[Towertalk] LMR400 vs. RG-213

[Jon Ogden]

on 10/22/02 12:06 AM, Bob Nielsen at nielsen@oz.net wrote:

> It IS confusing.
> 
>= Accoding to the Belden catalog (which agrees with my
> recollection,) MIL-C-17 RG-213 has a non-contaminating polyvinyl
> chloride jacket, not polyethylene.

OK.  I couldn't find the specs on that.


> 
> Currently, cables which meet Mil-C-17 have a M17/xxx designation,
> instead of (or in addition to) an RG- number.  Many manufacturers have
> (unfortunately, IMHO) applied RG designations to variations which are
> sometimes quite different than the original RG designation signified.
> This doesn't mean that they are inferior cables (quite often they have
> significant improvements), but not all RG-xxx cables with the same
> number are equivalent.

Oh that's not the half of it!  I am an RF component sales rep.  I sell RF
connectors from a French connector company.  The Europeans use yet another
standard for cable grouping based in size.  I believe RG-8 fits into what is
called the 10/50 cable group.  Other groups are 5/50 for sizes like RG-58,
2.5/50, etc.  It's very confusing!

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."