Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1.4mm Thick Gigabit Ethernet Cable

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the only-geeks-care-about-this-crap dept.

Networking 235

TheIonix writes "Flat network cables aren't anything new, but I'm pretty sure ones like this are. Japanese accessory king Elecom today announced the "LD-VAPF/SV05" network cabling, coming in at 1.4mm thick." Also here's their press release if you can read Japanese.

cancel ×

235 comments

.14mm thick (0)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942673)

is that supposed to be thin or thick ?
because optivcal fiber seems thinner.

Re:.14mm thick (0)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942696)

The whole cable is 1.4mm thick, not just the wire. Optical fiber has a jacket that significantly increases the cable thickness.

First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942676)

Woohoo etc.

Re:First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942902)

more like "second post"!

Shielding? (0, Troll)

Manip (656104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942677)

Most of the thickness of standard Ethernet cabling is not the metal wire but the protection of that wire from EM radiation and physical damage. This ulti-thin version might not be able to withstand those conditions which could result in data corruption or loss.

Re:Shielding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942736)

Have you considered that maybe they thought of that? Maybe to call yourself an ethernet cable you have to meet certain specifications.

That said .. anyone have numbers?

Re:Shielding? (2, Interesting)

KyleJacobson (788441) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942738)

Im guessing they took that into consideration and have developed it to withstand physical damage and such. From the looks of it, it can be closed in a door and have no damage, and walked on with no damage. Hopefully you are wrong and they got this right so I can finally run cable from room to room and be able to close my door.

Re:Shielding? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942895)

You can't close the door to your room? Interesting. You've never fucked a girl, have you? HA HA, you virgin faggot. Go kill yourself - you're pathetic and make me feel sick.

Re:Shielding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942992)

In a house that you own, you dont NEED to close the doors, but if you want some privacy with your wife from the rest of the house because of company staying over or other things and there are cables running through doors, this is a viable solution...

Fuckin tool

Re:Shielding? (4, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942747)

the whole point of making such announcement would be that you would have solved that shielding problem.

the real novelty of this thing(if you watch the pics) is that you can run it through thin places(like windowstills.. no need to bore a hole to the wall).

UTP doesn't have shielding! (5, Informative)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942794)

The U in UTP is Unshielded. Standard Ethernet doesn't use shielding. But it does use the twists in the cabling to combat interference.

It looks like this flat cable is only for very small sections, for which you can probably get away without the twists if you've got another way to handle the interference.

CAT5=UTP: UNSHIELDED Twisted Pair (n/t) (0)

Demon-Xanth (100910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942870)

Mod parent up. Mod grandparent down.

Re:UTP doesn't have shielding! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943031)

Completely agree here. I believe the standard is to not to untwist more than .5" of cable. Any more than that, and you will have problems with NeXT.

Re:UTP doesn't have shielding! (4, Informative)

aaronl (43811) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943206)

It's not just to combat interference. The twists are done in such a way to also limit crosstalk, and use the reflections in the pairs to speed up data flow, limit the effect of external interferance, and allowing higher line bandwidth and better SNRs. Shielding might even mess this up by reflecting signal back into the strands.

I can't think (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943252)

of a reason why you wouldn't be able to use shielded cable with Ethernet, can you?

Re:Shielding? (2, Insightful)

Gaewyn L Knight (16566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942818)

Most ethernet cable used today is UTP... which stands for 'Unshielded Twisted Pair'. Their is no 'EM protection' built into the cable other than the arrangement of the wires to prevent crosstalk in the individual strands.

If they can provide enough 'twists' and correct pair placement then they can easily provide just as much protection as standard Cat-5/Cat-6 that we use today.

PS People should also NOT use shielded twisted pair... in most environments it actually hurts signal quality do to it's jacket effectively being a single strand of conductor to pick up stray noise from 110V, ballasts, etc...

Re:Shielding? (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942881)

Well, if you are going to use STP you need to be using equipment designed for it. Equipment designed for STP needs to have a good ground plane and needs to bring that plane out to each port. Between the grounding of the jacket and the twisted pair STP cabling should not be worse performing that UTP, and in some environments is MUCH better. Of course in any invironment with enough RF noise to warrant STP I would just use fibre and not have to worry about the RF at all =)

Re:Shielding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943250)

Can you use guns in and actual ammunition in defense of liberty, or are you limited to just the boxes?

Re:Shielding? (2, Interesting)

dickens (31040) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942984)

It's not just crosstalk. Twisting improves "Common Mode Rejection" because the twists cause any interference to be picked up with opposite polarity on any signalling pair.

Obviously, IANA EE.

Re:Shielding? (1)

thefogger (455551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943140)

I am not a network cabling specialist, but at least here in Germany ist quite difficult to find pure UTP cabling. The standard seems to be FTP (Foiled Twisted Pair) which has a metal foil underneath the outer coat. There's a thin bare wire which connects to the shielding inside each jack. The jacks themselves have additional contacts which connect to matching metal contacts on the sides of the plugs.

Cheers, Fogger

Re:Shielding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943168)

Most ethernet cable used today is UTP...

Really? What is "ethernet cable"?
Ethernet is a layer 2 protocol... cabling is layer 1. You can run Ethernet over Cat5, Cat5e, Cat6, coax (10Base2, 10Base5), single-mode/multi-mode fiber, and probably lots of other media types.

Sorry, I just see too many people talking about "ethernet cable" when there is no such thing.

Re:Shielding? (1)

omach (322252) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942848)

As far as I can se are they specifying Cat5. That almost certainly means they have a large number of twists/inch which gives a good protection against M-field induced interferance.
E-field interferance is not such a large problem as the data is transfered in differential mode and the CMRR is rather high in the equipment.

Re:Shielding? (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943103)

I believe that you are referring, by "standard Ethernet cabling", to RG-58, or to the garden hose that was used for 10base5 ethernet.

Flatwire (5, Interesting)

Jjeff1 (636051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942678)

I'm not sure if it's out yet or not, but Flatwire [decorp.com] has talked about this at least a year ago.

Re:Flatwire (2, Informative)

Jjeff1 (636051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942767)

Shame on me for responding to my own post, but I wanted to note that DeCorp also makes that flatwire product for audio, video and electrical wiring as well.

Re:Flatwire (5, Informative)

megaversal (229407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942970)

Last year (during summer) when I was in Japan, I bought a bunch of Elecom cables (CAT6 though, but the same thin design). They also sold CAT5 (10/100) cable at the same store I got my CAT6, so I'm assuming the real "news" is that they now have gigabit-capable CAT5 cable in the thin variety, not that flat cable is something new, or that even gigabit varieties of flat cable are new.

1st post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942679)

did i get it?

Let me check ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942985)

no.

Translated Page (5, Informative)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942683)

Google Translation [google.com] of press release.

Re:Translated Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942722)

Wow, it takes a special kind of mod to moderate a translation of a page linked straight from the article summary as "Offtopic."

Re:Translated Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942753)

I'd say it takes a special kind of mod to moderate such a valiant effort up.

Re:Translated Page (1)

enigmals1 (667526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942822)

Likewise is takes a special bread of mod to mod up a post of just a link to Google translation that take 5 seconds to throw into Google yourself.

That's right up there with the article quote whores.

Re:Translated Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942755)

How is that off topic? Its a translation of the press release for people who don't read japanese, which is 99.9% of the Slashdot audience. And the mods modding this offtopic is fuckin ridiculous. What the hell happened to this dump? First only timothy posts stories for likea month, and they all suck. Now the mods are fuckin brain dead, and I don't mean peter jacksons first movie. I mean completely fuckin stupid. As in voted for Bush.

Re:Translated Page (2, Funny)

lpangelrob2 (721920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942849)

The translation was ?????? and didn't really tell me more than I could've figured ??????, but I do have to say that the picture of the cable in the window was ?????? cool... although I'm not sure what happens to ?????? when you start running cat-5 cable outside. Could I use it to theoretically hook up a weather station outside to my ?????? inside?

RE: Coolness... (2, Insightful)

fshalor (133678) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942687)

Can't wait to see them bringing down the ceilings in old campus buildings. (We always run stuff in the plenum. :) 0 )

I'm still not sure I'm okay with the potential for interfreaence in these... it's just too thin... I'd love to see how many u can stack on top of one another before they break.

Re: Coolness... (3, Funny)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942900)

You won't have to worry about the dust. You can't use this anyway.

The National Electrical Code requires that wiring in a plenum has a special teflon cladding that won't burn and fill the ducts with smoke in the case of a fire. I didn't see this mentioned in the article...

Re: Coolness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943270)

> We always run stuff in the plenum.

You mean like a Prince Albert? What kind of a freak are you?

Re: Coolness... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943309)

I'm still not sure I'm okay with the potential for interfreaence in these... it's just too thin... I'd love to see how many u can stack on top of one another before they break.

As long as the cable is still composed of twisted pairs (which they must be to be considered category 5), interference shouldn't be an issue. This is why cat5 is not shielded.

Useful (5, Interesting)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942688)

If the pics are accurate, and you can really shut the window (sorry I don't read Japanese), then this is some cool stuff. I can see it being used to hide cabling and make it less obtrusive.

Other than that, they had better be selling it for close to normal cable prices, or I can't think of anyone who would buy very much of it.

Re:Useful (2, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942743)

Sharp bends in your cable (closing a window on it) will degrade your throughput.

Re:Useful (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942810)

I know that this is normally the case, but the question is how this stuff holds up.

Re:Useful [Somewhat Offtopic] (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942952)

Define "normal" cable prices. I realize that "internet" pricing should be cheaper, but when I went out looking for a good place to buy bulk cables (30+), I couldn't find a single retail place with a reasonable price.

7 ft. Cat-6, blue:
Best Buy - $17 [bestbuy.com]

L-Com - $8 [l-com.com] (as low as $7 if you're buying quantity)

I have no affiliation with L-Com, and I'm sure there are others out there like this, but I try to spread the word when I have a good experience with a vendor. I ended up ordering 30 3-ft cables for just over $2 each. The price was fantastic and the service was great.

Re:Useful [Somewhat Offtopic] (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943135)

The problem I've had with online-cable sites is that inevitably shipping plays a big part in the price (L-com will sell you 4 7ft cat5e cables for $3.29 each, plus approx $2.00 shipping EACH). But the shipping cost is also highly variable, eg. some sites include more of the product cost in the shipping cost, others less. So, if you want to buy 3 cables, you should get it from one place, and if you want 10 cables, you should buy from an entirely different place. I wish there was a meta-website that did all these calculations for you...

Re:Useful [Somewhat Offtopic] (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943167)

yeah.. pricegrabber.
as you window shop, click "add to shopping cart"
on individual item pages.
when you are done, they'll show you total cost ordering from multiple merchants, and total cost ordering all from the same merchant (if possible)

ONLY shortcomming, is that is always assumes a ship quantity of one per item on list- but it's still very close to your desire.

Re:Useful [Somewhat Offtopic] (1)

aaronl (43811) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943142)

Home Depot, Lowes, sometimes places like Sam's Club, BJ's, Costco. Most DIY type places. Any decent internet hardware store. Sounds like you're not ordering bulk cable anyway, but pre-crimped cable. 1000' for around 70$ for cat5e. Price goes up/down depending on if you need plenum, cat5 or cat 6, etc.

So basically, you paid 60$ for 90' of wire, a markup of around 1000%, or closer to 500% after you buy a whole mess of RJ-45 connectors. Of course, then you don't have 3' cables, you have whatever you need.

Re:Useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942969)

It would work if the window slides sideways with the closing edge touching the cable, which is what I think this one does.

Re:Useful (1)

jim_redwagon (845837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943079)

call me naïve, but isn't having a cable running thru a window be more obvious and obtrusive than thru a wall jack? ;-)

All fine and good (5, Funny)

PDA_Boy (821746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942691)

But surely a large file will not fit through such a small cable? You'd need to hammer them down first, which is an unwanted chore. Easier than making them small enough to transmit wirelessly, I guess.

Re:All fine and good (3, Funny)

slimak (593319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942724)

its pretty easy to just keep ziping the files over and over until the result gets small enough -- even for large files (CD image or something) 5 times is generally enough for my needs.

Re:All fine and good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942752)

But surely a large file will not fit through such a small cable?

I can't believe you're so naive! Ever heard of file compression?

Re:All fine and good (1, Funny)

PDA_Boy (821746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942778)

Oh... compression... like those things for flattening roads... clever!

Re:All fine and good (5, Funny)

dances with elks (863490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942764)

the ones should be ok, they're quite thin but I'm just not sure about the zeros

Re:All fine and good (1)

suffe (72090) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943268)

Just encode the zeros as two ones and you are set to go.

Re:All fine and good (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942846)

> But surely a large file will not fit
> through such a small cable?

AT&T used to have a commercial where a guy was sending so many faxes that a pig-in-a-python-sized lump of data went travelling down the wire, wrecking havoc wherever it went. I actually fell on the floor laughing the first time I saw it because we had a person in our office at the time who I had accused of doing exactly that.

sPh

uhm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942692)

lower the resolution? thought a sense toggle might be the better way to get the same result.

logitech should make a new mouse with the form of the mx300. those 500+ are too bulky for my taste.

jay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942693)

That is going to save a heuuuuge amount of space at larger NOC. Way to go .jp!

Oh, and first post!

thick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942699)

i think you you mean 1.4 mm Thin. wink wink

BFD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11942702)

So what? it's a flat cable. Hellllloooooo!

Translation (1)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942707)

Also here's their press release if you can read Japanese.

And here's the Babelfish translation if you can't:

, high durable LAN cable for outside wiring


The thin-shaped LAN cable sale which can pass the opening of the sash

corporation (head office: The Osaka city Chuo Ku, president: Leaf rice field sequential Osamu), LAN cable LD-VAPF/BK series and correspond to opening wiring LD-VAPF/SV05 and outside wiring which correspond to outside wiring are considered and the relay connector LD-VAPF/RJ45WP which the waterproof tape bundled is done is sold.

As for the LD-VAPF/BK series adopting the high durable polyethylene for the external sheath. Weather resistance made outside wiring high possible.
The cable corresponds to category 5, it is enabled with giga bit ethernet 1000BASE-T.

LD-VAPF/SV05 is the thin-shaped LAN cable whose it is possible to pass through the opening of the sash. The LAN cable is pulled from the outside and it is not necessary to construct on a large scale e.g., when it is packed, the hole is bored through the wall. While strengthening with the aluminum tape, actualizing scantness 1.4mm. It is conformed to category 5 with this scantness.

LD-VAPF/RJ45WP is the LAN relay connector where the waterproof tape belongs. It is optimum to the LD-VAPF/BK series and to connect LD-VAPF/SV05. Anyone can do the outside wiring of LAN simply by using combining these products.

Furthermore, sale has planned the middle of March.

The active high durable polyethylene sheath was adopted even with the outside
category 5 LAN cable.
Outside corresponding type CAT5E LAN cable(single line specification [ 24AWG ])
LD-VAPF/BK series (10BASE-T 100BASE-TX 1000BASE-T)
LD-VAPF/BK10 (10m)
LD-VAPF/BK100 (100m)
- The high durable polyethylene was adopted for the external sheath, furthermore by the fact that the sheath is converted doubly in order to raise weather resistance wiring with the outside was made possible
- category 5 correspondence
- Giga bit ethernet 1000BASE-T correspondence and FTTH/ADSL/CATV correspondence
* Both ends connector attaching
LD-VAPF/BK10 (10m)
XXYEN 3,780 (including tax)substance price XXYEN 3,600

LD-VAPF/BK20 (20m)
XXYEN 6,300 (including tax)substance price XXYEN 6,000

LD-VAPF/BK30 (30m)
XXYEN 8,925 (including tax)substance price XXYEN 8,500
* The RJ45 connector part does not correspond to the outside. By all means after waterproofing, please use with the outside
* Only cable
LD-VAPF/BK100 (100m)
XXYEN 25,200 (including tax)substance price XXYEN 24,000
- Only cable of LD-VAPF series type
- Cable stripper attaching of simplicity type
Using the opening of the sash window, the LAN cable from the outside
It pulls to the interior and it is possible to be packed.
Aluminum strengthening flat LAN cable (10BASE-T 100BASE-TX1000BASE-T) for high durable opening
LD-VAPF/SV05 ¥2,520 (including tax) substance price ¥2,400
LD-VAPF/SV05
- Using the opening of the sash window, from the outside it pulls to the interior and is packed, the optimum to wiring under and the like the floor
- While having strengthened with the aluminum tape, actualizing the scantness of 1.4mm
- category 5 conformity
- Giga bit ethernet 1000BASE-T correspondence and FTTH/ADSL/CATV correspondence
- Length 50cm (aluminum strengthening part 20cm)
- Both ends connector attaching slim connector adoption mold process twist specification
* Other than of the aluminum tape part is non waterproofing. Please be sure waterproofing concerning the part which is used with the outside,
The connector which is optimum to the relay of the LAN cable and the aluminum strengthening flat LAN cable for the outside
Outside corresponding RJ-45 relay connector(10BASE-T 100BASE-TX 1000BASE-T)
LD-VAPF/RJ45WP ¥1,575 (including tax) substance price ¥1,500
LD-VAPF/SV05
- Optimum to LD-VAPF/BK series and the relay of LD-VAPF/SV05
- The simple waterproof tape which it waterproofs processes the connector of the cable which it relayed belongs
- Adopting the butyl rubber (self welding) tape to the simple waterproof tape
- 2 RJ-45 relay connectors, simple waterproofing tape 2 entering
* Relay connector size: W18×D40×H20mm
* Relay connector weight: 50g
* Butyl rubber tape length: 500mm

* Contents of statement are information of announcement that time in this release. Because there are times when it is modified without notice, please acknowledge beforehand.
Sounds very interesting.

Optical Fiber (2, Insightful)

kc0re (739168) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942709)

I guess I don't understand what's the point in this article other than "informational". We have optical fiber cable in my office, it can't be any thicker than about 2 mm's.

I really appreciate the fact that people are generating new technologies, to make things thinner, however, this is where stuff should be going, not groundbreaking news.

Re:Optical Fiber (4, Informative)

Minupla (62455) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942793)

It's interesting because fiber is pretty damned sensitive to things like going around corners and being run over with office chairs and a whole lot of other things can make it a challenge to deploy to the desktop. That's why gig over cat 5e is way more popular these days then over fibre. Outside of the machine room fibre isn't a popular solution. And definatly if you're going to run it around window tracks or under carpet with roller chairs, you don't want to use fib...

Min

Re:Optical Fiber (1)

TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942834)

#1. Slashdot isnt just reserved for groundbreaking news.

#2. This is actually kinda cool - I'd like to see the interference before I'd act, but Id much rather run a flat cable under some carpet at our office than string through the celing AGAIN....

#3. I'd really like to see your fiber cable do the 90 degree bends like in that picture. Go ahead, we'll wait for you to replace the expensive broken cable to post your response...

The story's dated Friday. (0)

MurkyWater (866956) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943015)

This is Slashdot it's not groundbreaking.

wtf (-1, Offtopic)

nfarrell (127850) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942718)

"5 of 14 posts" for this story according to the main page, but all other posts are gone! Slashcode is feeling sick today, or editors busy culling out all the OT comments?

If you're reading this, not the latter.

The most important problem... (3, Insightful)

Jimpqfly (790794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942735)

... is not thickness, it's the cable ITSELF I think... I'd rather see some important research on WIFI than this kind of invention...

Re:The most important problem... (2, Informative)

KyleJacobson (788441) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942783)

While WIFI would be good to expand on, some of us must use cable no matter what comes out. I work in a building where we can't have any wireless device, cell phones, pda, pages, tape recorders, etc... So cable like this can come in handy, especially when we are so limited.

Re:The most important problem... (1)

Jimpqfly (790794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942806)

I understand that, I'd just rather see research on the "we can't have any wireless device" side :)

Re:The most important problem... (2, Funny)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942982)

Luckily for you, then, that we can do research on more then one field/topic at any given point and time so we have multiple technologies and choices.

I'm not sure (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942758)

I'm not sure if I would want to run my ethernet cable though a window like they have pictured. And like someone said before, does it have good protection of the data going though the cable? Because it would be pointless to run this cable if its easy to cause data loss. If they little to no data loss, and a good price, I might want to use it instead of some regular size wires.

Re:I'm not sure (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942940)

It's labeled as Cat 5 which means it has met certain specifications. It appears that it costs 2,400 yen which is a little more than 20 dollars for half a meter of cable (and the flat part is less than half of that).

Translation of press release (5, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942762)


"We are disrespectful to cable of girth. Can you see that we are serious? Join me or die. Can you do any less? For special lucky data, use Elecom LD-VAPF/SV05 network cabling."

Re:Translation of press release (-1, Redundant)

elgatozorbas (783538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942964)

it continues: "...all your cables are belong to us..."

flat==better (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942763)

less crosstalk in flat cables. wound pairs generate magnetic fieids.

these should help reduce that, as well as being all around handy for tough install locations or special needs.

I see this post on a new site everyday (1)

nev4 (721804) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942780)

The problem with with reading Engadget, Gizmodo, IDFuel, BoingBoing and Slashdot is that sometimes one story will just start on one and eventually be posted to all of them...

Wow! (4, Funny)

RicochetRita (581914) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942802)

Now I'll be able to cram even more cables between rack'd components! Oh happy day!

R3

I thought the point was to twist it? (1)

BurpingWeezer (199436) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942827)

How does this solve the problem of the wire becoming an antenna? The whole point of twisting the wire is to eliminate interference isn't it? An untwisted wire (actually pair) is the basic component to an antenna isn't it?

I believe it does. (1)

necrodeep (96704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943050)

Most of the Flat wire designs I have seen actually 'twist' the pairs within the design.

If you look at: http://www.decorp.com/product/data.htm [decorp.com] (which was posted prior) showing another design you can actually see the pairs 'twisting' within the flat cable. Actually from the whitepapers I have read the noise on the line should be less with this type of design. I just wonder how practical it is for buisnesses to run in existing infratructure.

Wait a minute... (0)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942830)

I'm no EE, but isn't the idea of CAT5/6 to have twisted pair to cancel out RF? It seems that sticking it against a large aluminum door frame [as pictured] would exacerbate the "antenna" you've created. Unless, of course, you're trying to create an ineresting "wireless" network.

Re:Wait a minute... (3, Informative)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942936)

The twistedness actually is there to cancel out crosstalk. There isn't really any shielding for RF (either receiving or sending). The twistedness attempts to create pairs of wires that always appear to be 90 degrees in reference to the other wire. Any PCB designer knows that to get the least interference from lines, you try to cross them at 90 degrees, so they only "overlap" at a very small point. Parallel lines act like capacitors to eachother, and that's why we get crosstalk.

-Jesse

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943075)

Cool. Thanks.

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943145)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Shut up before you spread your misinformed views further, making my life even more difficult when I have to explain the truth to people that listened to you first.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943166)

Any PCB designer knows

Shows what you know! Ive designed several PC boards and I have no clue about that.

Re:Wait a minute... (1)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943222)

If you use Eagle, and use the auto-router for the traces, it is configured by default to attempt to do that for you. In the auto-router config, there is a drop-down that has the options "/ - \ | *" (there may be more, I forget) that give the preferred orientation of the traces. Usually the top board is - and the bottom board is |, hopefully resulting in nice 90 degree crossing lines.

-Jesse

Has existed for some time in TV applications (3, Insightful)

elgatozorbas (783538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942840)

Probably the purpose of this cable is to pass SHORT narrow sections, like the window shown. This also exists for TV applications e.g. to bring your satellite signal (dish on the roof) inside.

I do not read Japanese, but can imagine

1) this cable is rather expensive
2) the loses/reflections are higher than for normal cable

This is speculation, of course, but probably you don't want to make your entire home network from these cables...

Re:Has existed for some time in TV applications (1)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942949)

I wonder if using one of these cables decreases the maximum length of the entire run possible... like, shortens the spec a bit. Or if they have a maximum number of possible "flat" cables you can use per run to keep it within spec.

-Jesse

Wired vs. Wireless (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942847)

I like to see wired vs. wireless networking duking it out. Wireless has increased security and range lately. But then Wired has gigabit! Who will be the winner! Stay tuned.

Re:Wired vs. Wireless (1)

thunderbee (92099) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942947)

Also, wired won't bathe you in very probably harmful microwave radiation.

Re:Wired vs. Wireless (0)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943021)

When you said "duking it out" first thing that came to mind was "duke nukem forever" - and then i thought "i guess he really doesn't want to see this happen"

I would think, overall, wired would win out - not just from sheer bandwidth, but also the ability to not lose as many data packets - especially if your in a "noisy" area. My girlfriend and her roomates all use macs (blah) and they have a mac airport device...they also live a block away from Love park in Philly where they setup wifi - and now their airport is useless...i gave them an old netgear router i had (i want to help them with the airport, but that would probably require me to play with a mac)....

So to answer your question...i would think wired will still win - - though not in the portability "ahh yes, i feel like playing counterstrike from my porch today"

Thick ethernet? (2, Funny)

gerardlt (529702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942865)

Did anyone else read the subject and think "Thick Ethernet? What do we want to bring that back for?"

M*O*N*A*C*O (0)

(3067) (867811) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942901)

Woa! Imagine a centimeter of these babies !

M*O*N*A*C*O

In the interest of fairness (1)

syntap (242090) | more than 9 years ago | (#11942904)

Here's a link [altavista.com] to the page translated from French to German, to include some of our European members that too often get overlooked.

price (1)

p373 (689997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943057)

Their site lists the cable shown in the window picture at 2,520 yen, or $24 USD. That's a bit much for such a short piece of cable. Maybe the price will go down in the future, or maybe they are the Japanese version of Monster Cable (a huge rip-off)

Glass is thiner. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943156)

I use fiber optic gigabit. Its far thiner then the stuff they're talking about.

Re:Glass is thiner. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11943208)

I use fiber optic gigabit. Its far thiner then the stuff they're talking about.

We are so proud of you. Now go roll over your fiber optic cable with a chair. Now bend it around corners. What? It doesn't work anymore?

Because there's all this talk of interference... (1)

kennyj449 (151268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943195)

The cables are supposedly "reinforced" with Aluminum. It's possible that this means that there is a thin layer of aluminum sandwiching the wiring, or backing the insulation. This would effectively shield the cables from outside interference, if this is a concern.

As for crosstalk, though I could most certainly be wrong here, if no two adjacent wires carry a single, the other wires will effectively diminish crosstalk (think about 80-pin ATA-66/100/133 cables.)

I'm no expert on RF, but I'd suspect that either mechanism alone could do the trick.

Beware - only Cat 5 (2, Insightful)

fedders (557086) | more than 9 years ago | (#11943348)

I'm in the category cable industry and would be weary of using this cable for Gigabit Ethernet. The release only mentions that the cable is rated at Cat 5 (Not Cat 5e) which means it is only good for speeds up to 100 Mb/s. You need a true (verified) Cat 5e cable to run 1000 Mb/s (Gigabit) ethernet.

That said, this would be find for most home networks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...