Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Coax opinions

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
From: stevek@jmr.com (Steve Katz)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:09:34 -0700
Yep, I like RG214/U for the same reason.  The double shielding doesn't do
much for me (electrically), nor does the conductor silver plating; however,
the solid dielectric and the two braids do tend to make this very "tough
stuff" that's difficult to damage.  I have driven my car over RG214/U many
times, doesn't hurt it.  While that may sound silly, it's a good test --
especially in a Field Day environment, where untrained people may very well
be walking all over the feedlines.  -WB2WIK/6


> I use RG-214 on all my runs, and am perfectly happy ... it's just not real
> flexible .. but, it's tough!
> 73 --- Mark   6dx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Katz" <stevek@jmr.com>
> To: "'David'" <k4zzr@bellsouth.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
> 
> 
> > Sure, David, I had already recommended exactly that cable (1318FX from
> Cable
> > XPerts) yesterday.  I use six runs of it, 165-175' per run, right now at
> > home.  Zero problems.  Just be careful, it's delicate as are all the
> > low-loss cables.  Don't kink it, don't walk on it, surely don't drive
> over
> > it, and don't clamp it.  Follow the rules and it works great!
> > -WB2WIK/6
> >
> > "If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
> -
> > Mario Andretti
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David [SMTP:k4zzr@bellsouth.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:06 AM
> > > To: Steve Katz; towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
> > >
> > > Hi Steve.....still looking for the best coax (within reason) for my
> new
> > > antenna (about 125' from the shack).   I'm wondering what you and
> others
> > > think of Cable Xperts RG8/U "low loss" CXP1318FX cable which runs
> about
> 60
> > > cents a foot?  Anybody using this stuff?  It's specifications are:
> > >
> > > High Flexability10 (19X23) Bare Copper
> > >
> > > (2) 100% Bonded Alum Foil
> > > +95% Tinned Copper
> > > Gas-Injected Foam Polyethylene
> > > Black Non-Contaminating Ultra-Violet Resistant Direct Burial
> > > 0.405
> > > -40°c to +85°c
> > >
> > > Velocity Factor: 84%
> > >
> > > Attenuation/100ft
> > >  30mhz...0.7
> > > 150mhz...1.6
> > > 450mhz...2.9
> > >
> > > Thanks for your input,
> > > David, K4ZZR
> > >
> > > > From: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> > > > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:28:09 -0700
> > > > To: "'mjwetzel@comcast.net'" <mjwetzel@comcast.net>,
> > > towertalk@contesting.com
> > > > Subject: RE: [Towertalk] Coax opinions
> > > >
> > > > Belden certainly didn't invent coaxial cable, Amphenol did.  Of all
> > > coaxial
> > > > cables popular within the amateur realm, I'm not very fond of Belden
> > > > products.  The direct bury RG213/U sold by Cable XPerts (about
> $.40/ft)
> > > is
> > > > excellent, resiliant product that uses flooded jacket technology
> (same
> > > as
> > > > used for direct-bury RG6/U for CATV service) and I ran some through
> > > > accelerated life testing at QualMark Labs, an NRTL who pretty much
> > > invented
> > > > H.A.L.T. testing, and was very pleased to find that the inexpensive
> DB
> > > > RG213/U survived immersed high-pressure, high-temperature operation
> in
> > > > saline solution which theoretically simulated ten years of exposure
> in
> > > about
> > > > a 48 hour test.  Belden 8267 failed the same test after about 40
> > > minutes,
> > > > but, then, they don't claim it to be direct burial cable.  If I find
> > > 8267 as
> > > > new surplus for <$.40/foot, I'll use it; but it seems senseless to
> pay
> > > any
> > > > premium for a "brand."  Incidentally, a major source of confusion
> for
> > > all of
> > > > us (including me) is that OEM branding cables by a handful of large
> wire
> > > > mills is extremely common and has been going on for several decades.
> > > That
> > > > is, one mill can turn out the same cable for a dozen "brands,"
> simply
> by
> > > > imprinting it, and labeling spools, differently.  Using QPL MIL-C-17
> > > cables
> > > > is no assurance of avoiding this, because as long as the cable is
> > > > manufactured to the specification (which do not list attenuation,
> power
> > > > handling or many other details of concern to amateurs) in an
> > > American-based
> > > > QPL facility, it can be made by anyone and labeled with the brand
> name
> > > of
> > > > whoever paid to have the cable made.  As far as I know, 8267 is
> _not_
> > > > assured MIL-C-17 cable, although if it's imprinted with a government
> > > > contract number and date code, it's likely to be. -WB2WIK/6
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> All this talk about coax and I find I am low on Belden 8267 or
> RG-213.
> > > >> That's what I have always used for phasing lines and short tower
> runs.
> > > I
> > > >> see the actual Belden price (from Newark) is about .90/ft as
> compared
> > > to
> > > >> generic RG-213 from R and L and Cable-Xperts that is about $.40/ft
> (not
> > > >> Belden).  I know the Belden is Mil spec and the others aren't, but
> the
> > > >> composition and loss seem to be the same.  What is the general
> feeling
> > > >> about
> > > >> these other less expensive RG-213's?  Is there any reason to stay
> with
> > > the
> > > >> Belden and pay the high dollars?
> > > >>
> > > >> Mike W9RE
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
> > > >> http://www.mscomputer.com
> > > >> Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and
> take
> > > an
> > > >> additional 5 percent off
> > > >> any weather station price.
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Towertalk mailing list
> > > >> Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
> > > > http://www.mscomputer.com
> > > > Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and
> take
> > > an
> > > > additional 5 percent off
> > > > any weather station price.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Towertalk mailing list
> > > > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Self Supporting Towers, Wireless Weather Stations, see web site:
> http://www.mscomputer.com
> > Call 888-333-9041 to place your order, mention you saw this ad and take
> an
> additional 5 percent off
> > any weather station price.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Towertalk mailing list
> > Towertalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> 
> 

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