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
|