Although we tend to think of using "big" coax at UHF, or even VHF, it
appears to me that the lower frequencies benefit as much, or more than
UHF, but for different reasons. I also prefer the larger coax because
of the rapid rise in SWR as you move away from resonance compared to 40
meters and up.
As for cost, I see little difference between the LMR cable and other
name brands. The biggest difference in going to LMR 600 is the cost of
connectors.
LMR-400 is notably lighter than all copper.
As for measuring loss, I prefer using an AIM that gives me all I want to
know and more than I need. The problem with SWR meters is accuracy.
How much do they change with temp. I have a pair of birds, that are
accurate to 5% of full scale.
Both can be hooked to the input to the coax and calibrated to read the
same. It pays to do the measurements and then swap the meters and
measure again. You really need a digital readout, or measure in the
area where the scale is expanded. That's an area where accuracy is low,
but if calibrated to a known power you are comparing against two known
values.
73
Roger (K8RI)
On 8/6/2016 Saturday 1:00 AM, Jim Thomson wrote:
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:35:17 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Coax Losses on 160 and 75?
Nothing "however" about it, Roger. Of course it's all skin effect, and
copper-coated or clad onto steel has much greater loss than solid or
stranded copper at these frequencies.
BUT - there's a big difference between copper-clad Aluminum and
copper-clad steel. RF resistance of copper-clad Al is NOT significantly
different from solid/stranded copper at any frequencies where we are
likely to use it.
Yes, at HF the most reliable comparative of cable loss below UHF is the
total resistance of their conductors at the frequency of interest. For
solid copper conductors, DC resistance can be compared, because
resistance at RF is a multiple of the DC resistance. For copper-clad Al,
the resistance of a solid copper conductor representative of the DC
resistance of the center. So -- there's nothing wrong with using LMR400
and other cables with Cu-clad Al center on the lower HF bands, except
that they are NO BETTER than a lower cost coax that provides the same RF
resistance. That's why my table in k9yc.com/Coax-Stubs.pdf lists coax
cables in order of their DC resistance, and why the last column in the
table is cost.
73, Jim K9YC
## How are u measuring loss at a given freq ?? Do u use the online
calculators,
like from Times microwave, where u input coax type, length, and freq ? Or do u
just do it the old fashioned way..and install a calibrated wattmeter on each
end of the coax ??
## I like the wattmeter method, then I know it’s the ....real deal. Just
install a 50 ohm dummy load on the
far end..just after the 2nd wattmeter. Then you can test from 160- UHF.
Then you get real results.
This assumes the pair of wattmeters are calibrated for the freqS to be
tested. They dont even have to be
calibrated, they just have to read identical...when both are wired nose to
tail, in series, at the xcvr /amp.
I wire two in series 1st.....then test to ss how close they are across XXX
bands /freqs. Ok, then remove one of em
and install at far end of coax.
## You folks will be in for a rude awakening if you try this stunt.
Jim VE7RF
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
73
Roger (K8RI)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|