Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Fw:[TowerTalk] Cable Loss Comparison (Was 9913 reliability)

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Fw:[TowerTalk] Cable Loss Comparison (Was 9913 reliability)
From: jreisert@jlc.net (Joe Reisert)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:05:43 -0500
Press etal,

Some time ago I measured various coax lines on a Hewlett Packard 8753 
Network analyzer. This instrument is very accurate up through 3 GHz. Here 
are my measured values of insertion loss at 28-30 MHz per 100 feet.

Type    IL in dB (per 100 feet at 28-30 MHz):

RG58:   1.9
RG8U:   1.1
Foam (Columbia) RG8U: 1.0
RG213:  1.1
RG214:  1.15
Belden 9913: 0.84
LMR400:  0.7
1/2" Alumifoam: 0.3
7/8" Alumifoam: 0.25

I've also observed that the VSWR (and therefore the impedance) on a 100 
foot length of  9913 wasn't constant, and from my recollection, had bumps 
in the region of 135 MHZ. I have not seen this problem on the LMR400 (even 
up through 1 gHz!) so I immediately switched to the later and have never 
been sorry. From these data and the cost for semiflexible coax, I'd opt for 
the LMR400!

BTW, although I haven't been following this thread very closely, it seems 
to me that the addition of a drip loop at the end of a long downward run of 
coax would surely cut down on the moisture running over the connector (thus 
decreasing the chance of water ingress).

73,

Joe, W1JR


At 02:19 PM 12/20/2001 -0600, n4kg@juno.com wrote:

>--------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: n8ug@juno.com
>To: n4kg@juno.com
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk]  Cable Loss Comparison (Was 9913 reliability)
>
>Hi Tom
>
>The data are right in the ballpark for all but the 213 - no real 213
>is gonna show better than 1.3db/100ft - so "very interesting indeed!"
>
>Press  N8UG
>
>(I have the MIME problem on my LT and can't post on TT
>unless I figure out how to change it - no time to fiddle!)
>
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:26:47 -0600 n4kg@juno.com writes:
> >
> > Thanks for posting your measurements Tony.
> >
> > I converted your percentages to dB total and dB/100 ft
> > as shown in the following table.    For your 220 ft runs,
> > it looks like there is little benefit to using 9913 over
> > RG213 and little benefit in using 7/8 inch hardline over
> > 1/2 inch hardline.  The 1/2 inch hardline offers 1 dB
> > less loss than 220 ft RG213. Very interesting result.
> >
> > Tom  N4KG
> >
> > Cable (avg 220 ft)        dB loss    dB/100 ft at 10M
> >
> > 7/8"  hardline - 88%         0.555         0.25
> > 1/2"  hardline - 82%         0.86           0.39
> > 9913 - 68%                     1.675         0.76
> > RG-213 - 65%.                1.87           0.85
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2001  "N2TK" <t.kazmakites@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> > Just had tilted over the tower to replace some antennas. Checked
> > the coax for loss. Measured the power going into the coax and
> > measured  the  power at the end of the coax at 28.0 MHz with
> > a dummy load on the coax.  Used  the same watt meter for both.
> > The length of the coaxes is about 210 - 230'.
> >
> >  Here is the loss as a percentage of power out/power in.
> >  By the way, I cut off the end of one of the 9913 runs at the house
> > (lowest point of run) to see if any discoloration of the copper.
> > There was none. This coax has been up for 8 years.
>
> > > 7/8" Prodelin hardline - 88%
> > > 1/2" Prodelin hardline - 82% - 2 runs measured the same
> > > 9913 - 68% - 2 runs measured the same
> > > RG-213 - 65%.
> > >
> > > The measurements are approximate and were done to just check to
> > make sure the coax didn't have a problem.
> > >
> > > Tony  (N2TK)
>
>________________________________________________________________
>GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
>Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
>Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
>AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available!  Windloading tables,
>foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
>AN Wireless Web site:  http://www.ANWireless.com
>
>-----
>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
>Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com


AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available!  Windloading tables,
foundation diagrams and charts, along with full details are now at the
AN Wireless Web site:  http://www.ANWireless.com

-----
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions:              towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-towertalk@contesting.com


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