Re: Run multiple Cat5 cables in single trunking?

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Geoff Mills
says...
>
> Hi, I have a master socket ADSL faceplate splitter in my garage from
> where I run a cat5 cable to the router in the middle of the house,
> then radiate to LAN workstations from there.
>
> Now I want to put a server in the garage. Can I run the Cat5 cable to
> this server back in the same trunking that carries the primary ADSL to
> the centre of the house from the garage?

Yes. Data centers do this with dozens of CAT5 cables running down the
same trunk run.


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either - Scott Adams

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:58:41 +0100
Alex Fraser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The difference is that one of the OPs cables carries ADSL signal,
> which may well be considerably more susceptible to interference than
> Ethernet signals (but I have no idea if this is the case or if it
> would be a problem).
>
That's why I hesitated to reply to the OP.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Conor" wrote:
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Geoff Mills
> says...
> >
> > Hi, I have a master socket ADSL faceplate splitter in my garage from
> > where I run a cat5 cable to the router in the middle of the house,
> > then radiate to LAN workstations from there.
> >
> > Now I want to put a server in the garage. Can I run the Cat5 cable to
> > this server back in the same trunking that carries the primary ADSL to
> > the centre of the house from the garage?
>
> Yes. Data centers do this with dozens of CAT5 cables running down the
> same trunk run.

I agree that multiple cat-5 Ethernet cables aren't a problem, with it
being done every day with structured cabling systems. However, I have a
small concern about running the ADSL-carrying cable in the same run,
with it being a low-level RF signal. The CAT5 Ethernet cables are less
of a problem, being baseband, high level signals, but they may cause a
problem for the ADSL signal. It needs testing. especially if it's
ordinary slack-twisted phone cable. At least, try to maintain some
separation.

Better, can you mount the router at the BT socket end in the garage and
run a Cat5 cable to an Ethernet switch in the current router's location?
That way, the ADSL signal is only adjacent to the source. You can also
look at power over Ethernet, if local powering is a problem.

--
John W
I you really want to mail me, replace the obvious with co.uk twice

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, John
Weston <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I agree that multiple cat-5 Ethernet cables aren't a problem, with it
>being done every day with structured cabling systems. However, I have a
>small concern about running the ADSL-carrying cable in the same run,
>with it being a low-level RF signal. The CAT5 Ethernet cables are less
>of a problem, being baseband, high level signals, but they may cause a
>problem for the ADSL signal.
It will work. I've done it.

Tested at master socket and at the end of the 'extension' (run over
50-60mtrs of cable and bundled into trunking with 35 other CAT5e cables,
initially running 100MBps, now running Gigabit.) with no reported
difference in sync speeds or, indeed, SNR/Attenuation (although there
must have been a little otherwise I'd be patenting the method).

The frequencies are so far apart that even if there was any significant
cross-talk it wouldn't be a problem. I'd be more concerned about
interference if I were running the cable alongside mains cabling (unless
you have a rodent problem then safety should be fine).

> It needs testing.
Test away, unless you make a complete balls of it, it will work.

>especially if it's
>ordinary slack-twisted phone cable. At least, try to maintain some
>separation.
Use a spare pair in the CAT5 or run an extra cable (always good to run a
couple of spares anyway).
>
>Better, can you mount the router at the BT socket end in the garage and
>run a Cat5 cable to an Ethernet switch in the current router's location?
>That way, the ADSL signal is only adjacent to the source.
Better idea IMHO.
>You can also
>look at power over Ethernet, if local powering is a problem
Umm, he was going to run a server in the garage too? I'm only guessing
but I would think that suggests that there may be power available...
>

--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, John
> Weston <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> I agree that multiple cat-5 Ethernet cables aren't a problem, with it
>> being done every day with structured cabling systems. However, I have a
>> small concern about running the ADSL-carrying cable in the same run,
>> with it being a low-level RF signal. The CAT5 Ethernet cables are less
>> of a problem, being baseband, high level signals, but they may cause a
>> problem for the ADSL signal.
> It will work. I've done it.
>
> Tested at master socket and at the end of the 'extension' (run over
> 50-60mtrs of cable and bundled into trunking with 35 other CAT5e cables,
> initially running 100MBps, now running Gigabit.) with no reported
> difference in sync speeds or, indeed, SNR/Attenuation (although there
> must have been a little otherwise I'd be patenting the method).
>
> The frequencies are so far apart that even if there was any significant
> cross-talk it wouldn't be a problem. I'd be more concerned about
> interference if I were running the cable alongside mains cabling (unless
> you have a rodent problem then safety should be fine).
>
>> It needs testing.
> Test away, unless you make a complete balls of it, it will work.
>
>> especially if it's
>> ordinary slack-twisted phone cable. At least, try to maintain some
>> separation.
> Use a spare pair in the CAT5 or run an extra cable (always good to run a
> couple of spares anyway).
>>
>> Better, can you mount the router at the BT socket end in the garage and
>> run a Cat5 cable to an Ethernet switch in the current router's location?
>> That way, the ADSL signal is only adjacent to the source.
> Better idea IMHO.
>> You can also
>> look at power over Ethernet, if local powering is a problem
> Umm, he was going to run a server in the garage too? I'm only guessing
> but I would think that suggests that there may be power available...
>>
>

You mention frequencies - I've always wondered what the (carrier?)
frequency for ADSL was. I presume the Microfilter is a high/low pass
frequency filter?

Phil, London

In article <vwIsm.161193$(E-Mail Removed)2>, "Philip Herlihy"
wrote:

>
> You mention frequencies - I've always wondered what the (carrier?)
> frequency for ADSL was. I presume the Microfilter is a high/low pass
> frequency filter?

The "ADSL" microfilter does *nothing* in the ADSL connection path, other
than socket-type conversion. It is simply a low-pass filter (0-4kHz) in
the *telephone* path to remove the ADSL signal (25kHz to 1.1 or 2.2MHz)
from the phone wiring and apparatus and, in reverse, any >4kHz noise
picked up on the home phone wiring getting conducted back onto the ADSL-
carrying wiring.

The ADSL modem is able to remove the phone band signals from the
combined ADSL and phone signals before it decodes it, so there is no
need for a high pass filter in the ADSL path.

These filters aren't perfect and some are better than others, see:
http://www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php (but that's written by an
interested party...). That's why an installation running CAT5 Ethernet
and Phone-type ADSL cables in the same cable tray may or may not work,
so it will need operational checking as I said earlier.

The ADSL "bits" are carried in "bins" that can be filled or not
depending on the noise levels in that part of the ADSL signal. That's
why lines have different information bandwidths (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.DMT#B...er_channels.29)

--
John W
I you really want to mail me, replace the obvious with co.uk twice

John Weston wrote:
> In article <vwIsm.161193$(E-Mail Removed)2>, "Philip Herlihy"
> wrote:
>
>> You mention frequencies - I've always wondered what the (carrier?)
>> frequency for ADSL was. I presume the Microfilter is a high/low pass
>> frequency filter?
>
> The "ADSL" microfilter does *nothing* in the ADSL connection path, other
> than socket-type conversion. It is simply a low-pass filter (0-4kHz) in
> the *telephone* path to remove the ADSL signal (25kHz to 1.1 or 2.2MHz)
> from the phone wiring and apparatus and, in reverse, any >4kHz noise
> picked up on the home phone wiring getting conducted back onto the ADSL-
> carrying wiring.
>
> The ADSL modem is able to remove the phone band signals from the
> combined ADSL and phone signals before it decodes it, so there is no
> need for a high pass filter in the ADSL path.
>
> These filters aren't perfect and some are better than others, see:
> http://www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php (but that's written by an
> interested party...). That's why an installation running CAT5 Ethernet
> and Phone-type ADSL cables in the same cable tray may or may not work,
> so it will need operational checking as I said earlier.
>
> The ADSL "bits" are carried in "bins" that can be filled or not
> depending on the noise levels in that part of the ADSL signal. That's
> why lines have different information bandwidths (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.DMT#B...er_channels.29)
>

Thanks: very interesting. The ADSL frequencies are much higher than I'd
have expected (so no point listening out for them!).

Phil

In message <vwIsm.161193$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Philip Herlihy
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>You mention frequencies - I've always wondered what the (carrier?)
>frequency for ADSL was.
There isn't one single carrier frequency, the reason it's called
broadband is that it uses a 'broad band' of frequencies.
> I presume the Microfilter is a high/low pass frequency filter?
Pretty much yes, you can dispose of the filter if you don't want to use
a POTS device on the same line.
>
>Phil, London

--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:
> In message <vwIsm.161193$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Philip Herlihy
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> You mention frequencies - I've always wondered what the (carrier?)
>> frequency for ADSL was.
> There isn't one single carrier frequency, the reason it's called
> broadband is that it uses a 'broad band' of frequencies.
>> I presume the Microfilter is a high/low pass frequency filter?
> Pretty much yes, you can dispose of the filter if you don't want to use
> a POTS device on the same line.
>>
>> Phil, London
>

That, and the wikipedia article cited earlier, are very interesting
indeed. So the microfilter protects the phone, not the modem, eh?
Learn something everyday.

Phil

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Clint Sharp says...
>
> In message <vwIsm.161193$(E-Mail Removed)2>, Philip Herlihy
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >You mention frequencies - I've always wondered what the (carrier?)
> >frequency for ADSL was.
> There isn't one single carrier frequency, the reason it's called
> broadband is that it uses a 'broad band' of frequencies.

It can use one single carrier frequency but the bandwidth of the signal
can be several MHz.


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either - Scott Adams