Talk:Category 5 cable

Cat 5 Manufacturing

Many Cisco students are required to make a Cat 5 cable but often ask how such a complex process can be automated. Can a link be included to a manufacturers website or a video on YouTube showing how this process is automated?

Robinatilio (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent request, and something i've wondered. I don't have a video, but i share your desire to see one. Cheers! —fudoreaper (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I always assumed that they just used cheap third world labour to make them. Plugwash (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here (old machines but not 3rd world I assume) --Copa017 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That shows how cable is made (though dispite the title the cable they are making doesn't look like cat5 to me) but the original posters question seemed to be how cat5 patch cable assemblies are made commercially. I just don't see any reasonable way to automate the process of seperating out the cores and arranging them by color code. 130.88.108.187 (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

CAT5/CAT5e specifications

The article states that Category 5 has been superseded by the Category 5e specification, but treats them like they are the same exact thing. What differs in cable design, specifications between Cat5 and Cat5e and how and when did this take place? PaulCSX (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree this aspect needs elaboration from someone knowledgeable. 82.81.2.70 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be more clear. Both the differences. And the title should probably be Category 5e cable instead of Category 5 cable. --Mortense (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat 5 history

Question. Hi. I just wondered. There is no history here. When was CAT5 introduced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.230.2 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Category" specification started in the late eighties to early nineties. I believe the first "Category" standard was formalized in 1991 by the TIA/EIA.

The "Category" rating system was created by the Committee as a standardized version of the "Levels" system developed by Anixter International. Anixter's intent was to provide a way for their customers to easily identify a choice in cabling to best meet the customer's application. It also gave them a way to specify a cabling standard to their suppliers; each batch of cable was tested as it was received and if it didn't meet the standard, it was sent back.

Anixter was an early proponent (if not the originator) of the concept of structured cabling; using a single cable plant for the wide variety of communication needs (i.e., serial terminal, 3270 terminal, 5250 terminal, networking (Ethernet, Token Ring, ArcNet ...),security (alarm, video), baseband video, broadband RF (cable tv, antenna)). By using "adapters" (BALUNs and impedance matching devices) the cabling system could be used for nearly every signal type. IBM also had a cabling system they were promoting, primarily for their Token-Ring networking and mainframe terminal systems.

Category 3 (the first "Cat-rated" level) grew out of IBM's "Type III" used to describe their Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) media.

The capacity and capability of higher Category levels evolved by changing the twist ratio (pair-to-pair), the "lay" of the pairs within the sheath, insulation material and dimension of the individual conductors, insulation and dimension of the sheath material, the size of the conductors, and other manufacturer-proprietary methods. Cat6 and above tends to have an "X member" to further isolate the pair and keep them in proper distance proportion and enhance the crosstalk figures. It takes more than pair twist to create a higher Category Rating level. 75.30.110.158 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) S. Mackenzie

Tautologies in lede

I'm amazed that a particular editor is still having this problem but since theat is the case maybe I need to be more explicit:

• Ethernet is a digital signal (even Gigabit)
• ATM is also a digital signal

Analog and digital are a) not capitialised and b) not signals, but broad classes of signal. In fact, if we neglect hybrid, they are the only classes of signal. Therefore we can't use them as examples of signals because they are not specific. Reducing the proposed amendments down we end up with something like "This type of cable is used in structured cabling for computer networks such as one signal and another signal, also used to carry many other signals such any class of signal."

This is undoubtedly true (neglecting the intrinsic limitations of the cable) but an obvious tautology. We don't need to confuse the reader with this, who is going to wonder what he has missed. And yes, Sgeeves, I do know what I am talking about: it is not me that is repeatedly adding a frankly idiotic statement and insisting it is some significant revelation. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Bandwidth

The article currently claims Cat 5e UTP has a cutoff frequency of "50323 Hz" (which seems excessively precise). A cutoff frequency of about 51 kHz seems insufficient to support the 125 Mbaud used in 100BASE-TX#100BASE-TX and also in Gigabit_Ethernet#1000BASE-T. If there is some some bandwidth (signal processing) trick to getting symbol rate over 3 orders of magnitude faster than the cutoff frequency, could we mention it in this article or at least link to some other article where that trick is described? --DavidCary (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Examining the reference, it appears that this was calculated from resistance and inductance. In addition to excessive precision, it looks like there was an error in the calculation. I have corrected it. Below the corner frequency, the cable does not have constant characteristic impedance and thus is no longer a well-behaved transmission line. Other math comes in to play when operating at these lower frequencies. All of this either deserves elaboration in the article (and I don't feel like I can do it without original research) or some of these details should be removed. --Kvng (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)