Accumulated from various threads and contributions that demonstrates
anxiety, not research:

As far I can tell from advice on HF, the thin foil doesn't shield as well at
HF as a thicker braid with good physical coverage.

It sounds like you should stop listening to advice on HF.

I found an RG6 at low cost with copper braid and Al foil (more likely
metalised plastic film)

....and hence mostly likely NOT RG6. RG-anything is barely more than a
public domain trademark. This been hammered to death already so any
appeal to nomenclature should be confined solely to the physical
attributes of wire radius and shield inner radius; and NOT the number
of shields, NOT the coverage of the shield, NOT the property of the
wire being stranded or solid, NOT the property of the shield being al
vs. cu. Everyone of those prohibited-for-discussion characteristics
varies between manufacturers sharing the same nomenclature.

The standard for cable tv and satellite instalations is RG6 "quad shield",
which has a less dense braid, but a (almost) 100% aluminum foil shield.

Foil shield is a gap filler, NOT a conductor in the conventional sense
of long runs. There are no coaxial cables that have only a foil
shield (a plastic carrier of a metal deposition) that are useful for
any antenna work. Hence, the property of foil alone does not bring
any useful quality to the discussion.

As far I can tell from advice on HF, the thin foil doesn't shield as well at
HF as a thicker braid with good physical coverage.

Abysmal sources of information should not be returned to. "Thin foil"
is a gap filler, not a shield.

Besides, most advice out there implies I
have to buy it and try it to be sure, which is stupid because it's cheaper
and faster to get a better cable! RG6 is specified for UHF, I want HF.

RG6 does not have a specification for frequency ranges outside of
loss. In that regard, RG6 is eminently preferable for use at HF over
UHF for that one consideration alone. There are cables of other
physical geometries (about the only thing that counts in this
discussion) that exceed the performance of generic RG6.

http://www.abccables.com/info-rg59-vs-rg6.html is one of the more descriptive
texts I read.

Interesting? Quite banal, in fact, when one stumbles over such
statements as:
"A basic rule of thumb is to use RG6 for any
Rapid Frequencies, and use RG59 for
video frequencies."
Now there's an authoritative standard you can take to the bank (if it
is AIG). Perhaps they meant "Vapid Frequencies."

I must admit I do not understand the theory that foil is worse than
braid at lower frequencies, foil gives 100% coverage and is usually in
addition to braid. Even if it the thickness of the foil that is in
question, I don't see how, according to the article that you linked to,
it " don't(sic) have the proper type of shielding ".

Foil, as pointed out, is in addition to standard shielding. Foil
bridges the gaps between the wires composing the weave of the shield.
Those bridges are highly conductive over the very short distance
between adjacent wires, but as a conductor, foil is miserable as a
sole conductor. That is why foil shields that are the sole shield
have what is called a "drain wire" running the length of the cable. It
is quite obvious that such cables have enormous loss per foot in
transverse mode, but these shielded cables do not operate in that
fashion as they are almost exclusively supporting paired conductors
(twisted pairs that are the signal carriers). Hence, these
applications of foil/drain-wire are limited to low signal use where
the shield will encounter small fields. Even then, they can be
marginal.

That article does seem to have a few vague contradictions,
but I think the point about a thin foil that is adequate for UHF screening
being inadequate for HF is interesting, and I've seen that point claimed
before.

In coaxial application, the performance of the foil is limited to its
thickness, which in turn can be penetrated by low frequencies. We
know this as an example of penetration depth. The surrounding wire is
probably 10 to 100 to 1000 times thicker in that regard. The wire
will always satisfy most typical applications (VLF and up) and where
it would not is found in "coverage." Such issues are very rare and
are not elevated to important simply because you are straining to
catch a weak signal.

Even with this shortfall, one has to consider. On the one hand you
have a 90% coverage cable that gets signal into it. You add a poor
conductor like a metal deposition plastic covering (aka foil) and it
reduces that specific leakage by 3dB. To buy that 3dB in additional
conventional wire coverage may boost the product cost 10% whereas
adding a foil boosts cost only 1%. By reputation around the pickle
barrel, the foil is still a poor solution, but in a particular
application it bought you 3dB that you might have walked away from.

This, of course, is a fantasy scenario to illustrate how a technical
decision is weighed against cost and need. Unfortunately this fantasy
scenario exceeds the technical discussion found in:

I like that BT2002 with the double copper braid, but I'm not yet sure
if the difference justifies the cost

Sole cost based decisions for technical problems rarely prove useful.
You are going to have to decide whether you can accept the performance
you thought you paid for, or pay for the performance you need. As you
have not actually specified any quantitative characteristic, you are
facing either disappointment or illusion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

That article does seem to have a few vague contradictions,
but I think the point about a thin foil that is adequate for UHF screening
being inadequate for HF is interesting, and I've seen that point claimed
before.

In coaxial application, the performance of the foil is limited to its
thickness, which in turn can be penetrated by low frequencies. We
know this as an example of penetration depth. The surrounding wire is
probably 10 to 100 to 1000 times thicker in that regard. The wire
will always satisfy most typical applications (VLF and up) and where
it would not is found in "coverage." Such issues are very rare and
are not elevated to important simply because you are straining to
catch a weak signal.


Ok, if I take that with the point about lower HF loss in RG6, it seems that
my easiest option of a copper-braid RG6 will be good, but this still begs one
question: If BT are using BT2002 double-braided copper and no foil, at
greater cost, what does it do for them that RG6 will not do? Would it be a
matter of transmission power, or something else?

Richard has debunked much of the FUD about the foil/braid outer conductor.

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but for all the paranoia about whether
the outer conductor works properly and at what freqeuncies, the discussion
has ignored the risk of poorer performance at low HF for such cables with
CCS inner conductors if the cladding is inadequate.

This effect does not seem to worry most ham users of CCS ladder line, so
perhaps ignoring it for RG6 or RG59 is in keeping with that.

I use RG6 selectively, selected cable and selected connectors on selected
applications. There is potentially a good match, prospect of low cost and
good performance.

Inspect a sample of the cable you are considering, whether it is RG59 or
RG6, or any no-name cable for that matter. If through braid leakage is
critical to your application, you are more likely to find no-name RG59 with
higher through braid leakage than RG6.

Owen

Owen Duffy wrote in
:

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but for all the paranoia about whether
the outer conductor works properly and at what freqeuncies, the discussion
has ignored the risk of poorer performance at low HF for such cables with
CCS inner conductors if the cladding is inadequate.


I just wanted to focus on one thing at a time, given that types of RG6 seem
to proliferate like types of dog. One thing I'm asking sellers, if it's not
clearly described, is if the core is magnetic or otherwise obviously steel.
I've seen cables that are, and I already intend to avoid them. I restricted
my questions to those where I sas NOT sure of subsequent action.

In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Ok, if I take that with the point about lower HF loss in RG6, it seems that
my easiest option of a copper-braid RG6 will be good, but this still begs one
question: If BT are using BT2002 double-braided copper and no foil, at
greater cost, what does it do for them that RG6 will not do? Would it be a
matter of transmission power, or something else?

One issue which may be relevant in some applications (transmitters and
repeaters) is internally-generated cable noise.

Foil-and-braid cable has developed a somewhat evil reputation among
repeater operators. The story, as I have been told it, is that the
braid, and the conductive layer on the foil, don't make particularly
good (or continuous) contact. As RF power flows through the cable,
some of the current can jump back and forth between braid and foil,
through imperfect connections each time. This leads to some amount of
discontinuity in the current flow (diodic junction effects or
"micro-arcing") and rectifies a small amount of the RF power into
broadband noise. The same effect might be capable of generating
intermodulation noise, if the cable is carrying two or more strong
signals at the same time.

In many applications this effect is irrelevant. In a duplex
application (e.g. an FM repeater) it can be nasty... the broadband
noise from the transmit channel goes right through the duplexer stage
into the receiver, and can swamp out the desired incoming signal. You
can lose several dB of receiver sensitivity due to this effect.

For this reason, repeater builders prefer to use a non-foil-shielded
cable. Cables with double silver-plated copper braid shields are
popular, as are heliax-type semi-hardline cables.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Richard Clark wrote in
:

Abysmal sources of information should not be returned to.

Why return when we can find more and more new ones each day?

Right now I'm looking he
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/index.htm
If there is any particular reason NOT to return there, please let me know. So
far it looks good. 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'.

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

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:41:26 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

The story, as I have been told it, is that the
braid, and the conductive layer on the foil, don't make particularly
good (or continuous) contact.

Hi Dave,

I've seen this exact same statement expressed in regard to problems
introduced by the weave of wires in the shield of coax. And yet your
story teller relates that doubling the amount of shielding with woven
wires is the preferred solution.

Given the elaborate logic one must invest their faith in, for the one
explanation to make sense in regard to foil and then to be wholly
unremarkable in woven wire seems to make this rather apocryphal.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:41:26 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

The story, as I have been told it, is that the
braid, and the conductive layer on the foil, don't make particularly
good (or continuous) contact.

Hi Dave,

I've seen this exact same statement expressed in regard to problems
introduced by the weave of wires in the shield of coax. And yet your
story teller relates that doubling the amount of shielding with woven
wires is the preferred solution.

Given the elaborate logic one must invest their faith in, for the one
explanation to make sense in regard to foil and then to be wholly
unremarkable in woven wire seems to make this rather apocryphal.


There seems to be two different meanings of "foil" in this discussion.

Most of the criticism seems to have been about "foil" made from
aluminized plastic. I'd agree this is very dubious because the effective
thickness of metal is unknown, especially in low-cost cables. The
presence of a so-called drain wire is also an indication that it's
difficult to make direct contact with the metal in the shield.

However, "foil" can also mean a thin but solid metal sheet. When applied
as an overlapping wrap of 360deg, this kind of "foil" has close to
perfect shielding properties at HF and above. Its main weakness is that
the metal can tear if the cable is bent too sharply, and the main
purpose of the braided copper cover is to bridge any resulting gaps.
Both copper and aluminium foil-covered cables are available, and copper
will obviously provide a more reliable contact between a connector and
the shield.

Another kind of solid metal "foil" is bonded onto the outside of the
centre insulation. I've only ever seen this in aluminium; the foil is
extremely thin and solidly bonded to the polyethylene, making it very
vulnerable to damage by bending. A braided cover is provided, but once
again there can be problems with connector assembly.

These points are confirmed by Owen, VK1OD at:
http://www.vk1od.net/transmissionline/RG6/index.htm

In this wet climate I wouldn't ever use a cable containing aluminium;
but Australia's different, of course.

Finally, beware of ALL "RG" designations. The military RG cable
specifications have been obsolete for many years and the carpetbaggers
have moved in. "RG8" was the first to fall, and "RG6" can mean both
anything and nothing.

Even in the days of MIL specs, "RG58" covered several different types of
cable - the copper could be either bare or tinned, the centre conductor
either solid or stranded - so it has always been necessary to check what
kind of construction you were buying. In modern times you also need to
check the quality.

About the only "RG" cables I'd trust today without seeing a sample are
RG213 and 214, and only from a trusted supplier.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

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.