Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Fwd: [TowerTalk] Stranded vs solid wire

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Fwd: [TowerTalk] Stranded vs solid wire
From: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:17:19 EST
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_882915439_boundary
Content-ID: <0_882915439@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


--part0_882915439_boundary
Content-ID: <0_882915439@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <n2qt@pipeline.com>
Received: from  relay27.mail.aol.com (relay27.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.27]) by
        air16.mail.aol.com (v37.8) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:02:52 -0500
Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58])
          by relay27.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
          with ESMTP id RAA29119 for <K7LXC@aol.com>;
          Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:02:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from LOCALNAME (ip166a.richmond6.va.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.108.166])
        by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA32057
        for <K7LXC@aol.com>; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:02:36 -0500 (EST)
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:02:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971224171256.504f6800@pop.pipeline.com>
X-Sender: n2qt@pop.pipeline.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
To: K7LXC <K7LXC@AOL.com>
From: Mark Sihlanick <n2qt@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Stranded vs solid wire
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I think the main basis of these claims are based on high power multicarrier
operation, like you would have with several cellular transmitters feeding a
single antenna through a combiner.  At these levels, connectors and cable
can create intermod.  For normal amateur use, especially at hf, where only
one high level signal is on a cable this effect should be negilible.
Receive wise the levels seen just wont be high enough to cause much effect.

At 04:25 PM 12/23/97 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-12-23 16:12:37 EST, n6ig@netcom.com writes:
>
>> Andrew, the maker of Heliax and Superflex transmission lines, has a 
>>  series of "technical documents" that claim to demonstrate the 
>>  superiority of solid center conductor transmission line versus 
>>  stranded.  This also "demonstrates" the superiority of solid shields 
>>  versus braided shields.  Their dissertations are based on the "facts" 
>>  that stranded and/or braided cables have many, many more wire-to-wire 
>>  junctions in which intermodulation could be created IF such a junction 
>>  were to corrode.  If you used a solid shield or center conductor, such 
>>  junctions would be eliminated.  They have all sorts of laboratory data to 
>>  emphasize that.
>
>Hi, Jim --
>
>     Interesting. Could you pass along the info to obtain these app notes? 
>
>     I would tend to give a fair amount of credence to the Andrew data.
First,
>they have the lab equipment to REALLY test this stuff. Second, they operate
at
>frequencies where these effects (and probably others) can become significant.
>These frequencies are from 9 gHz. up to 13 gH.! 
>
>     I think that this data comes from engineering and not marketing.
>
>73,  Steve  K7LXC
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
>


--part0_882915439_boundary--

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>