Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Coax\s+opinions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+Coax\s+opinions\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: kg6i@worldnet.att.net (John Farber); Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:48:54 -0000; I'm looking ot replace my coax runs. I will operate up thru 6 m, and lengths to 150 or so ft. I want coax that is low-loss, flexible for the rotor loops and long-lasting. I'm considering: CXP-1318FX; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00154.html (7,537 bytes)
2. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: K4MK@triad.rr.com (Kent Miller); Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:32:45 -0400; John, All of those types you mention are good. I have had excellent results with " Bury-Flex " by Davis RF. I use it for runs up to and exceeding 400 ft, on all bands including 50 Mhz. It is tough,fl; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00158.html (8,737 bytes)
3. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: lclarks@nc.rr.com (Larry); Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:36:06 -0400; I'm using LMR-400uf . Its working well, I didn't try the LMR-400 because of the rotor loop. I've had good luck and pricing from Davis RF www.davisrf.com. They also offer there own version called bury; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00160.html (8,950 bytes)
4. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: kc2tn@comcast.net (KC2TN); Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:43:01 -0400; I'm in the process of doing the same and came across Andrew CNT-400 from Antenna Systems and Supplies Company. This coax is the same as LMR-400... They have a 1000' reel for $400. Joe - KC2TN I'm loo; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00162.html (8,860 bytes)
5. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: nwtncc@iswt.com (James Hall); Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:07:02 -0500; John: I use LMR-600 on the long run between the single point ground panel and the tower mounted antenna switch. I use 'Bury Flex' 9914 everywhere else - up the tower to the antennas and around the ra; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00168.html (9,139 bytes)
6. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 07:00:09 -0700; I like the Cable XPerts 1318FX best of the three you've listed; however, they all have cellular poly dielectrics and all are fragile cables; that doesn't mean they are not "long lasting," but they mu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00183.html (10,425 bytes)
7. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: kev@ida.net (Kevin Hemsley); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:35:10 -0600; I like LMR400 and I have used LMR600 for a longer runs. I use buryflex up the tower and for rotor loops. This is the first that I have ever heard of not cable tying LMR400. LMR400 is pretty tough stu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00189.html (9,024 bytes)
8. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:29:01 -0700; Hi Kevin, I, too, have used tons of LMR400. Here's what happens with a cable tie: It would indeed be difficult to compress the dielectric so severely that it shorts out due to mechanical failure. I c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00195.html (11,723 bytes)
9. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:36:07 -0700; Hi Wes, I've used, and like to use, stuff like RG217, RG17, RG18, etc. Reason: Very available as new mil surplus, handles lots of power, even mismatched; solid dielectric will withstand tons of abuse; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00202.html (15,291 bytes)
10. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:01:08 -0700; [Steve Katz] Yes, Kevin, it's a high-power phenomenon, which is logical since the voltage across the line at 1.5kW (VSWR = 1.0) is 273.9V, pretty close to the breakdown limit of cellular polyethylen; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00203.html (14,790 bytes)
11. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: mjwetzel@comcast.net (Mike Wetzel); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 18:11:48 -0500; All this talk about coax and I find I am low on Belden 8267 or RG-213. That's what I have always used for phasing lines and short tower runs. I see the actual Belden price (from Newark) is about .90/; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00204.html (8,833 bytes)
12. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: k4zzr@bellsouth.net (David); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:27:04 -0400; Mike....I've been wondering about the "other" RG-213's too. I've been using the RG-213 that Texas Towers sells which they say is Mil spec cable, buriable and only 36 cents a foot. I've never buried i; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00206.html (10,060 bytes)
13. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: kq2m@mags.net (Robert Shohet); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 19:43:54 -0400; Hi Mike, I have always used RG213 for phasing lines and to feed all the antennas at my qth. I frankly don't think that the extra cost for Belden or LMR is worth it. I would recommend that you contact; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00207.html (9,547 bytes)
14. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 20:10:28 -0400; Where can I get connectors for RG-17?? I'd like to get into a 7/8th inch EIA flange from the RG-17. I have 800 feet of brand new cable, but need to get into a EIA flange or some other standard conne; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00208.html (9,085 bytes)
15. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: shr@ricc.net (W0UN--John Brosnahan); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:27:11 -0500; Bob-- Just as long as you don't equate non-contaminating with suitable for direct burial. They are two different things. Non-contaminating means that the plasticizers in the jacket won't migrate thr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00211.html (9,131 bytes)
16. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: shr@ricc.net (W0UN--John Brosnahan); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:31:22 -0500; Bob-- Just as long as you don't equate non-contaminating with suitable for direct burial. They are two different things. Non-contaminating means that the plasticizers in the jacket won't migrate thr; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00212.html (9,371 bytes)
17. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: shr@ricc.net (W0UN--John Brosnahan); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 19:31:56 -0500; Mike-- Others may or may not be mil spec--just depends. And to what mil spec. C17D or C17F or whatever. Belden used to be (don't know if it still is) calling their RG-8 RG-213. Let me explain. RG-8; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00213.html (11,978 bytes)
18. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: kq2m@mags.net (Robert Shohet); Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:16:01 -0400; Hi John, Thanks for the explanation. The coax does have a non-contaminating jacket and is meant for direct burial - I believe it is the buryflex coax that was mentioned in another post. 73 Bob KQ2M; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00214.html (9,528 bytes)
19. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: n8de@thepoint.net (Don Havlicek); Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 20:25:48 -0500; Tom, Not sure .. but is RG-177 the same diameter as RG-17? .. I have some connectors for RG-177 that I picked up new a few years ago .. the RG-177 is old .. but the connectors are new !! Don N8DE; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00216.html (10,141 bytes)
20. [Towertalk] Coax opinions (score: 1): Author: vk2lee@maxnet.net.au (Lee Noonan); Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:02:03 +1000; AS long as its marked Mil spec and is from a reputable Business, I don't think You have to buy the best... Although I have just replaced ALL MY coaxial cables with Belden 9913 , only because the Insu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-08/msg00219.html (9,710 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]