Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor

[donovanf at starpower.net]

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 at sasktel.net>  
>Subject: RE: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor  
>To: <donovanf at starpower.net>, <topband at 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
>