Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!felix!zemon
From: zemon@felix.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.periphs,misc.wanted
Subject: Re: Reliability of Modular Jacks
Message-ID: <2317@felix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 18:18:51 EST
Article-I.D.: felix.2317
Posted: Fri Feb 20 18:18:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 16:03:56 EST
References: <267@aucs.UUCP> <299@mtxinu.UUCP> <796@fmsrl7.UUCP> <625@infinet.UUCP>
Sender: root@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: zemon@felix.UUCP (Art Zemon)
Distribution: na
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 27
Keywords: RJ-11, RJ-12, RJ-45, RS-232
Xref: watmath comp.dcom.modems:273 comp.periphs:221 misc.wanted:547

In article <625@infinet.UUCP> rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) writes:
>The growing popularity of using the RJ series connectors (aka
>`telephone modular jacks') for terminal cabling is exposing a lot of
>people to a major risk.  These jacks are directly interchangable with
>normal telephone jacks, and you can be sure that people will make
>mistakes and plug terminals into telephone equipment.  This can do
>tremendous damage, and may even pose a health risk.

You're absolutely right.  I solved this by using RJ-45
sockets/plugs for my terminal equipment.  The RJ-45 is 8
pins wide instead of the 4 on the RJ-11.  This allows a
*really* dumb user to plug his telephone handset in the
computer wiring but the terminal plug is physically too
large to be inserted into the telephone wiring socket.

I like this wiring solution.  I kept all the advantages of
the modular phone wiring and avoided the electrical
hazards.  The only disadvantage I have heard of is that the
RJ-45/RJ-11 plugs don't have much of a duty cycle life.
But I don't really care.  They hardly ever get unplugged
and if one ever breaks, a new plug costs me about $.25 and
takes about one minute to crimp on.
-- 
	-- Art Zemon
	   FileNet Corporation
	   Costa Mesa, California
	   ...!hplabs!felix!zemon