How long - Lan Cable ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by NZed, Dec 2, 2005.

1. NZedGuest

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

NZed, Dec 2, 2005

2. Matthew PooleGuest

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
scrawl:

> 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 ?
>

Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
metres.

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

Matthew Poole, Dec 2, 2005

3. NZedGuest

Pardon my ignorance ...whats a cat5 cable ?
Is this a standard Lan cable ?
NZed

"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
> scrawl:
>
> > 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 ?
> >

> Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
> metres.
>
> --
> Matthew Poole
> "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
>

NZed, Dec 2, 2005
4. Craig WhitmoreGuest

THN
"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
> scrawl:
>
>> 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 ?
>>

> Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
> metres.

And from this:

For Solid UTP:
Fast Ethernet 100baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)

Recommended maximum lengths for Patch Cables made from stranded cable:
Fast Ethernet 100baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)

Ie they recommend you use solid core cable for runs longer than 10 meters

Thanks
Craig

Craig Whitmore, Dec 2, 2005
5. -=rjh=-Guest

Craig Whitmore wrote:
> THN
> "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
> news...
>
>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
>>scrawl:
>>
>>
>>>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 ?
>>>

>>
>>Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
>>metres.

>
>
>
> And from this:
>
> For Solid UTP:
> Fast Ethernet 100baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
> Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
>
> Recommended maximum lengths for Patch Cables made from stranded cable:
> Fast Ethernet 100baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
> Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
>
> Ie they recommend you use solid core cable for runs longer than 10 meters

From the same site:

CAT5 is rated to 100M
CAT5e is rated to 350M

Which surprises me - I thought that the 100m limit was a timing issue,
not an electrical performance issue. Or does the 350m limit only apply
if using CAT5e *and* gigabit ethernet?

-=rjh=-, Dec 2, 2005
6. Fred DaggGuest

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:30:04 +1300, -=rjh=- <>
exclaimed:

>Craig Whitmore wrote:
>> THN
>> "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
>> news...
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:39:14 +1300, someone purporting to be NZed didst
>>>scrawl:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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 ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Assuming you're talking about Cat5 cable, the maximum distance is 100
>>>metres.

>>
>>
>>
>> And from this:
>>
>> For Solid UTP:
>> Fast Ethernet 100baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
>> Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 100 Meters (328 feet)
>>
>> Recommended maximum lengths for Patch Cables made from stranded cable:
>> Fast Ethernet 100baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
>> Twisted Pair Ethernet 10baseT 10 Meters (33 feet)
>>
>> Ie they recommend you use solid core cable for runs longer than 10 meters

>
> From the same site:
>
>CAT5 is rated to 100M
>CAT5e is rated to 350M
>
>Which surprises me - I thought that the 100m limit was a timing issue,
>not an electrical performance issue. Or does the 350m limit only apply
>if using CAT5e *and* gigabit ethernet?

Quite the opposite, I believe.

I'm pretty sure Gigabit over Cat5e has a shorter max distance than
10/100.

Fred Dagg, Dec 2, 2005
7. Craig WhitmoreGuest

> From the same site:
>
> CAT5 is rated to 100M
> CAT5e is rated to 350M
>

M = Meg so Cat5 is ok for FastEthernet

Thanks
Craig

Craig Whitmore, Dec 3, 2005
8. BretGuest

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 ?

Bret, Dec 3, 2005
9. -=rjh=-Guest

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

-=rjh=-, Dec 3, 2005
10. GordonGuest

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:17:50 +1300, NZed wrote:

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

Standard ng posting is bottom.

Cat5 is rated to 100MB/s

Gordon, Dec 3, 2005
11. Nicholas SherlockGuest

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

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

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

Nicholas Sherlock, Dec 3, 2005
12. DavidGuest

-=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

Hehe, its both

David, Dec 3, 2005
13. Roger JohnstoneGuest

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"

Roger Johnstone, Dec 3, 2005
14. -=rjh=-Guest

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

>
>
> Hehe, its both

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

-=rjh=-, Dec 3, 2005
15. thingyGuest

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, Dec 3, 2005
16. EMBGuest

thingy wrote:

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

No - depends on timing.

--
EMB

EMB, Dec 3, 2005
17. DavidGuest

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?

David, Dec 4, 2005
18. Craig WhitmoreGuest

> 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, Dec 4, 2005
19. Collector»NZGuest

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

Collector»NZ, Dec 4, 2005
20. Matthew PooleGuest

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."

Matthew Poole, Dec 4, 2005