Am I looking for an Ethernet cable that doesn’t exist?

M

McLean

n3wb
Sep 5, 2018
4
0
USA
First post. Have learned a lot from you all, thanks.

Background: I’m planning a system for my father’s rural cabin. It’s off the electrical grid. I just got some POE cameras and an NVR from Andy. Now I’m looking to order the cable.

I found out about 22 AWG Cat5e cable and thought it would be great for my project. Not because I’m going to need it for high voltage POE but because I’m looking to save electricity. Because my dad needs to generate all his own electricity, every watt counts. So it seems to me spending a little more for cable with less resistance makes sense. Am I right (I’m no electrical engineer)? Or is the difference between 22 AWG and 23 AWG (like Cat6) negligible?

I also want to run some cable underground to cameras some distance from his cabin. He’s had stuff stolen so cameras that might catch crooks at other places on the property (equipment locations, points of entry, etc) are part of the plan.

So here’s my dilemma. The mighty internet has taught me that buried conduit is almost inevitably going to get water inside and best practice is to use cable designed for direct burial (gel filled) in conduit. But I can’t find any cable that is both direct burial and 22 AWG.

The longest cable runs will of course be to the cameras I want to connect with buried cable. And those are the runs that would benefit the most from lower resistance wire (saving the most electricity).

So as of now I think I have to choose between 22 AWG not designed for a wet location and 23 AWG that is. But maybe my Google-fu is not as strong as yours.

Or maybe I’m making a bigger deal out of the wire gauge than I should (sounds like something I’d do).

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.
 
23 or 24 AWG ethernet cable is just fine and is probably 99.9% of the ethernet cable out there.
JUST MAKE SURE THE CABLE IS SOLID COPPER, NOT CCA CRAP.
22AWG wouldn't save any meaningful amount of electricity, but I would choose 23AWG Cat-6 over something smaller.
22AWG would make a bigger difference for a larger load like a big PoE+ PTZ camera that wants > 30 watts.
You'd be better off putting your money into generating or storing a little more electricity.
Ethernet does technically have a limit of 100m or 328 feet, but ePoE switches and cameras can go further.

If each building has power there are other options. Lightning is also a significant concern when cables run between buildings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Francisco73, J Sigmo, McLean and 1 other person
alastairstevenson said:
It doesn't need research - it's simple arithmetic. The actual voltage drop will depend much more on the length of the cable - the difference due to gauge will be very small.
Click to expand...
Yep.

With chosen conductor gauge and supplied voltage being the constants, if you increase the distance, you may have to decrease the current requirement; increase the load current, decrease the distance (all based on desirable voltage drop).
 
tangent said:
23 or 24 AWG ethernet cable is just fine and is probably 99.9% of the ethernet cable out there.
JUST MAKE SURE THE CABLE IS SOLID COPPER, NOT CCA CRAP.
22AWG wouldn't save any meaningful amount of electricity, but I would choose 23AWG Cat-6 over something smaller.
22AWG would make a bigger difference for a larger load like a big PoE+ PTZ camera that wants > 30 watts.
You'd be better off putting your money into generating or storing a little more electricity.
Ethernet does technically have a limit of 100m or 328 feet, but ePoE switches and cameras can go further.

If each building has power there are other options. Lightning is also a significant concern when cables run between buildings.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've read a few warnings about connecting buildings with copper. This will not be building to building, but building to tree or post or similar, if that makes a difference. Just something to mount the camera on.
 
McLean said:
Thanks. I've read a few warnings about connecting buildings with copper. This will not be building to building, but building to tree or post or similar, if that makes a difference. Just something to mount the camera on.
Click to expand...
Depending on how fierce the lightning is in your area, even an aerial run of cable from a non-metallic structure to a tree can be like an 'antenna' for lightning.

I installed a Ubiquiti Layer 2 transparent bridge between a wooden house and wooden barn with live-in loft about 100 ft. away about 5 years ago; the previous CAT-5 that was 15 feet above from house to barn ground got hit twice in 18 months, blowing up DSL modems, Ethernet ports and motherboards. The lightning in the SE U.S (as here in AL) is pretty bad.
 
TonyR said:
Depending on how fierce the lightning is in your area, even an aerial run of cable from a non-metallic structure to a tree can be like an 'antenna' for lightning.

I installed a Ubiquiti Layer 2 transparent bridge between a wooden house and wooden barn with live-in loft about 100 ft. away about 5 years ago; the previous CAT-5 that was 15 feet above from house to barn ground got hit twice in 18 months, blowing up DSL modems, Ethernet ports and motherboards. The lightning in the SE U.S (as here in AL) is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Lightning is not so bad here in Oregon, but it happens. So now I’m reading up on lightning surge protection. Looks like I have more shopping to do! Ugh.
 
Fiber or radio links are always better than direct connections from one building (or tree) to another. But then you've got to get power to the "remote" location, so at that point, proper grounding protocol (single point grounding) and good lighting arrestors, etc., should be used.

This document is big, and a lot of it won't apply to most situations. But these folks know what they're doing, and a LOT of situations are covered. Browsing through it will give anyone a better understanding of some of the principals for proper grounding and layout of ground wiring systems, etc.

We used to put in a lot of communication sites, and you CAN build things so that the towers and sites can take direct lightning strikes without damage to the equipment. It just takes some care and understanding of what happens when lighting does strike near or directly on your site.

Fun coffee table reading, too! Just print this out and set it out for your guests to find when they're over for dinner or to watch the game, etc. ;)

https://sites.auburn.edu/admin/faci...ject Documents/1/Motorola_R56_2005_manual.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: tangent and McLean
We had a big one some months ago. Lost NVR, router, LED bulbs, flood light sensors (one is on most of the time. Please do not tell my wife!), a fan of a PC and a street light but not any of the four Dahua-IPC-HFW4431R-Z. Is there any reason why the cameras appear to be less sensitive than other stuff? Just luck? We have cables to 4 cameras and 3 flood lights already and I am not sure if adding cable to the new 4 cameras is a good idea because of lighting. All are outside 30-50 meters away from the house.
 
Thanks all for the help.

Here are my takeaways from your replies:

#1. Go with the direct burial CAT 6 23 AWG cable for any remote cameras. Power conservation from heavier 22 AWG cable would not be significant.

#2. Install lightning protection at the building entrance (at least) for cables coming in from the remote cameras. I’m looking at this:

Outdoor 10/100 Base-T CAT5e Lightning Surge Protector - Punch Down Terminals - AL-CAT5EPW

Installed on the cabin exterior near and attached to the existing electrical ground rod.

How am I doing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom