Topband: fixing beverage

[Jim Brown]

On Tue,11/24/2015 5:56 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> Factually, the little bumps or even big bumps on VHF are meaningless 
> for active problems on lower frequencies.   They might predict a 
> future issue, but on 160 meters even crushing a cable flat for five 
> feet would be meaningless for receive loss unless the center actually 
> contacted the shield.

Factually, that is not good analysis. One can use any measurement tool 
in multiple ways. If, for example, one is searching for tiny holes the 
outer diectric that are letting in water, we must look at the higher 
frequencies to see that level of detail. We're not looking for SWR or 
loss, we're looking for some sort of mechanical defect that degrades the 
cable.

On Tue,11/24/2015 5:56 PM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> If I wanted to find the reason for high signal loss on 160, the last 
> thing I would ever do is look at the system on 150 MHz or even 30 
> MHz.   I would first look at the system down around where the problem 
> is, or as close as I could to that frequency. 

That's because you don't understand FFT analysis. I'm not looking for 
the loss, I'm looking for the CAUSE of the loss, and I want to get 
within a few inches of it. You CANNOT do that with a low frequency test 
signal -- the system does not have sufficient resolution.

73, Jim K9YC