Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+LMR400\s+vs\.\s+RG\-213\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+LMR400\s+vs\.\s+RG\-213\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: na9d@speakeasy.net (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 20:48:19 -0500; Another list member that I was having an offline conversation with suggested that it might be informative to list members to see a comparison of LMR400 with RG-213. LMR400 exceeds RG213 in a big way; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00698.html (9,066 bytes)
2. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: nielsen@oz.net (Bob Nielsen); Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:32:03 -0700; RG-213 has a non-contaminating jacket, not a direct burial jacket. As I recall it is practically identical to one of the RG-8 versions and I would expect that the loss figures are identical. In this; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00700.html (8,551 bytes)
3. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: na9d@speakeasy.net (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:17:33 -0500; There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this "direct burial" thing. My RG-213 says it clearly on the jacket: "Direct Burial" No, there's no goop in there, but according to what I have been told by; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00701.html (8,327 bytes)
4. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: kb5my@starband.net (Dan Hammill); Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:56:02 -0700; True RG-8 is also a MIL-SPEC cable (that's where the "RG-n" numbers come from). MIL-SPEC RG-8 has a solid polyethylene dielectric, which is identical to the solid polyethylene dielectric of MIL-SPEC; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00702.html (9,550 bytes)
5. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: nielsen@oz.net (Bob Nielsen); Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:06:41 -0700; It IS confusing. MIL-SPEC RG-8/U had a polyethylene dielectric, the same as MIL-SPEC RG-213. I recall that the original had a contaminating PVC jacket, but I think there was a later version which had; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00703.html (9,389 bytes)
6. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: na9d@speakeasy.net (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:29:47 -0500; OK. I couldn't find the specs on that. Oh that's not the half of it! I am an RF component sales rep. I sell RF connectors from a French connector company. The Europeans use yet another standard for c; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00708.html (8,313 bytes)
7. [Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213 (score: 1): Author: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz); Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:39:34 -0700; It should be noted that "loss" figures are all published by the manufacturers, or in amateur publications, but are not controlled nor maintained, nor even listed, in the governing military specificat; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-10/msg00714.html (11,157 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]