 |
 |
|
|
Custom Installers' Lounge Forum - View Post
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:
|
Butting togeter cat 5 for ethernet
| |
|
| Topic: | Butting togeter cat 5 for ethernet This thread has 7 replies. Displaying all posts. |
|
| Post 1 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 11:15 |
I was forced to cut 2 runs of Cat-5 that was run in the house because the guys pulling it went under some air ducts. The basement will one day be finished so this had to be fixed. The runs were going to be used for an ethernet conection to a router in the Break Out. What would be the best way to reconnect the wires. Untwisting the wires to butt them together can't be good for an ethernet run. I was thinking of putting an RJ45 on each end and barreling them together. Does anyone know of a better way?
|
|
| Post 2 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 11:25 |
Larry Fine Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
5,002 |
|
|
The ideal repair is to replace the runs, end to end. Barring that, I'd have to recommend installing plugs on both ends and find a CAT-5-to-CAT-5 connector, such as one you'd install in a wallplate, but without the plate. Larry www.fineelectricco.com
|
|
|
| Post 3 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 11:32 |
Tony Golden Founding Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
654 |
|
|
The method you propose is fine, or you could put an RJ-45 (such as a Leviton "quickport") jack on one end, and a connector on the other. This would eliminate the "barrel" coupler, and result in a single connection point, instead of two...
|
|
| Post 4 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 11:48 |
Larry Fine Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
5,002 |
|
|
Absolutely right, Tony. Great call.
Larry
|
|
|
| Post 5 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 13:11 |
Brijaws Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2002
265 |
|
|
|
| Post 6 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 15:03 |
jwalkup Founding Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2001
320 |
|
|
On 10/05/03 11:32, Tony Golden said...
This
would eliminate the "barrel" coupler, and result
in a single connection point, instead of two... I believe that should be "three connection points, instead of four". If you use a punch down block you could get it down to two connections.
|
|
| Post 7 made on Sunday October 5, 2003 at 23:30 |
Tony Golden Founding Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
654 |
|
|
There's one in every crowd... :-)
I was only referring to the connections involved in the *splice*, which is what the original post was about.
It's impossible to tell how many *total* connection points there will be, without more info on the entire system (patch panels, routers, hubs, etc)...
|
|
| Post 8 made on Monday October 6, 2003 at 15:45 |
Larry Fine Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
5,002 |
|
|
Tony, JW was not trying to be a wise guy, just specific. By three instead of four, he meant wire-to-plug, plug-to-jack, and jack-to-wire as opposed to wire-to-plug, plug-to-joiner, joiner-to-plug, and plug-to-wire. Larry www.fineelectricco.com
|
|
|
 |
Before you can reply to a message... |
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now. |
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
