bcf1963,

I think you missed my point. I believe, and I mean this sincerely with no exagerration intended, that we live in a world where there is a desperate need for people who design products AND/OR communicate information to leanr how to do it in a meaningful way. When it's not done in a meaninful way, it leads to all sorts of problems. On the unimportant level, it leads to people who can't figure out how to use their TVs or thermostats or 1000+ other items. And on an important level it's causing death (really, read further).

Let me give some examples

1. In this instance we have 3 CEO's who could not figure out how to operate the devices they were introducing at a press event:
[Link: times.hankooki.com]

2. In this instance we have a sitation where it actually appears that we may have had miners die because they could not figure out how to operate their air tanks [I'm sure the engineer who designed them though it was perfectly clear as you put it :-)]
[Link: seattletimes.nwsource.com]

3. I read recently that a study determined that something like 80% of electronic items returned (don't quote me on that, but it was an extreme number), were returned because the consumer took them home and could not figure out how to operate them and/or could not understand the instructions.

4. An example from today. I am working on a project that just installed a motorized gate. The gate manual instructions say "latch a relay" and "release a relay". REALLY! Now you can tell me that an engineer wrote that spec for other engineers to understand. And I'll tell you that he's an idiot when it comes to *communicating* to end users. I can't even fathom how anyone can be so stupid to write a manual for an end user that says that. The person wants to know how to open or close the gate, not latch or release a relay!

So I stand by my statement that the engineer who wrote that spec was smoking crack.

So here's how I suggest that spec be written:
1. Use a shielded twisted 18-22 AWG cable with foam-polyethylene insulated conductors.
2. (The following could be considered a bonus to help make it easy for the installer) While any cable that meets the above spec will suffice, acceptable cables include Belden model xxx, Liberty model xxx and Genesis model xxx.

Now the user has a simple spec to follow and idodishez would have found his cable when he called Graybar.

But the engineer who wrote this:


...wasn't, or perhaps he was and it had the effect of making him extraordinarily lucid.

Bravo for sorting some of the confusion!

May some engineer commit seppuku as a result of the embarassments Q³ cites!

Didnt mean to start a controversy. Thanks for the input.

No controversy here, just having what is for me a very a fun conversation. The guys who write specs like that are the people keeping me in business. If stuff worked easy and well together so that people could understand it, they wouldn't need Crestron or AMX or custom installers. It's all part of the same thing...creating things that people can use and/or presenting them with information they can use. My point being that guy who wrote that cable spec for the temp sensor is the same guy so to speak designing cables boxes that don't have discrete commands and TV's that need to have guys like us make them simple to use for people.

While you guys have beautifully illuminated this one, I have a couple of things to say.


And if it wasn't available locally, you could look it up and get a cross-reference in about three minutes maximum. The description as given is BS.


Ah. So if I had some 200 gauge wire, about three atoms thick, that would work just fine? Don't be ridiculous! If the wire does not have to be thick to carry a bunch of current, SAY SO.


You know, even if they had put THAT in the instructions, it would give a CLUE, because that fully explains the likely need for shielding to anyone with a lick of electronic sense.


Someone said it was only to be connected at the other end. I commented that would make it an electrostatic shield, which would be a GREAT idea in this kind of circuit.


But they give you no clue why. Your clue is a big help. They should have been specific about a wire model.


Thanks. They should have been so helpful, or should have given us a cake. You gave us the recipe for a cake, but they gave us a list of the molecules to be found in a finished cake, from which, guess what? You would not likelly even recognize it as food.

So Ishez, you tried UTP and had problems? Or do you simply want to follow the spec as written before going further? Not clear what the issue is.

Tried standard stat wire.

See................

Oops. 2AM + (8) hours of air travel + (2) vodka tonics - dinner = ineffective forum participant.