MarkP wrote on 2022-07-27, 22:25:
This thread does not have anything to do with your experience in radio communication at all. It is about transferring files from on computer system to another. And the various ways to do that.
Why do you think that? To my understanding, it's the same principles of physics that are at work.
And amateurs were silently a driving force in the 1970s home computer revolution, btw.
Those were the type of dedicated hobbyist that could read schematics, solder and understand 7400 series ICs.
It's not as if their hobby had zero influence to the history of computing or something. *sigh* 🙄
The only difference here is that ethernet does not use an high frequency signal, but a baseband signal.
The radios and coaxial transceivers are different, sure, but also related simultaneously.
Like an UHF TV antenna cable vs a Composite cable.
Both are 75 Ohms, but the antenna cable uses high frequency and has better specs (shielding, loss).
It's possible to use a classic UHF TV antenna cable as a Composite cable no problem, but the other way round causes bad image quality.
For a few meters, it works. Like it's to be expected from super market products.
But using an RCA Composite cable as a feedline to the terrestrial antenna on the roof,
isn't a good idea. It will cause a lot of interference, weak signal strength et cetera.
MarkP wrote on 2022-07-27, 22:25:
You suggested a modern approach using Blue Tooth. Some of us suggested ye olde 10Base2 and refined that suggestion by describing what equipment/cabling is required. Even though it is not "modern" it is still a valid approach to transfer files from one system to another. And as I mentioned earlier I can just pop down to Jaycar, one of our local electrical supplier, and buy all the items I need off the shelf to put together that ye olde networking solution.
Never mind, it seems the dilemma is rooted in our different kind of perspective.
Perhaps we're both neither right, nor wrong thus.
I guess you're looking at it from the point of a salesman, while I'm more of a technican.
The problem is, that RG is an specification, not a product.
Someone can homebrew an excellent network cable for little money that's better than the recent, nameless stuff sold in various non-technical minded places.
Also, as I said, the quality changed over the years.
It's like with audio cassettes, diskettes, etc.
Modern productions are a shadow of what used to be.
Unfortunately, things do age, too. That's what's even more dragic:
If a 40 year old cable, slightly oxidated, torn has better quality still than what's sold in today's stores under the same name.
BitWrangler wrote on 2022-07-28, 03:05:
Jo22 wrote on 2022-07-27, 19:52:
Thus, there's no apparent reason to my understanding why modern replacements won't do as a replacements.
Yeah you apparently missed the bit where vampire taps (Which is the tap with an integrated AUI transciever) and other pieces of vintage thick coax hardware are dependant on the physical dimensions of the cable being the same as they were in the day.
Hi, I don't think I missed it. I mentioned my concerns a few posts earlier. Maybe there are different sets of clamps, too. One will sure match RG213? 🤷♂️
Alternatively, a user can decide to do not use clamps but a hub or something?🤷♂️
A direct connection (retro network) between two PCs can perhaps work without a clamp, not sure.
Funny thing is, that RG-213 UBX is the successor specification to RG8U. It basically *is* RG-8U. It has the same diameter.
Real "RG-8U" was already outdated/outphased in the 1980s.
I have no idea how many 80s networks silently used RG-213, RG-214 or RG-213 UBX in disguise as RG-8U.
Okay, here's a quote that's not from me.
Maybe it's more worth that what I said before.
"Be very careful of using RG8/U "type" coaxial cable because RG8/U has not been a valid specification for cable for a number of years.
Therefore, there is no real RG8/U standard and the quality can vary all over the place.
A goodly amount of RG8/U "type" cable sold for the "CB" market is of marginal quality and quite often does not have that much copper in the braid (shield).
Basically what is now sold as RG8/U "type" can range from pretty good quality to absolutely dismal quality.
You really need RG213/U coaxial cable which replaced RG8/U cable a number of years ago.
There is a published standard for RG213/U cable. "
Source (a sailing forum): https://forums.sailinganarchy.com/threads/vhf … g8u-vs-rg213.16
The text warns about lower end cables from the CB market (of today, btw), now imagine what horrible quality to expect from a questionable cable sold in a super market!
CB uses RF signals and as such has higher demands than a simple network transceiver based on baseband signals, even.
And a proper RG-213U made with radio amateurs or professionals in mind a nd sold by serious cable makers,
should cause no trouble at all.
Or long story short: A cable suited for CB or any other radio application is much better as a network cable from an electrical point if view.
There will be less reflections, noise coming in from man made noise, etc.
With a cheaply made cable, a TFT monitor's switcging PSU or a smartTV's switching PSU could cause lost packets on a coaxial LAN.
Maybe even reset the NIC, not sure. Bad cables do act as antennas, too.
Speaking of substitutes.. That's similar to RG-223 which wwhicn early real world substitute to RG-58.
Some vendors sold RG- 223 (which is better) when the customer asked for RG-58..
- Perhaps they had higher standards and didn't bother to store RG-58U in their warehouse anymore.
Speaking of RG-58, 10Base2 doesn't use clamps.
Any 50 Ohm coaxial cable of proper quality can be used.
Including RG-8U / RG-213. It's just a matter of using a N to BNC adapter or changing the connector directly.
That's what I desperately tried to explain.
Unfortunately, I seem to have failed. Maybe it's really time to go back to the original computing topic. 🤷♂️
There's nothing helpful left I haven't said already.
Edit: Edited, Picture added.
Edit: I've looked up information for those may wonder what the "yellow cable" of 10Base5 looked like.
It's a very unflexible cable that had multiple layers of extra shielding due to the poor vampire clamps.
"Due to the bulkiness of the Yellow Cable, the small bending radius and the interference-prone connection
of the transceiver with vampire clamps, the original version was only used until
the end of the 1980s and was replaced by more flexible cable solutions. "
Source: https://www.itwissen.info/en/yellow-cable-107 … .html#gsc.tab=0
Well, at least it got replacement solutions..
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//