Hello,
We have recently created the crossover and straight combination
ethernet cable (patent pending). If anyone is interested in this,
please go to http://www.info-services.net/cable

If you have any comments or questions about this cable, please e-mail
us at the e-mail address provided at that site. We are interested in
your feedback. We are also interested in ways to market this cable.
Do not respond to the e-mail address listed on this post, as it will
not work!

Thank you,
Mike

Michael Davis <mikejobs@vt.edu> wrote:
You've put a switch into the middle, and stuck it up the arse of a
patent lawyer.

Oh my god.

Do they let people this stupid out in the street?

I bet this perp thinks impedance means pissing on an ant-hill.

Hey, that's nothing, at CompUSA they are selling a retractable "Cat-5"
(I use the term VERY loosely) cable. I looked closely -- it's straight
ribbon cable, not twisted pair. I guess that they figure that they can
get away with it because of the length (4 ft.).

A solution that I do like for carrying in my laptop bag is a "junction
block" I got for $3 that has a female RJ45 on one end and a male RJ45 on
the other end and it converts a standard Cat-5 cable to a crossover
cable (or vice-versa). Since it's only about an inch long, it's
internal wiring isn't much of an issue. Only problem is, while I got 3
of them, I can't remember where I got them ! I thought it was
Computer-Gate or PI Manufacturing, but I have not been able to find them
again at either place.


Ian Stirling wrote:

Ian,

I just wanted to say that it is disturbing that you would bash the
work of someone you do not know without even knowing our design or
opening one of our units. It looks like you even started typing your
response before looking at the product. Negative attitudes like yours
do not help anyone (or even yourself). If you were one to really be
concerned with impedance, you would read something like this simple
guide: http://www.epanorama.net/documents/w...impedance.html, or you
would have written us directly as we requested. I will no longer
respond to you as I will not participate in Usenet arguments.
If anyone else has any comments or questions, please write us at the
address listed at http://www.info-services.net/cable

We are interested in your comments and questions.

Thanks,
Mike

Michael Davis <mikejobs@vt.edu> wrote:
Are you talking about that silly double-headed cable? What a lot of old
rubbish! Talk about low-end technology! Have you got stone-age
villagers in java working for you, patching in the extra wire and
applying the sticky tape?

What's wrong with a simple electronic switch mid-cable? You can put
a 1-1 transceiver in there in a bump the size of a sixpence.o

Even better, put in a bluetooth dongle that converts ethernet to
serial, and plug in the receiving end anywhere you like. Mode switch
done by software.

I've never seen such an awful unimaginative badly finished "product"
as that which you espouse in your web page! It's ridiculous. You ought
to be ashamed. Call that a product? I call it a pair of ethernet cables
stuck together with sticky tape.


Peter

P.T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
My basic problem is that it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge.

If a signal is sent down a cable, if the end is not terminated properly,
it will bounce back.
This causes distortion, and can cause data errors.

There are very strict cabling requirements for Cat5 cables, for a reason.

Looks like we don't have a "need to know". Same result here.

Phil

Barry OGrady wrote:

Peter (and others),
I appreciate your comments (although their delivery was
questionable). We do have several other cable designs available that
do the same thing, some of which include ideas that you have mentioned
(and deal more delicately with the situations that Ian has mentioned).
Unfortunately, the cost of manufacturing these other designs is such
that the pricing of the cable would be prohibitive. This is why we
chose this design in the end. Although it is not as elegant as the
other designs, it is the only one that is cost effective. Even then,
the manufacturing cost is still much higher than a regular ethernet
cable. If anyone has a means for manufacturing one of the more
elegant designs in such a manner that the final product can be sold
for less than $20.00, I am very interested in including your help in
the project.
It is odd that so many people can make posts such as these in the
public forum, but no one has contacted us with e-mail to truly assist
in our real problem, which is *cost of manufacturing*. I know many of
you are scientists and perhaps that is why you vent in this manner
(rather than being truly constructive), but in reference to our
current design...you should test it rather than talk theory. We will
offer you a free cable if you provide a detailed test report and truly
work with us rather than simply talking and bashing in the Usenet.

Mike

P.S. Regardless of your tone (and bashing), I still appreciate your
consideratioin and comments!

ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es (P.T. Breuer) wrote in message news:<gv7vqb.tfk.ln@news.it.uc3m.es>...

http://www.info-services.net/cable
is the correct URL.

Maintenance was probably being performed on the site at the time you connected.

Thanks,
Mike


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have found some kind individuals who are willing to actually test
the cable and provide us with results. For the record, none of those
who have posted negative comments about it have actually laid hands on
it or seen it in real life. The cables being tested are 3 meters in
length.


From Ian Stirling:
The cable is currently being "terabyte tested". If a terabyte of data
is sent through it and verified using standard equipment, then we will
say that it has passed the test "without causing data errors". In the
real world, this means more than Ian's statement saying it "can cause
data errors". When was the last time you transferred a terabyte?

From P.T. Breuer:
For the record, we have other cable designs that you can purchase if
you are unsatisfied with our main model. We have worked hard over our
models and we (the creators and manufacturers) have determined that
this design is the best for general use. Our advanced cable design
has already been tested to be able to support more than 35 kilograms
of weight. That is more than two desktop computers weigh. It is the
ONLY cost effective solution to this problem involving a single
shock-resistant unit. If a customer manages to damage this cable, we
would love to hear how it was done!

Keep checking http://www.info-services.net/cable to look for the
results of the terabyte testing.

Regards,
Mike

mikejobs@vt.edu (Michael Davis) wrote in
news:a8855dfa.0312080649.45cec7b1@posting.google.c om:

What about the delivery are you questioning? This is Usenet. It's a place
where ideas are exchanged freely. Because those ideas come from, and are
delivered by, people of all kinds and persuations, expecting to receive
only positive, warm and fuzzy responses is extremely naive.

[snip]

Not odd at all. What's odd to me is that "you people", whoever you are,
would try to publicize your product (and I use the word loosely) in this
place and expect anyone to actually take you seriously. Practically all
advertisements for "products" and/or "services" that appear in serious
discussion forums such as this one are strictly from spammers. Consider
this: how many reputable companies do you know of, that offer real products
and services, advertise their wares in Usenet discussion groups?

Could it be because (1) it's *your* problem to solve, and/or (2) no one
thinks your problem/product is all that interesting or novel (i.e. it's
already been done better)?

There are many reasons why people, not just scientists and other tech saavy
folks, vent in public forums. Believe me, you are not special or unique in
any way. Here's a news flash for you ... in general, with various
exceptions (e.g. humanitarian aid, counseling, etc.), people don't work for
free. Now if you offer up some hard cash, maybe you could get a few
qualified people to help you out.

[snip]

Joe McArthur <joemac@hotpop.spamblock.com> wrote in message >
The free exchange of ideas does not have to exclude courtesy. Face to
face disagreements may not include warm and fuzzy responses, but they
have much more courtesy than some who misuse the Usenet. Why do you
think that is?

Spammers usually use hundreds of messages, fake contact information,
and often do not reply. This creation was made by laptop users for
laptop users, and it was suggested that this was a place to present
it. It is odd that people with no interest would waste their time by
responding.

There was a time (and perhaps it is still now, but not in this current
newsgroup or in this current thread) where qualified people do help
each other for free. There also exist people who offer their direct
help for cash for real, with an e-mail or phone contact, rather than
simply bashing. Wouldn't that be more profitable for *both* parties
than simple lip-service (finger-service?) Maybe I'm on a different
side of the world or country from you.


Mike

Michael Davis <mikejobs@vt.edu> wrote:
I have a global interest in seeing that sham products do not go on the
market and hoodwink people who know no better. What's the problem with
a proper transceiver with a switch for uplink connection? Or a properly
designed bluetooth or wireless pair? The pair of cables patched
together with duct tape that shows up on the website is an afront to
engineering design.

Consider yourself helped. Redesign it *properly*. Throw away that awful
non-idea and plug in some real ideas, preferably involving technology
more advanced than a cable patch.

Peter