First Drawing

Discussion in 'DIRECTV - Coax Networking (private)' started by Tom Robertson, May 31, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 31, 2009 #1 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    If we can have a first question, perhaps we can have a first drawing? :)

    To say this is an artists rendition of how this might work is an insult to all artists everywhere. :) This is just a guess on my part...

    [​IMG]

    Cheers,
    Tom
     

    Attached Files:

  2. May 31, 2009 #2 of 138
    Greg Alsobrook

    Greg Alsobrook Lifetime Achiever

    10,453
    0
    Apr 1, 2007
    Not bad at all Mr. Robertson. Very well done sir... :)
     
  3. May 31, 2009 #3 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    And we've all wondered about this configuration:

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  4. May 31, 2009 #4 of 138
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,143
    29
    Sep 16, 2006
    Im just happy I hit the test just right. I installed my SWMline5 three weeks ago, and activated my h21 two weeks ago, and got my first CE on it a week ago :) Just in under the wire. I vote for drawing one. I think the average "Joe" is more likely to have internet access point closer to the SWM8 or Power inserter, than at one of the receivers, unless Joe has already installed hardwire networking to a receiver. This seems like its more geared toward allowing installers to easily make sure new installs are networked for DirecTv Cinema.
     
  5. May 31, 2009 #5 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    THank you. (All the elements are defined visio shapes I found, except the receiver pix.) :)

    Good karma :)
     
  6. May 31, 2009 #6 of 138
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,740
    361
    Dec 9, 2006
    So this is the "peer to peer" setup and the splitter loss is what we don't know how it will be handled, since this layout has all SWM cables in a "home run" setup, which isn't how mine and [some] others are.
    My "single run" to three receivers would require three runs with this setup. :nono:
    The point of SWM is using a single wire and split it "as needed", not to have a wire for every receiver run to a center location. :nono:
     
  7. May 31, 2009 #7 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I just drew "a configuration" of a simple splitter net. I'm sure it will work in any valid SWM configuration of long runs and/or multiple splitters.

    One splitter was easier to insert and draw. :)
     
  8. May 31, 2009 #8 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    VOS

    How's this: [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  9. May 31, 2009 #9 of 138
    66stang351

    66stang351 New Member

    1,213
    4
    Aug 9, 2006
    That is close to how mine would look. Except the 2 receivers on the right would both come off of the last splitter and the internet tap would be on the middle splitter.
     
  10. May 31, 2009 #10 of 138
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,740
    361
    Dec 9, 2006
    "Which brings up the splitter loss" from output to output, to output, to...
    In my case I have one 2-way and a 4-way off it, so only ~ 40 dB loss for the MoCA signal.
     
  11. Jun 1, 2009 #11 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I don't think I'm going to get into the business of drafting each possible configuration for the "more than one and less than 1 hundred" members of the trials :D
     
  12. Jun 1, 2009 #12 of 138
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,050
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    Nice work Tom. Your artist renditions are far superior to anything I would come up with.

    My guess is the first drawing.
     
  13. Jun 1, 2009 #13 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Wouldn't that be 12-13db loss?
     
  14. Jun 1, 2009 #14 of 138
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,740
    361
    Dec 9, 2006
    I just came back to correct my "40" to ~35 dB, since even with my setup only one splitter output to output path would be used at any one time.

    Insertion loss is simply input/output [or output/input], "BUT" output to output is Isolation, so:
    1 insertion loss + 1 Isolation [loss] = ~35 dB loss going from one "end to the other end" of my system to STBs.
    With the three off the 4-way, the loss would "only" be 25 dB, for an 800-900 MHz MoCA, but since these specs are "min", it could be greater in actual fact.
    In layman's terms insertion loss spec is worst case, while Isolation is "at least", allowing it to be greater [which is a good thing for isolation].

    from here: http://www.skywalker.com/subcategory.aspx?store=2&cat=26&scat=TSSPC
    4-way
    Impedance: 75 Ohms
    RFI: 120dB

    Insertion Loss (dBMax):
    5-40MHz: 8.0
    40-1000MHz: 8.3
    1000-1750MHz: 9.5
    1750-2050MHz: 10.8
    2050-2300MHz: 12.6

    Isolation (dB Min):
    5-40MHz: 23
    40-1000MHz: 25
    1000-1750MHz: 23
    1750-2050MHz: 24
    2050-2300MHz: 22

    2-way

    Insertion Loss (dBMax):
    5-40MHz: 4.3
    40-1000MHz: 4.4
    1000-1750MHz: 4.8
    1750-2050MHz: 6.2
    2050-2300MHz: 7.3

    Isolation (dB Min):
    5-40MHz: 16
    40-2300MHz: 22
     
  15. Jun 1, 2009 #15 of 138
    66stang351

    66stang351 New Member

    1,213
    4
    Aug 9, 2006
    Come on...you know you want to... :grin:
     
  16. Jun 1, 2009 #16 of 138
    litzdog911

    litzdog911 Well-Known Member

    12,412
    136
    Jun 23, 2004
    Mill Creek, WA
    Yeah, the splitter losses are what puzzles me. I hope that we don't need to dedicate a splitter output for the Coax Network Device that's connected to the home internet (as shown in the first drawing). I prefer the second or third versions.

    Hope we get some real details soon.
     
  17. Jun 1, 2009 #17 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I don't know how we could not require a splitter output somewhere except in the case were the network bridge is an HR21/22/23 with two active network ports. :)

    Again, I'm pretty sure almost any working SWM configuration will also work here.
     
  18. Jun 1, 2009 #18 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Now for a real test: :)

    (Yes, the other two HR2x are correctly attached to a WB68 which isn't shown here. Nor are the 4 other network switches I have in my total network.) :)

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Jun 1, 2009 #19 of 138
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    And no, I don't expect to have (or need that many Adaptor X's) :D Just an illustration of a really complex setup to be tested.
     
  20. Jun 1, 2009 #20 of 138
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Thanks Tom.

    This all helps in our planning process, as each of us has variations in environments.

    Without knowing the final specifics (yet), as LITZ referenced, splitter loss may become an issue if long lengths of coax runs exist (not the case here - nothing over 75 ft.). Guess we'll just have to see if that really even becomes an issue at any site.

    Of equal interest will be the actual # of devices supported with the test equipment - I'm sure DirecTV will have that covered pretty well - as they historically as very good at pre-planning such "projects".

    In any case....we're all looking forward to the test opportunity. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall