Talk:RS-423

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Maximum length

This article and infobox say 1,200 meter, the chart in the article drops to 0 at 200 meter, and the figure in appendix II of ITU-T V.10 drops to 0 at 1,000 meter, but notes that Experience has shown that in most practical cases the operating distance at the lower data signalling rates may be extended to several kilometres. I suppose the 1,000 meter in the figure of ITU-T V.10 might agree with a 4,000 foot guideline in imperial units, both with a single significant figure, explaining the 1,200 m, which would then be derived from 4,000 ft.

Sooo... what should we go with? :-) Digital Brains (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the line of RS-422/RS-485 and RS-423 and marked their data points.

Also, I redraw the line of RS-232 with respect to the standard, and marked 3 data lines (collected from internet) of RS-232.

the data comes from:

1. https://www.wavetronix.com/support-knowledge-base-products/smart-sensor-hd

2. https://blog.seabird.com/ufaqs/what-is-the-maximum-cable-length-for-real-time-rs-232-data/

3. https://www.lammertbies.nl/comm/info/rs-232-specs MagicJackTing (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading, the chart in the article drops off at 1200 m which is 3937 ft. The crux of the problem here is that the standard explicitly declines to specify a maximum length (V.10 section 2) while our article arguably puts forward 1200 m as if it is a sanctioned capability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone replaced the chart with a new one :-). The previous one had it drop at 200 m, as you can see to the right. Thanks, @R2d21024! Digital Brains (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a {{dubious}} tag. I don't have the TIA/EIA standard, I don't know if it differs from ITU-T V.10. I think the intended message was that you can make it about 1,000 meters or 4,000 feet, a figure with one significant figure. 1·10³ m and 4·10³ ft if you will. But then someone took the figure in feet and converted it to meters, and did so with 2 significant figures, and suddenly there's this 1,200 meter figure, which suggests a greater precision than was originally intended. So perhaps it should be rephrased in a way like "there is no specified maximum length, but conservative estimates of typical maximum length give about 1,000 meters or about 4,000 feet." Or something in that ballpark. Digital Brains (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RS-423 and RS-422 have the same maximum cable length, but they mean order of magnitude, so 1000m is better than 1200m. Maximum data rate of 100 kBits/s also refers to order of magnitude. I will update the chart soon. R2d21024 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to use the appendix II of ITU-T V.10 "about 1000 meters (4000 feet)" It is the same in the TIA/EIA standard R2d21024 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]