[Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213

[Jon Ogden]

on 10/21/02 9:32 PM, Bob Nielsen at nielsen@oz.net wrote:

> RG-213 has a non-contaminating jacket, not a direct burial jacket.  As
> I recall it is practically identical to one of the RG-8 versions and I
> would expect that the loss figures are identical.  In this respect, I
> am referring to what was once a MIL-spec cable, but the term "RG-8" is
> now applied to quite a few other cables in the .405 diameter class (as
> is also the case with RG-6, RG-58 and RG-59, etc.)

There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this "direct burial" thing.  My
RG-213 says it clearly on the jacket:  "Direct Burial"

No, there's no goop in there, but according to what I have been told by the
folks at Cable Experts (where I got the cable), anything with a polyethelene
jacket is essentially capable of direct burial.  PVC jackets such as RG-8,
are not rated for such.  I will double check my information with them since
they are in my area and I regularly pick stuff up from them.

RG-213 is a mil-spec cable yes.  It has a different dielectric than RG-8.
RG-8 typically has a foam dielectric.  Has less loss than RG-213 but can't
handle the power.

73,

Jon
NA9D

-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)

Life Member: ARRL, NRA
Member:  AMSAT, DXCC

http://www.qsl.net/ke9na

"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."