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 in both loss and power
handling:
The first number is the loss in dB/100 feet. The second is the power
handling.
Cable 30 MHz 50 MHz 150 MHz 220 MHz
LMR400 0.7.....2100 0.9.....1700 1.5.....1000 1.8.....830
RG-213 1.2.....1800 1.6.....1300 2.8....620 3.5.....520
So at 30 MHz, LMR400 has about half the loss of RF-213 and can handle 300
more Watts. As you go higher in frequency, the capabilities of the two
cables begin to diverge even more.
Sure, at 1.8 MHz, there probably isn't much difference between the two. But
on 10m, a couple hundred foot run of LMR400 will do much better than an
equivalent run of RG-213.
For a comparison of a number of different cable types see:
http://www.cablexperts.com/cfdocs/tech_data.cfm?bskt=0
I think RG-213 is actually the lossiest of the RG-8 size group of cables.
Its advantages are that it can handle more power than RG-8 and it has a
direct burial jacket and a non-foam dielectric.
There are additional variations of LMR400 as well. Cable Experts sells
their CXP1318FX which is very similar to LMR400UF. WARNING: I just found
this out last week. There is a CXP1318FX from Cable Experts that AES
carries that is NOT the same stuff! I found this out last week when I went
to purchase some for a friend while at AES Milwaukee. The stuff they had
was Cable Expert's version of Belden 9913. They said it was what Cable
Experts sent them as "1318." Not sure why this is, but my gut tells me
that the stuff that Cable Experts now sells is a redesigned cable. It is
listed as "new" on their website. I bet they are selling off their old 9913
equivalent stock at a bargain to the ham radio stores. So buyer beware!
73,
Jon
NA9D
-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)
Life Member: ARRL, NRA
Member: AMSAT, DXCC
http://www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
|