John,
Many thanks for helping getting a reply form the source. I mostly appreciate
it.
Neven
-- Original message --
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
In message
062220060603.17444.449A32C1000E06B844242207020853CECE020A900A02@comc
ast.net, dated Thu,
In message
062220060603.17444.449A32C1000E06B844242207020853CECE020A900A02@comc
ast.net, dated Thu, 22 Jun 2006, neve...@comcast.net writes
AFAIK, there is no spec on imbalance of (each diff pair of) a port, and
I will check it with my local IEEE Ethernet spec specialists. I don't
know if
AFAIK, there is no spec on imbalance of (each diff pair of) a port, and I will
check it with my local IEEE Ethernet spec specialists. I don't know if there
is a spec on the cable, but I will try to find it. I'd really like to see if
the requirement from the standard has any basis in the actual
In message
062220060528.732.449A2A99000B117902DC2200745672CECE020A900A02@comcas
t.net, dated Thu, 22 Jun 2006, neve...@comcast.net writes
However, the issue is not the imbalance specification looking into the
DUT connector (test port, diff pairs). The problem that I see here
is that
John, thanks for the explanation to David, you are right in what you wrote. I
was out the whole day so I am catching up now in the evening.
However, the issue is not the imbalance specification looking into the DUT
connector (test port, diff pairs). The problem that I see here is that
In message
231db4b2f2634a4c94d87d89a4fa81d201542...@ny13ex011.global.ds.honeywell.c
om, dated Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Sterner, David [SFS]
david.ster...@honeywell.com writes
If a pair of lines connects only two ports, each of the two ports is
100 ohms impedance, and the cable is uniform, please
In a message 21-Jun-06 Mr. Woodgate stated I don't understand why you
have sent this information. I've no doubt
it's all true, but you haven't quoted any of the message you are
responding to, and you haven't commented on the permitted unbalance of
the port impedances, which is one subject under
In message
231db4b2f2634a4c94d87d89a4fa81d201542...@ny13ex011.global.ds.honeywell.c
om, dated Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Sterner, David [SFS]
david.ster...@honeywell.com writes
Per ANSI/IEEE 8032.3x Ethernet Cat 5, 6, and 7 cables have only two
ports, additional ports are forbidden. Both ports are
Per ANSI/IEEE 8032.3x Ethernet Cat 5, 6, and 7 cables have only two ports,
additional ports are forbidden. Both ports are transformer isolated for a
100-ohm impedance termination. Communication to other network locations is
always through an active device (e.g. hub, switch, router).
The only
In message
062120060433.25342.4498CC271E7162FE2207020853CECE020A900A02@comc
ast.net, dated Wed, 21 Jun 2006, neve...@comcast.net writes
I am looking for the actual data supporting the chosen LCL
characteristics for the CAT5, 6 and 7 ISN per the standard.
Yes, and I think that data (or
John,
I am looking for the actual data supporting the chosen LCL characteristics for
the CAT5, 6 and 7 ISN per the standard. According to the described intent of
the standard, the ISN characteristics are such to purposely introduce
imbalance, supposedly to replicate the LCL characteristics of a
I didn't get any reply to my original question, so I'll try a little smaller
bite.
Does anyone have or know the sources (preferably published, verifiable, with
the exact test method described) of the LCL (Longitudinal Conversion Loss,
i.e. balance) of typical installation that support the LCL
Hi everyone,
Is anyone on the list familiar with the work on CISPR 22 and a part of the
standard committee? I am looking at CISPR 22 Edition 5 (2005), trying to
understand the specific requirements on ISN and CDN for Signal Line Conducted
emission, especially the so called Longitudinal
13 matches
Mail list logo
