Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!ingr!goodloe
From: goodloe@ingr.com (Tony Goodloe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RS-232 vs. V.35
Keywords: maximum distance
Message-ID: <4388@ingr.com>
Date: 13 Mar 89 15:07:20 GMT
References: <1766@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <4287@ingr.com> <7548@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Lines: 17

In article <7548@polya.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
> >sure would appreciate. All we have been able to find is (paraphrased)
> >"Don't run it a distance that it won't work at. This distance will be
> >shorter as the data rate increases." Big help. I love standards :)
> 
> Nevertheless, that is the best statement of maximum distance I can think of.
> The real answer is that you can run as far as you can receive good waveforms.

It is a good statement, and great for applications in the lab,
around the plant, etc., but what if a customer says "I have V.35 box
from company XYZ and I want to hook it to your equipment and I want to
run it 12,000 feet. Will you guarantee it works before I have the cable
buried under the Interstate that they are building?" What do you say? I
don't think it will work at 12,000  feet, but it will work at 100 feet,
and where the line of demarcation is, I don't know. 

Tony Goodloe