On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:47:41 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

I like their discussion on materials (which fits my own
view on that subject), and on types of RG6. I just started in on the one
about 'quad screens'.

This is called confirmatorial bias which means you justify a thought
on the basis of having found a source that repeats it back to you.

You still haven't offered the quantification of one characteristic you
want to achieve other than cost. Why is this? Clearly a cost basis
is wildly off the rails and you offer nothing else to compete against
its failure.

Face up to the disillusion being presented in this painted into the
corner scenario you are in. The cheapest cable will probably work as
best as any sensible solution has to offer, simply because your
perceived situation hasn't any prospect of being solved by that choice
of line, or any other.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

I like their discussion on materials (which fits my own
view on that subject), and on types of RG6. I just started in on the one
about 'quad screens'.

This is called confirmatorial bias which means you justify a thought
on the basis of having found a source that repeats it back to you.


No. It's called 'go see for yourself and tell me based on YOUR judgement if
it's worth revisiting'. If all I wanted was a pat on the head I wouldn't even
have provided a link. Either that info has technical merit, or it doesn't in
which case perhaps you should berate THEM and not me! You expect me to fully
understand details beyond need, yet you won't even take a look at something
signposted right in front of you is an adequate source of info to learn from.
If you can't do that much, why should I trust your judgement? I'll make up my
own mind anyway. Between my efforts, and the other posts here, I have got my
answers.

Face up to the disillusion being presented in this painted into the
corner scenario you are in. The cheapest cable will probably work as
best as any sensible solution has to offer, simply because your
perceived situation hasn't any prospect of being solved by that choice
of line, or any other.


Well, that's just nonsense. Grandstanding nonsense at that. You just baldly
stated that no cable can fix whatever my problem might be, purely because YOU
can't see what it is. You're painting me into a corner. I'm trying to get out
of one. There's no technical point in what you just said. At least I try.
With your knowledge, you should know better.

Other people here, (and in the pages I linked to but you didn't apparently
see) have shown that foil can be so bad, either from tearing, or dubious
contact, that it's unwise to use it except in fixed situations where you know
it will be ok, and not for someone who is likely to want to reuse a cable
while trying new ideas, or to grab more off the reel to try something else.
I've seen that RG6 types vary so much that there's no point citing its name.
Considering I never used to, and already knew that 75 ohms is a result of
precisely controlled sizes and manufacturing tolerances, I was probably
better off before I saw people telling me that distinctions between RG6 and
RG59 were important. Their context isn't the same as mine. My needs are more
likely to be satisfied by a BT data coax than a satellite coax.

Cheap cable meant for satellite, which IS wht I'll get if I take your
suggestion of buying the cheapest cable called RG6, is a sure recipe for
crappage. Cheap satellite signal cable isn't meant to perform beyond its
specific purpose, and I never expect it to. Of course I'd end up
disillusioned AND disappointed if I chose to use it as general purpose RF
cable. But what did you really want? To help? Or to set me up for failure as
part of some bizarre exercise? I guess only you can know the answer to that,
I don't really care. Considering the cost of any 'RG6' that really qualifies
as adequate, i.e. solid metal foil wrapped by one braid of tightly covering
copper, there's little choice between that and the BT2002 I found, and the
latter will take punishment better, if punishment is the order of the day.

I'll be choosing a double-braided copper, each braid of the '95% coverage'
type, close and compact. I don't care that it costs twice as much, I can
trust it to have decent screening for any circumstances I'm likely to meet
from AF to UHF, and it's thin and flexible, and I can expect it to take
weather and rough handling and be fit for reuse when I want to do that. And
because BT use so much of it I can hitch a ride on the economy of scale that
drives the price down. For what it is, it's better value than the cheapest.

End of discussion.

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:32:24 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

You just baldly
stated that no cable can fix whatever my problem might be, purely because YOU
can't see what it is.

Quite true. I've asked several times, as have others. So to do it
once again, beyond cost: what is YOUR problem and not someone else's'
that you overheard?

We have your dozen or more suppositions filtered through anonymous and
linked-to sources of indifferent quality that each in their own right
have issues with a spectrum of cable types - but none of them have
been identified as YOUR problem except in generalized, anticipated
anxiety. Can you state one simple quantified characteristic you
currently experience that we can offer a comment to?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

Quite true. I've asked several times, as have others. So to do it
once again, beyond cost: what is YOUR problem and not someone else's'
that you overheard?



I've posted more than enough. If that wasn't enough to show what I wanted (I
described it repeatedly in posts dating back over a month), then any more is
just noise so I won't go there.

One thing I will say: Most of the practical guides I read as a kid were a lot
more vague than I have been, yet I was expected to learn from those. Yet now
you say you can't deduce from my posts what I was trying to do? With all your
knowledge to fill in gaps in what you see? Strange. I'll stop now because if
what I said isn't beeing seen, I don't want to compound that by writing
another word.

Richard Clark wrote:

We have your dozen or more suppositions filtered through anonymous and
linked-to sources of indifferent quality that each in their own right
have issues with a spectrum of cable types


I read that as "suppositories" instead of suppositions, Richard. Perhaps
both may be right? 8^)

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Richard Clark wrote in
:

I like their discussion on materials (which fits my own
view on that subject), and on types of RG6. I just started in on the one
about 'quad screens'.
This is called confirmatorial bias which means you justify a thought
on the basis of having found a source that repeats it back to you.


No. It's called 'go see for yourself and tell me based on YOUR judgement if
it's worth revisiting'. If all I wanted was a pat on the head I wouldn't even
have provided a link. Either that info has technical merit, or it doesn't in
which case perhaps you should berate THEM and not me! You expect me to fully
understand details beyond need, yet you won't even take a look at something
signposted right in front of you is an adequate source of info to learn from.
If you can't do that much, why should I trust your judgement? I'll make up my
own mind anyway. Between my efforts, and the other posts here, I have got my
answers.

Face up to the disillusion being presented in this painted into the
corner scenario you are in. The cheapest cable will probably work as
best as any sensible solution has to offer, simply because your
perceived situation hasn't any prospect of being solved by that choice
of line, or any other.


Well, that's just nonsense. Grandstanding nonsense at that. You just baldly
stated that no cable can fix whatever my problem might be, purely because YOU
can't see what it is. You're painting me into a corner. I'm trying to get out
of one. There's no technical point in what you just said. At least I try.
With your knowledge, you should know better.

Other people here, (and in the pages I linked to but you didn't apparently
see) have shown that foil can be so bad, either from tearing, or dubious
contact, that it's unwise to use it except in fixed situations where you know
it will be ok, and not for someone who is likely to want to reuse a cable
while trying new ideas, or to grab more off the reel to try something else.
I've seen that RG6 types vary so much that there's no point citing its name.
Considering I never used to, and already knew that 75 ohms is a result of
precisely controlled sizes and manufacturing tolerances, I was probably
better off before I saw people telling me that distinctions between RG6 and
RG59 were important. Their context isn't the same as mine. My needs are more
likely to be satisfied by a BT data coax than a satellite coax.

As a matter of interest why are you looking at 75ohm cable, when most
people and equipment use 50ohm.

Jeff

Jeff wrote in :

As a matter of interest why are you looking at 75ohm cable, when most
people and equipment use 50ohm.


Good point, though last I read of that, it was the other way round.
(Depends on context). At least, most times I had a device that needed RF
coax, it specified 75 ohms if it didn't come with cables made for it. In my
current case, it's not clearly known what other impedances are involved in
an SWL setup, but they're almost certainly higher than 75 ohms, so going for
a 50 ohm coax seems unwise.

Jeff wrote in
:

As a matter of interest why are you looking at 75ohm cable, when most
people and equipment use 50ohm.

On the basis of that logic, what possible use could there be for 400 ohm
transmission line, and why then is it so very popular?

In the case of the OP's questions, IIRC they relate to a RO application.

To enlighten you, high performance noise optimised ham receivers for
microwave bands are oftenm if not usually designed for a specific input
impedance that is quite different to 50 ohms... yet we use them with 50 ohm
transmission linees.

If you think the choice of 50 ohm line is a no-brainer, you are probably
right.

Owen

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

No. It's called 'go see for yourself and tell me based on YOUR judgement if
it's worth revisiting'. If all I wanted was a pat on the head I wouldn't even
have provided a link. Either that info has technical merit, or it doesn't in
which case perhaps you should berate THEM and not me!

Of course it has no technical merit, it is just words! Some of them are
pretty ambiguous too, like that "video Frequencies" bit. Are the video
frequencies they refer to The frequencies that television signals are
broadcast or are tehy the frequencies that a video signal uses. THere is
a difference.

There's more. From that paragraph above, your not asking us to do your
research for you, are you?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote in
:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

No. It's called 'go see for yourself and tell me based on YOUR
judgement if it's worth revisiting'. If all I wanted was a pat on the
head I wouldn't even have provided a link. Either that info has
technical merit, or it doesn't in which case perhaps you should berate
THEM and not me!

Of course it has no technical merit, it is just words! Some of them are
pretty ambiguous too, like that "video Frequencies" bit. Are the video
frequencies they refer to The frequencies that television signals are
broadcast or are tehy the frequencies that a video signal uses. THere is
a difference.

There's more. From that paragraph above, your not asking us to do your
research for you, are you?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


It's not that bad. I've seen far worse. And no, I'm not asking you or anyone
else to do anything. When I'm not checking here and replying I'm reading
other stuff. I'll doing more of that because it doesn't argue so much.