In the past I've always terminated both cables with F-Type male plugs and used a female-to-female coupler to join the two. Is there a better way, noting that this join will be under the floor and not readily accessible?
I note that CPC sell a single device
That's what I was thinking, and worringly cheap too (32p). If it was all-metal and cost £4.99 I'd be inclined to think it was definitely the best thing for the job.
Yes two F plugs and a barrel connector is the way to go. If you are worried about it being accessible or subject to damp then cover the joint with heat shrink sleeving preferably the type with glue inside, failing that self amalgamating tape will do the trick.
Richard
The main things to bear in mind are. Is it likely to be damp? If so whatever you use use heat shrink sleeving and some self amalgamating tape at the interfaces with the coax. 2 How much signal is there? If its a lot then a bit of loss won't really matter, but try to use good quality coax. If its a dodgy level replace the whole run its just not worth the hassle. Brian
IYes sounds a bit odd that. Who would use such a device. I also learned to my cost that snazzy looking coax switches were a recipe for losses and crackling. Brian
Solder, heat shrink and the ability to be interesting weaving and soldering outer braids together
TBH for most puropses where there is enough signal even joining the braids side by side is OK
Frequency response will be a bit wavy, but wont have deep notches.
Yup definitely the way to go IME.
You can do as above and then cocoon in self amalgamating tape, or seal with a decent length of heat shrink over the lot.
Yup! Not keen on the look of those at all.
Electricians IME.
Why not just do it the easy - and proper - way, ie as in the original post, with (as subsequently suggested, if it might get damp) either heat-shrink or self-amalgamating tape cocooning the connectors.
Thanks everyone for the comments. Will go with the F-type plugs and connector. Whilst the connection will be in the dry I may well heat-shrink it too for completeness.
No that's a good way. But wrap it round with self-amalg tape just to keep it nice and dry.
Yes. That's a horrible invention.
Bill
It would likely introduce an impedance 'bump'. Two fs and a barrel connector don't seem to.
Bill
Yes, the plastic ones that we used to use in the 1970s had very poor isolation between the inputs, so ghosting was the usual result. The only solution at the time was two separate outlet sockets and a flylead.
The 50 ohm diecast ones that CPC used to sell shorted out the unwanted input and worked fine on 75 ohm, so they were much better.
Bill
Electricians who thought they were being really competent and skillful.
Bill
Experimentally I've made joints in which I've used solder and also tried to keep the ratio between the diameter of the inner and the inside diameter of the outer (the screen) fairly constant. The screen has been kept as a full screen, augmented with extra copper foil. These joints seem to perform perfectly.
Bill
There's no such thing as in the dry with coax joints, unless you mean in a brick oven.
Bill
because any connector is 100 times less reliable than a solder joint.
And this is going to be inaccessible. As to 'proper'...Are you GERMAN?
There is no 'proper' way to do anything.
Once I joined coax by slodering the inner then making a cylinder out of brass shim and soldering the outer over that.
I have to agree.
Hey I did that but with brass! Didnt know copper shim/foil was avaialable.
there will be a slight impedance bumpp there, but not enough to be notoceable unless you slapo a TDR or simialr on it. Or run a sweep through it.
Those peole that are cincerned abit te intergirty of theior coax shpul look inside a TV stop see what happens the other side of the input socket...:-)
I thought that *was* the proper way!
Not that anyone would do it since the nineteen-fifties though.
With a slodering iron heated on the gas.
Owain
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required