VK3ZAZ wrote:
FYI
Better go out an tell all the TV antenna installers as they use RG6 QUAD and there are rolls of it at AWM and Middies.
They also use CRIMP F types.
Why do you suppose this is the case?
Because it's the best coax to use for the job?
Well, we know that's not true because there are many better coaxes to use.
There are three reasons why RG6 is used by all the TV installers.
1> It's cheap
2> The best coax for the job based on price and performance had to compete with the price undercut, they did this by making "type RG59" coax.
In other words, they made crappier coax which was worse than RG6. That in itself is an achievement.
So RG59 type coax is worse, but real RG59 is better. Though looking at the insertion loss for each RG6 would appear to be the better coax. The return loss tells a different story.
3> The Bandwagon fallacy - people believe RG6 is the better coax, and in some cases for this is true. But this gets generalised and before we know it there is polarised consensus and it is a self sustaining delusion. It must be good because everybody else says it is.
I did a job many years ago where RG59 was the coax best suited for the job.
However, the customer upon reviewing the design changed this one tiny component to RG6.
The customer was informed that RG6 was not suitable for the job.
The customer insisted because, the customer is always right. He who has the gold makes the rules.
OK - so we installed RG6 at the customer's request.
The project did not work. It had terrible problems and of course the designers and engineers were blamed.
The customer was told what was wrong, but refused to believe that the "better" coax could be at fault.
It was not until we put our balls on the line and replaced the RG6 with RG59 and the project worked perfectly from that day forward.
As a followup we investigated why the customer insisted on RG6. It came down to one of the managers read on a forum that RG6 was superior to RG59.
This cost the customer, the price of the RG6 and it's installation. The cost of replacing it with RG59 and the added bill for fault finding the problem they caused.
This was a multi million dollar project, you can imagine how much just the delay cost them. And all because somebody turned a "trend" into an engineering fact.
If I'm a TV installer I'm going to use RG6 because;
it is cheap and I'll charge you the same price as I was for RG59.
If I don't, my competitors will and under cut me.
My competitors will tell their customers RG6 is better, because it is better for them, not for their customers.
Customers will believe this because it's easier to digest rather than consider they have been short changed.
This confirmation bias will flow against RG59
Anybody who attempts to use RG59 and buys the non-spec coax and confirms it is worse will provide a positive bias for RG6 based on fake RG59. [A=bad ∴ B≠bad]
As long as the install works fine for a year, any fault that develops will generate future income sooner.
Doing a job properly first time achieves job satisfaction. Doing it poorly several times achieves job security.
----
The bottom line is to use RG6 for tasks it was designed for or is best suited or because of it's price.
It is not a replacement cable for RG59 and blindly doing so thinking that it is a better choice may cause problems.
Nor should this be taken as an excuse not to use RG6. Each coax was designed for a job.
Choose the one that is best suited for the task based on it's merits.