[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling

Subject: Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling
From: Larry Benko <>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:53:09 -0600
List-post: <">>
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. If that is the case, then RG-142 or RG-400 would be about the only choices for small diameter high power coax.

However on the input side of the amp RG-142 would be a poor choice for reasons of flexibility and cost. For low power RG-174 (PE) (200W avg. @ 30MHz) or RG-316 (Teflon) (1.1kW avg @ 30MHz) would be better. Last time I checked, RG-178 was more expensive than RG-316 even though it is smaller. I can't find power ratings for RG-178 but would guess it would easily handle a couple hundred watts average since it is the same construction as RG-316.

Larry, W0QE

On 6/19/2014 11:34 AM, Carl wrote:
Not very flexible.

Low power circuits can use RG-174 or 178.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Benko" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] RG6 Power Handling

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 Mornhinweg wrote:
Hi all,

what 50Ω 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 de-centering in bends), and that can be purchased easily in small quantities. Of course, it must handle the power, even with a slightly elevated SWR, without overheating.

Suggestions are welcome!


Visit my hobby homepage!
Amps mailing list

Amps mailing list

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3972/7706 - Release Date: 06/19/14

Amps mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>