To: | Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover Tech: LMR400 or 400UF? |
From: | "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <mike@ka5cvh.com> |
Reply-to: | mike@ka5cvh.com |
Date: | Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:03:22 -0500 |
List-post: | <mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com> |
Nate Duehr wrote: > JT Croteau wrote: >> Will I take a noticeable performance hit if I use LMR400 UltraFlex in >> the rover vs. regular LMR400 coax? I was planning on using it for 6, >> 144 and 432, runs will be less than 14'. Mike wrote At those frequencies and distances there will be no measurable difference. http://harriscountyares.org/resources/docs/coax_comp_chart.pdf Mike Urich KA5CVH http://ka5cvh.com EC - S/E Harris Co. http://harriscountyares.org _______________________________________________ VHFcontesting mailing list VHFcontesting@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover Tech: LMR400 or 400UF?, Nate Duehr |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [VHFcontesting] rover antennas, Dan_K9ZF |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover Tech: LMR400 or 400UF?, Nate Duehr |
Next by Thread: | Re: [VHFcontesting] Rover Tech: LMR400 or 400UF?, JT Croteau |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |