Alternative Ethernet Connector

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi

Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
other than the standard RJ45?

Thanks.
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"Emtech" <noaddress> wrote:
>Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
>other than the standard RJ45?

Well, you can run it on anything that meets the Cat-5 specs (and some
things that aren't, cf. the barbed wire discussion that comes up
frequently), but then it isn't Ethernet, is it?

What problem are you trying to solve? What's wrong with RJ45 in your
application? There are (for instance) weathertight RJ45 connectors...
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"Emtech" <noaddress> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
> other than the standard RJ45?

Many PCMCIA ethernet cards use non-standard connectors, to connect the cable
to the card.
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Well, if you were doing a lot of wiring, and wanted to save money, I
don't see why you couldn't use telephone type connectors. Just make
sure you are consistant and get the polarity correct. You might want
to avoid the center two contacts in case soembody plugged in a single
line phone. And make the next two contacts be the inbound signal. I
had thought of that so that I could wire my home with jacks, but then
decided I didn't care if I just had wires coming out of holes in the
walls. The official RJ45 wall jacks are a lot more expensive than
phone jacks.
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sqrfolkdnc wrote:

> Well, if you were doing a lot of wiring, and wanted to save money, I
> don't see why you couldn't use telephone type connectors. Just make
> sure you are consistant and get the polarity correct. You might want
> to avoid the center two contacts in case soembody plugged in a single
> line phone. And make the next two contacts be the inbound signal. I
> had thought of that so that I could wire my home with jacks, but then
> decided I didn't care if I just had wires coming out of holes in the
> walls. The official RJ45 wall jacks are a lot more expensive than
> phone jacks.

If you really want to save money use four line phone jacks.
That is, ones that aren't Cat 5 certified but will probably
work fine for 10baseT, and if you are a little careful in
wiring them at 100baseTX.

-- glen
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sqrfolkdnc wrote:

> Well, if you were doing a lot of wiring, and wanted to save money, I
> don't see why you couldn't use telephone type connectors. Just make
> sure you are consistant and get the polarity correct. You might want
> to avoid the center two contacts in case soembody plugged in a single
> line phone. And make the next two contacts be the inbound signal. I
> had thought of that so that I could wire my home with jacks, but then
> decided I didn't care if I just had wires coming out of holes in the
> walls. The official RJ45 wall jacks are a lot more expensive than
> phone jacks.

Where are you shopping? I've not found RJ-45s to be much more expensive.
Also, if you use non-standard connectors, you'll have to create
non-standard patch cords, which means you'll be investing a lot of time in
making them, instead of buying low cost, ready made cables. You'd also
have to worry about plugging the wrong device into the jacks.
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Emtech wrote:

> Hi
>
> Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
> other than the standard RJ45?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Most connectors(100 mil centers or less) will work at 10baseT or
100BaseT ... separation & parallelism are all the more critical on
1000BaseT...
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"Emtech" <noaddress> writes:

> Hi
>
> Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
> other than the standard RJ45?

Some industrial Ethernet systems run Ethernet on 4-pin M12 plug-in connector.

Three companies announce support for M12 connector for Ethernet
http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/article/CA305874


--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
http://www.epanorama.net/
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Thanks guys.

William
I have looked at several weathertight RJ45 connectors, but none
of them (that I've seen) are very weathertight unless the RJ45 plug
is connected. This is for an automotive application and hence
robustness is very important. Also, if I can route Ethernet via the
main connector I don't need an RJ45 on the box, just one more
conveniently located somewhere on the dash.

I will be doing some CAT5 testing on several connectors (reques-
ted by customer) although I expect the connectors to work, never
theless it will be interesting.

"Emtech" <noaddress> wrote in message news:431ecbab$1@news.eftel.com...
> Hi
>
> Has anybody run Ethernet (10-100 Mega Bit) through any other connector,
> other than the standard RJ45?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"Emtech" <noaddress> wrote:
>I have looked at several weathertight RJ45 connectors, but none
>of them (that I've seen) are very weathertight unless the RJ45 plug
>is connected.

Well, that's always going to be true of any electrical connector,
isn't it? So you put a cap on it when it's not in use, like
http://www.selectronix.co.uk/series.asp?did=145&sid=238

>Also, if I can route Ethernet via the
>main connector I don't need an RJ45 on the box, just one more
>conveniently located somewhere on the dash.

Oh, so you want to run Ethernet plus a bunch of things thru a single
multi-contact connector to a box in an automotive environment.

>I will be doing some CAT5 testing on several connectors (reques-
>ted by customer) although I expect the connectors to work, never
>theless it will be interesting.

That should be fairly straightforward, keep the pairs together and
separated from other pairs, and specify the cables and wiring
properly, and all you should have to do is meet the Cat5E spec.

I'd have to guess that any decent Cat5E certification tool will give
you crosstalk margins, which will be your main concern. Loss (and
length) will probably be nowhere near the spec in a car, unless
someone wants to hook a 90M patch cable up...
 
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

William P. N. Smith wrote:
(snip)

> That should be fairly straightforward, keep the pairs together and
> separated from other pairs, and specify the cables and wiring
> properly, and all you should have to do is meet the Cat5E spec.

If they wires of a pair are on adjacent pins, and the impedance is
anywhere close to 100 ohms, it should be fine. The effect of
connector impedance becomes increasingly important as the wavelength
approaches the length of the connector.

> I'd have to guess that any decent Cat5E certification tool will give
> you crosstalk margins, which will be your main concern. Loss (and
> length) will probably be nowhere near the spec in a car, unless
> someone wants to hook a 90M patch cable up...

I am not sure about the standard itself, but for actual use
it is much easier with short cables. The primary problem is
attenuation on long cables, which causes the near end crosstalk
margin problem. If the received signal is strong the margin will
be large even with a lot of crosstalk.

-- glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom