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.