>These look to just be a plane hollow cylinder -- no "spring tines"
>(like you would find on a machined pin IC socket) to cling to the
>"mating" conductor.
>From my (uneducated) observations, it appears that the way connectors
>grab wires has a fair bit of thought involved. I'd rather trust to
>an ME (or Materials Scientist?) to sort that out, properly, than to
>hope an /ad hoc/ approach will work scaled to production quantities.
Well, there should be something in the TE online catalog with a proper
signature in the title block of the drawing. I won't claim to be an
ME (materialistic engineer) but I have had some experience using those
connectors inside marine radios (xtal sockets and board interconnects)
and in applications somewhat beyond the imagination of the ME's.
Incidentally, I picked a gold plated pin socket because I thought it
looked cool and might get your attention. In reality, you want
something galvanically compatible with the copper CAT5 wire. Methinks
brass or tin would be best.
>Perhaps if tapered pins were affixed to the ends of the wires to
>ensure a more reliable fit...?
Before you invest time and money in such an abomination, it might be
useful if you first determine if you have a problem worth solving.
We're not talking about the retention force of a single wire in socket
connection here. We're talking about 8 such connections at the same
time. But if you believe insufficient retention force to be a
problem, please note that a simple cable clamp or hot melt glue blob
on the jacket, will act as a suitable stress reliever. Or, if you
really want more retention force, perhaps a longer version of the same
pin socket.
>God: "Noah?"
>Noah: "Yes, Lord?"
>God: "How long can you tread water?"
> It might be useful to test whatever method being considered by
> retrofitting it onto the board of an 8-port gigabit switch. For $30 you
> could test 8 methods for data errors.
My switch already gives me statistics on types of packets, errors, etc.
It also gives me information on the quality of the power delivered
to each PD. So, I can check for "lossy" connections at the PD
in "real time" (useful so I can ensure proper operation "over time"
instead of just "at installation").
These look to just be a plane hollow cylinder -- no "spring tines"
(like you would find on a machined pin IC socket) to cling to the
"mating" conductor.
> Line 8 of these in a row on the surface of a PCB. Sweat solder the
> sides of these pins to pads on the component side of the PCB. To make
> it look good, use plastic separators or spacers, possibly 3D printed.
> Or, just use a fixture that looks like an 8 pin "fork" to align and
> hold the pins until they can be soldered to the PCB. Conjure some
> kind of cable clamp to hold the CAT5 cable to the PCB, or just hot
> melt glue it in place.
>
> Solid conductor CAT5 is usually 24 AWG. The other CAT's can be
> different gauges.
> <https://www.cablexpress.com/blog/cat6-cabling-what-is-the-big-deal-about-awg-american-wire-gauge/>
>
> Stranded conductor CAT5 will need the wire ends tinned and a larger
> pin sockets to compensate for the added solder.
>
> 6.6 mm might be a little too short to get a decent grip on the CAT5
> wires. Maybe something longer if you spare the PCB real estate.
From my (uneducated) observations, it appears that the way connectors
grab wires has a fair bit of thought involved. I'd rather trust to
an ME (or Materials Scientist?) to sort that out, properly, than to
hope an /ad hoc/ approach will work scaled to production quantities.
Perhaps if tapered pins were affixed to the ends of the wires to
ensure a more reliable fit...?
> Drivel: No new fires in the area so far. It's been very hot for the
> last 3 days and probably will continue to be hot for the next two or
> three days. I'm holding my breath.
God: "Noah?"
Noah: "Yes, Lord?"
God: "How long can you tread water?"
Reply by Jeff Liebermann●October 3, 20202020-10-03
On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 15:50:40 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> The smallest connector I know of are "closed bottom pin sockets".
>> <https://www.te.com/usa-en/product-50863-4.html>
>> <https://www.te.com/usa-en/product-5050863-6.html>
>> Line 8 of these in a row on the surface of a PCB. Sweat solder the
>> sides of these pins to pads on the component side of the PCB. To make
>> it look good, use plastic separators or spacers, possibly 3D printed.
>> Or, just use a fixture that looks like an 8 pin "fork" to align and
>> hold the pins until they can be soldered to the PCB. Conjure some
>> kind of cable clamp to hold the CAT5 cable to the PCB, or just hot
>> melt glue it in place.
>It might be useful to test whatever method being considered by
>retrofitting it onto the board of an 8-port gigabit switch. For $30 you
>could test 8 methods for data errors.
Good idea. However, it should probably be done using a managed 8 port
gigabit switch using SNMP to accumulate error counts by type of error
such as some of these:
<http://net-snmp.sourceforge.net/docs/mibs/EtherLike-MIB.txt>
dot3StatsIndex InterfaceIndex,
dot3StatsAlignmentErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsFCSErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsSingleCollisionFrames Counter32,
dot3StatsMultipleCollisionFrames Counter32,
dot3StatsSQETestErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsDeferredTransmissions Counter32,
dot3StatsLateCollisions Counter32,
dot3StatsExcessiveCollisions Counter32,
dot3StatsInternalMacTransmitErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsCarrierSenseErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsFrameTooLongs Counter32,
dot3StatsInternalMacReceiveErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsEtherChipSet OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
dot3StatsSymbolErrors Counter32,
dot3StatsDuplexStatus INTEGER,
dot3StatsRateControlAbility TruthValue,
dot3StatsRateControlStatus INTEGER
etc...
Managed gigabit switches cost somewhat more than unmanaged gigabit
switches:
<https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-PROSAFE-8-PORT-GIGABIT-SWITCH/dp/B003GOFIC2>
Unfortunately, managed switches usually don't test for important cable
parameters such as low signal levels, reflections, NEXT (near end
crosstalk), and excessive attenuation. Therefore, a gigabit network
cable tester should also be used along with a TDR (time domain
reflectometer) to look for impedance discontinuities. Some cable
testers and certifiers have a built in TDR, but external is usually
good enough:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/TDR-Time-Domain-Reflectometer-Fast-Clock-USB-Power-Detect-cable-faults-More/153549738452>
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Reply by Tom Del Rosso●October 3, 20202020-10-03
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> The smallest connector I know of are "closed bottom pin sockets".
> <https://www.te.com/usa-en/product-50863-4.html>
> <https://www.te.com/usa-en/product-5050863-6.html>
> Line 8 of these in a row on the surface of a PCB. Sweat solder the
> sides of these pins to pads on the component side of the PCB. To make
> it look good, use plastic separators or spacers, possibly 3D printed.
> Or, just use a fixture that looks like an 8 pin "fork" to align and
> hold the pins until they can be soldered to the PCB. Conjure some
> kind of cable clamp to hold the CAT5 cable to the PCB, or just hot
> melt glue it in place.
It might be useful to test whatever method being considered by
retrofitting it onto the board of an 8-port gigabit switch. For $30 you
could test 8 methods for data errors.
Reply by Don Y●October 3, 20202020-10-03
On 10/2/2020 8:54 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 10/2/20 8:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is 8 closely spaced holes/tubes/channels into
>> which the individual conductors could be inserted. Then, a "cinching"
>> mechanism to pierce their insulation and physically secure them to
>> the board.
>
> What about the screw terminals that are common in alarm systems and PLCs.
I had considered the "spring loaded" sort of connections that you'd encounter
(in a grossly overlarge implementation) for speaker connections. E.g.,
the Nest thermostat's field connections are of this form -- though as
INDIVIDUAL connections (I'd prefer "align set of conductors, depress
spring release, insert conductors, release spring"). But, I'm not sure
this would be a reliable connection.
One of the issues is that the connection is unlikely to be made
"at a bench" but, rather, atop a ladder, wandering around a mezzanine,
in the bowels of a piece of industrial equipment, etc. So, you want
it to be as simple and fool-proof as possible: insert wires (in some
particular order), then "secure" (crimp?)
(This is why I'd suggested individual tubes/channels for each
conductor so the installer only has to get each conductor aligned
with appropriate channel and then "drive it home" -- while moving
on to the next conductor.)
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote in news:rl90u4$sg0$1
@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net:
>> A: A shield ...
>
> Is not required for 1 Gbps speed.
>
Nice snip.
I did not attack you. I said you lack hardware acumen. That is a
fact.
Your snip, however, while you rambled further, IS tantamount to an
attack.
Again... A TRUE CAT6 connector IS shielded, turkey turd. Not the
entire cable, it is not about the entire cable, JUST THE TERMINATION.
The cable is twisted pair and the termination IS important
And crosstalk and EMISSION occours without it and handshakes result
in SLOWER than 1Gb/s speeds.
Just like when you owned a "56k" modem but the damn thing never
hooks up faster than 14,400. It FALLS BACK to slower speeds.
So, IF too much untwisted pair segments are exposed, said fallback
DOES occur.
Reading what HE wrote, he DOES know that and wrote about closely
spaced PCB mounting.
Reply by Jeff Liebermann●October 3, 20202020-10-03
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:14:30 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
The smallest connector I know of are "closed bottom pin sockets".
<https://www.te.com/usa-en/product-50863-4.html>
<https://www.te.com/usa-en/product-5050863-6.html>
Line 8 of these in a row on the surface of a PCB. Sweat solder the
sides of these pins to pads on the component side of the PCB. To make
it look good, use plastic separators or spacers, possibly 3D printed.
Or, just use a fixture that looks like an 8 pin "fork" to align and
hold the pins until they can be soldered to the PCB. Conjure some
kind of cable clamp to hold the CAT5 cable to the PCB, or just hot
melt glue it in place.
Solid conductor CAT5 is usually 24 AWG. The other CAT's can be
different gauges.
<https://www.cablexpress.com/blog/cat6-cabling-what-is-the-big-deal-about-awg-american-wire-gauge/>
Stranded conductor CAT5 will need the wire ends tinned and a larger
pin sockets to compensate for the added solder.
6.6 mm might be a little too short to get a decent grip on the CAT5
wires. Maybe something longer if you spare the PCB real estate.
Drivel: No new fires in the area so far. It's been very hot for the
last 3 days and probably will continue to be hot for the next two or
three days. I'm holding my breath.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Reply by Grant Taylor●October 3, 20202020-10-03
On 10/2/20 10:30 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> You really do not know how modern high speed comms work then, Grant.
>
> Look at a true CAT6 connector. It has:
Per the OP's subject, CAT 5e is sufficient. CAT 6 is not required.
Depending on the distance that the OP wants to run cables, CAT 5e is
perfectly fine for the desired 1 Gbps speed.
> A: A shield ...
Is not required for 1 Gbps speed.
> So yeah, if you want to dumb down your comm link to 15 years ago's
> speeds then splay those motherfuckers out uncaringly.
The OP said that they did not want to fall back to 100 Mbps, which is
not required. CAT 5e will quite happily handle 1 Gbps.
> Stick to 'net consulting'. Your hardware acumen is lacking.
Part of my net consulting is figuring out what clients actually need to
accomplish their goal. Part of that process is identifying potential
solutions. Potential solutions include things that don't actually
provide the answer but do provide information as to why they don't
provide the answer. Thereby providing more information to make it
easier to hone in on the solution.
There's no need for a personal attack. If you don't like the
suggestion, ignore it and move on.
I've got multiple colleagues running full Gbps traffic across connectors
that fall into the family of what I suggested.
If the OP wanted 10 Gbps, that would be a different discussion. It
might even be different for 2.5 Gbps. But 1 Gbps is still fairly easy
to get and has a lot of options.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Reply by ●October 3, 20202020-10-03
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote in
news:rl8smi$hqm$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net:
> On 10/2/20 8:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is 8 closely spaced holes/tubes/channels
>> into which the individual conductors could be inserted. Then, a
>> "cinching" mechanism to pierce their insulation and physically
>> secure them to the board.
>
> What about the screw terminals that are common in alarm systems
> and PLCs.
>
> I see them in all shapes, sizes, and number of connectors.
>
snipped link
You really do not know how modern high speed comms work then,
Grant.
Look at a true CAT6 connector. It has:
A: A shield/metal shroud that goes right up to the socket
insertion section. That shield is because the twisted pairs get
'opened up', as in 'untwisted' for their termination into the
connector. No shield == not CAT6. exposed untwisted pairs... not
CAT6. Even that short little segment less than a half inch long
matters.
So yeah, if you want to dumb down your comm link to 15 years ago's
speeds then splay those motherfuckers out uncaringly.
Stick to 'net consulting'. Your hardware acumen is lacking.
Modern PLC wiring is fully shielded. At least when one is talking
about automated assembly machines containing hundreds of connections
and pneumatic actuators and machine vision cameras, etc. Especially
automotive assembly machines where a failure results in high dollar
law suits by victims of said failures.