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

[John Kaufmann]

At KC1XX we also have a 1500-foot feedline run to one of our lowband
receiving antennas. We use RG-6 with copper clad steel center conductor, but
we install a preamp right at the antenna to compensate for feedline loss and
some passive splitting losses at the station.  A potential downside of a
preamp is degradation in dynamic range in a strong signal environment, so
you have to choose the preamp carefully.  We have had very good results with
some very high dynamic range preamps from Clifton Laboratories
(http://cliftonlaboratories.com/current_products.htm).  Incidentally I have
also measured RG-6 feedline loss numbers that are virtually identical to
what Frank has reported.

73, John W1FV

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
donovanf at starpower.net
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:11 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Cc: Doug Renwick
Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad
center conductor

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