Re: CT100 v's CT125

["Nick Austin" <nick.w.austin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:56 AM, brougham Baker
<bro-yahoo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've read the wiring guide. Is it still a case of no debate- go with
CT100?

The name 'CT100' is trademarked but most suppliers sell CT100-compatible
cable.

> I know CT125 is harder to work with (larger diameter, stiffer) and
costs
> more but is there any argument for greater bandwidth\less attenuation
now
> that there is free-sat HD?

Sat-HD uses the same frequencies and modulation are therefore uses the
same cables.  It's only at the digital level (i.e. post-demultiplex)
that there is any difference and that's all handled internally to the
receiver.

> Are we for still air-insulated rather than foam filled? I've seen the
> less-kinkable v's water ingress argument, is there any more?

It's getting very difficult now to find suppliers for air-spaced
cable.  The foam-filled stuff works just as well and is less easily
damaged.

> Also what about sheath colour- I'd like white, same as the walls but
> understood that the black was more UV resistant- is this still the
case?

No idea, but it certainly seems to be a common assumption throughput
the industry.  People even recommend black cable ties in preference to
white ones.

> Is it OK to terminate this stuff in the same cab as Cat5E when used
for
> FM\UHF\Sat? I'm going to get an 8xLNB, four of which will go straight
to the
> lounge (passing through the cab with slack to allow patching later if
> needed). The other four will terminate on F sockets on a patch panel.
There
> will be other runs to various locations including from an amp for uhf.
This
> will be in the same cab as the Cat5E patch panels and maybe the
> switch\active Cat5 kit.

I'm not aware of any problems.  Remember to keep the foil and braid as
intact as possible and minimise the length of exposed inner core.

Nick.

------------------------------------