Camera in the baby's room?

That's a fairly popular application among home automators. You can use a B&W or color camera with a modulator to convert the camera's composite video signal to an unused CATV channel which is then viewable on every TV in the house.

Another option which may be of interest, especially if the home has been prewired for a structured cabling system is to use one of the CAT5 video systems, such as the Greyfox (now part of OnQ) CAT5 video systems.

Although I haven't installed this particular type, I've sold a number of these to DIYers and feedback has been positive in terms of ease of installation and performance.

The most basic option is to install a camera in the nursery, a monitor (wherever) and run some RG59 cable between A and B.

Note: although RG6Q/S cable is touted by some as the be-all and end-all of video cable, it is major overkill for a CCTV system. If you're running ordinary, composite video less than 200' in your home, save some money and a lot of aggravation by using RG59, which what professionals have used for CCTV for many years.

I agree, forget about RG-6QS. But RG-59 over RG-6? Saving a few pennies per foot for RG-59 (if you even save anything) is stupid. The signal loss, leaking (both in and out) and overall low quality of RG-59 will bite you if you are doing anything more complex than a 4ft patch cable. Home Depot and Lowes by me don't even stock RG-59 in bulk, nor the F-connectors for it. The industry standard for 75ohm co-ax in the home is RG-6. Ask the local cable TV or (a competent) satellite installer. RG-59 went out with disco. Let's keep it that way.

sdb

No it didn't.

Let's not.

RG-59 with 95% copper shied is the de-facto standard for CCTV. RG-6 is used for cable and sat because the bandwidth requirements are much higher. On very long CCTV runs RG-6 can be used to decrease signal loss though.

Sylvan,

During your lengthy debate with several folks here about your plans to design a dimmer I disagreed completely with your premise but managed to avoid calling you or your ideas stupid. Perhaps you'll consider granting me the same courtesy.

As to your comments about RG59, you are quite wrong, sir. That's the standard cable for CCTV used by profesional installers (including myself) for many years. It works well, is not lossy, is less expensive and is easier to install, especially on retrofit jobs, than RG6.

I believe in using RG6Q/S for high speed data and for other high bandwidth lines where accuracy is critical. However, installing numerous CCTV systems I've learned not to waste time or money on specialty cable that doesn't add to system performance.

That is categorically untrue, Sylvan.

That's because they make more money selling RG6Q/S.

The CCTV industry standard is RG59.

Diferent application.

Don't confuse with RG-6QS. RG-6QS is a small improvement over RG-6 but much larger, stiffer, and much more expensive. Like I said before, I agree, don't use it.

RG-59 and RG-6 are almost the same size (6mm vs 7mm).

RG-59 has considerably lower signal integrity (ingress/egress) than RG-6 (90-95% shielded vs 100%).

RG-59 has significantly higher loss per foot than RG-6 (3db/100m@10mhz is a very good quality RG-59 from belden vs 2.3db/100m@10mhz). That means your RG-6 can run about twice as far with equivalent signal strength, or will have better signal to noise ratio at equal lengths. And if you do decide to run RF or digital video instead of baseband video, the RG-6 attenuation comparison is even better.

RG-6 is a large improvement over RG-59, and a much smaller cost difference than going from RG-6 to RG-6QS.

Use RG-6.

Don't confuse with the QS. I wasn't talking about QS.

Don't confuse with the QS. It's because they sold RG-6 for the same price as they used to sell RG-59 and so only the ignorant would buy their RG-59.

And RG-59 was the cable TV standard in 1975 too. Luckily it went out with disco.

Yup. But since RG-6 will do both, has better specs, works the same, and costs nearly if not the same in job lot quantities, there is no reason for a homeowner buying stuff for one job to use the cheap junk. And a lot of reasons why said homeowner may wish to buy one cable, RG-6, and use it for CCTV, cable tv, satellite TV, etc. and do a proper wiring job that can be purposed for any

75 ohm coax application, instead of stocking two different cables with the associated waste and confusion.

Some representative specs for RG-6 and RG-59:

Cable type RG-6 RG-59 B/U Impedance (ohms) 75 75 Outside diameter 6.90 mm 6.15 mm Weight (g/m) 59 56

Attenuation db/100m

5 MHz 2.5 50 MHz 5.3 8 100 MHz 8.5 12 200 MHz 10 18 400 MHz 12.5 24 500 MHz 16.2 27.5 900 MHz 21 39.5

Conductor material Bare Copper Copper Planted Steel Conductor strand(mm2) 0.95 0.58 Resistance (ohm/km) 44 159 Insulation material Foam PE PE

Outer conductor Aluminium Bare polyester copper tape and wire tin copper braid braid Coverage Foil 100% 95 % braid 61% Resistance (ohm/km) 6.5 8.5

Don't confuse with RG-6QS (which means Quad-Shield). That's a whole 'nother story.

sdb

P.S. It isn't the idea that is stupid. Stupid is a homeowner attempting to save a few pennies per foot by installing an inferior cable, especially when such savings may not even be realizable due to the competitive advantage of purchasing better cable at local home centers for attractive prices.

No confusion here, Sylvan. The difference is I installed this stuff for a living for many years. You're wrong. For standard CCTV cameras in applications with ruins longer thaqn you're likely to see in almost any residence, RG59 works perfectly. That hasn't changed.

Since I can do 300' runs with RG59, there's almost never a nbeed for RG6. It's a waste of the customer's money with no added benefit.

RG59 gives perfectly clear CCTV at virtually any length you're going to find in a residence.

This is CCTV -- not RF. It's not enough to look only at the cable's capabilities. You need to decide what is appropriate for the application. CCTV doesn't benefit from RG6 over RG59 in these applications.