Cable Safe Cable Manager

10 Feb, 2005 at 11:03pm ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   10 Feb 2005 ~ 11:49pm primesuspect Dude... this looks like a totally sweet product... Great review, mediaman
2. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 12:14am MediaMan I'm kinda embarrassed at the rat's nest that was under the PC desk. I am going to replace the whole desktop...not the PC desktop but the physical hard wood...with a big sheet of birch I think...
   
   Anyway...off topic we go.
   
   For something so simple...it falls under the "why'd I didn't thunk of that" category. The darn thing works...as promised.
   
   
3. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 1:54am Madball

   MediaMan wrote:

   I'm kinda embarrassed at the rat's nest that was under the PC desk. I am going to replace the whole desktop...not the PC desktop but the physical hard wood...with a big sheet of birch I think...
   

   
   Birch? If you want my advise go with maple. You should be able to find a sheet of maple ply at a local hardwoods merchant. Birch isn't quite hard enough for a desktop.
   
   I've built many custom desks and I personally prefer to use laminate. Its very durable, inexpensive and it comes in every design imaginable. I usually put a solid hardwood edge band on to dress it up.
   
   If you want more info pm me. I'll be glad to help.
4. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 2:00am TheSmJ I must be slow, because even after seeing the animation I still dont understand how the thing works.
5. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 2:33am MediaMan

   TheSmJ wrote:

   I must be slow, because even after seeing the animation I still dont understand how the thing works.

   
   It's a coat rack for cables and it's a coat rack that has shelves...and it's a coat rack that mounts to the wall...or clips onto the side of a desk.
6. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 4:36am Dexter MM, I have a question...
   
   Does wrapping the cables up that tightly and in that close of proximity introduce more risk of RF interception in the cables? After all, an antenna, for all intents and purposes, is a tightly wrapped wire in a metal sheath. By wrapping the cables up that tightly and in such close proximity, is one increasing the odds of getting some RF hum in their cables, as opposed to keeping cables looser and further apart?
   
   Maybe a question to ask the manufacturer...?
   
   Dexter...
7. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 5:14am bothered My boss asked me to do a similar thing to our office PCs. I argued against it. Don't know about the RF question, I'd of thought it was ok but fastening mains cables to com cables is a bad idea, their insulation properties are very differant. I also think it increases the heat in a cable and makes it a pain to change a cable. Let em swing boys, let em swing.
8. 
   11 Feb 2005 ~ 5:10pm MediaMan

   Dexter wrote:

   Maybe a question to ask the manufacturer...?
   
   Dexter...

   
   
   What do you think the corporate answer will be?
   
   I have an observation. It may not be correct but it is an observation. The rat's nest of cables we may all have behind our desk are cables very close together...or heaped in a coiled mess on top of one another. The term "close proximity" would apply....speaker wires next to monitor power cables next to the Cat5 cables and so on.
   
   I would think that these cables do not carry that much juice to generate a substantial field to interfere with another device..otherwise there would be a mess of comments on the forum asking "why does my speaker buzz when I put the speaker cable next to the monitor cable?"
   
   Unshielded cables have been known to be prone to funny things over long distances...I've had 100-200ft of unshielded cable with a MIC on one end suck in a radio station.
   
   25 feet of MiC cable does not. (Unshielded)
   
   RF interfence generated by an electrical device is a problem. You here of that all the time in circuitry. But realize that the one "wire" is mere nanometers away from the other "wire".
   
   Not the case with your PC cords.
   
   Just my humble opinion.
9. 
   12 Feb 2005 ~ 2:23am mmonnin I dont think it could contain the wrath of my mess. Its rediculous.
10. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 3:04am profdlp Concerning the cables being in close proximity, it's always been my experience that running cables parallel to one another is not a problem. It's when they cross at right angles that you really risk an interference problem.
    
    I like the concept. But, like mmonnin, I have have a fairly wrathful rat's nest of my own. It'd probably take a half-dozen of these to straighten my computer room out.
11. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 4:15am MediaMan Let's see a picture Prof...it can't be that bad.
    
    
    /me cringes
12. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 4:40am Leonardo I like that organizer. Good review. Something like that really appeals to me. I'm a neatnick.
13. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 5:10am Jimborae Shame you can't buy them in the UK, no local reseller.
14. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 1:19pm profdlp

    MediaMan wrote:

    Let's see a picture Prof...it can't be that bad...

    Oky-Doky
    
    I live in a 2BR apartment. One BR is my office, which includes the two computers I use regularly, two pretty much just Folding, and whatever I have on the workbench at the time. Three monitors, laser and inkjet printer, scanner, Cable modem, router, network switch (I mention these only due to the number of wires they entail), more speakers than I care to count, and a VCR (my current project is to transfer of all my old videotapes before my next move - as long as that doesn't occur before 2037 I might just make it...)
    
    All of the electrical equipment in this 10'X12' room (did I mention the TV and second VCR?) has created a magnetic field around me which is slowly sucking the fillings out of my teeth.
15. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 2:41pm Leonardo You don't need a cable guide. You need a city planner with an engineering degree! That's a lot of cables.
16. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 2:50pm Straight_Man Prof, your tangle puts MY tangle to shame, but I think I will be getting something more modular, probably something like the item linked to below:
    
    http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=113+0899&dept=tch2&search=1ha10&child=
17. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 4:00pm MediaMan Prof...
    
    I sit corrected. That's frightening.
    
    What do I see there...300 discs in spindles? That's a lot of blank discs. heheh.
18. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 4:03pm profdlp

    MediaMan wrote:

    ...What do I see there...300 discs in spindles? That's a lot of blank discs. heheh.

    600, actually. And that's not counting three 216-disc binders.
    
    And they're not blank.
19. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 4:09pm Thrax pr0n.
20. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 4:30pm bothered

    profdlp wrote:

    and a VCR (my current project is to transfer of all my old videotapes before my next move - as long as that doesn't occur before 2037 I might just make it...)

    
    How are you setting about it prof? I've been thinking about doing that myself but the only option seems to be a TV card. I tried with a creative one ages ago but had no luck with it.
21. 
    12 Feb 2005 ~ 6:56pm profdlp

    Thrax wrote:

    pr0n.

    One of them is a backup of "My Documents".
    
    
    

    bothered wrote:

    How are you setting about it prof? I've been thinking about doing that myself but the only option seems to be a TV card. I tried with a creative one ages ago but had no luck with it.

    I tried two different models of WinTV cards. the biggest problem with them that the only files they would make were in .avi format and were huge (about 14GB per hour...)
    
    Then I switched to an ATi TV Wonder VE which makes much smaller .mpg files which look just fine. Then it's burn to either VCD or DVD depending on the desired quality of the finished product.
    
    The process is akin to playing a short piece by Chopin on the piano. It takes you five years to get the method down, then once you do, only minutes to actually perform it. I spent weeks figuring out just what settings to use; now it's about as simple as sticking a tape in the VCR, press play, then click record.
22. 
    13 Feb 2005 ~ 4:09am mmonnin Hehe mine is a bit more spread out and all along the floor but just as messy.
23. 
    13 Feb 2005 ~ 8:35am Straight_Man

    MediaMan wrote:

    What do you think the corporate answer will be?
    
    I have an observation. It may not be correct but it is an observation. The rat's nest of cables we may all have behind our desk are cables very close together...or heaped in a coiled mess on top of one another. The term "close proximity" would apply....speaker wires next to monitor power cables next to the Cat5 cables and so on.
    
    I would think that these cables do not carry that much juice to generate a substantial field to interfere with another device..otherwise there would be a mess of comments on the forum asking "why does my speaker buzz when I put the speaker cable next to the monitor cable?"
    

    
    Your 100-200 feet of cable might act as a linear antenna. BUT, where PC cord interference with unshielded cables (and USB 2.0 standard cables are not unshielded, nor are IEEE Belkin silvers or Golds, all those ARE insulated and shielded) comes into play is when the unshielded cables in fact are coiled, then you get an induction effect that does lead to interference entering cable due to RFI\EMI small fields being "attracted into cable" by the coiled cable.
    
    I've run into that many times, starting with the first computer I owned and field effects from television type monitor and computer being minimally shielded interfering with each other on a video cable that was stretched out. It is not a broadcast effect, it is a "signal attractor effect" by UNSHIELDED AND COILED cables.
    
    The solution, in tht case, WASa coil in the video cable rolled onto a tolilet tissue empty roller of cardboard, turned 90 degrees from interference. Then the computer and monitor as TV monitor were able to filter what got passed through the cable -- the interference got cancelled by the coil's orientation to the TV and monitor.
    
    Belkin cables do this a different way, for the IEEE 1284 printer and some other cables they make-- every other strand in cable is GROUNDED for each twisted pair in cable-- I can stretch a Belkin Silver or Gold about 2X standard and not get junk oooutput out of printer. Network cables have twisted pairs for similar resaons, though they do not dedicate one cable conductor to ground for each twisted pair. Instead, some condustors DO ground while most are used for data flow.
    
    Physical shielding need not be foil, per se-- cable conductive strands themselves can drain noise to ground for the problem to be solved well enough. Cable for real long runs, which would need an RG11 tend to have grounded foil, and\or ungrrounded foil, outer wraps. The wraps are spiralled and thus absorb most of the noise. Actively ground those wraps, and you get a cable that can stretch way beond minimum standards. I've done and seen that done in all these ways. Twisted conductors alone can be enough for a short cable. Long Belkin golds run shiwleded and grounded wrap, and here I am talking about working 50' IEEE 1284 runs with data intact to both ends. Over 50' lengths you get a need commonly for a signal booster inline for IEEE 1284.
    
    Network cables, which are twisted pair sans foil shielding, can run 250' unshielded.
    
    To get to meters from feet, try dividing feet by 3.3. Result will be accurate to nearest even meter. Divisor of 3.325 will be better, but for rough work in medium length runs use 3.3.
    
    Note that all cable standards want about 87% accuracy (standards vary from 80% minimum accuracy to 95% minimum accuracy for some milspec standards for transmission signal suvival percentage) at other end from transmission end at minimum to meet standard. Most devices in most standards can resend to handle remainder of problems, and use checksum or check bits to cross-check validity. BUT, if you coil a cable, you get more propensity for the cable to be an antenna accidentally also. Run parallel, you get less problems as the field effects are contained by twisted pairs in most cases-- even phone cable is twisted pair cable, and older non-fiber telelphone transmissions used 25-50 pairs per big cable, each pair twisted, often with grounds at equipment and not cable, sometimes for dedicated data grade runs GROUNDED spiral foil wrap was required.
    
    I run cables straight as much as possible, and avboid coiling them near other cables or coiled power cables-- and I like twisted pair and\or grounded foil wrapped cable depending on what lengths are involved. Weak rapid signals take a very small amount of interference to cause resneds and resyncs. One reason phone cables yeild so little throughput of data is that signal degradation is present-- and that causes resends and resyncs due to bad data detects made obvious by the number of data to checksum mismatches.
24. 
    13 Feb 2005 ~ 11:23pm harvesterofyoursorrow I will be buying one of these babys.
25. 
    13 Feb 2005 ~ 11:37pm Kwitko

    Straight_Man wrote:

    I run cables straight as much as possible, and avboid coiling them near other cables or coiled power cables

    
    I also like to run cables as straight as possible, because I find that the 1's sometimes get stuck in coiled cable. The 0's always get through clean, but those sharp edges on the 1's you have to be careful with.