Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!otc!metro!ipso!stcns3!dave From: dave@stcns3.stc.oz (Dave Horsfall) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Using 48.? ohm RG 62A/U cable for Thin Ethernet? Keywords: IBM COAX, Thin Ethernet, Cheapernet, Thinnet... Message-ID: <473@stcns3.stc.oz> Date: 30 May 88 01:40:19 GMT References: <2471@ritcsh.UUCP><2631@ritcsh.UUCP> <22226@tis.llnl.gov> Reply-To: dave@stcns3.stc.oz (Dave Horsfall) Organization: Alcatel-STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA Lines: 18 In article <22226@tis.llnl.gov> bae@ati.tis.llnl.gov (Hwa Jin Bae) writes: >How about RG 59? (as opposed to RG 58 or RG 11). >I am using RG 59 in one of the segments of our thin Ethernet part of LAN, >and it seems to work just fine... Can anyone think of any reason not to >use RG 59? It seems to be a better cable than 58 and a nice compromise >between 58 and 11. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about... Nope - it's 75 ohm. It's used for CATV, broad-band LANS etc. Certainly not for base-band Ethernet, which wants 50 ohm co-ax. You'll still get impedance mis-matches, and although you may not _see_ any degradation, it'll be there in the form of retries etc. Stick to 50 ohm cable. And what do you mean by "a nice compromise between 58 and 11"? -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel-STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.OZ.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.OZ.AU!dave "ADA - From the people who brought you COBOL"