I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension. We're in a
weak signal area (Reading) which is not even suposed to be able to get
Freeview (though we can - I've tried it). To keep losses down and make
termination easier (than bloody BL plugs!) I'm thinking of using
'satellite' type cable (as used by NTL^H^H^HVirgin) and F plugs.

Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on
cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings with
them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF out
socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not low-loss?)

And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

tia

--
John Stumbles

Who's *really* behind all these conspiracy theories?

http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower
prices on
cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings
with
them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF
out
socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not
low-loss?)

I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where RG6
stands in the rankings.

HTH

--
Robin

On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:00:27 +0000, Robin wrote:

I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where RG6
stands in the rankings.

HTH

It does indeed - excellent, thanks. I've started a wiki page on it here

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Installati on


--
John Stumbles

I've got nothing against racists - I just wouldn't want my daughter to marry one

John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:00:27 +0000, Robin wrote:


I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where RG6
stands in the rankings.

HTH


It does indeed - excellent, thanks. I've started a wiki page on it here

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Installati on


Very good.

Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
communications and this is its main use.

Steve

Steve wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:00:27 +0000, Robin wrote:


I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points.
In the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to
read Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where
RG6 stands in the rankings.

HTH


It does indeed - excellent, thanks. I've started a wiki page on it here

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Installati on



Very good.

Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
communications and this is its main use.

Steve
Odd. I have only ever uses 50 ohm cable around the lab. Or for Ethernet.
All anteannae are fed via 75ohm cable, as this matches the natural
impedance of a dipole.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve wrote:


Very good.

Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
communications and this is its main use.

Steve

Odd. I have only ever uses 50 ohm cable around the lab. Or for Ethernet.
All anteannae are fed via 75ohm cable, as this matches the natural
impedance of a dipole.

Maybe I should have made that clearer and said commercial radio
communications. 50 ohm is the industry standard.

All my aerials (yagis) were fed with 50 ohm coax 7/8" & 1/2" Heliax
before I moved, but often, as you say, people do use 75 ohm for things
like dipoles but rarely in the commercial world.

Steve

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Steve wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 23:00:27 +0000, Robin wrote:


I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points.
In the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to
read Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cables
http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htm to see where
RG6 stands in the rankings.

HTH


It does indeed - excellent, thanks. I've started a wiki page on it here

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...Installati on



Very good.

Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
communications and this is its main use.

Steve
Odd. I have only ever uses 50 ohm cable around the lab. Or for Ethernet.
All anteannae are fed via 75ohm cable, as this matches the natural
impedance of a dipole.

Most pro aerials use 50ohm. After all, there are very few simple dipoles
in use and many of them are folded with a natural 300 ohm impedance.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:29:36 +0000, Steve wrote:

Just to add that 50 Ohm cable is used, almost exclusively, in radio
communications and this is its main use.

It's used for Ethernet too, but I was writing from the POV of TV+Sat

--
John Stumbles

Bitwise, byte foolish

On May 10, 12:00 am, "Robin"
wrote:
http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htmseems to have much lower
prices on
cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings
with
them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF
out
socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not
low-loss?)

I expect someone will be along shortly who can answer on all points. In
the meantime, if you have not seen it already, you might care to read
Bill Wright's excellent (dare I say seminal?) article on cableshttp://www.wrightsaerials.tv/coaxcablequalityhmdim.htmto see where RG6
stands in the rankings.

HTH

--
Robin

Excellent link on cables. Thanks.

John Stumbles wrote:
I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension.

Since the above will presumably involve roof work anyway, wouldn't it be
possible simply to run a completely new cable from the aerial?

David

On Thu, 10 May 2007 06:36:31 +0000, Lobster wrote:

Since the above will presumably involve roof work anyway, wouldn't it be
possible simply to run a completely new cable from the aerial?

I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.
If it involved getting onto the roof I'd (a) put up a new aerial (b) get
someone else to do it!


--
John Stumbles

Pessimists are never disappointed

On Thu, 10 May 2007 07:44:14 GMT, John Stumbles
mused:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 06:36:31 +0000, Lobster wrote:

Since the above will presumably involve roof work anyway, wouldn't it be
possible simply to run a completely new cable from the aerial?

I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.
If it involved getting onto the roof I'd (a) put up a new aerial (b) get
someone else to do it!

All sounds a bit DIY to me, oh, right. Well, I can see you're thinking
there.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 07:44:14 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.

Might be easier to fish it up from the eaves rather than between tiles. To
do the latter you are going to have to puncture the sarking, thus creating
a possible water ingress point.

Even with the eaves you'll probably need to get up to them to drill the
hole and poke the cable through. Slinging a light bit of kite string on a
*small* weight over the roof (so as not to crack any tiles) and hauling
the full current cable over with that might be easier.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:56:11 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 07:44:14 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

I'm hoping to be able to fish it in between tiles from inside the attic.

Might be easier to fish it up from the eaves rather than between tiles. To
do the latter you are going to have to puncture the sarking, thus creating
a possible water ingress point.

The sarking's peeling apart at some joints already and no sign of water
ingress so I'll give it a whirl ... when/if I can get SWMBO to shift
enough of her jun^H^H^Hvalued posessions to get up there :-/


--
John Stumbles

Xenophobia? - sounds a bit foreign to me.

John Stumbles wrote:
I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension. We're in a
weak signal area (Reading) which is not even suposed to be able to get
Freeview (though we can - I've tried it). To keep losses down and make
termination easier (than bloody BL plugs!) I'm thinking of using
'satellite' type cable (as used by NTL^H^H^HVirgin) and F plugs.

Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

F plugs are far superior in every way to the old BL plugs.

As far as coax goes, you get what you pay for. Normally cheap versions
have reduced braid coverage and an aluminiumised foil to make up for the
lack of braiding. Good coax of this type (like proper CT100 or equiv.)
has much more braid coverage and a copper foil under the braid. There
are lots of cheap imitations about so beware. CT100 and the like are
semi-air spaced whilst cables such as PF100 have a foam dielectric. RG6
has solid polythene dielectric, is thinner and is much more lossy but
more flexible. RG6 is normally used for CCTV installations where loss is
not a problem or for the situation you describe below again where loss
is not so important.

http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on
cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings with
them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF out
socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not low-loss?)

And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

Crimps are quicker and easier if you have lots to do. Electrically
crimped and twist-on are identical if made correctly. So for the odd
connection I would use the twist on. My crimp tool for these has a
hexagonal die that deforms a circular ring to hex over the cable. Cable
TV companies use a different type of crimp that only fits their cable
along with special F plugs.

Steve

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:34:09 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

For good crimps you really need to match the connector to the cable to the
crimp die/tool. The tools are not cheap, so for just a few one offs spend
you money on decent cable and matching (again) twist on connectors.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

John Stumbles wrote:
Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

Others have addressed this.

http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on

http://www.qvsdirect.com/qvsshop/ele...100m-drum.html

£27 delivered for 100m

Geoff

John Stumbles wrote:
I want to re-route our existing TV aerial cable which presently drops
from the aerial on the central chimney down the roof and front of the
house. Rather than try to sling the cable over the roof to hang down the
back I plan to draw it into the attic and make an extension. We're in a
weak signal area (Reading) which is not even suposed to be able to get
Freeview (though we can - I've tried it). To keep losses down and make
termination easier (than bloody BL plugs!) I'm thinking of using
'satellite' type cable (as used by NTL^H^H^HVirgin) and F plugs.

Does this seem like a good idea? And what type of cable? Some F plugs are
specced to fit "PH100, PF100, RG6 and CT100" cable: what's the difference
between them? Has CT100 been superseeded by H109F and WC100?

http://www.satcure.co.uk/accs/page8.htm seems to have much lower prices on
cables than anywhere else I've come across - anyone had any dealings with
them? They suggest RG6 "for connecting additional TV sets via the RF out
socket" which seems to indicate it's OK for UHF (though maybe not low-loss?)

And what about twist-on connectors versus crimp connectors, and if
crimps are the bee's knees what sort of crimp tool?

tia

Far better plan is to put a booster in the loft.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Far better plan is to put a booster in the loft.

Yebbut I still need a cable to get it downstairs. I'll put in a booster if
I have to but not knowing if there are strong in-band signals as well as
the weak wanted signals, just slinging in a booster might be a waste of
money whereas spending it on decent cable seems less likely to be.

--
John Stumbles

Things don't like being anthropomorphised.