> The subject was LMR-400 which, of course, is not flooded and uses a tinned
> copper weave over aluminum foil.
Sorry. My mistake.
I thought the subject was receiving cables, related to Beverages, and common
mode noise, and that somehow a parallel was drawn to a stb measurement on
LMR400, which was a "needles in a haystack" change anyway in the application
of stubs when compared to antenna-to-antenna leakage paths.
There is some real questionable information on stubs, and it doesn't have
much to do with receiving transmission line behavior anyway.
> If they decided to go with flooding I might even use it outdoors.
>
> Of equal concern is the variety of crimp connector vendors as well as off
> brand 400 "type" cable.
I don't hesitate to use "LMR400" types here, provided the cable is well
constructed. Some cables are pretty thin copper cladding on the center,
which can significantly impact loss on lower bands as current moves out of
the copper and into the core. Small CCS center cables can have much higher
loss than expected on low frequencies, so far as transmitting applications
go.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|