Quick cable question (RG65)

spockety

I got one of those Aldi dish sets a while back, but I'm in the process of putting a proper system in place. The Aldi dish came with a decent amount of cable which I think has "RG65" stamped on it. How does this cable compare to the oft bandied "CT100" I see posted here a lot?

Can I re-use it, or is it rubbish?

kbell

Edit, thought you'd said rg59..

conax

Wouldn’t see so much of RG-65 here what’s its usage abbreviation /A/B/U, it may be standard RG-6
CT-100 suffers less signal loss per meter than RG-6 Coax, its roll off (tilt) ratio is more or less the same. Where CT-100 is much better cable it’s easier to kink. For most standard installations 20m or less RG-6 if fine.

Tony

Agreed 20m or less should be ok.

conax wrote:

Wouldn’t see so much of RG-65 here what’s its usage abbreviation /A/B/U, it may be standard RG-6
CT-100 suffers less signal loss per meter than RG-6 Coax, its roll off (tilt) ratio is more or less the same. Where CT-100 is much better cable it’s easier to kink. For most standard installations 20m or less RG-6 if fine.

Sam Radford

RG6 generally has aluminium foil and copper braid - a combination that can be fatal if used outdoors in a rainy climate. I saw a piece that looked like a snake swallowing eggs! Moisture had got through the outer sheath and the resultant corrosion inside was unbelievable.

Tony

Good quality Rg6 does have a decent sheath though, even ct100 type cable would deteriorate quickly if the sheath failed

Sam Radford wrote:

RG6 generally has aluminium foil and copper braid - a combination that can be fatal if used outdoors in a rainy climate. I saw a piece that looked like a snake swallowing eggs! Moisture had got through the outer sheath and the resultant corrosion inside was unbelievable.

Sam Radford

Moisture penetrates all cable after a few years in the sun. Copper-on-copper cable lasts a lot longer than copper-on-Al in the presence of moisture. CT100 hasn't been manufactured for years. Why do people keep mentioning it? Raydex (who manufactured it) haven't been around for at least 3 years. Even H109 which people used instead has been obsolete for a while. The current equivalent is WC100.

conax

CT-100 is now a generic name, you could argue the same about RG-6 as the Radio Guide hasn’t been supported in years either.

Sam Radford

EN 50117 is the generic name.

I totally agree about RG-6. Various modern comparables include "SATDS".

conax

Sam Radford wrote:

EN 50117 is the generic name.

I see the humour

Tony

Sam Radford wrote:

Why do people keep mentioning it? Raydex (who manufactured it) haven't been around for at least 3 years.

As others have said its a generic name in the same way as vacuum cleaners are sometimes called hoovers. I if someone asks me for ct100 i can either

A. argue with them and tell them its not made or

B. Sell them the correct cable for their needs.

L1011

Yer in Tallaght, the correct way of doing business out here is to do A

(says he sitting in Greenhills)

Tony

In Kilnamanagh its B

MYOB wrote:

Yer in Tallaght, the correct way of doing business out here is to do A

(says he sitting in Greenhills)

L1011

sure thats only round the corner... unfortunately your lack of a retail presences means I can't drop round for some whatever-you-sell-as-CT100 (need to rewire my motorised setup some time soon)

Tony

True but having a retail presence would make everything a lot more expensive. It is something I'm constantly reviewing though