On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:22:38 +1300 Wayne Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:51, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote: > > > I have 3/4 of a drum of steel core coax cable left (already used heaps with > > a multi-channel aerial, Sky dish, 6 way splitter then 8 TV outlets) > > >3 separate coax cables to each multimedia computer for Video plus 2x audio. > > Using steel core coax for video is not such a good idea. Video signal is > only > one volt peak-to-peak and it soon vanishes when pushed through a long run of > steel cored coax. this http://www.epanorama.net/documents/video/videocoax.html page states: "In video equipment wiring the 75 ohm coaxial cable is the standard to carry video signals. Cable selection is important to achieving high quality design. Installers need to know when to use 75-ohm baseband or broadband coaxial cable, RG-59, RG-6 or RG-11 cable. The standard medium installed in video applications is 75-ohm baseband and broadband coaxial cable. Most manufacturers publish specification sheets listing cable property characteristics. In terms of attenuation, for example, RG-59 baseband cable can be run to 600 feet (200 meters), and RG-6 and RG-11 baseband cable are effective to 850 feet (270 meters) and 1200 feet (400 meters), respectively. For some applications where a small cable is needed to carry video signal RG-179/U is used quite commonly (there are also many small non-standard ccoaxial cables used mostly as part of larger cables with multiple coaxial conductors). Those smaller cables have much higher attenuation than the larger cables, so they are usable only for shorter distances." from which i assume that some coax is ok to carry baseband video. > > It was recommended in an article in the Electrolink magazine earlier in the > year to convert the video to RF because you could then push that through as > much coax as you like. > > wayne -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
