[TowerTalk] Replacing coax question

[Tower (K8RI)]

Why not use a single piece of LMR-400 flex? It'd have still less loss 
and I believe it's cheaper than 213.

As for splices, I use the flooded heat shrink and have not had any 
failures (leaks) so far.
OTOH at 40 meters the loss between old fashioned RG-8 and even Heliax is 
hardly worth mentioning./
/
Roger Halstead (K8RI ARRL Life Member)
Worlds Oldest Debonair (N833R S# CD-2)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Alan C. Zack wrote:

> I agree.  Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe RG-213 is 
> flexible enough to use for the rotation loop at the beam as well as 
> where it would loop on the side of the tower when you crank it up or 
> down.  You could have one continuos coax run and not have the concern 
> of moisture getting into your splice points.
>
> kk9a at arrl.net wrote:
>
>> I would use a single piece of Belden 8267 RG-213 for this.  It's 
>> durable,
>> there would be fewer connections and it would have less that 0.5 dB 
>> loss.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tom Martin" <tmartin at chartermi.net>
>> To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 18:36
>> Subject: [TowerTalk] Replacing coax question
>>
>>
>> I am replacing a 90' length of RG8 water damaged coax to my 40 meter 
>> beam.
>> I have LMR 400 for the main run up the tower but want to use a RG8 
>> section
>> for the rotator loop.  There are two ways to do this. First, a 14' 
>> section
>> of RG8 from the feed point of the beam with one PL259 and one barrel
>> connector to join the LMR.  Secondly, a 10' section of LMR and PL259 
>> to a
>> barrel connector and a 4' section of RG8 for the loop to join the LMR 
>> that
>> goes down 80' to the antenna relay box at the base of the tower.  This
>> configuration would require 4 PL259's and two barrel connectors.  I 
>> want to
>> avoid the many possible problem areas with the multiple connections.  I
>> think that I have answered my own question but wasn't sure if adding 
>> that
>> much RG8 to the run would offset the benefit of the LMR 400.  I 
>> suppose on
>> 40 meters the loss would be negligible.  Am I correct?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Tom W8JWN
>
>