Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RG6\s+Power\s+Handling\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RG6\s+Power\s+Handling\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: "Keith Densmore" <ve3gem@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:11:27 -0400; Wow, Thanks to Ed, KB5GT for this power and loss calculator for any type of coax. http://www.timesmicrowave.com/calculator/?productId=118&frequency=2&runLength=400&mode=calculate#form Amazing, RG6 ca; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00045.html (6,811 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:43:05 -0700; Amazing, RG6 can take 2 KW on 160 meters! I repeat my advice from yesterday -- WHICH RG6? RG-designations used to be rigid specifications for cable. That has not been true for at least 40 years. All; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00047.html (7,829 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 13:00:59 -0400; And that is NOT the RG-6 which we use now. It has a solid polyethelyne dielectric for starters and stranded copper plus a copper tape shield. Im stilll loking for power handling and voltage for the C; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00048.html (9,542 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:25:15 +0000; So will RG-58 with low SWR. 73 Bill wa4lav Wow, Thanks to Ed, KB5GT for this power and loss calculator for any type of coax. http://www.timesmicrowave.com/calculator/?productId=118&frequency=2&runLen; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00049.html (8,062 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Alek Petkovic <vk6apk@bigpond.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:46:19 +0800; Correct. I know someone who uses RG58 and runs 3kW, day in, day out, over the last 5 years. Alek. VK6APK. PS: Not me. I don't have an antenna for top band. Wow, Thanks to Ed, KB5GT for this power and; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00050.html (9,391 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:22:29 +0000; Hi all, what 50 coax cable would be recommended for the internal wiring of a compact 160-10m legal limit amplifier? I'm looking for a cable thinner than RG-8, much more flexible, non-foam (to avoid d; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00054.html (8,054 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Steven Katz <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:25:42 +0000; I use RG-400/U for this kind of stuff. It's about .200" diameter, PTFE dielectric, stranded (silver plated copper) center conductor, braid (silver plated copper) outer conductor, reasonably flexible,; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00055.html (9,138 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:32:25 -0600; RG-142 (50 ohm) Same size as RG-58 and rated at 30MHz 1:1 SWR of 3.1KW average power Larry, W0QE what 50 coax cable would be recommended for the internal wiring of a compact 160-10m legal limit ampli; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00056.html (8,427 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:34:01 -0400; Not very flexible. Low power circuits can use RG-174 or 178. Carl KM1H RG-142 (50 ohm) Same size as RG-58 and rated at 30MHz 1:1 SWR of 3.1KW average power Larry, W0QE On 6/19/2014 10:22 AM, Manfred; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00057.html (9,883 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:53:09 -0600; Hmmmmm! Re-reading the original post I made an assumption that may or may not be correct. I assumed the coax was to be used at the output side where it would be subject to the full amplifier power. I; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00058.html (10,734 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:28:20 -0400; Hmmmmm! Re-reading the original post I made an assumption that may or may not be correct. I assumed the coax was to be used at the output side where it would be subject to the full amplifier power. I; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00059.html (12,403 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Alek Petkovic <vk6apk@bigpond.com>; Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 06:00:59 +0800; RG142 Alek. VK6APK what 50 coax cable would be recommended for the internal wiring of a compact 160-10m legal limit amplifier? I'm looking for a cable thinner than RG-8, much more flexible, non-foam; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00060.html (9,251 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: "Jim W7RY" <w7ry@centurytel.net>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:39:29 -0700; I use RG-142 at 1500 watts RTTY on all bands. And either RG-174 non Teflon; or RG316 Teflon for the input stuff. Either works just great. I like the Teflon stuff because it doesn't melt while solderi; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00061.html (12,198 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: AJ <iamfromcanadaalso@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:45:45 -0400; Depending on where you are legal limit means different things. I have used RG303, RG304, RG174 all can be had at cut lengths from various sellers. 303 is small (0.170 ) no cold flow issues used withi; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00062.html (9,344 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:49:15 +0000; Hi all, thanks for your suggestions! I checked the data of the cables suggested, and among them I like the RG-400 best. RG-142 would be usable too, but the added flexibility of RG-400 seems better su; /archives//html/Amps/2014-06/msg00064.html (8,526 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]