Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!bud
From: bud@ut-emx.UUCP (C. E. "Bud" Spurgeon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: RG58 C/U vs ThinWire Ethernet?
Message-ID: <13427@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 89 18:05:12 GMT
References: <1026@draken.nada.kth.se> <802@helios.toronto.edu> <13099@ut-emx.UUCP> <1927@wasatch.utah.edu>
Reply-To: bud@emx.UUCP (C. E. "Bud" Spurgeon)
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 19

In article <1927@wasatch.utah.edu> hatch@wasatch.utah.edu (Corey Hatch) writes:
>You mean Belden 8219, not 8259.  Your above parameters are correct for the
>8219.  Belden 8259 has a velocity prop of 66%c and has a solid polyethylene
>dielectric (but is also classified as RG-58A/U).
>
>Belden 8219 is the better cable.
>

You're quite right!  I goofed and gave out the wrong Belden number for
the RG58A/U I was describing. 

While we're at it, I have a photocopy of the wire spec used by DEC in
their DECconnect thin Ethernet system.  It appears to have a Belden #
of 9908.  The main thing that I recall about using this stuff is that
the outside diameter is smaller than the usual run of RG58A/U and the
usual BNC crimp-on connectors won't crimp onto it properly.

I was told that DEC uses this cable because it has a 100% foil shield
along with the braid for better EMI characteristics.