Originally Posted by m. zillch
And by shrinking that center conductor you no longer have yourself RG-6;
just because the smaller thickness cable RG-59, for example, also has a 75 ohm impedance doesn't mean it is ethically acceptable to market it as "mini RG-6".
RG-59, RG-6, and RG-11 are all 75 ohms, but there are important differences in their other electrical properties which is why the various satellite and modern cable industries would never
wire a house with the thinner RG-59 cable even though it would save them tons of money.
DirecTV mandates the use of RG6, for example, and if they caught an installer substituting RG59 they'd be fired
, even though for short internal runs it would most likely work just as well for the frequencies they use.
There's no such thing as "mini-RG6".
For short living room runs consider using the thinner and more flexible RG-59, for example, but please
don't market it as "mini-RG6" or "mini-RG11". That's deceptive, misleading, and wrong. Wires have different, standardized
designations for very good reasons:
The presence of an RG - Radio Guide listing is irrelevant, so long as the performance requirements of a cable in question can minimally meet the specifications of the listed RG variant. You are stuck on bagging when it's performance that matters - there are dozens of mini coax cables the crush the performance of full size RG 6 listed coax cables.
Our point in here after post # 32 is that we should all move away from generic terms and start citing performance requirements and share, full specification disclosures, not simply call every thing RG 6, etc... each of the aforementioned have at least three common categories: CCTV, SDI and CATV and within each have at least six additional variations. In Beldens Catalog, there's over 100. All with different performances, and therefore applications, some of which obvious overlap, but only in part, not completely. Belden, as cited several times now, has a mini coax, which exceeds the performance of their tradition full size RG 6 SDI, CCTV or CATV coaxial cables. I have posted the link several times. I should also add they have a series of SKU's that they directly call RG 59 mini coax...
So no one is any longer calling it mini RG 6 per say in this thread, but in the real world, that has become common nomenclature, which efficiently describes ones need for a mini coax cable with RG 6 or superior performance qualifications. Frankly, this is nothing more than semantic smack talk at this point.
Use whatever term you desire, however, be prepared to provide the full performance specifications of the cable, in the event that you're asked.
As pointed out by other and myself earlier on in this thread, RG 6 and 59 have become general terms, in the public, which includes AVS, we all need to me more specific, especially in here.
The OP's question was incomplete and poorly worded, leaving us all to assumption. We should have asked him some clarifying questions, before we all started in on offering up our opinions, I include myself in the -'we'.
I repeat, the whole point of this exercise was to evidence that we all need to be more careful and therefore specific when we discuss cables; citing actual performance qualities, etc... In this way, the designation of the cable will not be important, just its performance qualities.
You are failing in this regard:
The chart that you have posted is less than generic, it's virtually useless. You have failed to include what type of RG 6 or 59 coaxial: Is it CATV, CCTV, SDI, is it single, double, tri or quad shielded, what is the nature and coverage of the respective shielding's, is the primary conductor pure copper, or a composite, etc... You also failed to depict the noise field that the cables will be exposed to.
We have all seen this chart - so we know through experience that its a rule of thumb chart used for CATV in which the coaxial is a 95% foil shielding with a 65% braided shied, standard dielectric composition and diameter with an 18AWG copper primary, or even a copper clad primary. If a higher spec RG 6 variant, is implemented the distances will increase. It's all called RG 6 by layperson and most AVS members, but there are obviously differences. These differences are broken down by types and performance disclosures, which true RF network engineers live and die on everyday. I might also add that they view RG listings as obsolete and nothing more then a classification system, used to organized cable listings and options etc. They look specifically at the performance qualities, and secondly, at all other factors. Not all RG 6 cables have the same performances...
So we should all stop using the generic term RG this or that unless we provide a link to the spec sheet, of at least cite the topology of the cable, as I have above.
Your points are taken, so may we please move on?