Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:30920 comp.periphs:1875 comp.misc:6468
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.periphs,comp.misc
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: RS-232 protocol primer (long)
Message-ID: <1989Jul1.230627.28355@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1538@mtunb.ATT.COM> <592@megatek.UUCP> <1989Jun26.155855.1680@utzoo.uucp> <821@cf-cm.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 89 23:06:27 GMT

In article <821@cf-cm.UUCP> sme@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Simon Elliott) writes:
>> ... the male connectors are much more
>> durable (solid post, as opposed to the springy sleeve on the female end),
>
>Now I am confused.  I always thought that the male connector was the one
>with the pins, rather than the sockets.  It's been a long day, and I may be
>reading Henry's article incorrectly, but he seems to be saying that the solid
>block with the sockets in it is male, and that the flimsy shell with the pins
>in it is female.  Do I need a basic biology lesson?

No, just a good night's sleep. :-)  I was talking about the contacts
themselves, not about the shell containing them.  The shells are pretty
durable on either side.  One reason why the female contacts are imbedded
in a solid block is that they *need* the support -- they really are much
flimsier than the male contacts, which can stand on their own.

(It should be noted that this isn't a biological necessity. :-)  There
has to be spring action to get proper wiping action when the contacts
mate, but in principle you could put a springy bulge on the male pin
and have the female sleeve solid and robust.  Such contacts do exist --
the banana plugs used for test leads, for example -- but they're not
too common nowadays.)
-- 
$10 million equals 18 PM       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
(Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu