Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!lll-tis!ati.tis.llnl.gov!bae From: bae@ati.tis.llnl.gov (Hwa Jin Bae) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Using 48.? ohm RG 62A/U cable for Thin Ethernet? Keywords: IBM COAX, Thin Ethernet, Cheapernet, Thinnet... Message-ID: <22226@tis.llnl.gov> Date: 27 May 88 17:12:11 GMT References: <2471@ritcsh.UUCP> <2631@ritcsh.UUCP> Sender: news@tis.llnl.gov Reply-To: bae@ati.tis.llnl.gov (Hwa Jin Bae) Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA Lines: 15 In article <2631@ritcsh.UUCP> steveg@ritcsh.UUCP (Steve Good -- ISC) writes: >I did not even want to try the RG 62 A/U after some of the warnings that >were sent to me. How about RG 59? (as opposed to RG 58 or RG 11). I am using RG 59 in one of the segments of our thin Ethernet part of LAN, and it seems to work just fine... Can anyone think of any reason not to use RG 59? It seems to be a better cable than 58 and a nice compromise between 58 and 11. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about... Hwa Jin Bae | The Devil made me do it...yeah, that's right! Control Data Corp. | (415) 463 - 6865 4234 Hacienda Drive | bae@tis.llnl.gov (Internet) Pleasanton, CA 94566 | {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg}!lll-tis!bae (UUCP)