Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loading]

Checked the phone, and neighbours phone and could hear this noise, anyone know what it is?
https://soundcloud.com/user790929679/memo2
Dissapeared after 4 hours bt seemed to be doing something in the village, but not to our line

[burakkucat]

Sorry, no, I can not identify it. 

What ever it is, it sounds as if it has been induced into the pair and has not been directly connected.

[Loading]

Could it be engineering test tones, had engineer out yesterday who tested the line and AC balance was fine 61.4db, and didn't know what was making the clicking noise, and couldn't detect a hr fault using a tdr, he suggested an broadband engineer who would test the line in different places to find where the crc errors when the phone rings, and the high error count during the night? There were joints exposed with a bt ladder in the village, where one with a large number of pairs connects to another of the same pair number.

[4candles]

Ah - memories.    Haven't heard one of those in a long time.

It's an Oscillator 87G (J?), or its modern equivalent. Can be set to emit a sinusoidal tone - probably 800Hz or 1kHz - continuous or pulsed, to trace pairs in the local network.

Amplifier 109H or equivalent is used to listen for the tone.

Our resident dark feline has correctly deduced that it's not directly connected to your pair, but someone else's pair is under test.

This confirms once again that there's low insulation, causing crosstalk, somewhere on your route.

[Loading]

Will again need to report to bt and get a broadband engineer sent out, i thought it was an oscillator of some sort , Would be nice to get this fixed, although would be nice to have a decent engineer to find the fault/s Shouldn't the AC balance be affected more than that though? What does crosstalk affect the most? high number of errors seem to be between 23.30-5-30, during the middle of the night?

[Black Sheep]

Will again need to report to bt and get a broadband engineer sent out, i thought it was an oscillator of some sort , Would be nice to get this fixed, although would be nice to have a decent engineer to find the fault/s Shouldn't the AC balance be affected more than that though? What does crosstalk affect the most? high number of errors seem to be between 23.30-5-30, during the middle of the night?

<jokingly> That's like asking, 'What's the meaning of life' and getting a satisfactory answer in a tiny box with a smiley at the end ? 

What I'm trying to say is ….. network fault conditions display varying conditions, dependant on the severity of the fault or faults. There is no one-cap-fits-all answer.

For example, if the circuit portrayed on this thread (With the audible noise track), has a weakened 'Insulation resistance', then it may not be enough to affect the AC Balance test reading but sufficient enough to introduce coupled noise ?? For info ….. PSTN frequencies should expect a IR reading of >1Meg ……… and Digital frequencies >5Meg.

Only this week, I was on a fault with a colleague that had us both baffled by the results and the end-fix (Always learning in this game).
The PQT showed a perfect individual leg-balance (Equal ohms readings for both wires from the house to the Exchange).
The AC-B was 69dB, (Anything over 60dB is more than adequate for digital services). The JDSU synched up and had data-flow with no errors (Even when performing a QLT test at the same time). The icing on the cake was that the EU's SKY Router also synched up and acquired a PPP Session.

Brilliant, we thought. But a co-op with SKY revealed he couldn't 'see us' in synch. He remotely dropped the port to satisfy us it was on the correct Exchange mapping, and it subsequently dropped out and instantly re-synched again. He still couldn't 'see' the router though.

Long story short, it required a new E-side to resolve the matter. Even though me and my mate were adamant it would need a new port as it was suffering under real-life attenuation. Especially when all our testers were telling us it was a decent pair of wires ??
The SKY Tier 2 support was very good (They always are TBH), and said he'd seen this before on umpteen occasions, and he termed the fault condition as, 'Split Pair Dis'. Not a term I have ever come across in 30yrs ??!! But, he was right and we were wrong.

[Loading]

Suffering under real life attenuation,? Sorry could you explain   split pair dis, could be what seems to be happening here as the line is picking up interference but not affecting the ax balance,  I also read somewhere that a split pair can cause a large number of errors, and boy do we see the errors at times!

[4candles]

   Not sure about the 'dis' (disconnection), but a split pair would certainly explain a lot.

Whether it was two 'A' legs or two 'B' legs, or one of each from different pairs, the fact that they weren't an integral 'twisted pair' would mean more susceptibility to interference from various sources.

[Loading]

The jdsu also noted that the leg balance had a 6ohms difference 963, and 969. Or something he's said that this is acceptable

[Black Sheep]

  Not sure about the 'dis' (disconnection), but a split pair would certainly explain a lot.

Whether it was two 'A' legs or two 'B' legs, or one of each from different pairs, the fact that they weren't an integral 'twisted pair' would mean more susceptibility to interference from various sources.

Yeah, I'm aware of the the aspects of 'Split pair' and 'Dis', but never heard them put together as a fault description ?? With hindsight and a heads up from a colleague who's patch it is we were working on. The Cab in question is notoriously bad for the E-sides, and is at the moment along with other Cabs in the area, 'Going down' (i.e.: constant pair-changing is going on).
Local knowledge counts for everything in my eyes, and armed with this new insight I have deduced that the actual fault must have been the 'Dis', as the circuit had been working fine (The EU was happy with his connection), for just over a year on the 'Split pair'.

So, the SKY tech guy has basically just lumped two separate fault-terms together …….. bit like me saying it's a 'Battery HR'. We never use terminology like that, we would say, 'There's a battery contact fault with a HR detected as well'.

Whatever the weather, all's well that ended well. 

[Black Sheep]

The jdsu also noted that the leg balance had a 6ohms difference 963, and 969. Or something he's said that this is acceptable

Our remit from them who work in laboratory conditions, is to try and achieve a maximum leg-balance difference of 3 ohms.

Hardly ever practical and again, as an engineer that can make his on decisions, I would analyse the rest of the PQT Test results along with other tests made, and make an informed judgement based on the outcome of them all.
For example, if you lived 100mtrs from the Exchange and the leg balance was lets say 7 ohms out, I would definitely investigate. If you lived on a farm 7 miles from the Exchange and the same 7 ohm difference presented itself, I wouldn't bat an eyelid at it.

As an aside, I'm guessing the 963 and 969 ohm readings are what you think you remember ?? You probably wouldn't be able to get broadband on that kind of total 'loop' of 1932 ohms ?? 

[Loading]

I'm pretty sure thats what the readings were Could they be in the 900s? What would be an acceptable value? Thinking about it perhaps they were in the high 600s? Is it possible to test loop resistance with a DMM?

[burakkucat]

Is it possible to test loop resistance with a DMM?

In theory, yes. But you would need access to both ends of the loop and then apply a shorting strap at one end, whilst measuring from the other end.

If I had access to both ends of the loop, I would use my Ohmmeter 18C and "do it properly", obtaining the resistance of each leg. 

[4candles]

I'm pretty sure thats what the readings were Could they be in the 900s? What would be an acceptable value? Thinking about it perhaps they were in the high 600s?

How synchronous I should be reading that now. 

On Friday morning I had a message on Call Minder, and a phone number was quoted to call back. About an hour later I made the call, inadvertently substituting the final digit 6 for a 9. 

[Loading]

Bt engineer turned up on tuesday (telephony engineer) said the pq test returned normal numbers, and the tdr looked fine, the folllowing is what happens to the adsl after the snr reset;

Set to fast 23 april 6.0db noise margin at 16:00 high number of errors  ES:20000 SES: 10000 (1568kbps)
Interleave 24 april 6.0db noise margin at 10:30am still same no of errors  (1760kbps)
Interleave 26 april 9.0db noise margin at 9:32am (1344kbps)