Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!agate!saturn!eshop From: eshop@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: ANC connectors Keywords: testing and alternatives Message-ID: <4930@saturn.ucsc.edu> Date: 24 Sep 88 21:34:18 GMT References: <157@ernie.NECAM.COM> <22961@amdcad.AMD.COM> <920@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> Reply-To: eshop@saturn.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 17 In article <920@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (The Super User) writes: > >I'm not disputing the idea of putting transceivers every 6 inches or so, >but what kind of havoc does this wreak on the ethernet? I thought the >2.5 meter separation rule was there to prevent/minimize reflections on the >medium? The purpose of the rule is to prevent an in-phase build up of the reflections from individual transceivers. You can't prevent the reflections themselves. The spacing rule guarantees that, when you get up near the 100 transceiver limit, that the reflections won't be in phase and create a big enough composite reflection to trash out a packet. If your network has a small number of transceivers (less than 10), even if their reflections are all in phase, their sum is too small to do any damage. jim warner U.C. Santa Cruz