Lime
Member
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- East of England
Am I to understand by what you say that the low voltage wiring/cable is housed in the same conduit as the mains 240V cables?NT said:
- Thread starter Trommel
- Start date
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
NT said:
Opening the window on a hot day may not cool the house but the draught cools you as your sweat evaporates quicker. Latent heat of evaporation and suchlike. Ignorance? Huh!
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I rather thought opening the windows and doors brought in the heat, too.
biffvernon said:
Opening windows on a hot day causes draughts but also raises the temperature, both immediately and for hours afterwards. Not a great contribution to comfort, and doesnt cool the house.
A ceiling fan gives the air movement without raising the temp, thus makes more sense, if you want to be a bit cooler.
NT
NT said:
Hello all. I'm a lurker who may get more active here, as I've bought a c.6,000ft2 Georgian house, which needs a bit of tlc.
In the last house I did put in Cat 5e wiring, and it was fab. I kept music and video on a server, recorded off the TV on my computer. I could run telephone AND ethernet along the same wires. I could also have run all sorts of other things like TV signals, with the right adapters.
In the new house, I have already started going wireless for music, using a Sonos system, but I still have a lot of wires, and I plan to put in a fair few networking cables. I have bought wire which heavily exceeds Cat6 standards, as that will help keep interference down. I've no idea whether I will be able to use gigabit networking or whether I will have to go down to 100megabit due to interference at the higher rate, but I'm pretty confident that so long as I don't run parallel to electrics too much, I will get good functionality.
Reasons:
I don't think video will ever be much good on wireless.
The security angle.
I want to keep battery replacement to a minimum
But I don't have a problem with using wireless otherwise. And I think the challenge is to keep technology invisible, so wireless definitely has a place here.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I also have Cat5e cabling installed in my current house and use it for telephones and multimedia networking. I have some areas without fixed wiring and use wireless access for these but have found that even at 54Mbps they are not always reliable enough for video streaming. Music is fine though. I recently installed some Netgear powerline/homeplug units to bridge my wired network over the mains wiring and can now stream video to previously unwired locations in the house with 100% reliability.
Given that Cat5e cabling will also support gigabit ethernet, I'm not convinced that the additional expense of Cat6, or better, cabling is really justified in practice. In fact, practical experience tells me that when using STP (shielded) data cabling, it is harder to create a compliant system than when using UTP (unshielded). It is so easy to lose the shielding integrity at each termination and patching point, at which point a shielded system can perform worse than an unshielded system.
Long parallel runs of UTP within mains conduit is not really a good idea for interference reasons, although the differential nature of the networking signals are pretty resilient to general interference, and the networking protocols themselves will ensure no loss or corruption of actual data transmission (albeit at the cost of temporarily reduced speeds, which most streaming protocols will protect against by buffering anyway).
Wireless speeds will no doubt continue to improve and better support video streaming, but wireless will probably remain more prone to interference from mobile phones, microwaves etc., than fixed UTP cabling.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I plan to stick with cat5e UTP data wiring for my next house as far as possible and augment it with powerline/homeplug units where necessary. It's cheap, proven and good for gigabit ethernet, which should be enough for any home application. I'll still use wireless but mainly for the 'frills', such as being able to use my laptop on the terrace etc.
I entirely agree about keeping the technology invisible though, which is not too difficult with a little care and attention.
Given that Cat5e cabling will also support gigabit ethernet, I'm not convinced that the additional expense of Cat6, or better, cabling is really justified in practice. In fact, practical experience tells me that when using STP (shielded) data cabling, it is harder to create a compliant system than when using UTP (unshielded). It is so easy to lose the shielding integrity at each termination and patching point, at which point a shielded system can perform worse than an unshielded system.
Long parallel runs of UTP within mains conduit is not really a good idea for interference reasons, although the differential nature of the networking signals are pretty resilient to general interference, and the networking protocols themselves will ensure no loss or corruption of actual data transmission (albeit at the cost of temporarily reduced speeds, which most streaming protocols will protect against by buffering anyway).
Wireless speeds will no doubt continue to improve and better support video streaming, but wireless will probably remain more prone to interference from mobile phones, microwaves etc., than fixed UTP cabling.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I plan to stick with cat5e UTP data wiring for my next house as far as possible and augment it with powerline/homeplug units where necessary. It's cheap, proven and good for gigabit ethernet, which should be enough for any home application. I'll still use wireless but mainly for the 'frills', such as being able to use my laptop on the terrace etc.
I entirely agree about keeping the technology invisible though, which is not too difficult with a little care and attention.
Interesting about the powerline/homeplug stuff I will have a look, thank you.
However, the Cat6 I have is unshielded. To look at it, the only differences with the Cat5e I used are (1) a divider betwen the four pairs internally, (2) thicker wires, and (3) different twists in the pairs. The cost is more than Cat5e, but now I think the absolute difference is very small for all components, and nil for installation (once you've mastered a slightly more fiddly RJ45 termination).
In my last house, I could only use gigabit on some of the runs, not all. I think that is probably due to sharp bends or other installation anomalies such as power lines, and I believe Cat6 will be more resilient.
Some people may wonder why on earth anyone needs gigabit in a house. Well I actually use a maximum of 13% of gigabit bandwidth quite frequently when I edit the ads out of TV programmes on my server, and conventional ethernet leaves quite a lot of headroom, so I get roughly double the throughput when I use gigabit. In laymans terms it means saving the video without the ads takes say 6 minutes instead of 12.
Some other people may be wondering what on earth I am babbling about...
However, the Cat6 I have is unshielded. To look at it, the only differences with the Cat5e I used are (1) a divider betwen the four pairs internally, (2) thicker wires, and (3) different twists in the pairs. The cost is more than Cat5e, but now I think the absolute difference is very small for all components, and nil for installation (once you've mastered a slightly more fiddly RJ45 termination).
In my last house, I could only use gigabit on some of the runs, not all. I think that is probably due to sharp bends or other installation anomalies such as power lines, and I believe Cat6 will be more resilient.
Some people may wonder why on earth anyone needs gigabit in a house. Well I actually use a maximum of 13% of gigabit bandwidth quite frequently when I edit the ads out of TV programmes on my server, and conventional ethernet leaves quite a lot of headroom, so I get roughly double the throughput when I use gigabit. In laymans terms it means saving the video without the ads takes say 6 minutes instead of 12.
Some other people may be wondering what on earth I am babbling about...
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I was confusing 'cat7' as the shielded example, although I'm not sure if this standard has been fully ratified yet. I've also read that Cat6 systems need different patch cable connectors than the normal ones used for Cat5e - pinout is the same but I think the physical construction is difference, similar to the different physical construction of the cat6 cable I suppose. I believe Cat5 patch cables would work but the system would not meet all the overall Cat6 performance specs. However, I would imagine most domestic installations do not approach the 90m cable lengths of the design specs so this may not be a problem in practice.
As for why you need gigabit speeds, I do a lot of video editing and need no convincing of the need for a fast network for moving huge video files between PCs. So your points about Cat6 are very relevant and I will look into this for my current project.
Regarding powerline, I've read that the speeds can be greatly affected by mains-borne interference and distance. The Netgear units I have are rated at 85Mbps and I'm only using them to bridge across one room, although I don't know the actual routing length of the mains cable. But they certainly work much better than the previous 54Mbps wireless, over which I couldn't reliably stream video. Well worth a try though.
As for why you need gigabit speeds, I do a lot of video editing and need no convincing of the need for a fast network for moving huge video files between PCs. So your points about Cat6 are very relevant and I will look into this for my current project.
Regarding powerline, I've read that the speeds can be greatly affected by mains-borne interference and distance. The Netgear units I have are rated at 85Mbps and I'm only using them to bridge across one room, although I don't know the actual routing length of the mains cable. But they certainly work much better than the previous 54Mbps wireless, over which I couldn't reliably stream video. Well worth a try though.
When I discovered that Cat6 used RJ45 connectors and was otherwise interchangeable with Cat 5e, I was sold. If you only neet gigabit, then you can use all your existing switchgear and patch cables, unless there is particularly fierce interference. I have bought a Cat6 patch panel, but otherwise have no plans to change equipment in the near term. I wouldn't have a full spec cat6 network, but I would have it where it matters. My Cat6 cable is rated to 550mhz, way above the Cat6 spec, and almost at the Cat7 level which is 600mhz.
I've just ordered a pair of the new 200mbit Solwise Homeplugs. We will see, but this could save the vast bulk of flood wiring that I was considering. Good tip. Thanks.
There is also a "Cat8" which is very proprietary, but can even carry UHF frequencies, so any computer or AV signal can be carried on the same cable type. The downsides are that there is no easy compatibility with Cat5e etc, the high cost and clunky connectors.
For my money, I think UHF distribution will decline over the next 10 years or so, as people start to watch TV over broadband connections. Almost every home function which previously required dedicated wires will be possible on an IP network.
I've just ordered a pair of the new 200mbit Solwise Homeplugs. We will see, but this could save the vast bulk of flood wiring that I was considering. Good tip. Thanks.
There is also a "Cat8" which is very proprietary, but can even carry UHF frequencies, so any computer or AV signal can be carried on the same cable type. The downsides are that there is no easy compatibility with Cat5e etc, the high cost and clunky connectors.
For my money, I think UHF distribution will decline over the next 10 years or so, as people start to watch TV over broadband connections. Almost every home function which previously required dedicated wires will be possible on an IP network.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Even now there are systems that will distribute television over Cat5 (and higher) by confining the UHF equipment at a 'head-end' near the aerial/dish and sending only the baseband video over the UTP cabling. they are not really domestic products but have been quite widely used commercially for well over 10 years.sidd said:
But I agree with you that IP-TV is the way forward, and maybe quicker than 10 years once they switch off the analogue transmission network. I am certainly not planning to flood wire with coax!
I'd be interested to hear how you get on with the 200mbps Solwise units.
Solwise 200mbit units worked straight out of the box. Transferred 224mb file from server to local disk in 1m 45s (15s on gigabit). Peak transfer rate was 22% of 100mbit capacity. DVD quality mpeg used about 6% when playing. This was all from one end of the house to the other.
In my book, that's pretty good. QED.
In my book, that's pretty good. QED.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Thanks for the follow-up.
I haven't actually checked the sustained transfer speed for large files as I only use my Netgear 85 Mbps units to bridge to an un-wired 'island' in that only houses the TV and hi-fi, so the only traffic is video and audio streaming. But, as you've found, they work perfectly well for that.
For large file transfers (and I'm talking many GB video files) I'm still finding an external hard drive the quickest method. I'm planning to upgrade most of my network hardware to gigabit but it's a 'background' task that I never seem to get around to.
I'm glad that powerline networking is finally seeming to catch on after many many years. I wouldn't be surprised to see it being built in to many domestic appliances in the future.
Anyway, glad to hear they worked OK for you.
I haven't actually checked the sustained transfer speed for large files as I only use my Netgear 85 Mbps units to bridge to an un-wired 'island' in that only houses the TV and hi-fi, so the only traffic is video and audio streaming. But, as you've found, they work perfectly well for that.
For large file transfers (and I'm talking many GB video files) I'm still finding an external hard drive the quickest method. I'm planning to upgrade most of my network hardware to gigabit but it's a 'background' task that I never seem to get around to.
I'm glad that powerline networking is finally seeming to catch on after many many years. I wouldn't be surprised to see it being built in to many domestic appliances in the future.
Anyway, glad to hear they worked OK for you.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Flyfisher - is powerline networking available now for ordinary domestic use? And is it costly?Flyfisher said:
I use a wireless router with built-in adsl modem to transfer my internet connection across the house to my computer (there's only the one computer on the network). However, I'm a bit uncomfortable about those radio waves dodging about the house. Would I be able to buy a gizmo to plug the router into my domestic wiring, and ditto to retrieve the signal at the computer end?
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Yes. The Netgear units I'm using are expressely designed for domestic use. Actually, I'm not sure there is any real distinction between 'ordinary domestic' and other applications.
I'm using two Netgear XE104 units and they should be able to do what you want. I only say 'should' because all the things I've read say the actual performance depends on the state of your mains wiring and distance, but as I've confirmed previously they work OK for me and sidd has clearly also had a good experience with even faster units, so perhaps the caveats are a bit pessimistic? The one thing they do say is that you mustn't use extension cables or multiway plug blocks - they must be connected directly to a wall socket. I suspect this is to ensure they are connected to solid rather than stranded cable.
I paid about £55 each for my two units. Netgear also makes a slower (14Mbps) unit with only one ethernet port, which I think are about £30 each. If you only have the single PC (and don't plan to add more) then I think 14Mbps would be fine for broadband traffic, but I've not tried them. There's a lot of info on the Netgear website.
Your wireless router will need an ethernet connector (I've never seen one that doesn't) and the same for your PC. Then you just connect each powerline unit, plug them into a convenient mains socket and they effective act as a length of ethernet cable connecting your PC and router - they really are plug'n'play'. You should then be able to disable the wireless function of your router.
I'm using two Netgear XE104 units and they should be able to do what you want. I only say 'should' because all the things I've read say the actual performance depends on the state of your mains wiring and distance, but as I've confirmed previously they work OK for me and sidd has clearly also had a good experience with even faster units, so perhaps the caveats are a bit pessimistic? The one thing they do say is that you mustn't use extension cables or multiway plug blocks - they must be connected directly to a wall socket. I suspect this is to ensure they are connected to solid rather than stranded cable.
I paid about £55 each for my two units. Netgear also makes a slower (14Mbps) unit with only one ethernet port, which I think are about £30 each. If you only have the single PC (and don't plan to add more) then I think 14Mbps would be fine for broadband traffic, but I've not tried them. There's a lot of info on the Netgear website.
Your wireless router will need an ethernet connector (I've never seen one that doesn't) and the same for your PC. Then you just connect each powerline unit, plug them into a convenient mains socket and they effective act as a length of ethernet cable connecting your PC and router - they really are plug'n'play'. You should then be able to disable the wireless function of your router.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Thanks very much for that, Flyfisher. Given that the cost is not exhorbitant, I think I'll do that. Certainly I have ethernet interfaces in both my router and my pc ethernet card.
I can't remember the transmission speed of my wireless system, but its protocol is 802.11g. Do you think I would notice any deterioration in speed with the 14Mbps system?
I can't remember the transmission speed of my wireless system, but its protocol is 802.11g. Do you think I would notice any deterioration in speed with the 14Mbps system?
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Your wireless router spec is 54Mbps so a 14Mbps link will be slower. However, since you're only using the link to transfer data from your broadband connection then that will be the limiting factor, not the ethernet speed, so I doubt you'll notice any overall difference in practice.
I don't have enough 100Mbps ports on my network for my wireless router, so I connect it using an old 10Mbps hub even though the wireless is rated at 54Mbps. But since I only use the wireless connection for internet access on my laptop, this speed limitation is of no consequence because my broadband speed is only 2Mbps (I hope this is helpful rather than confusing).
Unless you have a very fast broadband connection (like 8Mbps perhaps?) then I don't think you'll notice any deterioration in speed - assuming your mains wiring supports the full 14Mbps powerline speed, of course.
From your description, I would definitely go for the slower units (you can always return them if they don't work).
I don't have enough 100Mbps ports on my network for my wireless router, so I connect it using an old 10Mbps hub even though the wireless is rated at 54Mbps. But since I only use the wireless connection for internet access on my laptop, this speed limitation is of no consequence because my broadband speed is only 2Mbps (I hope this is helpful rather than confusing).
Unless you have a very fast broadband connection (like 8Mbps perhaps?) then I don't think you'll notice any deterioration in speed - assuming your mains wiring supports the full 14Mbps powerline speed, of course.
From your description, I would definitely go for the slower units (you can always return them if they don't work).
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
No, not confusing, thanks Flyfisher. The slowest ship in my convoy would, as you say, be my 2 meg BB connection.
You say "assuming your mains wiring supports 14Mbps". Is this questionable? Are there factors about mains wiring that could reduce the speed?
Sorry for all the questions!
You say "assuming your mains wiring supports 14Mbps". Is this questionable? Are there factors about mains wiring that could reduce the speed?
Sorry for all the questions!
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,200
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
No problems with the questions.
In theory it's questionable because the manufacturers cannot guarantee the condition of the mains wiring and the proximity of any faulty/interfering applicances.
Actually, the slower the operating speed the more robust such things generally are (same with wireless and modem connections). So, in practice, I really doubt you'll have any problems, but I thought it only fair to point out it's not an absolute 100% guaranteed solution (mind you, what is?). All I can guarantee is that it works for me and I'm being far too over-cautious . . . . I think . . . probably
In theory it's questionable because the manufacturers cannot guarantee the condition of the mains wiring and the proximity of any faulty/interfering applicances.
Actually, the slower the operating speed the more robust such things generally are (same with wireless and modem connections). So, in practice, I really doubt you'll have any problems, but I thought it only fair to point out it's not an absolute 100% guaranteed solution (mind you, what is?). All I can guarantee is that it works for me and I'm being far too over-cautious . . . . I think . . . probably