I am replacing all my coax cables with RG6 and new connectors.

However Two of the cable outlet are behind something - a chest and a shelf.
Currently I have the old store bought per-terminated cables 15 years old but
have the 90 degree elbow on it so you can push the chest all the way in.
But I have not seen (I went to Radio Shack looking) any F connectors I can
use that are 90 degrees. Anyone knows of any?

Thanks,

MC

miamicuse wrote:
I am replacing all my coax cables with RG6 and new connectors.

However Two of the cable outlet are behind something - a chest and a shelf.
Currently I have the old store bought per-terminated cables 15 years old but
have the 90 degree elbow on it so you can push the chest all the way in.
But I have not seen (I went to Radio Shack looking) any F connectors I can
use that are 90 degrees. Anyone knows of any?

Radio Shack and others sell a 90 degree adapter onto which you can
connect any F type connector.

miamicuse wrote:
I am replacing all my coax cables with RG6 and new connectors.

However Two of the cable outlet are behind something - a chest and a shelf.
Currently I have the old store bought per-terminated cables 15 years old but
have the 90 degree elbow on it so you can push the chest all the way in.
But I have not seen (I went to Radio Shack looking) any F connectors I can
use that are 90 degrees. Anyone knows of any?

Thanks,

MC


Hi,
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.
Tony, VE6CGX

Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:58:08 GMT, Steve Kraus
wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

RG59 is more suitable for baseband video signals vs. broadband
broadcast RF.

If you want the best, specify RG6/U Quad shield cable. Use of cheaper
cables can allow VHF broadcast signals (CH2 - 13) to penetrate the
crappy shielding and cause ghosts and interference.

Also, theoretically, you don't want to have too many 90 degree bends
in your cable (as is the case with that adapter). Even though I say
this, I use them where they are convenient and usually everything
works ok, but the theory says you are creating a discontinuity causing
reflections, interference, and possibly reducing the bandwidth of your
cable.

Beachcomber

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:41:42 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:58:08 GMT, Steve Kraus
wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

RG59 is more suitable for baseband video signals vs. broadband
broadcast RF.

Hokum. Blanket statements such as these suggest that you don't know
what you're talking about.


If you want the best, specify RG6/U Quad shield cable. Use of cheaper
cables can allow VHF broadcast signals (CH2 - 13) to penetrate the
crappy shielding and cause ghosts and interference.

Take a look at your nearest cell phone tower and note all of the
paralleled cables running up the tower. They are carrying both
transmit and receive signals, in the same frequency band, and they are
all single-shielded cables.


Also, theoretically, you don't want to have too many 90 degree bends
in your cable (as is the case with that adapter). Even though I say
this, I use them where they are convenient and usually everything
works ok, but the theory says you are creating a discontinuity causing
reflections, interference, and possibly reducing the bandwidth of your
cable.

A well-built adapter (an oxymoron in the cable TV business) might be a
better solution than a tight bend in the cable itself. Foamed
dielectric cables are highly prone to migration of the center
conductor. The shielding effectiveness of foil shielded cable can
also be unstable.

All of these houses with built-in cables, installed by electricans
trained to minimize the length of wire used, are going to have future
problems. I would rather have "old-fashioned" RG-59, solid
dielectric, 99% copper braid cable than this new foamed tin-foil crap.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:24:07 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:41:42 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:58:08 GMT, Steve Kraus
wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

RG59 is more suitable for baseband video signals vs. broadband
broadcast RF.

Hokum. Blanket statements such as these suggest that you don't know
what you're talking about.


If you want the best, specify RG6/U Quad shield cable. Use of cheaper
cables can allow VHF broadcast signals (CH2 - 13) to penetrate the
crappy shielding and cause ghosts and interference.

Take a look at your nearest cell phone tower and note all of the
paralleled cables running up the tower. They are carrying both
transmit and receive signals, in the same frequency band, and they are
all single-shielded cables.

But that's a copper corrugated cable, with a 100% shield, not braided
like RG6/59. Apples to oranges.



Also, theoretically, you don't want to have too many 90 degree bends
in your cable (as is the case with that adapter). Even though I say
this, I use them where they are convenient and usually everything
works ok, but the theory says you are creating a discontinuity causing
reflections, interference, and possibly reducing the bandwidth of your
cable.

A well-built adapter (an oxymoron in the cable TV business) might be a
better solution than a tight bend in the cable itself. Foamed
dielectric cables are highly prone to migration of the center
conductor. The shielding effectiveness of foil shielded cable can
also be unstable.

All of these houses with built-in cables, installed by electricans
trained to minimize the length of wire used, are going to have future
problems. I would rather have "old-fashioned" RG-59, solid
dielectric, 99% copper braid cable than this new foamed tin-foil crap.

miamicuse wrote:

I am replacing all my coax cables with RG6 and new connectors.

However Two of the cable outlet are behind something - a chest and a shelf.
Currently I have the old store bought per-terminated cables 15 years old but
have the 90 degree elbow on it so you can push the chest all the way in.
But I have not seen (I went to Radio Shack looking) any F connectors I can
use that are 90 degrees. Anyone knows of any?

Thanks,

MC

http://mcm.newark.com/NewarkWebComme...SKU=27-500&N=0

"Steve Kraus" wrote in message
nk.net...
Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

I am replacing them because I am getting poor picture quality on two out of
my four TVs. Lower channels was flickering.

I previously had ran RG6 on all the cables in the attic. This time I
replaced a $5 1-4 splitter with a Monster cable splitter. The fickering on
lower channels on both TVs disappeared. Then I ran new interconnect RG6
cables (instead of RG59) from the wall outlets to the TVs and VCRs and
picture quality improved dramatically.

I used both compression connectors and crimped style connectors, not sure if
they will make a difference. I love the compression fittings though, makes
for a much cleaner connection.

One thing I still don't understand is why one has to fold back the braid and
not just cut it out. What does the folded back braid do?'

MC

"miamicuse" wrote in message
...
I am replacing all my coax cables with RG6 and new connectors.

However Two of the cable outlet are behind something - a chest and a
shelf.
Currently I have the old store bought per-terminated cables 15 years old
but
have the 90 degree elbow on it so you can push the chest all the way in.
But I have not seen (I went to Radio Shack looking) any F connectors I can
use that are 90 degrees. Anyone knows of any?


Radio Shack has right angle adapters for the end of a normally terminated
cable.

#278-235 is a push-on version.

http://www.radioshack.com/search/ind...erPage=10&pg=2

#278-305 is a screw-on adapter.

http://www.radioshack.com/search/ind...erPage=10&pg=3

I have never seen a right angle terminator for RG59 or RG6 but that doesn't
prove anything.

SJF

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:24:06 -0500, "miamicuse"
wrote:


"Steve Kraus" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

I am replacing them because I am getting poor picture quality on two out of
my four TVs. Lower channels was flickering.


I guess "lower channels" is 2-6. I've heard of there being more
problems with them.

I previously had ran RG6 on all the cables in the attic. This time I
replaced a $5 1-4 splitter with a Monster cable splitter. The fickering on
lower channels on both TVs disappeared. Then I ran new interconnect RG6
cables (instead of RG59) from the wall outlets to the TVs and VCRs and
picture quality improved dramatically.


I have just replaced most of the cable in my house, with considerable
improvement too. Channel 6 (one of the lower ones) had a lot of
problems before that.

BTW, did you know that CABLE (not UHF broadcast) channels 95 to 99 and
then 14 to 22 are in the gap between 6 and 7 (the others are above
13)? I can remember getting cable 22 on an older TV (mechanical
"KLUNK" tuner, not cable ready) by setting it to 7 and adjusting the
fine tuning.

I used both compression connectors and crimped style connectors, not sure if
they will make a difference. I love the compression fittings though, makes
for a much cleaner connection.


Crimped connectors are OK if you have a good crimper. The cheap ones
don't work very well. The connections are noisier, and the ends fall
off more easily.

One thing I still don't understand is why one has to fold back the braid and
not just cut it out. What does the folded back braid do?'


Folded-back braid makes better contact with the connector, and avoids
a hole in the shielding (allowing noise in). One cause of a noisy
picture after making a new cable, is braid that was not folded back,

MC

--
23 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

BTW, did you know that CABLE (not UHF broadcast) channels 95 to 99 and
then 14 to 22 are in the gap between 6 and 7 (the others are above
13)?


95, 96, 97 are on the same frequencies as broadcast FM radio over the air.
Some cable systems used to deliver radio services in this band but that's
probably going digital these days. 98 & 99 are just above this. 14-22 are
considered midband. 23 picks up right where 13 leaves off (super band).
It doesn't start overlapping with over-the-air UHF channel 14 and above
until about cable channel 65.

By way of general explanation, the reason for the difference between cable
and over-the-air, or why didn't they just use all the same frequencies as
VHF and UHF is that the higher the frequency the more difficult it is to
pump it through a cable so they use all the frequencies.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:18:52 GMT, Steve Kraus
wrote:

BTW, did you know that CABLE (not UHF broadcast) channels 95 to 99 and
then 14 to 22 are in the gap between 6 and 7 (the others are above
13)?


95, 96, 97 are on the same frequencies as broadcast FM radio over the air.
Some cable systems used to deliver radio services in this band but that's
probably going digital these days. 98 & 99 are just above this. 14-22 are
considered midband. 23 picks up right where 13 leaves off (super band).
It doesn't start overlapping with over-the-air UHF channel 14 and above
until about cable channel 65.

By way of general explanation, the reason for the difference between cable
and over-the-air, or why didn't they just use all the same frequencies as
VHF and UHF is that the higher the frequency the more difficult it is to
pump it through a cable so they use all the frequencies.

So you do know. I remember that UHF 14-69 are in the same frequency
range as cable (around 65-125), but the channels are 1.25MHz off. The
(newer, with automatic fine tuning) TV I tried it on could still tune
UHF channels when set to "cable". At that time there were a couple of
UHF channels here that you could get with an antenna, but were not on
cable.
--
22 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin