Pocket Ethernet and Network Tester

Nice idea, shame about the reliance on bluetooth and a smartphone.

Having been in a fair number of datacenters with my job, a good proportion don't allow phones, and an increasing number have installed shielding or suppression devices that render phones/bluetooth/wifi inoperational.  This might be the best bit of kit available, but what do you do with it when your phone is sitting in a box in the security station ?

Very good points. The strength of using the smartphone for controlling it and analyzing the data is also it's weakness if it cannot be used : ( I suppose a tablet with no mobile connectivity could be used, but then that destroys much of the convenience if you have to carry that around too.

I wonder if we can talk to them about including a USB capability for direct connectivity to a smartphone, to at least eliminate bluetooth issues. I'll e-mail them, see what they say and report back.

Most equipment racks I've worked on have been open-frame (in development labs), but then I've not been in many datacenters and caged/shielded racks would be a problem : (

Like so many crowdfunded launches there just isn't enough technical data published to feel convinced. If you buy a network tester from a normal supplier you can expect a spec with things like the battery size, operating temperature range etc etc all quoted. This thingy might be OK but it isn't being presented in a professional way. I suspect that if it were, and by the time all the backup and support you get from one of the established suppliers is added, it wouldn't be much cheaper.

MK

Hi Michael,

I think you're right. A few have some interesting price-features mix where alternatives are vastly expensive but the points are valid. Someone should write a product launch book for projects - actually I'm sure that exists I may have one. I'm going to try to get more data out of them. I got a fairly positive response back about USB will post later tonight (on mobile, hard to type

Hi Selsinork,

The response back concerning USB is that the connector is physically there, currently used for charging, and that over USB they also ran the same protocol that they are using over Bluetooth during h/w development, so this use-case may work out. They are trying to stay focussed on the main features, because they are getting new use-cases every day.

So, it could work out positively. They appreciated the suggestions.

I currently have a very old 'luggable' test tool at work (can't recall the manufacturer, but it is huge, blue, the size of a brick x 2 halves but this new pocket tester will far exceed that tool functionality, assuming it functions well.

If it can work over usb, perhaps to a laptop rather than a phone that's all good.

The reason the one you have is like that is that it works and has all the backup Michael mentioned, will survive all sorts of rough handling etc. There's a certain if it's not broke thing going on there. Even so, new technology comes along and makes things smaller, faster, more accurate, more feature packed.. which is a good thing.

For something that should be a serious engineering tool I agree with Michael, concentrate more on the professional, less on the shiny.

There have been some updates, I'm just getting up-to-speed on them now.

A type of remote terminator device will be included, and some IOS support for those with iPhones (prior it was Android-only) - apparently IOS needs Bluetooth v4.

They have a short physical/electrical spec (not much there):

90x65x25 mm | 200 g | Micro-USB charge | 8 hours operating time on battery
Voltage measurement up to 110V | Input protection | TDR range up to 400m

Ok, so I'll ask the obvious.  This is an Ethernet cable tester ?  Ethernet cable installed to spec shouldn't be over 100m, 90m fixed and two 5m patch cables.  So why a 400m TDR ?  Wouldn't 150m be a better range, especially if you can be more accurate that way.  If the TDR can't find the end/fault then you know what's wrong - your installation is out of spec!

I realise it's never quite so black and white, and that ethernet may work on longer cable - but you should not be planning on installing something like that.

I wondered why too : ) Probably a technical limitation of the tool rather than a practically experienced one. I've been in situations where the building is huge but where 100m should be ok, but since it traverses to patchrooms and back the 100m is exceeded and it's often not known with existing cabling without invoking the built-in TDR in switches. So an idea on length is good, but 400m does seem excessive : ) I suppose it may be possible to figure out the length of cable on a huge drum (don't know if that's a likely or unlikely use-case for installers or not - personally I'd measure out an amount of cable if it was going to be long, and hence know what's left).

Typically 305m / 1000ft on a reel, so that's possible. Having to terminate the cable would seem to make it less likely.

If it's a decent TDR, it should really be able to tell you where it sees 'features' in the cable. That ought to get you to things like where the discontinuities at patch panels are, or to things like a cable being cable tied to a metal tray tightly enough that some sharp bit of metal has pierced the cable and is shorted to just one conductor of the pair - but no actual break.

Not being able to do stuff like that means your cable fault finder just isn't very good, no matter the manufacturer...

Of course it's also possible that the TDR device they're using has good accuracy out to some silly distance just because of general improvements in the technology, but we'd need to know more than just range to even guess if that's the case.  Would you rather have 400m range, +-4m accuracy, or, 100m +-1m ?  Yes, of course, 400m +-10cm would be even better