I was going to ask a question on towertalk what is the best coax to go
around a rotator but had not gotten around to doing so. Your post is
very interesting. For decades I have used Belden 8267 and it has held
up very well, even at my station in Aruba. I know that there are less
lossy cables but I felt that 8267 was tough as nails. My concern is
that the newer Belden 8267 that I put up five years ago has turned
white on my NC tower and the older version on the tower is still
basically black. Did the jacket change? I use Heliax up the tower
which holds up well. I am making many monoband antenna changes next
years and I am revisiting what I use for antenna coax leaders. LMR400
appears to be too stiff, LMR400UF seems flexible enough and I
considered using it until I read the UV posts. I tired Belden 9913 in
the 80's and it was the worst coax that I have ever used, Does 9913F7
hold up well and not have the same water ingress issues? If cost is
not a concern what is the best coax for a rotating HF antenna?
John KK9A
Steve Davis wrote:
Mike, W4EF, hits it on the head ref. potential degradation of LMR 400
UF, in outdoor environments vs. UV impact.
My firm, DAVIS RF Co., sells various RF cables, as well as control
cables, and provides government, military and numerous industries,
with cable design and solutions, not only in the RF spectrum. We are
not just wholesalers, we are cable design engineers fulfilling many
custom needs. One cable I designed, which many hams recognize, is
Bury-Flex Tm, used also by Lockhead Northrup and NASA ground stations.
In the past on T Talk, I have pointed out the issue with LMR-400 UF,
and suggested alternatives.
We sell a lot of Times LMR sizes, and in fairness to them, their
cables in general are superb. However, in order to max out
flexibility of UF's, they chose to use a TPE jacket (Thermoplastic
elastomer).
This outer jacket material does not hold up well to UV, over the
longer term (depending on where in the world it is used). Times
latest specs have deleted ref. to the potential life of the cable.
And W4EF'S experience, as noted, confirms the problem.
So, what is the alternative??: Belden 9913F7, which has excellent
flexibility, and same attenuation specs (only slightly different at
and over 2 GHz). And, 9913F7 is LESS expensive than 400 UF.
Why is it better vs. UV?? Because they use their own formulated
"Belflex" Tm outer jacket material. It is a highly flexible hybrid
PVC. NOTE: do not mix this cable up with Belden 9913, which at least
in the ham market has had a bad reputation. 9913F7 is a totally
different build. And I highly recommend it.
I will just add also that many customers come to me thinking they need
to run their entire length of a cable using a UF type, where there are
alternatives to that which results in our sale being less, but that
also means saving the customer his $$, which is what we want to do for
our fellow hams , without sacrificing performance and application sense.
Lastly, we have very low prices on Low Loss cables, hardline, Andrew
Heliax and RFS Cablewave Heliax Tm equivalent. And we do the
assemblies using mfr. Certified installers. We provide our fellow
hams with the same low wholesale pricing as we do all other
commercial customers. And we provide free application consulting,
unlike any other commercial or ham dealer that I am aware of.
Contact me anytime with any questions. 73, Steve Davis, DAVIS RF Co.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|