Unsolderable wire?

If it is stainless steel, then soldering with tin/lead solder is easy using concentrated phosphoric acid as a flux.

Wash the joint afterwards of course.

John

Steel, ment to be clamped not soldered?

Most of the rg-6 uses aluminum instead of copper or tinned copper. The normal methods of soldering will not work on it.

You're doing it wrong: never wait for dry metal to melt solder opposite the iron. Tin under the iron, so there's thermal transfer. Then go around the braid, spreading the tinned area around it. Mind the core will melt to goo while you're doing this...

And as others have mentioned, if it's aluminum or stainless, you're screwed.

Tim

-- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Eng>

I'll believe Aluminium or steel I must admit to only a little actual experience. Some Cable guy should give an actual answer.

The original RG6 used a copper center conductor, and a copper braid over a stiff, solid insulator. It was barely useful for video. The RG6/U used for CATV has a copper plated steel center conductor, foam inner insulator and aluminum foil covered by aluminum drain wires. If it is to be used overhead, it has a separate stainless steel 'messenger' wire with a Siamese outer jacket over both the coax and the messenger strand. I worked in CATV, and used to see 50,000 feet of it come in at a time. The best way to be sure is see who made the cable in question, and look up the OEM's specifications for that exact type of cable.

We used Belden, Commscope, and other American made brands back in the mid '80s.

He got most of it right.

As a former installer of a dual system (Cube) (Time/Warner)(Warner/ Amex)We had dual 'siamesed' cables and those used for "drops" had the messenger strand.

However, ALL of it, indoor, outdoor, drop lines, and UG (underground) ALL had a braided tin plated copper braid over the foil layers. The foam core had a laminated immobile foil affixed to it, and then there was foil and braid over that. I know because foil tears and braid does not, and the fittings used in the industry get crimped on, and foil alone will not endure those stresses over time, if not fail immediately.

But RG-6 can be bought in many different configurations. It is more about the form factor and physical size and characteristic impedance. RG-59 was the same impedance but slightly smaller but had a higher capacitance per foot and could not be used on longer runs, whereas the RG-6 could perform over greater distances Mainly due to a thicker core to shield spacing making for a lower parasitic capacitance per foot.

And you got most of that right. The RG number is mostly the physical size of the cable. The reason rg-6 size is used is for lower losses at higher frequencies. It is less expensive and able to be bent and handled in a house easier than the rg-11 size.

The main loss in the cable up; to about 1000 MHz is the resistance loss of the conductors. By making the center conductor larger there is less loss. The foil is used to provide a very good shield to keep the RF inside the cable, and the braid is mainly to provide a way to crimp it for a good electrical connection.

Nobody ever used RG-11 in a house. It was always RG-59 and now with the channel count and digital internet being added, most in-house installs are RG-6 throughout, unless it is a cheap ass cable company.

It is not mere wire resistance either. The capacitance is also a factor in why RG-6 is better than RG-59.

Another reason why mere foil shielding does not ring true. This is why the center conductor is not a copper plated steel core, but a copper CLAD steel core.

There are different braid fill levels available. It comes down to what the cable company wants to spend on their build.

The capacitance has almost nothing if anything at all to do with the losses at the cable frequencies.

If you look at the charts the capacitance is nearly the same and often the rg-59 is less than the rg-6.. The main losses is the I squared R loss of the conductors.

The stuff I use has both copper center conductor and braid. Most RG-6 uses a steel center conductor with a copper plating since the skin effect limits current flow to the surface at high frequencies and the steel provides more strength for pulling and aerial runs.

Looking at the chart of loss vs. frequency for Belden 1694A Coax I see

How do you tell when the losses are mostly due to the dielectric?

If you really want to get into it, here is a place that gives the info. Lots of math to look through. Much easier just to look at the chart for a good indication of where the losses are.

Nope. Copper plating is too thin. It is referred to as "copper clad".

Same thing for ground rods, except the reason in that case is abrasion durability.

Goddamned cross-posting retards.

Or I could go into the archives at work "Brand-Rex", and get the original designs specs and charts. Yes, those were the days.

We just retired the very first irradiation cross linking line ever made for production use of any product. The actual first cross linker irradiation unit for non commerical use was for the airforce, in a hanger.

Our unit now sits on the floor waiting for a home in some antique shop, 170k Watt version. It was getting hard to find chips to keep it operating. Many BB chips, round can op-amps. The osc for the magnetic amp was a UNI transistor that drove a transistor Flip Flip to generate a

Neat stuff for back then, real engineers not uC coders!

Jamie

Huh, that's interesting. for low noise cable and electrostatic pickup at ~DC (1-10Hz) to ~1MHz. braid alone won't cut it, and you need a foil shield too. I'm talking ~1foot lengths (30 cm)....

George H.

Did all this stuff make an electron beam?

Engineering schlip?

This reminded me that I once knew about "purple plague". There's an article about it in Wikipedia.

Mike.