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"