Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Wireless router or ethernet?  (Read 3233 times)
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6055




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2006, 05:50:12 AM »

Kevin,  Pulling low power wiring in a conduit is OK IF the wiring there is low power also.  120/240 volts is NOT low power.  As others have pointed out, it is a safety AND an interference issue.  The NEC addresses the safety issue and common sense addresses both.  Those regs are there for a reason.  Ignore them and you're asking for trouble......  
Logged
K9MI
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2006, 07:25:41 AM »

I have found on my small lot, that Dsl modems don't like rf from any hf frequency. I have filters on all the phones, and the phone company put one in at the box. I have this problem when DSL first became available in our city, and when finances dictated the cable modem (no trouble there though) had to go.

If you are fortunate enough to have your hf antennas far enough away from your DSL modem, maybe that works out ok. On a 50x130 lot, rf from my hf transciever, even at low power on PSK31, shuts the DSL modem down until I quit transmitting.

I thought this would be the case when I went from cable back to dsl, but this years rate of $13 a month is worth it. After I'm done transmitting it will link back up to the packet cluster, so it's not a major problem for me. I only get on the web cluster about once a month, so most of the time, it's not an issue.

Mike, K9MI

Logged
K9MI
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2006, 07:37:11 AM »

I have found on my small lot, that Dsl modems don't like rf from any hf frequency. I have filters on all the phones, and the phone company put one in at the box. I have this problem when DSL first became available in our city, and when finances dictated the cable modem (no trouble there though) had to go.

If you are fortunate enough to have your hf antennas far enough away from your DSL modem, maybe that works out ok. On a 50x130 lot, rf from my hf transciever, even at low power on PSK31, shuts the DSL modem down until I quit transmitting.

I thought this would be the case when I went from cable back to dsl, but this years rate of $13 a month is worth it. After I'm done transmitting it will link back up to the packet cluster, so it's not a major problem for me. I only get on the web cluster about once a month, so most of the time, it's not an issue.

Mike, K9MI

Logged
AC7CW
Member

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2006, 08:24:50 AM »

I have the DSL modem and firewall in the house and the shack and antennas are about 100-150 feet away. I probably could not bring the modem down if I tried as long as I don't put RF into the cable.

I researched the various CAT cable ratings and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_7_cable

CAT7 cable is double shielded, each pair is shielded and the whole thing is shielded. This is probably the best answer for my situation, converting to coax is not necessary and it is more complicated what with the converter plugs and all.

Logged
KG4RUL
Member

Posts: 2750


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2006, 09:26:05 AM »

Do worry about the NEC!  If ANYTHING goes wrong, your insurance company will leave you high and dry if the codes are not followed!

Dennis KG4RUL
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20636




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2006, 09:42:53 AM »

CAT7 is likely way overkill, but if you have it, use it.

CAT6 STP and even CAT6 UTP are very immune to radiation and also radiate very, very little signal when properly terminated.  

My lab performs EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) testing as a NVLAP accredited test laboratory for wired and wireless services and when we test stuff connected via CAT6, if anything radiates at all, it's not the cable.  The equipment connected to the cable is always the culprit.  CAT6 STP especially is extremely self-shielding (the connectors are also shielded, so no reason at all to transition to coax) and very inexpensive.   We run a Stargen data bus through it for hundreds of feet (622 MHz) and the only loss of integrity is due to the actual attenuation of the copper wire.  Since we use a 3v signal on a bus that will operate fine with about 1v, there's so much margin that even a 200-300 foot run works fine.

WB2WIK/6
Logged
N3OX
Member

Posts: 8847


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2006, 09:46:27 AM »

Largely false.

Maybe local building code that incorporates parts of the NEC.  The NEC is not a law.  It's a recommendation for lawmakers.  It's a set of really good recommendations though, and dropping another conduit in for low voltage/signal wires isn't so hard, as the original poster has said.

Your local government can give parts of the NEC the force of law by referring to it specifically in the local building codes.  

It's good practice to abide by the NEC, but the actual insurance and legal ramifications of not doing so are highly locally dependent, so let's not get carried away.

Dan
Logged

73,
Dan
http://www.n3ox.net

Monkey/silicon cyborg, beeping at rocks since 1995.
N3OX
Member

Posts: 8847


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2006, 09:47:36 AM »

Whoops, sorry Steve; thought KG4RUL was the last post.

Dan
Logged

73,
Dan
http://www.n3ox.net

Monkey/silicon cyborg, beeping at rocks since 1995.
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 2450




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2006, 09:50:55 AM »

I recently spent 5 years developing portable communications packages for the military, and found that even with up to 16 radios running upto 1500W on HF, radios on VHF and UHF, there was no discernable RFI problems with the ethernet LAN, using either shielded or unshielded Cat 5.

And this was with a LAN connection running directly to each radio transit case, and to multiple users.

You will get more reliable performance from a wired installation.  Wireless is easier to install, but can be unpredictable in performance.

73,  bill
Logged
WA4PTZ
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2006, 10:13:41 AM »

I am using both at this time. My main puter is
attached to the router via ethernet and my ham
puter is using the wireless part of the router.
I get good connectivity with both but I seem to
get higher bit rate from the ethernet. The
wireless unit is one that is attached to a USB cable
and I have it raised up on a wall to give it a better
signal level. When I first set it up I was only
getting 44% signal now I have 87% just by raising
it up. I beleive that both work ok I just get a bit
better results from the ethernet.
73 ,
Tim


Logged
WILLY
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2006, 10:46:47 AM »

Here in this thread, it seems that the general consensus leans much towards hard wiring, and avoiding wireless.

Yet here:
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=9fe42997c798c14aa55d9db92381ba0c;act=ST;f=5;t=130584;hl=wireless+and+router
everyone reports very good results when using wireless.

       ?
Logged
WILLY
Member

Posts: 286




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: September 07, 2006, 10:50:11 AM »

 by WB2WIK on September 6, 2006     

"I go wired when I can.   - - -  "



But here:
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=9fe42997c798c14aa55d9db92381ba0c;act=ST;f=5;t=130584;hl=wireless+and+router
in regards to wireless you said,
"It's all I use...all over the house. "


Obviously I'm missing something.
Can you elaborate?
Logged
N4CR
Member

Posts: 1694




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2006, 11:10:45 AM »

I'd consider fiber optic transmission before I'd go with cat 7. Fiber is about the same price per foot and has the benefit of optical isolation.
Logged

73 de N4CR, Phil

Never believe an atom. They make up everything.
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20636




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2006, 12:23:04 PM »

I go wired when I can.  I go wireless when wiring is just too complex or costly.

Here at the office, it's all wired except for a couple of visitor accessible conference rooms where we have WAPs (wireless access points) installed, so visitors can use their laptops to access the internet.

At my home, it's all wireless because the house is large and not pre-wired for networking, and wireless was much cheaper and easier.  Not just cheaper, but literally "free" since the service provider also provides whatever means necessary to provide the service!  There were no hardware installation costs at all, just the regular monthly charge for wideband connectivity.

I've never had the slightest "RFI" problem from wireless routers or WAPs.  Sometimes from their cheapie wall-wart power supplies...yes.

WB2WIK/6
Logged
K8AC
Member

Posts: 1477




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2006, 01:47:10 PM »

I currently have a Linksys wireless router just 18" from the HF rig and have my shack PC connected via shielded Cat 5 cable to the PC under the desk.  Also use shielded Cat 5 from the router to the DSL modem.  The wireless connection is used to my notebook PC which the XYL uses a couple of rooms away.  I found the shielded Cat 5 necessary to minimize interference on 6M from the ethernet cables.  I regularly run 1500W output on 160 through 10 meters and have NEVER experienced any interference to the wireless router.  How far your router will really function depends upon what's between your router and your shack.  Each intervening wall will subtract greatly from the maximum distance and if the signal must pass through a wall at a sharp angle, the attenuation will be much greater.  

While on vacation recently, we stayed in a cottage that had wireless access via a Linksys router about 150 feet away.  The owner says he uses an outdoor antenna connected to the router and that's the secret to really being able to cover the long distances.  Sorry I didn't see the antenna so can't tell you more than that.

Regarding interference to HF from a wireless router, I tried a couple other vendors prior to the Linksys.  In both cases, their wall-wart power supplies generated a lot of warbly discrete signals on 160 and 80 meters and common mode chokes on the supply leads made little difference.  I get none of that from the Linksys.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!