Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,045
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:14:31 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
Something is wrong. The nominal signal from the cable drop is suppose
to be 0dBm. If there's a splitter involved, they like to crank it up
to about 10dBm.


Careful! Don't get your dBm mixed up with your dBmV. There's around 48dB
difference! 0dBm is a massive 48dBmV. That would certainly make most
set-top boxes wake up and pay attention!


Oops. All my mentions of dBm should be dBmV. Thanks.

Range of acceptable signal levels. They're similar for DTV.
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/16085

How to check signal levels with a Motorola set top box:
http://www.ehow.com/how_12186368_check-signal-strength-comcast-digital-cable-motorola.html

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,417
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Feb 8, 2:00*pm, amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap..
* That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
* *I don't has access to electricity at the utility post, so an amp is
out. Although I could try an amp at the cable box end. Is that reasonable?
I would run two cables if there was a way to make it increase signal
strength.
* Getting anymore from the cable company is not an option.
* *Any ideas to get a better signal?
* * * * * * * * Mikek

PS.

* When the signal fails it seems channel 41 is ok and above 42 it breaks up.
Curious to know if there is an unusual frequency jump between those two
digital channels.


Google your cable box model. You should able to find ifo on how to
pull up a menu that shows signal strengh. -60dbm is about where my
sigal starts droping out

Jimmie
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Jeff Urban wrote:

All the technical advice is fine. However none of this is necessary.
Just call the cable company and tell them that the situation is
unacceptable so you are cancelling.

Voila ! Next day dBs !


There are no dBs, since 'dB' without a reference level is
meaningless.


You'll have a whole lot less than 0 dBm. We would terminate service
to people like that, because they were never satisfied. Out drops were
at +10 dBm at the street.

I had to sign a waiver to get cable service restored here, after a
hurricane ripped down the original drop. they refused to replace it
over a driveway, and the new route added +100 feet of RG-6 it runs
along a fence line, to my garage. This was already 45 feet longer than
the original drop. Then it ran 10' up the wall, 40' across the garage,
10' down the opposite wall and 40 feet of underground conduit back to
where the original drop entered their weatherproof wiring box.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


amdx wrote:

On 2/8/2012 7:50 PM, Joerg wrote:

Where does the other leg of that splitter go to? And is that end
properly terminated?

They go to two other outlets, that are used for transient boaters.
sometimes they are used and sometimes they sit unterminated.
I have not seen my problem better or worse when boats are in or out.
But I have several 75 ohm F connector terminations. It's worth a try.



Not really. If there are long unterminated 75 ohm cables after the
splitter, they are a crude termination. The splitter's backmatch
eliminates ghosting from reflections from the unterminated end.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Michael Coslo wrote:

I don't know exactly how it's done now, but when I worked in the Cable
industry many moons ago, we had a lot of adjustment we could make. Even
more, we had variable by frequency attenuators so we could ensure that a
flat signal showed up.



Those are 'Equalizers' and used to cancel the cable losses. There is
some adjustment in the trunk amplifiers, but some brands just used a
plug in equalizer marked with the rolloff in dB while others had both.
The coarse plugin, and a variable equalizer to level the trunkline for
'Proof of Performance' tests.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Joerg wrote:

amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.


Looks like the cable guys screwed up.



In your opinion. If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Robert Baer wrote:

amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
I don't has access to electricity at the utility post, so an amp is
out. Although I could try an amp at the cable box end. Is that reasonable?
I would run two cables if there was a way to make it increase signal
strength.
Getting anymore from the cable company is not an option.
Any ideas to get a better signal?
Mikek


PS.

When the signal fails it seems channel 41 is ok and above 42 it breaks up.
Curious to know if there is an unusual frequency jump between those two
digital channels.

Well, you could add an amplifier at the splitter where (nominally)
there is no power.
Use the coax center conductor for power; inline capacitors allow
signal to pass and feeding center via small choke allows DC but no signal.
Once upon a time there were little adapters that did this AC/DC thing...



A power inserter is used to put 9-28 volts DC on the coax, depending
on the amplifer you use.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
Sal Sal is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 2:00 pm, amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
I don't has access to electricity at the utility post, so an amp is
out. Although I could try an amp at the cable box end. Is that reasonable?
I would run two cables if there was a way to make it increase signal
strength.
Getting anymore from the cable company is not an option.
Any ideas to get a better signal?
Mikek

PS.

When the signal fails it seems channel 41 is ok and above 42 it breaks up.
Curious to know if there is an unusual frequency jump between those two
digital channels.


Google your cable box model. You should able to find ifo on how to
pull up a menu that shows signal strengh. -60dbm is about where my
sigal starts droping out

Jimmie

================================================== ===

Yes, but be mindful of the difference between dBm and dBmV. The cable
industry often deals in levels on the dBmV scale.

There are places like this ...

http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/808

where you can see some conversion equations. Jimmie's -60dBm equals -11.25
dBmV. Same power level -- different scale.

I have long known level requirements for the TV tuner's cousin, the cable
modem. The common DOCSIS 2 cable modems are usually spec'ed for -15dBmV to
+15dBmV and the smart operators try to keep inside +/- 12. Thus, you can
see that Jimmie's -11.25dBmV is near the low limit and that dropouts become
more likely in that neighborhood.

I little bit of google snooping revealed that DTV cable boxes would like
0dBmV and will usually be okay with -10dBmV to +10dBmV. Almost the same.

i hope this helps.

"Sal"

"Sal"


  #49   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.

Looks like the cable guys screwed up.



In your opinion.



If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.


... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.


Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.



In your opinion.


If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.


Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.



Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On 2/9/2012 9:35 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions



Cool! You seem to know what you are up to.

Can you put rough numbers around what you mentioned? Like what are
providers legally required to deliver at the far end of the drop?

Thanks.

tom
K0TAR
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


tom wrote:

On 2/9/2012 9:35 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions



Cool! You seem to know what you are up to.

Can you put rough numbers around what you mentioned? Like what are
providers legally required to deliver at the far end of the drop?



We were required to deliver 0 dBmv at the end of 100 feet of RG-59 or
RG-6 for two sets per the franchise. The system was designed at +10
dBmv at the tap to allow for three or four TVs at the 100 foot range.
That was on a 36 channel system with RCA modulators & HST. It was done
for two reasons. To have a little extra signal available when the
system was built, and for conversion for a 300 MHz plant to a 450 MHz
plant without respacing the trunk amplifiers.


I build a headend & interface to tie two incompatible community loops
together. Ours was a sub split loop, and the other CATV company used
mid split. We used 2 & 12 for pilots, so we fed them Channel 2 into
their return, and down converted their feed to T-9 for our return. That
headend had two RCA HSP and a combiner. The interface was another HSP
in a large stainless steel NEMA box mounted to a power pole at the
boundary of the two systems. A pair of two way splitters were used to
route the signals between the systems, as well as into and out of the
HSP. The other company wanted us to install a modulator and a
demodulator at the boundary to give us audio & video, and another pair
from our side so the interface would be baseband. Their design was over
$15,000 in hardware alone. My design was under $3000 for all the
hardware & labor to install. I had system designers from both sides
telling me it wouldn't work, but it did the job with no problems.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On 2/9/2012 10:34 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

tom wrote:

On 2/9/2012 9:35 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Cool! You seem to know what you are up to.

Can you put rough numbers around what you mentioned? Like what are
providers legally required to deliver at the far end of the drop?



We were required to deliver 0 dBmv at the end of 100 feet of RG-59 or
RG-6 for two sets per the franchise. The system was designed at +10
dBmv at the tap to allow for three or four TVs at the 100 foot range.
That was on a 36 channel system with RCA modulators& HST. It was done
for two reasons. To have a little extra signal available when the
system was built, and for conversion for a 300 MHz plant to a 450 MHz
plant without respacing the trunk amplifiers.


I build a headend& interface to tie two incompatible community loops
together. Ours was a sub split loop, and the other CATV company used
mid split. We used 2& 12 for pilots, so we fed them Channel 2 into
their return, and down converted their feed to T-9 for our return. That
headend had two RCA HSP and a combiner. The interface was another HSP
in a large stainless steel NEMA box mounted to a power pole at the
boundary of the two systems. A pair of two way splitters were used to
route the signals between the systems, as well as into and out of the
HSP. The other company wanted us to install a modulator and a
demodulator at the boundary to give us audio& video, and another pair
from our side so the interface would be baseband. Their design was over
$15,000 in hardware alone. My design was under $3000 for all the
hardware& labor to install. I had system designers from both sides
telling me it wouldn't work, but it did the job with no problems.



Very nice. We were much more constrained on the install I mentioned up
the thread a ways. The fiber was fed at E1 speed, which probably didn't
work it very hard.

We had an issue at one point.

This was a distributed proc/data system, one of the first. Each cabinet
was a standalone PBX. And you could make 126 of them look like one.
And each could survive on its own.

First fiber campus we'd done. Staggered cut to the new infrastructure.
Fun stuff.

At one point we had to do the cutover to the other large pice of the
system. Each end connected the fiber. 0 signal.

TDR from A end showed 700 meters from A end, 800 meters from end B.
Length from A to B is 1500 meters.

The work that occurred because of that was not fun. Had to go get the
guy doing fusion splicing.

Joy. Midnight trip to Pittsburgh with the salesman.

Actually it was fun. Not much traffic at night.

Landing pattern at 160mph in between DC9s into Pittsburgh at about
midnight. And they didn't like 160 at all. This was scary.

Quickest turnoff onto a taxiway I've ever experienced. Of course the
taxiway may not have been one. We didn't care.

tom
K0TAR
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,417
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Feb 9, 6:35*pm, "Sal" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...
On Feb 8, 2:00 pm, amdx wrote:





Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
I don't has access to electricity at the utility post, so an amp is
out. Although I could try an amp at the cable box end. Is that reasonable?
I would run two cables if there was a way to make it increase signal
strength.
Getting anymore from the cable company is not an option.
Any ideas to get a better signal?
Mikek


PS.


When the signal fails it seems channel 41 is ok and above 42 it breaks up.
Curious to know if there is an unusual frequency jump between those two
digital channels.


Google your cable box model. You should able to find ifo on how to
pull up a menu that shows signal strengh. -60dbm is about where my
sigal starts droping out

Jimmie

================================================== ===

Yes, but be mindful of the difference between dBm and dBmV. * *The cable
industry often deals in levels *on the dBmV scale.

There are places like this ...

http://www.maxim-ic.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/808

where you can see some conversion equations. *Jimmie's -60dBm equals -11.25
dBmV. Same power level -- different scale.

I have long known level requirements for the TV tuner's cousin, the cable
modem. *The common DOCSIS 2 cable modems are usually spec'ed for -15dBmV to
+15dBmV and the smart operators try to keep inside +/- 12. *Thus, you can
see that Jimmie's -11.25dBmV is near the low limit and that dropouts become
more likely in that neighborhood.

I little bit of google snooping revealed that DTV cable boxes would like
0dBmV and will usually be okay with -10dBmV to +10dBmV. *Almost the same.

i hope this helps.

"Sal"

"Sal"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Sal, A relative number by any other name would smell as sweet. The
reccomendations for my box is about the same but it works well below
that at least according to what I measure withe the cable box. BTW it
just says 'db'. dBm was an assumption on my part..


Jimmie

Jimmie
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,417
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Feb 9, 12:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:54:19 -0600, amdx
wrote:

My drivel:


At my home, knology recently upgraded there system for faster internet..
A cableman said he heard me radiating a block away. he came in and
changed 7 crimp type connectors in my attic a couple of cable runs.
Speedtest.com went from 6 Mbps to over 11 Mbps with just those changes..


Yep, that's the way it works. *Compression type F connectors work
well. *Crimp type are junk. *The catch is that there are probably 100
different types of connectors, each with their own compression tools,
intended to fit about 8 different types of 75 ohm coax (RG6a/u,
RG59/u, single shielded, double shielded, quad shielded, direct
burial, etc). *Mixing connector types and cables doesn't work. *I got
fed up and "obtained" a 1000ft roll of double shielded RG6a/u, a big
of matching F, BNC, and phono connectors, a compression tool, a
stripping tool, and replaced all the junk cables in the house.

If it's Comcast, you will probably still have the lower 72 channels
doing analog. Remove the set top box and plug in your TV directly.


Oh, if that is the fact, I may get me some browny points, If I can get
the signal up to snuff, then put the vcr back in the line, my wife could
record her soaps again.
That would get me 15 seconds of hero status!
Mikek


I'm sure it's true for Comcast in Santa Cruz, CA. *No clue on other
areas. *The grand plan is to move all the analog channels to digital
area by area:
http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2011/jun/22/comcast-removes-scores-ch...
http://www2.newsadvance.com/business/2011/nov/09/comcast-switching-an...
Unfortunately, your area may be one of those that have moved to all
digital. *Hard to tell from here.

Just an addition to the termination debate, the marina has about 150
taps, I'd be surprised if 30 of them are connected to a tv and the rest
are unterminated. The line generally goes to the utility pedestal into
a 2 way splitter and then about 1 ft of cable connects it to the 2 taps
for the boat owners.
* * * * * * *Mikek


Can you determine if the marina is using a distribution amplifier
driving a big splitter, or is using a single cable trunk snaked
through the marina, with taps (directional couplers) at various
points? *If taps, it's easy to install too many taps, or miscalculate
the tap type, resulting in level variations along the trunk.
http://www.doityourself.com/forum/entertainment-center-tvs-stereos-vc...

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558


Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.

Jimmie

Jimmie


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,045
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.

Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. Pull on the
cable hard. In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. Repeat with a screw on connector. Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.jpg.ashx?format=jpg

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.

In your opinion.

If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.



Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...



http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.


... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions


See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default Increasing Cable TV SIGNAL LEVELS

On 2/8/2012 5:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:00:12 -0600, wrote:

I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.


Ok, 200ft of coax. Presumably RG6a/u.

Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV.


You have been assimilated. Resistance is futile.

I got the new digital converter and had no picture.


Something is wrong. The nominal signal from the cable drop is suppose
to be 0dBm. If there's a splitter involved, they like to crank it up
to about 10dBm. Your 200ft of RG6a/u will drop the signal from
between 4dB at the low end, to about 6dB at the high end. Your set
top box is suppose to operate with a 10dB margin. If you would kindly
disclose the maker and model, it might be possible to find the specs.
Typically, you'll have at least 10dB margin. Even with 200ft of coax,
you should have 4 to 6dB margin.



The Box is a CISCO RNG100
Only data I know how to get is;
Tuner 537.00 Mhz 2dbmv
TDC 75.25 Mhz 5dbmv
RDC 20.00 Mhz 30.0dbmv Yes 30.0

On the road, will check in this evening.
Mikek
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,045
Default Increasing Cable TV SIGNAL LEVELS

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:47:54 -0600, amdx
wrote:

The Box is a CISCO RNG100
Only data I know how to get is;
Tuner 537.00 Mhz 2dbmv
TDC 75.25 Mhz 5dbmv
RDC 20.00 Mhz 30.0dbmv Yes 30.0


It's the same as the Cisco Explorer 1540C with some features removed
by Comcast.
http://www.cincinnatibell.com/shared_content/pdf/tv/exp1540_uguide.pdf

How to get into the diagnostics:
Press and hold SELECT on front of unit until the MAIL light
starts to flash, then press INFO.
Or
Press and hold PAUSE on remote until MAIL light starts to
flash (around 10-15 seconds), then press PAGE-UP (-).
On some remotes, PAGE (+) might need to be used instead.

I'll guess(tm) that TDC is downstream power, and RDC is upstream
power. (20MHz is in the frequency range used by upstream path).
30dBmV is acceptable as the upper limit is about 55dBmv. Remember,
this is dB's above 1mv into 75 ohms, not dB's above 1mw into 50 ohms.
dBm = dBmV - 48dB
So, your 30dBmv is really -18dBm

The downstream values are also in the ballpark. See:
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/16085
The numbers are for cable modems, but the levels should be similar for
DTV. The typical delivered values should be:
-10 dBmV to +10 dBmV "Recommended".
-11 dBmV to -14 dBmv / +11 dBmV to +14 dBmV "Acceptable".
-15 dBmV & +15 dBmV "Maximum".
5dBmV is fairly is good enough and should result in a usable picture.

See if you can excavate the SNR numbers. Maybe there's RF garbage on
the systems (oscillating distribution amp, ingress, whatever, etc).


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
#
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On 2/10/2012 8:07 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

He was a cable grunt when Time Warner built Cube in Cincinnati, so I'd
say that he's at least 50 and still a very angry failure.


Sounds correct. He's got problems alright.

That RADAR site was at Ft. Rucker, and the problem was in the area
reserved for the new IFF hardware in the mid '70s. Weathervision was
assigned to the space while I was there, but were were in the process of
moving to another building when I was told I had orders for Vietnam. I
ended up in Alaska instead. Two weeks later that AFRTS station in
Vietnam was overrun and the engineers killed. They shipped parts of the
transmitter that survived the gunfire to the station in Alaska.


Sorry to hear that. Had friends that survived intact but were still
damaged goods from that war.

tom
K0TAR



  #61   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,045
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:38:44 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.


40 lbs outdoors, 30 lbs indoors.

http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/standards/SCTE_124_2011.pdf
6.2.2
Axial Pull Force: The male F pin type connector, when
attached to cables manufactured to SCTE approved standards,
shall withstand a minimum axial pull force of 40 lbs for
outdoor and 30 lbs for indoor applications when tested
per ANSI/SCTE 99 2009, Test Method For Axial Pull
Connector/Drop Cable.

I doubt that the crimp connectors could pass the test.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
#
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
Sal Sal is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

snip

Still easier than having to use blasting caps to find the ends of a
broken conduit under the finished concrete floor in a new RADAR site.
An old fish tape & blasting cap pushed as far as it would go and
BOOM!!!. Then repeat for the other end. Then they used a jackhammer to
break out the concrete between the huge floor divots to install new
conduit. The electrical contractor had failed to tie the conduit to the
rebar & wire mesh before the pour.


Good story. It brought to mind a promotional video I saw for a company that
had a process called explosive bonding (of dissimilar metals). They must
have been too cheap to rent lights, so they did the demo outside on an old
wooden table. It was two guys in overalls and, I swear, they could have
retitled it "Gomer and Bubba Find Some Dynamite" and nobody would have
noticed.

"Sal"


  #63   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Sal wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

snip

Still easier than having to use blasting caps to find the ends of a
broken conduit under the finished concrete floor in a new RADAR site.
An old fish tape & blasting cap pushed as far as it would go and
BOOM!!!. Then repeat for the other end. Then they used a jackhammer to
break out the concrete between the huge floor divots to install new
conduit. The electrical contractor had failed to tie the conduit to the
rebar & wire mesh before the pour.


Good story. It brought to mind a promotional video I saw for a company that
had a process called explosive bonding (of dissimilar metals). They must
have been too cheap to rent lights, so they did the demo outside on an old
wooden table. It was two guys in overalls and, I swear, they could have
retitled it "Gomer and Bubba Find Some Dynamite" and nobody would have
noticed.



No one wants to let rednecks with dynamite indoors. ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.
In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.

Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...

http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions

See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.



Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up.



In medical I tend to push the envelope and so do the standards
committees. Sometimes based on what we do. I designed all my cardiac
stuff defibrillator-proof, always, although it was not the law yet. Then
they made it law, because it makes sense.

Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.


... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?



Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.


Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.


Read more carefully. I said TV doesn't matter to us, it is not about cost.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,417
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Feb 10, 11:38*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten *These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is *that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. *Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. *Pull on the
cable hard. *In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. *Repeat with a screw on connector. *Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. *It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. *I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. *It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. *That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-255


Sorry Jeff but I never used my connectors to support my cables. You
may be right but completely irrelevant to me. To me F connector and
good connection shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. They are
what that are, cheap connectors at best that uses the center conductor
of the cable for a contact. Now that is Yech. Heat shrink has nothing
to do with the pull test or hiding poor workmanship but it does help
keep corrosion down which is the biggest problem with F connectors.
Ive never seen one pull apart except in the shoddiest of
installations. One of the best things I have found to insure you
maintain a good connection is to apply something like DeOxit to the
connectors when you assemble them. Best done while all the parts are
new.

Jimmie


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,417
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Feb 10, 11:38*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten *These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is *that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. *Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. *Pull on the
cable hard. *In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. *Repeat with a screw on connector. *Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. *It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. *I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. *It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. *That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558


You are correct that the problem is in the hex crimp and part of this
is because they started making the crimp made on to the connector. The
other part is that you have to have a special tool to crimp them. All
the pictures that you showed are require a special crimp tool. If
these tools are worn or dont fit the particular plug/ cable
combination you will get a bad crimp. The old style that is probably
40 years old now that you could crimp the little ring with a pair of
pliers worked the best. Unfortunately you can no longer get them,
well I do have a few.

Jimmie
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

In message
,
JIMMIE writes
On Feb 10, 11:38*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten *These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is *that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. *Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. *Pull on the
cable hard. *In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. *Repeat with a screw on connector. *Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. *It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. *I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. *It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. *That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-255


Sorry Jeff but I never used my connectors to support my cables. You
may be right but completely irrelevant to me. To me F connector and
good connection shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. They are
what that are, cheap connectors at best that uses the center conductor
of the cable for a contact. Now that is Yech. Heat shrink has nothing
to do with the pull test or hiding poor workmanship but it does help
keep corrosion down which is the biggest problem with F connectors.
Ive never seen one pull apart except in the shoddiest of
installations. One of the best things I have found to insure you
maintain a good connection is to apply something like DeOxit to the
connectors when you assemble them. Best done while all the parts are
new.

There little wrong with good quality F-connectors. They are generally
good enough for what they were intended for. Problems are usually down
to who installs them, and how.

For personal outdoor use, I always give any connectors a squirt of WD40
- both during and after installation. [I guess DeOxit would be similar
or better.] After cleaning off most of the WD40, I then seal with
self-amalgamating tape. Obviously, heatshrink would be better, but for
me, is usually less convenient.

Mechanically, even screw-on Fs can be hard to dislodge, provided just
the right amount of braid is trapped under the screw thread. However, I
suppose that sometimes they might not provide the ultimate in screening.

In the UK, in the large CATV networks, crimped connectors are well and
truly a thing of the past. Anyone using them (even the good ones) would
be liable to be hung, drawn and quartered, and then severely punished.

The standard connector is of the 'Snap and Seal' type (and similar). In
themselves, these are pretty well watertight, and the screening is
excellent. It should be almost impossible to pull one off the cable.

However, it is unusual for F-connections to appear naked in the open
air. The final RF distribution to the home is invariably from a street
cabinet which houses an optical node or an RF distribution / line
extender amplifier feeding a bank of taps/splitters. The 'traditional'
cascade of in-line taps has not been used for a very long time. Under
these relatively benign conditions, the F-connectors probably suffer
much less from corrosion than those used on taps hanging on aerial
messenger wires, USA-style. Nevertheless, there are various purpose-made
short 'chunky' rubber sleeves which can be installed first on the tap
ports before the cable connectors are screwed on. These seal the screw
threads. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a bit of WD40 used
but I never managed to drum up much enthusiasm for this as an approved
practice.
--
Ian
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.
In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.

Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...
http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions

See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.



Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up.


In medical I tend to push the envelope and so do the standards
committees. Sometimes based on what we do. I designed all my cardiac
stuff defibrillator-proof, always, although it was not the law yet. Then
they made it law, because it makes sense.



You do it because they wouldn't hire you if you couldn't meet specs,
just like every other consultant, engineer or tech. They might even
jail you for your incompetence for not meeting the specs.


Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.



Believe it or not, most technical people have that same standard.
You're nothing special.

... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?


Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.



Once again the all knowing Jeorge shows his ignorance.


1: You don't know what you're talking about, about the cost of
service. Any extra operating costs become part of the basic service
that everyone pays. You won't work for nothing, and the utilities don't
give them free electricity. The service companies don't repair the
equipment for free. Do you have any idea how many amplifiers, taps and
set top boxes are needed for 10,000 active ports? To provide hotter
ports require more amplifiers, and raises the system noise floor. You
'designed an amplifier'. Big deal. A lot of engineers 'designed and
amplifier' and those companies are long out of business. Current CATV
amplifiers use hybrids designed specifically for the application and
they use them for many reasons. That just leave the design of the 60V
modified sine wave to DC power supplies, equalizers, gain control,
equalization and remote switching. Some locations also have remote
monitoring so the headend can check system status on a continuous
basis. It can also report outages when some of the equipment doesn't
respond. They can even detect power failures and monitor the battery
status in the standby power supplies to give them time to get a portable
generator to the area if it is an extended outage. The local
Brighthouse system remained in operation here for over four weeks after
a hurricane even though the only way to watch TV or access broadband was
with battery power or a generator.

2: '70s CATV tech was 12 channel with no return path. It was crude,
discrete point to point designs that looked like a ham put together from
junk TVs while drinking cheap beer. They were touchy as hell, their
tempco sucked, and they were impossible to service without a fully
equipped test bed. the power supplies were simple, poorly regulated
linear supplies with 85 C electrolytics that died quickly in the
southern sun. The large diecast aluminum housing ran hot to the touch
without the sun hitting them. That stuff was pretty well all scrapped
out by the mid to late '80s by 36 or more channels with return
capability. There was so much construction of upgraded systems that
there was a severe shortage of new hardware through most of the mid
'80s.

That '80s tech was gone in all but the smallest systems by 2000.
Today most systems are 450 MHz or higher, and are 'Fiber Enhanced' to
provide telephone, broadband, movies on demand and pay per view services
by breaking the system into cells that cover a few hundred homes, or
less.

3: You know nothing about CATV franchises. 'A measly 100 feet' is
more than adequate for a hell of a lot of drops & house wiring. If that
is what the franchise calls for, THAT IS THE SPECIFICATION, no matter
how much you whine like Sloman. A city or county won't pull a franchise
over one or two people complaining about weak signals. They receive a
fixed percentage of the system revenue every month, and the percentage
was set when the economy was up. If they pull the franchise, another
provider will offer a much lower percentage. It also involves legal
fees, and causes the rates to go up for the users. Why put up with all
that for a fraction of a percent of problems. Like people who built a
private road a mile long and want to pay the standard install fee when
it will cost about $15,000 to run a feeder for that one house. Or like
that marina. It isn't a street. It's private property. If they want
better service, let them pay for upgrades with .500 cable to each boat,
with a .500 to 'F" connector for each boat. That would only cost a few
hundred dollars a boat for materials. More if the cable is jacketed.
If it isn't it won't last long in salt air. Double that for the
hardware and labor to get a good idea of the costs.


Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.

Read more carefully. I said TV doesn't matter to us, it is not about cost.



Then why are you being such an ignorant prick about the issue when
you have no horse in the race? You sound more like Dimbulb every day.
I used to think highly of you, but no longer

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


JIMMIE wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:38 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. Pull on the
cable hard. In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. Repeat with a screw on connector. Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-255


Sorry Jeff but I never used my connectors to support my cables. You
may be right but completely irrelevant to me. To me F connector and
good connection shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. They are
what that are, cheap connectors at best that uses the center conductor
of the cable for a contact.



Then you would hate most microwave connectors lit SMA.


Now that is Yech. Heat shrink has nothing
to do with the pull test or hiding poor workmanship but it does help
keep corrosion down which is the biggest problem with F connectors.



You didn't need heat shrink on good 'F' connectors.

Ive never seen one pull apart except in the shoddiest of
installations. One of the best things I have found to insure you
maintain a good connection is to apply something like DeOxit to the
connectors when you assemble them. Best done while all the parts are
new.



Not needed, if you use flooded outdoor cable.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


JIMMIE wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:38 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. Pull on the
cable hard. In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. Repeat with a screw on connector. Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


You are correct that the problem is in the hex crimp and part of this
is because they started making the crimp made on to the connector. The
other part is that you have to have a special tool to crimp them. All
the pictures that you showed are require a special crimp tool. If
these tools are worn or dont fit the particular plug/ cable
combination you will get a bad crimp. The old style that is probably
40 years old now that you could crimp the little ring with a pair of
pliers worked the best. Unfortunately you can no longer get them,
well I do have a few.



A 'special tool' that only cost about $20 and would do thousands of
crimps before it was worn out. I've bought them new, on sale for $8
US. You admitted to using pliers on the cheap crap, and you certainly
can't do that with a hex crimp.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,045
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:02:37 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

Sorry Jeff but I never used my connectors to support my cables. You
may be right but completely irrelevant to me.


Umm... you've never tripped over a cable, had the equipment fall off
the table with the cables attached, run RG6a/u up a pole to where it
has to support its own weight, moved furniture with cables still
attached, flexed the connector when used as a test lead, pulled cable
through the wall or conduit with connectors attached, etc? These are
all very common situations which will stress the connector to cable
connection. While it might not be a problem for a fixed (stapled in
place) installation, it certainly will be a problem for the average
home user.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/mess01.html

I find it odd that outdoor CATV uses quad shielded cable to prevent RF
leakage and ingress, and having the cable swept to perfection, while
you recommend using inferior F connectors.

To me F connector and
good connection shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. They are
what that are, cheap connectors at best that uses the center conductor
of the cable for a contact. Now that is Yech.


I do have some issues with RG6a/u that uses copper plated steel core
center wire. Mostly, it's a corrosion problem for outdoor connections
where the home owner does their own wiring, and uses F connectors
without the necessary rubber o-ring needed for waterproofing. I've
swept F connectors on the bench and find them quite good and often
superior to the rare 75 ohm TNC and BNC connectors near the top end
(2GHz for satellite). Incidentally, most of the antennas (that
survived a recent storm) on my roof use RG6a/u coax. The mismatch
loss between 50 and 75 ohms is minimal. Some use F connectors, but
most use BNC's made for RG6a/u.

Heat shrink has nothing
to do with the pull test or hiding poor workmanship but it does help
keep corrosion down which is the biggest problem with F connectors.


Ahem. I worked for a marine radio company during the 1970's. I
learned a few things about waterproofing and corrosion. Heat shrink
doesn't work. Capillary action along the heat shrink to connector
boundary will suck the water into the connector.

What I use (when needed) is a layer of 1" PTFE tape (or 1/2" if that's
all I can find) over the connector. Once in place, a layer of Scotch
66 or other electrical tape to hold it in place. The PTFE will cold
flow into the irregularities on the connector surface, and there will
be zero capillary action. If I want UV resistance, I spray the tape
with clear Krlyon (acrylic) spray.

While we're on the topic, I've experimented with various allegedly
waterproof enclosures and packages. The only ones I consider
genuinely waterproof are sealed and pressurized with dry air. Anything
less will eventually leak.

Ive never seen one pull apart except in the shoddiest of
installations.


I have and all too often. I was at the neighbors trying to
troubleshoot their Comcast cable tv and modem mess. They had some
friend of theirs do the wiring. All the F connectors were crimp ring
type and were falling apart. The coax was mostly RG-59 with maybe 80%
coverage. I replaced the most disgusting and will finish the job when
I have time.

One of the best things I have found to insure you
maintain a good connection is to apply something like DeOxit to the
connectors when you assemble them. Best done while all the parts are
new.


DeOxit and Cramolin contain oleic acid, which will slightly corrode
copper. It's good for CLEANING connectors by removing the oxides, but
should not be left on the connector. If you want to make sure that
you can take the connector apart after the threads rot in place due to
galvanic action between the aluminum receptacle, and the nickel plated
crimp type F connector, some silicon or lithium grease would probably
be better.

Some notes on the contents:
http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=82058&start=40&sid=71ca160c8f60768 6916a0f355e9ecc34

Jimmie


As for special tools, I love them. My various cable preparation tools
for various coax cable have saved me countless hours of fumbling with
a pocket knife and diagonal cutters. Using the various compression
tools on F connectors almost guarantee a good connection, unless I did
something dumb. Same with crimp lugs, various LMR-xxx coax cables,
and Anderson Power Pole connectors. The days of using a hammer or
vice grips to crimp a connector are over. The cost can be
substantial, but is well worth it if you work with connectors
regularly.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Misc/slides/crimpers.html
About $35/ea.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.
In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.
Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...
http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions

See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.

Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up.

In medical I tend to push the envelope and so do the standards
committees. Sometimes based on what we do. I designed all my cardiac
stuff defibrillator-proof, always, although it was not the law yet. Then
they made it law, because it makes sense.



You do it because they wouldn't hire you if you couldn't meet specs,
just like every other consultant, engineer or tech. They might even
jail you for your incompetence for not meeting the specs.


Correct. And the spec for a competent cable company is typically 300ft,
as I have shown in the link. Plus the one below.


Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.



Believe it or not, most technical people have that same standard.
You're nothing special.


Never said I was. Except that I do exceed standards at times where I
believe it is necessary. In the case of med electronics that has likely
saved lives. I do not subscribe to the idea that a standard is always
good enough. Because sometimes they are not.


... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?

Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.



Once again the all knowing Jeorge shows his ignorance.


No. I suppose you know what MoCA is. Do you consider them ignorant?
Because they say the very same thing that I said. What matters is
today's state-of-the-art. Nobody cares about what it was in the 80's.
Today this is state-of-the-art:

http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html

Quote "The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) provides a standard ..."

then

Quote "The maximum cable distance supported between the root and the
last outlet is 300 feet, with a maximum attenuation of 25 dB". And this
is for MoCA, not just cable TV.


1: You don't know what you're talking about, about the cost of
service. Any extra operating costs become part of the basic service
that everyone pays. You won't work for nothing, and the utilities don't
give them free electricity. The service companies don't repair the
equipment for free. Do you have any idea how many amplifiers, taps and
set top boxes are needed for 10,000 active ports? To provide hotter
ports require more amplifiers, and raises the system noise floor. You
'designed an amplifier'. Big deal. A lot of engineers 'designed and
amplifier' and those companies are long out of business. ...



So how many linear RF amplifiers above 1W have you personally designed
and guided through layout?

Hint: All my clients are still in business and I am sure will be for a
long time to come.


... Current CATV
amplifiers use hybrids designed specifically for the application and
they use them for many reasons. That just leave the design of the 60V
modified sine wave to DC power supplies, equalizers, gain control,
equalization and remote switching. Some locations also have remote
monitoring so the headend can check system status on a continuous
basis. It can also report outages when some of the equipment doesn't
respond. They can even detect power failures and monitor the battery
status in the standby power supplies to give them time to get a portable
generator to the area if it is an extended outage. The local
Brighthouse system remained in operation here for over four weeks after
a hurricane even though the only way to watch TV or access broadband was
with battery power or a generator.


If that company can't do more than 100ft they'd fail miserably in our
market. It's not just our house, it's also the neighbor to the west, and
the one after that, and ...


2: '70s CATV tech was 12 channel with no return path. It was crude,
discrete point to point designs that looked like a ham put together from
junk TVs while drinking cheap beer. They were touchy as hell, their
tempco sucked, and they were impossible to service without a fully
equipped test bed. the power supplies were simple, poorly regulated
linear supplies with 85 C electrolytics that died quickly in the
southern sun. The large diecast aluminum housing ran hot to the touch
without the sun hitting them. That stuff was pretty well all scrapped
out by the mid to late '80s by 36 or more channels with return
capability. There was so much construction of upgraded systems that
there was a severe shortage of new hardware through most of the mid
'80s.

That '80s tech was gone in all but the smallest systems by 2000.
Today most systems are 450 MHz or higher, and are 'Fiber Enhanced' to
provide telephone, broadband, movies on demand and pay per view services
by breaking the system into cells that cover a few hundred homes, or
less.

3: You know nothing about CATV franchises. 'A measly 100 feet' is
more than adequate for a hell of a lot of drops & house wiring. ...



No, it is not. If you don't believe me check out Cameron Park, CA,
especially the area of the Estates. Then tell me how you want to do that
with 100ft drops.


... If that
is what the franchise calls for, THAT IS THE SPECIFICATION, ...



And the franchise would get kicked out of the market around here. You
can't serve this market with a sub-par spec. The big automotive
companies had once exhibited a "Well, this is the spec and that's that"
attitude like you do in this thread. Then they learned, the hard way. In
part by essentially going on welfare which was embarrassing.


... no matter
how much you whine like Sloman. A city or county won't pull a franchise
over one or two people complaining about weak signals. ...



They will if there's a whole big crowd showing up at the next meeting.
Now I won't because I only watch the evening news via antenna. But I
know a whole lot of folks who would be miffed to be declined service
because they are literally addicted to the sports channels. Many would
just get satellite though, they market that quite aggressively these days.


... They receive a
fixed percentage of the system revenue every month, and the percentage
was set when the economy was up. If they pull the franchise, another
provider will offer a much lower percentage. It also involves legal
fees, and causes the rates to go up for the users.



The county folks have one much more important thing on their mind: How
to get re-elected. That's what'll matter most to them. They know that
seeing complaints about what many people perceive as a utility service
they have "rights to" in the paper is not the way to get re-elected.


... Why put up with all
that for a fraction of a percent of problems. Like people who built a
private road a mile long and want to pay the standard install fee when
it will cost about $15,000 to run a feeder for that one house. Or like
that marina. It isn't a street. It's private property. If they want
better service, let them pay for upgrades with .500 cable to each boat,
with a .500 to 'F" connector for each boat. That would only cost a few
hundred dollars a boat for materials. More if the cable is jacketed.
If it isn't it won't last long in salt air. Double that for the
hardware and labor to get a good idea of the costs.


Then answer a question I asked you before but you did not comment on it:
Why did Mike's cable provider not decline service? Obviously it worked
reliably in the analog days and now with DTV it doesn't. If they can't
handle the 170ft drop after the digital switch, why did they not inform
Mike, cancel the service on their part and send someone out to pick up
the set-top box?

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Joerg wrote:

You do it because they wouldn't hire you if you couldn't meet specs,
just like every other consultant, engineer or tech. They might even
jail you for your incompetence for not meeting the specs.


Correct. And the spec for a competent cable company is typically 300ft,
as I have shown in the link. Plus the one below.


Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.



Believe it or not, most technical people have that same standard.
You're nothing special.


Never said I was. Except that I do exceed standards at times where I
believe it is necessary. In the case of med electronics that has likely
saved lives. I do not subscribe to the idea that a standard is always
good enough. Because sometimes they are not.

... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?
Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.



Once again the all knowing Jeorge shows his ignorance.


No. I suppose you know what MoCA is. Do you consider them ignorant?
Because they say the very same thing that I said. What matters is
today's state-of-the-art. Nobody cares about what it was in the 80's.
Today this is state-of-the-art:

http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html



Did you miss: "IN THE NEXT DECADE"?


Quote "The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) provides a standard ..."

then

Quote "The maximum cable distance supported between the root and the
last outlet is 300 feet, with a maximum attenuation of 25 dB". And this
is for MoCA, not just cable TV.


1: You don't know what you're talking about, about the cost of
service. Any extra operating costs become part of the basic service
that everyone pays. You won't work for nothing, and the utilities don't
give them free electricity. The service companies don't repair the
equipment for free. Do you have any idea how many amplifiers, taps and
set top boxes are needed for 10,000 active ports? To provide hotter
ports require more amplifiers, and raises the system noise floor. You
'designed an amplifier'. Big deal. A lot of engineers 'designed and
amplifier' and those companies are long out of business. ...


So how many linear RF amplifiers above 1W have you personally designed
and guided through layout?

Hint: All my clients are still in business and I am sure will be for a
long time to come.

... Current CATV
amplifiers use hybrids designed specifically for the application and
they use them for many reasons. That just leave the design of the 60V
modified sine wave to DC power supplies, equalizers, gain control,
equalization and remote switching. Some locations also have remote
monitoring so the headend can check system status on a continuous
basis. It can also report outages when some of the equipment doesn't
respond. They can even detect power failures and monitor the battery
status in the standby power supplies to give them time to get a portable
generator to the area if it is an extended outage. The local
Brighthouse system remained in operation here for over four weeks after
a hurricane even though the only way to watch TV or access broadband was
with battery power or a generator.


If that company can't do more than 100ft they'd fail miserably in our
market. It's not just our house, it's also the neighbor to the west, and
the one after that, and ...

2: '70s CATV tech was 12 channel with no return path. It was crude,
discrete point to point designs that looked like a ham put together from
junk TVs while drinking cheap beer. They were touchy as hell, their
tempco sucked, and they were impossible to service without a fully
equipped test bed. the power supplies were simple, poorly regulated
linear supplies with 85 C electrolytics that died quickly in the
southern sun. The large diecast aluminum housing ran hot to the touch
without the sun hitting them. That stuff was pretty well all scrapped
out by the mid to late '80s by 36 or more channels with return
capability. There was so much construction of upgraded systems that
there was a severe shortage of new hardware through most of the mid
'80s.

That '80s tech was gone in all but the smallest systems by 2000.
Today most systems are 450 MHz or higher, and are 'Fiber Enhanced' to
provide telephone, broadband, movies on demand and pay per view services
by breaking the system into cells that cover a few hundred homes, or
less.

3: You know nothing about CATV franchises. 'A measly 100 feet' is
more than adequate for a hell of a lot of drops & house wiring. ...


No, it is not. If you don't believe me check out Cameron Park, CA,
especially the area of the Estates. Then tell me how you want to do that
with 100ft drops.

... If that
is what the franchise calls for, THAT IS THE SPECIFICATION, ...


And the franchise would get kicked out of the market around here. You
can't serve this market with a sub-par spec. The big automotive
companies had once exhibited a "Well, this is the spec and that's that"
attitude like you do in this thread. Then they learned, the hard way. In
part by essentially going on welfare which was embarrassing.

... no matter
how much you whine like Sloman. A city or county won't pull a franchise
over one or two people complaining about weak signals. ...


They will if there's a whole big crowd showing up at the next meeting.
Now I won't because I only watch the evening news via antenna. But I
know a whole lot of folks who would be miffed to be declined service
because they are literally addicted to the sports channels. Many would
just get satellite though, they market that quite aggressively these days.



A big crowd is what percentage of their customer base?


... They receive a
fixed percentage of the system revenue every month, and the percentage
was set when the economy was up. If they pull the franchise, another
provider will offer a much lower percentage. It also involves legal
fees, and causes the rates to go up for the users.


The county folks have one much more important thing on their mind: How
to get re-elected. That's what'll matter most to them. They know that
seeing complaints about what many people perceive as a utility service
they have "rights to" in the paper is not the way to get re-elected.



No one has a 'right to' cable TV. I was at one meeting where a
citizen was demanding that they revoke our franchise. They told him
that one complaint out of 10,000 customers wasn't enough reason to
revoke. he was as arrogant as you. Everything had to be his way. He
got really ****ed when they told him to buy a satellite dish and go
away. His demand was a s ignorant as yours. He was demanding that he
bring back CBS ARTS, and wouldn't listen that CBS had dropped the
service. One other complaint was from a woman demanding that our
franchise be pulled because CSPAN was down for a couple days during the
modification of a 5 meter dish to multiple feeds.


... Why put up with all
that for a fraction of a percent of problems. Like people who built a
private road a mile long and want to pay the standard install fee when
it will cost about $15,000 to run a feeder for that one house. Or like
that marina. It isn't a street. It's private property. If they want
better service, let them pay for upgrades with .500 cable to each boat,
with a .500 to 'F" connector for each boat. That would only cost a few
hundred dollars a boat for materials. More if the cable is jacketed.
If it isn't it won't last long in salt air. Double that for the
hardware and labor to get a good idea of the costs.


Then answer a question I asked you before but you did not comment on it:
Why did Mike's cable provider not decline service? Obviously it worked
reliably in the analog days and now with DTV it doesn't. If they can't
handle the 170ft drop after the digital switch, why did they not inform
Mike, cancel the service on their part and send someone out to pick up
the set-top box?



Sigh. Just because there is a new agreement for the industry doesn't
mean that all existing have to comply. Some companies are FIOS. By your
standards, everything else should be replaced overnight. Then the
distance won't matter at all. I doubt that the income from that marina
will ever pay back the construction costs. the system worked for
analog, when it was installed. There are no guarantees in life. Stop
trying to walk on water, you'll drown.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength MoCA


Joerg wrote:

http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html

Quote "The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) provides a standard ..."

then

Quote "The maximum cable distance supported between the root and the
last outlet is 300 feet, with a maximum attenuation of 25 dB". And this
is for MoCA, not just cable TV.



MoCA is home networking, hence the 300 foot figure. A drop at +10
dBmv already allows a 25 dB loss for the cable modem, since they are
designed to work to -15 dBmv. That webpage also mentions verifing that a
"drop amplifier does not block Moca". In other words, it's home
networking for multimedia devices and has nothing to do with the length
of the cable drop. It is to allow customers to stream audio and video
within their home, and use services like Netflix & Hulu on their TV
sets.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:

You do it because they wouldn't hire you if you couldn't meet specs,
just like every other consultant, engineer or tech. They might even
jail you for your incompetence for not meeting the specs.

Correct. And the spec for a competent cable company is typically 300ft,
as I have shown in the link. Plus the one below.

Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.

Believe it or not, most technical people have that same standard.
You're nothing special.

Never said I was. Except that I do exceed standards at times where I
believe it is necessary. In the case of med electronics that has likely
saved lives. I do not subscribe to the idea that a standard is always
good enough. Because sometimes they are not.

... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?
Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.

Once again the all knowing Jeorge shows his ignorance.

No. I suppose you know what MoCA is. Do you consider them ignorant?
Because they say the very same thing that I said. What matters is
today's state-of-the-art. Nobody cares about what it was in the 80's.
Today this is state-of-the-art:

http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html



Did you miss: "IN THE NEXT DECADE"?


Where do you live? The parts of FL I have seen were are technologically
advanced, I guess. This stuff is rolled out here in CA, big time. Things
like the DCX3200M box and their DVR are MoCA.

In case you've missed it, MoCA has already release 2.0. More than a year
ago ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength MoCA

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html

Quote "The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) provides a standard ..."

then

Quote "The maximum cable distance supported between the root and the
last outlet is 300 feet, with a maximum attenuation of 25 dB". And this
is for MoCA, not just cable TV.



MoCA is home networking, hence the 300 foot figure. A drop at +10
dBmv already allows a 25 dB loss for the cable modem, since they are
designed to work to -15 dBmv. That webpage also mentions verifing that a
"drop amplifier does not block Moca". In other words, it's home
networking for multimedia devices and has nothing to do with the length
of the cable drop. It is to allow customers to stream audio and video
within their home, and use services like Netflix & Hulu on their TV
sets.


It is the modern cable TV, like it or not. Companies not playing will
likely be packing some day. Personally I doubt it'll do much for home
networking, at least not appliance control. Computing, yes, and that's
the new game in town. Cable companies offering "all-in-one" packages
where you get phone, Internet, TV and all that from the "company store".
Pretty pricey, last time I looked it was $99/mo and that only for the
first year. Probably goes up afterwards.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Increasing Cable TV SIGNAL LEVELS

On 2/10/2012 8:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:47:54 -0600,
wrote:

The Box is a CISCO RNG100
Only data I know how to get is;
Tuner 537.00 Mhz 2dbmv
TDC 75.25 Mhz 5dbmv
RDC 20.00 Mhz 30.0dbmv Yes 30.0


It's the same as the Cisco Explorer 1540C with some features removed
by Comcast.
http://www.cincinnatibell.com/shared_content/pdf/tv/exp1540_uguide.pdf

How to get into the diagnostics:
Press and hold SELECT on front of unit until the MAIL light
starts to flash, then press INFO.
Or
Press and hold PAUSE on remote until MAIL light starts to
flash (around 10-15 seconds), then press PAGE-UP (-).
On some remotes, PAGE (+) might need to be used instead.


See if you can excavate the SNR numbers. Maybe there's RF garbage on
the systems (oscillating distribution amp, ingress, whatever, etc).


Hi Jeff,
I don't seem to be able to follow your directions, I don't think I
have enough buttons. To get the info I posted, Push and hold the power
button until the power light blinks, then push power again and the info
screen comes up.
I don't know what the MAIL light is, I don't have a select button nor
a INFO button.
Hey started pushing buttons on the remote, found I can scroll through
15 pages off stuuf I don't have a clue about.

Got some "RF Statistics on page 5"
Current FDC
Freq. 75.250
Level 5 dbmv
S/N 29db
Errs/Ave 0/0

Current Qam
Freq. 513 Mhz
Level -1dbmv
S/N 35db
Errs/Ave 11/0 or 11/1 or 11/3 but mostly 11/0

That's all I can see.
Mikek

  #78   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength MoCA


Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
? Joerg wrote:
?? http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html
??
?? Quote "The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) provides a standard ..."
??
?? then
??
?? Quote "The maximum cable distance supported between the root and the
?? last outlet is 300 feet, with a maximum attenuation of 25 dB". And this
?? is for MoCA, not just cable TV.
?
?
? MoCA is home networking, hence the 300 foot figure. A drop at +10
? dBmv already allows a 25 dB loss for the cable modem, since they are
? designed to work to -15 dBmv. That webpage also mentions verifing that a
? "drop amplifier does not block Moca". In other words, it's home
? networking for multimedia devices and has nothing to do with the length
? of the cable drop. It is to allow customers to stream audio and video
? within their home, and use services like Netflix ? Hulu on their TV
? sets.
?

It is the modern cable TV, like it or not.



Sigh. You never back down, even when you are shown that you are
wrong. You are wrong and it's eating you alive. Even the title of the
article in your link states: "Testing And Deployment: Making MoCA
In-Home Networking Easier" and the article starts with: "Market growth
and competition for enhanced video services revenue have MSOs and telcos
scrambling for technology and operational advantages. In the next
decade, consumer electronics with embedded Internet and IP video support
will be widely available." No where does it mention a cable drop. It
is a method to transmit digital data between a DVR and any TV connected
to the system. Nothing more. It's no wonder you can't get a computer
to run properly, when you can't even read a simple networking article
like this and understand it.


Show me anywhere in that article that states a 300 foot cable TV drop
is required. The word drop shows up twice and the first is part of
another word:


1: "Additionally, the technician can monitor the MoCA channel for
bit errors based on corrected or dropped MoCA packets."
^^^^

2: "A drop amplifier that does not bypass the MoCA spectrum."
^^^^
This means that some installations require a bi-directional amplifier
to compensate for long drops just as they always have. 'Drop Amplifier'
refers to a single output CATV amplifier as opposed to the multiport
CATV distribution amplifiers used in apartment complexes and condos.


Companies not playing will likely be packing some day.



Maybe in 30 years, when tiny rural systems can't find anything
cheaper on the market and upgrade in bits and pieces. YOU know all
about being a cheapskate.


Personally I doubt it'll do much for home networking, at least
least not appliance control.



Why should it? Why would your DVR need to talk to your
refrigerator? It is strictly a streaming system for home
Entertainment. It's been available here, for years. Hell, even my
dad's Direct TV sat system w/DVR does it. Appliances don't need a TV
tuner and other crap for a simple ethernet interface.


Computing, yes, and that's the new game in town. Cable companies
offering "all-in-one" packages where you get phone, Internet, TV
and all that from the "company store".



Phone and internet are delivered via a cable modem that works to -15
dBmv.


Pretty pricey, last time I looked it was $99/mo and that only for the
first year. Probably goes up afterwards.



It goes a hell of a lot higher than that. That $99 doesn't get you
basic cable, internet and phone here. Add on more tiers and hgher
bandwith internet and it can pass $250 a month.


You are so ignorant that it's scary. Read ALL of the page you linked
to and look at the images. It is a lousy home network via coax
streaming media standard and nothing more. Not that I ever expect you
to be man enough to admit you are wrong. Everything is always someone
else's fault. No one ever does anything right but you. The fact that
you design medical electronics scares the hell out of me.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #79   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default Increasing Cable TV SIGNAL LEVELS


amdx wrote:

On 2/10/2012 8:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
? On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:47:54 -0600, ?
? wrote:
?
?? The Box is a CISCO RNG100
?? Only data I know how to get is;
?? Tuner 537.00 Mhz 2dbmv
?? TDC 75.25 Mhz 5dbmv
?? RDC 20.00 Mhz 30.0dbmv Yes 30.0
??
?
? It's the same as the Cisco Explorer 1540C with some features removed
? by Comcast.
? ?http://www.cincinnatibell.com/shared...40_uguide.pdf?
?
? How to get into the diagnostics:
? Press and hold SELECT on front of unit until the MAIL light
? starts to flash, then press INFO.
? Or
? Press and hold PAUSE on remote until MAIL light starts to
? flash (around 10-15 seconds), then press PAGE-UP (-).
? On some remotes, PAGE (+) might need to be used instead.

? See if you can excavate the SNR numbers. Maybe there's RF garbage on
? the systems (oscillating distribution amp, ingress, whatever, etc).

Hi Jeff,
I don't seem to be able to follow your directions, I don't think I
have enough buttons. To get the info I posted, Push and hold the power
button until the power light blinks, then push power again and the info
screen comes up.
I don't know what the MAIL light is, I don't have a select button nor
a INFO button.
Hey started pushing buttons on the remote, found I can scroll through
15 pages off stuuf I don't have a clue about.

Got some "RF Statistics on page 5"
Current FDC
Freq. 75.250
Level 5 dbmv
S/N 29db
Errs/Ave 0/0

Current Qam
Freq. 513 Mhz
Level -1dbmv
S/N 35db
Errs/Ave 11/0 or 11/1 or 11/3 but mostly 11/0



It shows that you have a 6 dB slope, and the high end is 1 dBmv below
the standard level. It also shows a lot of errors in the recovered
data. QAM is the digital TV signal. Unscrambled channels are referred
to as Clear QAM


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #80   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Increasing Cable TV SIGNAL LEVELS

On 2/12/2012 10:27 AM, amdx wrote:
On 2/10/2012 8:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:47:54 -0600,
wrote:

The Box is a CISCO RNG100
Only data I know how to get is;
Tuner 537.00 Mhz 2dbmv
TDC 75.25 Mhz 5dbmv
RDC 20.00 Mhz 30.0dbmv Yes 30.0



I just noted I didn't have a picture on ch 42.
I went to the RF page, my 537 Mhz numbers were

Level 6dbmv
S/N 0 db
Errs/Ave 0/7 changed to later 0/1742
Status Unlocked

VS. When it was working

Level -1dbmv
S/N 35db
Errs/Ave 11/0 or 11/1 or 11/3 but mostly 11/0
Status Locked

Mikek
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Increasing strength of steel through rolling Gerald Miller Metalworking 0 June 3rd 08 05:58 AM
Measuring cable signal strength with tuner and software? Jack Electronics Repair 0 December 19th 05 11:20 PM
Test cable TV input signal strength? [email protected] Electronics Repair 6 June 28th 05 08:40 PM
Measuring Cable signal strength Steve UK diy 3 April 26th 05 11:35 PM
Cable TV Splitter Signal Strength New Question Home Repair 6 September 8th 03 11:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"