I use RG-214 on all my runs, and am perfectly happy ... it's just not real
flexible .. but, it's tough!
73 --- Mark 6dx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Katz" <stevek@jmr.com>
To: "'David'" <k4zzr@bellsouth.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
> Sure, David, I had already recommended exactly that cable (1318FX from
Cable
> XPerts) yesterday. I use six runs of it, 165-175' per run, right now at
> home. Zero problems. Just be careful, it's delicate as are all the
> low-loss cables. Don't kink it, don't walk on it, surely don't drive over
> it, and don't clamp it. Follow the rules and it works great!
> -WB2WIK/6
>
> "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." -
> Mario Andretti
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David [SMTP:k4zzr@bellsouth.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:06 AM
> > To: Steve Katz; towertalk@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
> >
> > Hi Steve.....still looking for the best coax (within reason) for my new
> > antenna (about 125' from the shack). I'm wondering what you and others
> > think of Cable Xperts RG8/U "low loss" CXP1318FX cable which runs about
60
> > cents a foot? Anybody using this stuff? It's specifications are:
> >
> > High Flexability10 (19X23) Bare Copper
> >
> > (2) 100% Bonded Alum Foil
> > +95% Tinned Copper
> > Gas-Injected Foam Polyethylene
> > Black Non-Contaminating Ultra-Violet Resistant Direct Burial
> > 0.405
> > -40°c to +85°c
> >
> > Velocity Factor: 84%
> >
> > Attenuation/100ft
> > 30mhz...0.7
> > 150mhz...1.6
> > 450mhz...2.9
> >
> > Thanks for your input,
> > David, K4ZZR
> >
> > > From: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:28:09 -0700
> > > To: "'mjwetzel@comcast.net'" <mjwetzel@comcast.net>,
> > towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Subject: RE: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
> > >
> > > Belden certainly didn't invent coaxial cable, Amphenol did. Of all
> > coaxial
> > > cables popular within the amateur realm, I'm not very fond of Belden
> > > products. The direct bury RG213/U sold by Cable XPerts (about
$.40/ft)
> > is
> > > excellent, resiliant product that uses flooded jacket technology (same
> > as
> > > used for direct-bury RG6/U for CATV service) and I ran some through
> > > accelerated life testing at QualMark Labs, an NRTL who pretty much
> > invented
> > > H.A.L.T. testing, and was very pleased to find that the inexpensive DB
> > > RG213/U survived immersed high-pressure, high-temperature operation in
> > > saline solution which theoretically simulated ten years of exposure in
> > about
> > > a 48 hour test. Belden 8267 failed the same test after about 40
> > minutes,
> > > but, then, they don't claim it to be direct burial cable. If I find
> > 8267 as
> > > new surplus for <$.40/foot, I'll use it; but it seems senseless to pay
> > any
> > > premium for a "brand." Incidentally, a major source of confusion for
> > all of
> > > us (including me) is that OEM branding cables by a handful of large
wire
> > > mills is extremely common and has been going on for several decades.
> > That
> > > is, one mill can turn out the same cable for a dozen "brands," simply
by
> > > imprinting it, and labeling spools, differently. Using QPL MIL-C-17
> > cables
> > > is no assurance of avoiding this, because as long as the cable is
> > > manufactured to the specification (which do not list attenuation,
power
> > > handling or many other details of concern to amateurs) in an
> > American-based
> > > QPL facility, it can be made by anyone and labeled with the brand name
> > of
> > > whoever paid to have the cable made. As far as I know, 8267 is _not_
> > > assured MIL-C-17 cable, although if it's imprinted with a government
> > > contract number and date code, it's likely to be. -WB2WIK/6
> > >
> > >
> > >> 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/ft as compared
> > to
> > >> generic RG-213 from R and L and Cable-Xperts that is about $.40/ft
(not
> > >> Belden). I know the Belden is Mil spec and the others aren't, but
the
> > >> composition and loss seem to be the same. What is the general
feeling
> > >> about
> > >> these other less expensive RG-213's? Is there any reason to stay
with
> > the
> > >> Belden and pay the high dollars?
> > >>
> > >> Mike W9RE
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
> > >> http://www.mscomputer.com
> > >> Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and
take
> > an
> > >> additional 5 percent off
> > >> any weather station price.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Towertalk mailing list
> > >> Towertalk@contesting.com
> > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
> > > http://www.mscomputer.com
> > > Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and
take
> > an
> > > additional 5 percent off
> > > any weather station price.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Towertalk mailing list
> > > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
> Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
http://www.mscomputer.com
> Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and take an
additional 5 percent off
> any weather station price.
> _______________________________________________
> Towertalk mailing list
> Towertalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
|