I can't exactly remember, but I think the main difference in RG-213 and RG-8
is that one has definite MIL standards and the other (RG-8 I think) had
more-or-less standards, but varied by manufacturer. I imagine that, at the
time the antennas were introduced, 213 and 8 were the two most used by
amateurs, the antennas were evaluated with those, and so that's what they
recommended. I would suspect that newer, low-loss cables would work ok, but
you might find the characteristics changed slightly (due to the lower loss).
Norm
KE0ZT
________________________________________
From: TowerTalk [towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] on behalf of Mike Ryan
[mryan001@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:54 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Mosley Antenna Question
Over the years I have heard stories of unexplained failures with Mosley
antennas which were equally unexplained as having to do with the selection of
certain coax cables. One recent incident was with a local here that had trouble
getting a PRO 67 to ‘cooperate’ only with the use of RG 213 cable. Recalling
this story, I have been asked to assist with the install of a Mosley TA-53, 5
band beam on a 14ft boom. NOTHING in the manual (which is dated) suggests this
but an on-line review of the TA-63 and a peek at a manual found on-line also
seem to suggest that the ‘recommended coax is RG213”. Any comments on the
validity and reason for the use of JUST RG-213 and not some other 50/52 ohm
cable? Thanks.... - Mike
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|