I hope they all weren't on that yellow cable. @60 devices on a single collision domain would likely not have worked very well.
I also can't believe you used Ethernet RG8 for ham radio. I read the spec and even tried some (I had reels of that stuff at one time) and found it way too lossy even at HF frequencies. It was very low quality RG8. bill KB3YV ________________________________ From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Pete Lancashire via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 3:51 PM To: Noel Chiappa; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Ethernet cable (Was: Sun3 valuations?) A side story. I was the only 'customer' of a long run of that yellow cable, when we moved the 260 + 3/50's to a different location, I asked if they were going to reuse the cable. "Nope, cost to much to get it out of the roof trusses." I forget but it was a LONG run. Tektronix back in those days was still an engineering oriented company and all I had to do was mention it one day in the main cafeteria. Next thing I know I was followed back to the building with at least 10 engineers following me. I called and asked one one the facility department guys that knew about the cable no longer being used, and his reply was something like if it not there Monday I know nothing about it. The bottom of the trusses were a good 15 if not more feet up. Five of us got it down and I came home with the cable on Sunday. My helpers would not take anything in $'s, the challenge was good enough. Make a great cable for my ham radio hobby. Today one would never get away with such .... -pete On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > From: Paul Koning > > > The nominal OD of RG-8/U is .. within spec for Ethernet cable. > > Oh, OK. I was just used to the 10Mb cable we used being slightly larger > than > the 3Mb cable we used. > > > Also, Ethernet requires a solid inner conductor (for the tap) while > > RG-8/U may come stranded. (Maybe only in some variants, I'm not > sure.) > > As can be seen in the photos, the 3Mb stuff (at least, the stuff we used) > was > also solid. The diameter of the center was a little smaller on the 3Mb > than on > the 10Mb; .16mm versus .23mm; not sure if that was just happenstance, or > what. > > Noel > >
