Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[VHFcontesting\]\s+rover\s+tech\s+\-\s+coax\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "frank bechdoldt" <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:12:34 -0700
The problem with LMR 400 thats not flexable is the fact that its not flexable. You might find yourself with broken solder points with a non flexable lmr 400. Soldering on top of the car sucks. Always
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00050.html (8,055 bytes)

2. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "JT Croteau" <jt.n1ese@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:14:29 -0400
Heh, just found a 4-lot of 13' Andrew FSJ4-50B Heliax cables with N connectors installed for $40 on eBay. FSJ4-50B is as flexible as 1/2" Heliax comes I think. Perfect length for my needs but 1/2" He
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00054.html (7,152 bytes)

3. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: Paul Kiesel <k7cw@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
I have a question. Why use inflexible coax at all for a rover installation when you can use RG-213 for virtually all bands. The losses associated with RG-213 will be small with short runs as on a rov
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00055.html (9,925 bytes)

4. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: Steve Meuse <smeuse@mara.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:26:07 -0400
Paul Kiesel expunged (k7cw@yahoo.com): Why? 40+% more efficiency? Freq loss cable (based on 20' runs) -- 432 .9 RG-213 .6 LMR-400-UF .5 LMR-400 902 1.5 .9 LMR-400-UF .8 LMR-400 1296 1.7 RG-213 1.1 LM
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00056.html (7,915 bytes)

5. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: jcplatt1@mmm.com
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:51:17 -0500
For my rover I use LMR-400 for 2m through 3456. Each run is about 12' or so. This is one of the advantages that a rover has, short feedlines. LMR-400 is wonderful stuff - excellent performance, moder
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00057.html (7,768 bytes)

6. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "JT Croteau" <jt.n1ese@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:06:11 -0400
How about LMR-240 for 12' to 14' rover runs between 6 and 432? It is RG-8X in size but has the same loss specs as RG-213. I've been using it for a long time on mobile HF installs and some longer runs
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00059.html (8,129 bytes)

7. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: Paul Kiesel <k7cw@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
I think RG-213 has its place for rover installations. In the cases where fatigue breaks the coax, one must look at compromises. RG-213 is a compromise. But, if you were finding it necessary to repair
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00060.html (9,606 bytes)

8. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "Rogers, Ron" <RR124640@ncr.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:26:04 -0400
I'm surprised no one is mentioning ultra-flex Belden 8214 foam filled in this discussion. Blows the doors off RG-213 at the higher frequencies, even more flexible, and doesn't have the bonded tin foi
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00062.html (10,710 bytes)

9. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: Bruce Herrick <bdh@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:19:21 -0600
I have to disagree. UltraFlex is the way to go. Remember that in a rover, everything moves. UF will absorb some of the vibration that the rigid stuff will transmit to whatever it is connected to. I h
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00064.html (9,733 bytes)

10. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "frank bechdoldt" <k3uhf@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:16:25 -0700
good question, I just buy lmr 400 hardlline for home, and lmr 400 for everything else HF and up. Its a habit. I do have some eithernet cable simular to rg-213 I picked up for free but I wouldnt go QR
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00071.html (11,917 bytes)

11. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "Mike (KA5CVH) Urich" <mike@ka5cvh.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:33:24 -0500
Truer words were never spoken. Actually for a short run mobile I'd just go with the LMR-240 flex especially on 50/144/222/432. Mike Urich KA5CVH http://ka5cvh.com EC - S/E Harris Co. http://harriscou
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00072.html (8,376 bytes)

12. Re: [VHFcontesting] rover tech - coax (score: 1)
Author: "Eric Smith" <kb7dqh@donobi.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:55:35 -0700
My rover vehicle involves rotating antennas, all feeders are LMR 400, the standard non-stranded copper-plated aluminum center conductor stuff. I do have large rotator loops to compensate, some of the
/archives//html/VHFcontesting/2007-07/msg00074.html (8,579 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu