Re: Camera in the baby's room?

[sylvan butler <ZsdbUse1+noZs_0612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 05:04:53 -0500, Robert L Bass <sales@comcast> wrote:
> As to your comments about RG59, you are quite wrong, sir.  That's the
> standard cable for CCTV used by profesional installers (including myself)
> for many years.  It works well, is not lossy, is less expensive and is
> easier to install, especially on retrofit jobs, than RG6.

Don't confuse with RG-6QS.  RG-6QS is a small improvement over RG-6 but much
larger, stiffer, and much more expensive.  Like I said before, I agree, don't
use it.

RG-59 and RG-6 are almost the same size (6mm vs 7mm).

RG-59 has considerably lower signal integrity (ingress/egress) than RG-6
(90-95% shielded vs 100%).

RG-59 has significantly higher loss per foot than RG-6 (3db/100m@10mhz is a
very good quality RG-59 from belden vs 2.3db/100m@10mhz).  That means your RG-6
can run about twice as far with equivalent signal strength, or will have better
signal to noise ratio at equal lengths.  And if you do decide to run RF or
digital video instead of baseband video, the RG-6 attenuation comparison is
even better.

RG-6 is a large improvement over RG-59, and a much smaller cost
difference than going from RG-6 to RG-6QS.

Use RG-6.



> I believe in using RG6Q/S for high speed data and for other high bandwidth

Don't confuse with the QS.  I wasn't talking about QS.


>> Home Depot and Lowes by me don't even stock
>> RG-59 in bulk...
>
> That's because they make more money selling RG6Q/S.

Don't confuse with the QS.  It's because they sold RG-6 for the same
price as they used to sell RG-59 and so only the ignorant would buy
their RG-59.



>>  The industry standard for 75ohm co-ax in the
>> home is RG-6.
>
> The CCTV industry standard is RG59.

And RG-59 was the cable TV standard in 1975 too.  Luckily it went out
with disco.



>> Ask the local cable TV or (a competent) satellite
>> installer.
>
> Diferent application.

Yup.  But since RG-6 will do both, has better specs, works the same, and costs
nearly if not the same in job lot quantities, there is no reason for a
homeowner buying stuff for one job to use the cheap junk.  And a lot of reasons
why said homeowner may wish to buy one cable, RG-6, and use it for CCTV, cable
tv, satellite TV, etc. and do a proper wiring job that can be purposed for any
75 ohm coax application, instead of stocking two different cables with the
associated waste and confusion.

Some representative specs for RG-6 and RG-59:

Cable type            RG-6        RG-59 B/U
Impedance (ohms)      75          75
Outside diameter      6.90 mm     6.15 mm
Weight (g/m)          59          56

Attenuation db/100m
5 MHz                             2.5
50 MHz                5.3         8
100 MHz               8.5         12
200 MHz               10          18
400 MHz               12.5        24
500 MHz               16.2        27.5
900 MHz               21          39.5

Conductor material    Bare        Copper
                      Copper      Planted
                                  Steel
Conductor strand(mm2) 0.95        0.58
Resistance (ohm/km)   44          159
Insulation material   Foam PE     PE

Outer conductor       Aluminium   Bare
                      polyester   copper
                      tape and    wire
                      tin copper  braid
                      braid
Coverage              Foil 100%   95 %
                      braid 61%
Resistance (ohm/km)   6.5         8.5


Don't confuse with RG-6QS (which means Quad-Shield).  That's a whole 'nother
story.

sdb

P.S.  It isn't the idea that is stupid.  Stupid is a homeowner attempting to
save a few pennies per foot by installing an inferior cable, especially when
such savings may not even be realizable due to the competitive advantage of
purchasing better cable at local home centers for attractive prices.

--
Wanted:  Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com