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
|