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