RE: RG6 vs CT100

["Phil Harris" <phillip.harris1@xxxxxxx>]

No ... It was the time you decided to use it as a wok that buggered it up!

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Doxey [mailto:keith.doxey@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 December 2000 15:08
To: ukha_d
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] RG6 vs CT100


So that why my satellite dish wouldnt work !!!!

I put the cable in the wrong way round :-))

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Bilboul [mailto:Bilboul@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 December 2000 14:42
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] RG6 vs CT100
>
>
> NTL have now come back to me to say that CT100 is
> unidirectional and with
> NTL's digital cable service they need to send data back up
> the cable as
> opposed to, say Sky (satellite) digital which uses the
> telephone for any
> feedback. As RG6 is bi-directional it is the recommended
> cable. If only I
> knew when I installed CT100!!!
>
> Roger
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tracey.gardner [mailto:tracey.gardner@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 06:10
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ukha_d] RG6 vs CT100
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Agree with James.  Your CT100 is a higher quality cable
than RG6.
> > >
> >
> >
> > According to my catalogues the relative losses for RG6 and CT100
at
> > 400MHz are 13.1db and 13.0db respectively so there's very little
to
> > choose between them performance wise.
> >
> > Tracey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
> -------------------------~-~>
> eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/2065/_/975681787/
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
>
>
>
>






-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/2065/_/975688938/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->