
is optical fibre more cost effective/better?

> So what are the options for longer runs? Would you need a hub/switch? Or
> is optical fibre more cost effective/better?

You could put a switch in between the 2 pieces of ethernet, but there is a
limit of the number of switches/hubs you can "string together".
You could use UTP->Fibre convertors and then depending what you get.. the
fibre can go quite a number of Km

Thanks
Craig

Craig Whitmore wrote:
>>So what are the options for longer runs? Would you need a hub/switch? Or
>>is optical fibre more cost effective/better?
>
>
> You could put a switch in between the 2 pieces of ethernet, but there is a
> limit of the number of switches/hubs you can "string together".
> You could use UTP->Fibre convertors and then depending what you get.. the
> fibre can go quite a number of Km
>
> Thanks
> Craig
>
>
Km yes, but dont forget the cost. Fibre and converters are expensive still.

--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
================================================== ====================
*Slow day Posts Blog*
Pictorial Amusement from the web at http://nzcollector.blogspot.com

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:26:40 +1300, someone purporting to be Collector»NZ
didst scrawl:

> Craig Whitmore wrote:
*SNIP*
> Km yes, but dont forget the cost. Fibre and converters are expensive still.

Fibre is dirt cheap. Dramatically cheaper than copper, and has been for
several years. The expense is in the terminating equipment.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."