On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:45:27 +1100, "Phil Allison"
Gave us:


"Kennedy = Kunt "


FOAD - you stinking autistic MORON


You must be Japanese...

Phil Allison == Assholeson Phil

Hardly had to change a thing.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:50:08 +1100 "Phil Allison"
wrote in Message id: :


"Kennedy = Kunt"


FOAD - you stinking, pig ignorant, autistic MORON

Do you kiss your mother's quim with that mouth?

On 01/19/2014 10:48 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 1/19/2014 2:30 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Bob E." wrote:

When it comes to broadcast TV I try to solder every connection possible.
Every crimp is one more dB lost.

I'm no RF expert, just my impression--possibly mistaken.


The loss should be under .1 dB for a good F connector,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jumbo shrimp alert.


There are good ones, but you won't buy them at retail stores.



Use Snap-N-Seal type F-connectors. They are moisture proof and
positively crimp correctly.

On 01/19/2014 10:53 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Bob E." wrote:

100% of the RF connectors I use for mountain top radio sites that I
deal with are crimped, not soldered.

This is where the original short length of RG6 was soldered to the pcb
antenna. It's an inexpensive broadcast TV antenna for home.

Rather than make a male crimp plus a barrel to join the 2 mailes, just solder
the long run directly to the pcb. Or so I thought...

I crimped 1/2" of center solid conductor to the braid and soldered the solid
to the pcb. It seems to work but I have no way to measure any loss. I plan to
replace this when I find some REAL copper RG6.


The loss is horrible in copper braided coax at TV frequencies. The
cost is excessive, as well. 'Headend cable' used to be silver plated
copper braided coax, but that was abandoned for foil & drain when
headends passed 216 MHz. That silver plated coax was over a dollar a
foot, in the '70s.

The easiest way to spot good headend cable was to try to bend it. It
drapes, like mic cable; not stiff.

My ham radio antennas are all 50 Ohm designs, but I do cheat on the
receive loops and repurpose old Echostar cable around the house.

On 01/20/2014 02:18 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
Electroplated wire, most likely nickel.

** But nickel plated stuff solders beautifully.

Jack plugs and sockets, DC plugs etc.

I have some mil spec, high-temp wire that's nickel plated. Beautiful
stuff, strands wound in layers. It takes an unusually high temperature
and a long time before the solder wets and soaks into it. It does tin,
but I wouldn't say it solders "beautifully", not with ordinary fluxes.

Tim


I have a Hakko station with 50 Watts max power. I also have a Weller
150W gun. And an old Radio-Shack Ungar 45 W for the occasional
emergency. There are situations where The Weller gun comes in handy,
when the other 2 don't get hot enough. Failing all 3, we have the trusty
Bernz-O-Matic.

On 01/20/2014 03:45 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Kennedy = Kunt"


FOAD - you stinking autistic MORON


There are 2 of us? And only one of you? Pretty brave man calling people
names from across cyberspace. You kiss your mama with that mouth?

On 20/01/2014 10:18, Tim Williams wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
Electroplated wire, most likely nickel.

** But nickel plated stuff solders beautifully.

Jack plugs and sockets, DC plugs etc.

I have some mil spec, high-temp wire that's nickel plated. Beautiful
stuff, strands wound in layers. It takes an unusually high temperature
and a long time before the solder wets and soaks into it. It does tin,
but I wouldn't say it solders "beautifully", not with ordinary fluxes.

Tim

I have some Nickel plated copper wire - single core - which I bought
believing it to be tinned copper. It doesn't wet well with my ancient
'non corrosive flux' Multicore 60/40.

A touch of flux and it solders beautifully.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 01/20/2014 08:46 AM, dave wrote:
On 01/19/2014 10:48 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 1/19/2014 2:30 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Bob E." wrote:

When it comes to broadcast TV I try to solder every connection
possible.
Every crimp is one more dB lost.

I'm no RF expert, just my impression--possibly mistaken.


The loss should be under .1 dB for a good F connector,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jumbo shrimp alert.


There are good ones, but you won't buy them at retail stores.



Use Snap-N-Seal type F-connectors. They are moisture proof and
positively crimp correctly.

I don't have TV at home, and there's no way I'd use F connectors for
anything but entertainment.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:10:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 01/20/2014 08:46 AM, dave wrote:
Use Snap-N-Seal type F-connectors. They are moisture proof and
positively crimp correctly.

I don't have TV at home, and there's no way I'd use F connectors for
anything but entertainment.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with F-connectors? There are zillions
installed on indoor and outdoor CATV installations with no failures or
issues. Certainly there are connectors with better specifications,
but for the intended purpose and cost ($0.30/ea), F-connectors are
more than adequate. The only real problem I've found is the wide
variety of cables claiming to be RG-6/u. Making a connector that will
fit all these RG-6/u mutations is tricky, but T&B has done a decent
job with their "red" SNS1P6U Snap-N-Seal connectors:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221344116756

So, what's wrong with F-connectors and what would you recommend the
CATV industry use instead?

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

Phil Hobbs wrote:

I don't have TV at home, and there's no way I'd use F connectors for
anything but entertainment.


That's your choice. I can't help that you are absolutely clueless
about the technology. There are millions of miles of Rg/6 with F
fittings used into the UHF range outdoors with a very low failure rate,
and lower leakage than some BNC connectors. If they were crap, they
wouldn't be allowed to use aircraft and commercial two way frequencies.
A couple bad connections in a cable system can shut down an airport, or
the local fire and PD.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

dave wrote:

The easiest way to spot good headend cable was to try to bend it. It
drapes, like mic cable; not stiff.


The easiest way was to look at the imprint: 'Belden headend cable'.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Kennedy wrote:

On 20/01/2014 7:38 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Tim Williams - ****** & TROLL"



Was I the only one to see this predictable response coming & get a
giggle out of it?


Phil always advertises that he's a troll.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Kennedy wrote:

On 20/01/2014 7:45 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Kennedy = Kunt"


FOAD - you stinking autistic MORON


Settle down Phil, one day you're going to blow a gasket!


Why put it off? Who would mourn?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On 01/20/2014 12:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:10:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 01/20/2014 08:46 AM, dave wrote:
Use Snap-N-Seal type F-connectors. They are moisture proof and
positively crimp correctly.

I don't have TV at home, and there's no way I'd use F connectors for
anything but entertainment.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with F-connectors? There are zillions
installed on indoor and outdoor CATV installations with no failures or
issues. Certainly there are connectors with better specifications,
but for the intended purpose and cost ($0.30/ea), F-connectors are
more than adequate. The only real problem I've found is the wide
variety of cables claiming to be RG-6/u. Making a connector that will
fit all these RG-6/u mutations is tricky, but T&B has done a decent
job with their "red" SNS1P6U Snap-N-Seal connectors:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221344116756

So, what's wrong with F-connectors and what would you recommend the
CATV industry use instead?


If the CATV industry likes them, well, I'm happy they're happy.
Instrument use is quite a different regime. F connectors use the centre
conductor of the coax as the contact, and are very susceptible to damage
with repeated mating cycles. The ones I've seen are also fairly far
from constant-impedance.

BNCs and SMAs for me.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
...
"Tim Williams - ****** & TROLL"


Was I the only one to see this predictable response coming & get a
giggle out of it?

T. W. == W & T


Naaaaahhh!!!

He has smarts.

Smarts? I'll have you know I've been called worse!

Tim (only an asshole on the internet)

--
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:13:00 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 01/20/2014 12:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:10:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 01/20/2014 08:46 AM, dave wrote:
Use Snap-N-Seal type F-connectors. They are moisture proof and
positively crimp correctly.

I don't have TV at home, and there's no way I'd use F connectors for
anything but entertainment.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with F-connectors? There are zillions
installed on indoor and outdoor CATV installations with no failures or
issues. Certainly there are connectors with better specifications,
but for the intended purpose and cost ($0.30/ea), F-connectors are
more than adequate. The only real problem I've found is the wide
variety of cables claiming to be RG-6/u. Making a connector that will
fit all these RG-6/u mutations is tricky, but T&B has done a decent
job with their "red" SNS1P6U Snap-N-Seal connectors:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221344116756

So, what's wrong with F-connectors and what would you recommend the
CATV industry use instead?

If the CATV industry likes them, well, I'm happy they're happy.

The CATV industry is never happy. If it were happy, innovation would
cease and the status quo would become permanent.

Instrument use is quite a different regime. F connectors use the centre
conductor of the coax as the contact, and are very susceptible to damage
with repeated mating cycles. The ones I've seen are also fairly far
from constant-impedance.

I believe that I mumbled something about "for the intended purpose". I
don't think anyone uses F-connectors for precision test equipment.
They're not really good enough. Looking at the pile, most of my CATV
specific test equipment uses BNC connectors. However, that's not
because the F-connector is in some way electrically inferior. It's
because the F-connector receptacles were not designed to survive
repeated insertion/removal cycles. The few that have built in
F-connectors allow for easy replacement, such as my Wavetek SAM-1000
which uses a panel mounted F barrel adapter.

The F-connector is certainly not constant impedance. On a TDR, the
bump is rather obvious. Yet, some cable and connector combinations
are rated and tested to 4.5GHz:
http://www.tselectronic.com/shop/product/1694A-Belden-4.5GHz-RG6-U-Precision-Video-Cable-for-Analog-and-Digital-Applications/1026
The recommended connectors are T&B SNS1P6 or FSNS6U compression
F-connectors.

I partly agree with you about center conductor problems. I assume
that you're referring to the copper plated steel center conductor,
found in most cheap RG-6/u cables, which is not intended for repeated
insertion/extraction cycles. Still, the rating is 500
insertion/extraction cycles minimum. The copper will eventually
scrape off. However, solid copper center conductor RG-6/u (such as
Belden 1694A) works quite nicely, without any damage. I couldn't find
a spec for insertion/extraction cycles for 1694A.

BNCs and SMAs for me.

Crimp or compression plugs, in quantities of 100 on eBay:
F-connector $0.30/ea
SMA male $0.70/ea
BNC male $1.00/ea
For test equipment, the price difference is not enough to justify
using the cheapest. For CATV, which consumes connectors by the
millions, every penny counts.

Thanks.

Cheers
Phil Hobbs

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

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:42:19 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The easiest way was to look at the imprint: 'Belden headend cable'.

Which end is the head? (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

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

On 1/20/2014 6:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 16:13:00 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 01/20/2014 12:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:10:46 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 01/20/2014 08:46 AM, dave wrote:
Use Snap-N-Seal type F-connectors. They are moisture proof and
positively crimp correctly.

I don't have TV at home, and there's no way I'd use F connectors for
anything but entertainment.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with F-connectors? There are zillions
installed on indoor and outdoor CATV installations with no failures or
issues. Certainly there are connectors with better specifications,
but for the intended purpose and cost ($0.30/ea), F-connectors are
more than adequate. The only real problem I've found is the wide
variety of cables claiming to be RG-6/u. Making a connector that will
fit all these RG-6/u mutations is tricky, but T&B has done a decent
job with their "red" SNS1P6U Snap-N-Seal connectors:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221344116756

So, what's wrong with F-connectors and what would you recommend the
CATV industry use instead?

If the CATV industry likes them, well, I'm happy they're happy.

The CATV industry is never happy. If it were happy, innovation would
cease and the status quo would become permanent.

Instrument use is quite a different regime. F connectors use the centre
conductor of the coax as the contact, and are very susceptible to damage
with repeated mating cycles. The ones I've seen are also fairly far
from constant-impedance.

I believe that I mumbled something about "for the intended purpose". I
don't think anyone uses F-connectors for precision test equipment.
They're not really good enough. Looking at the pile, most of my CATV
specific test equipment uses BNC connectors. However, that's not
because the F-connector is in some way electrically inferior. It's
because the F-connector receptacles were not designed to survive
repeated insertion/removal cycles. The few that have built in
F-connectors allow for easy replacement, such as my Wavetek SAM-1000
which uses a panel mounted F barrel adapter.

The F-connector is certainly not constant impedance. On a TDR, the
bump is rather obvious. Yet, some cable and connector combinations
are rated and tested to 4.5GHz:
http://www.tselectronic.com/shop/product/1694A-Belden-4.5GHz-RG6-U-Precision-Video-Cable-for-Analog-and-Digital-Applications/1026
The recommended connectors are T&B SNS1P6 or FSNS6U compression
F-connectors.

I partly agree with you about center conductor problems. I assume
that you're referring to the copper plated steel center conductor,
found in most cheap RG-6/u cables, which is not intended for repeated
insertion/extraction cycles. Still, the rating is 500
insertion/extraction cycles minimum. The copper will eventually
scrape off. However, solid copper center conductor RG-6/u (such as
Belden 1694A) works quite nicely, without any damage. I couldn't find
a spec for insertion/extraction cycles for 1694A.

BNCs and SMAs for me.

Crimp or compression plugs, in quantities of 100 on eBay:
F-connector $0.30/ea
SMA male $0.70/ea
BNC male $1.00/ea
For test equipment, the price difference is not enough to justify
using the cheapest. For CATV, which consumes connectors by the
millions, every penny counts.

Thanks.

Cheers
Phil Hobbs

Sure, horses for courses. I'm not telling them how to run their lives,
because I couldn't care less about their lives. (Well, as
individuals, sure, but as for the industry, if CATV went away completely
tomorrow, it would suit me fine--provided only that they took their
tarts and talking heads with them.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:55:56 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

Sure, horses for courses. I'm not telling them how to run their lives,
because I couldn't care less about their lives. (Well, as
individuals, sure, but as for the industry, if CATV went away completely
tomorrow, it would suit me fine--provided only that they took their
tarts and talking heads with them.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I assure you that the selection of RF connector will have no effect on
CATV content quality. I like the tarts, but can do without the
talking heads.

For what little it's worth, I didn't own a TV for about 15 years.
Except for being somewhat culturally deprived, I didn't miss TV in the
slightest. However, I then picked up a contract to review some
technical videos and needed a TV and VCR to play them. I soon found
myself watching broadcast TV, buying DVD's, putting together a media
center, subscribing to DirecTV, Netflix, etc. Today, I find that I
can't sleep without the TV running. I'm now watching a 1931 Boris
Karloff movie as I type. I'm addicted.

Hint: Don't judge connectors by the content they carry.

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

On 1/20/2014 8:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:55:56 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

Sure, horses for courses. I'm not telling them how to run their lives,
because I couldn't care less about their lives. (Well, as
individuals, sure, but as for the industry, if CATV went away completely
tomorrow, it would suit me fine--provided only that they took their
tarts and talking heads with them.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I assure you that the selection of RF connector will have no effect on
CATV content quality. I like the tarts, but can do without the
talking heads.

Nah, sufficiently crappy connectors could improve the content a lot.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:42:19 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The easiest way was to look at the imprint: 'Belden headend cable'.

Which end is the head? (Sorry, I couldn't resist).


If you have to ask, you aren't qualified for the job.

The entire system of amplifiers is marked as Forward or Reverse so
just follow the reverse path to the head end. Unless it's Fiber enhanced
CATV.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On 01/20/2014 12:42 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

dave wrote:

The easiest way to spot good headend cable was to try to bend it. It
drapes, like mic cable; not stiff.


The easiest way was to look at the imprint: 'Belden headend cable'.



It's easier to find in the dark if you feel for it. I knew a lot of CATV
people, including the Chief Head End Technician at Time Warner in
Houston; and we prized the supple stuff for personal use.

dave wrote:

On 01/20/2014 12:42 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

dave wrote:

The easiest way to spot good headend cable was to try to bend it. It
drapes, like mic cable; not stiff.


The easiest way was to look at the imprint: 'Belden headend cable'.



It's easier to find in the dark if you feel for it. I knew a lot of CATV
people, including the Chief Head End Technician at Time Warner in
Houston; and we prized the supple stuff for personal use.


I had a full 1000' spool stolen from me.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin. It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With both a
temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I finally
tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite the
iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch

Steve wrote :
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin. It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With both
a temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I
finally tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid
opposite the iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch

Steel, ment to be clamped not soldered?

--
John G Sydney.

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin.
It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With
both a
temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I
finally
tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite
the
iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch


Most of the rg-6 uses aluminum instead of copper or tinned copper. The
normal methods of soldering will not work on it.

You're doing it wrong: never wait for dry metal to melt solder opposite the
iron. Tin under the iron, so there's thermal transfer. Then go around the
braid, spreading the tinned area around it. Mind the core will melt to goo
while you're doing this...

And as others have mentioned, if it's aluminum or stainless, you're screwed.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin.
It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With
both a
temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I
finally
tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite
the
iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch

Ralph Mowery expressed precisely :
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin.
It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With
both a
temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I
finally
tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite the
iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch


Most of the rg-6 uses aluminum instead of copper or tinned copper. The
normal methods of soldering will not work on it.

I'll believe Aluminium or steel I must admit to only a little actual
experience.
Some Cable guy should give an actual answer.

--
John G Sydney.

John G wrote:

Ralph Mowery expressed precisely :
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't tin.
It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it. With
both a
temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I
finally
tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid opposite the
iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch


Most of the rg-6 uses aluminum instead of copper or tinned copper. The
normal methods of soldering will not work on it.

I'll believe Aluminium or steel I must admit to only a little actual
experience.
Some Cable guy should give an actual answer.


The original RG6 used a copper center conductor, and a copper braid over
a stiff, solid insulator. It was barely useful for video. The RG6/U used
for CATV has a copper plated steel center conductor, foam inner
insulator and aluminum foil covered by aluminum drain wires. If it is to
be used overhead, it has a separate stainless steel 'messenger' wire
with a Siamese outer jacket over both the coax and the messenger
strand. I worked in CATV, and used to see 50,000 feet of it come in at
a time. The best way to be sure is see who made the cable in question,
and look up the OEM's specifications for that exact type of cable.

We used Belden, Commscope, and other American made brands back in the
mid '80s.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:51:23 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

John G wrote:

Ralph Mowery expressed precisely :
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't
tin. It's almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can
apply it. With both a temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F)
and a mondo 100W stick I finally tried. The solder will barely
melt when touched to the braid opposite the iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch


Most of the rg-6 uses aluminum instead of copper or tinned copper.
The normal methods of soldering will not work on it.

I'll believe Aluminium or steel I must admit to only a little actual
experience.
Some Cable guy should give an actual answer.


The original RG6 used a copper center conductor, and a copper braid over
a stiff, solid insulator. It was barely useful for video. The RG6/U used
for CATV has a copper plated steel center conductor, foam inner
insulator and aluminum foil covered by aluminum drain wires. If it is to
be used overhead, it has a separate stainless steel 'messenger' wire
with a Siamese outer jacket over both the coax and the messenger strand.
I worked in CATV, and used to see 50,000 feet of it come in at a time.
The best way to be sure is see who made the cable in question, and look
up the OEM's specifications for that exact type of cable.

We used Belden, Commscope, and other American made brands back in the
mid '80s.

He got most of it right.

As a former installer of a dual system (Cube) (Time/Warner)(Warner/
Amex)We had dual 'siamesed' cables and those used for "drops" had the
messenger strand.

However, ALL of it, indoor, outdoor, drop lines, and UG (underground)
ALL had a braided tin plated copper braid over the foil layers. The foam
core had a laminated immobile foil affixed to it, and then there was foil
and braid over that. I know because foil tears and braid does not, and
the fittings used in the industry get crimped on, and foil alone will not
endure those stresses over time, if not fail immediately.

But RG-6 can be bought in many different configurations. It is more
about the form factor and physical size and characteristic impedance.
RG-59 was the same impedance but slightly smaller but had a higher
capacitance per foot and could not be used on longer runs, whereas the RG-6
could perform over greater distances Mainly due to a thicker core to
shield spacing making for a lower parasitic capacitance per foot.

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
...
He got most of it right.

As a former installer of a dual system (Cube) (Time/Warner)(Warner/
Amex)We had dual 'siamesed' cables and those used for "drops" had the
messenger strand.

However, ALL of it, indoor, outdoor, drop lines, and UG (underground)
ALL had a braided tin plated copper braid over the foil layers. The foam
core had a laminated immobile foil affixed to it, and then there was foil
and braid over that. I know because foil tears and braid does not, and
the fittings used in the industry get crimped on, and foil alone will not
endure those stresses over time, if not fail immediately.

But RG-6 can be bought in many different configurations. It is more
about the form factor and physical size and characteristic impedance.
RG-59 was the same impedance but slightly smaller but had a higher
capacitance per foot and could not be used on longer runs, whereas the
RG-6
could perform over greater distances Mainly due to a thicker core to
shield spacing making for a lower parasitic capacitance per foot.

And you got most of that right. The RG number is mostly the physical size
of the cable. The reason rg-6 size is used is for lower losses at higher
frequencies. It is less expensive and able to be bent and handled in a
house easier than the rg-11 size.

The main loss in the cable up; to about 1000 MHz is the resistance loss of
the conductors. By making the center conductor larger there is less loss.
The foil is used to provide a very good shield to keep the RF inside the
cable, and the braid is mainly to provide a way to crimp it for a good
electrical connection.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:42:12 -0500, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in
message ...
He got most of it right.

As a former installer of a dual system (Cube) (Time/Warner)(Warner/
Amex)We had dual 'siamesed' cables and those used for "drops" had the
messenger strand.

However, ALL of it, indoor, outdoor, drop lines, and UG (underground)
ALL had a braided tin plated copper braid over the foil layers. The
foam core had a laminated immobile foil affixed to it, and then there
was foil and braid over that. I know because foil tears and braid does
not, and the fittings used in the industry get crimped on, and foil
alone will not endure those stresses over time, if not fail
immediately.

But RG-6 can be bought in many different configurations. It is more
about the form factor and physical size and characteristic impedance.
RG-59 was the same impedance but slightly smaller but had a higher
capacitance per foot and could not be used on longer runs, whereas the
RG-6 could perform over greater distances Mainly due to a thicker core
to shield spacing making for a lower parasitic capacitance per foot.

And you got most of that right. The RG number is mostly the physical
size of the cable. The reason rg-6 size is used is for lower losses at
higher frequencies. It is less expensive and able to be bent and
handled in a house easier than the rg-11 size.

Nobody ever used RG-11 in a house. It was always RG-59 and now with the
channel count and digital internet being added, most in-house installs are
RG-6 throughout, unless it is a cheap ass cable company.

It is not mere wire resistance either. The capacitance is also a factor
in why RG-6 is better than RG-59.

The main loss in the cable up; to about 1000 MHz is the resistance loss
of
the conductors.

Another reason why mere foil shielding does not ring true. This is why
the center conductor is not a copper plated steel core, but a copper CLAD
steel core.

By making the center conductor larger there is less
loss. The foil is used to provide a very good shield to keep the RF
inside the cable, and the braid is mainly to provide a way to crimp it
for a good electrical connection.

There are different braid fill levels available. It comes down to what
the cable company wants to spend on their build.

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
...

It is not mere wire resistance either. The capacitance is also a factor
in why RG-6 is better than RG-59.


The capacitance has almost nothing if anything at all to do with the losses
at the cable frequencies.

If you look at the charts the capacitance is nearly the same and often the
rg-59 is less than the rg-6.. The main losses is the I squared R loss of
the conductors.

On 2/21/2016 6:06 PM, John G wrote:
Ralph Mowery expressed precisely :
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Bob E. writes:

I am trying to solder some RG-6 shield to a pcb. The braid won't
tin. It's
almost like it's dissipating the heat faster than I can apply it.
With both a
temp-controlled iron (set as high as 700F) and a mondo 100W stick I
finally
tried. The solder will barely melt when touched to the braid
opposite the
iron.

That just sounds like another excuse to the use the butane torch


Most of the rg-6 uses aluminum instead of copper or tinned copper.
The normal methods of soldering will not work on it.

I'll believe Aluminium or steel I must admit to only a little actual
experience.
Some Cable guy should give an actual answer.

The stuff I use has both copper center conductor and braid. Most RG-6
uses a steel center conductor with a copper plating since the skin
effect limits current flow to the surface at high frequencies and the
steel provides more strength for pulling and aerial runs.

--

Rick

On 2/22/2016 1:57 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
...

It is not mere wire resistance either. The capacitance is also a factor
in why RG-6 is better than RG-59.


The capacitance has almost nothing if anything at all to do with the losses
at the cable frequencies.

If you look at the charts the capacitance is nearly the same and often the
rg-59 is less than the rg-6.. The main losses is the I squared R loss of
the conductors.

Looking at the chart of loss vs. frequency for Belden 1694A Coax I see
0.24 dB at 1 MHz, 3 dB at 270 MHz and 6 dB at 1000 MHz. I don't see
any factor for frequency in I^2R. I suppose this could be skin effect
increasing the conductor resistance.

How do you tell when the losses are mostly due to the dielectric?

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message
...
Looking at the chart of loss vs. frequency for Belden 1694A Coax I see
0.24 dB at 1 MHz, 3 dB at 270 MHz and 6 dB at 1000 MHz. I don't see
any factor for frequency in I^2R. I suppose this could be skin effect
increasing the conductor resistance.

How do you tell when the losses are mostly due to the dielectric?


It is the skin effect of the center conductor mostly up to around 1000 mhz.
Below that the dielectric has very little loss.

There are places that show how to calculat the various losses depending on
the material and frequencies, but the math gets involved.

There is a chart here that shows the relative effect.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...56256383257029

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2016 1:57 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
Looking at the chart of loss vs. frequency for Belden 1694A Coax I see
0.24 dB at 1 MHz, 3 dB at 270 MHz and 6 dB at 1000 MHz. I don't see
any factor for frequency in I^2R. I suppose this could be skin effect
increasing the conductor resistance.

How do you tell when the losses are mostly due to the dielectric?



If you really want to get into it, here is a place that gives the info.
Lots of math to look through. Much easier just to look at the chart for a
good indication of where the losses are.

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/art...hak-6-2014.htm

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:12:31 -0500, rickman wrote:

The stuff I use has both copper center conductor and braid. Most RG-6
uses a steel center conductor with a copper plating since the skin
effect limits current flow to the surface at high frequencies and the
steel provides more strength for pulling and aerial runs.

Nope. Copper plating is too thin. It is referred to as "copper clad".

Same thing for ground rods, except the reason in that case is abrasion
durability.

Goddamned cross-posting retards.

In article ,
says...

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2016 1:57 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
Looking at the chart of loss vs. frequency for Belden 1694A Coax I see
0.24 dB at 1 MHz, 3 dB at 270 MHz and 6 dB at 1000 MHz. I don't see
any factor for frequency in I^2R. I suppose this could be skin effect
increasing the conductor resistance.

How do you tell when the losses are mostly due to the dielectric?



If you really want to get into it, here is a place that gives the info.
Lots of math to look through. Much easier just to look at the chart for a
good indication of where the losses are.

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/art...hak-6-2014.htm

Or I could go into the archives at work "Brand-Rex", and get the
original designs specs and charts. Yes, those were the days.

We just retired the very first irradiation cross linking line ever made
for production use of any product. The actual first cross linker
irradiation unit for non commerical use was for the airforce, in a
hanger.

Our unit now sits on the floor waiting for a home in some antique
shop, 170k Watt version. It was getting hard to find chips to keep it
operating. Many BB chips, round can op-amps. The osc for the magnetic
amp was a UNI transistor that drove a transistor Flip Flip to generate a
100Hz sweep for the amp. In that circuit was wave shaping components to
get a step peak on the out sides of the sweep before it changed
direction.

Neat stuff for back then, real engineers not uC coders!

Jamie

In sci.electronics.repair M Philbrook wrote:
In article ,
says...

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2016 1:57 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
Looking at the chart of loss vs. frequency for Belden 1694A Coax I see
0.24 dB at 1 MHz, 3 dB at 270 MHz and 6 dB at 1000 MHz. I don't see
any factor for frequency in I^2R. I suppose this could be skin effect
increasing the conductor resistance.

How do you tell when the losses are mostly due to the dielectric?



If you really want to get into it, here is a place that gives the info.
Lots of math to look through. Much easier just to look at the chart for a
good indication of where the losses are.

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/art...hak-6-2014.htm

Or I could go into the archives at work "Brand-Rex", and get the
original designs specs and charts. Yes, those were the days.

We just retired the very first irradiation cross linking line ever made
for production use of any product. The actual first cross linker
irradiation unit for non commerical use was for the airforce, in a
hanger.

Our unit now sits on the floor waiting for a home in some antique
shop, 170k Watt version. It was getting hard to find chips to keep it
operating. Many BB chips, round can op-amps. The osc for the magnetic
amp was a UNI transistor that drove a transistor Flip Flip to generate a
100Hz sweep for the amp. In that circuit was wave shaping components to
get a step peak on the out sides of the sweep before it changed
direction.

Neat stuff for back then, real engineers not uC coders!

Did all this stuff make an electron beam?