Hi Doug,
Quad shielded RG-6 with a copper clad steel center conductor is an excellent
choice on 160 and 80 meters as long as the cable lengths aren't very long.
Outdoor rated quad shielded CCS RG-6 is more readily available at low prices
(typically less than 10 cents per foot) than solid copper center conductor RG-6.
RG-6 with a CCS center conductor is a poor choice for the 1500 foot
transmission lines to my 160 and 80 meter receiving antennas. I wouldn't
hesitate to use CCS RG-6 if my cable lengths were less than 500 feet.
73
Frank
W3LPL
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0600
>From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
>Subject: RE: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center
>conductor
>To: <donovanf@starpower.net>, <topband@contesting.com>
>
>I successfully use 100s and 100s of feet of copper clad steel RG-6 in my
>160m 4-square receive setup with a pre-amp at the station. Copper clad
>steel works for me.
>
>Doug
>
>"Think of all the ways you can hurt yourself laughing."
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper
>(SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6
>coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed
>350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in
>this table.
>
>The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative
>measurements should be valid.
>
> Solid Copper Cable length in
>Freq Copper Clad feet for a 1 dB
>MHz Loss Loss loss difference
>
>1.8 0.3 0.6 350
>3.5 0.4 0.6 500
>7.0 0.6 0.8 500
>10 0.7 0.85 650
>14 0.75 0.9 650
>21 0.9 1.0 1000
>28 1.0 1.1 1000
>
>73
>Frank
>W3LPL
>_________________
>Topband Reflector
>
_________________
Topband Reflector
|