[TowerTalk] Coax Q Bury-FLEX Tm vs. LMR - 400 Re: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 224, Issue 30

[Steve Davis | Davis RF]

Hi Larry,

I am the designer of Bury-Flex Tm some 15 years ago.   DAVIS RF holds the Tm .   So, one could say I am biased.   But as most folks
who have dealt with me, or DAVIS RF, know that I provide pertinent info for the application involved, so the customer gets the best product for his situation.  I am more known for "Down selling" (saving price when equal technical results can be accomplished)  vs.
"Up selling"

  Also, we sell the complete LMR line, direct and to dealers including HRO.

  It is good that you mentioned use at HF, as that helps me to opine.

The attenuation of both cables are the same at HF, and B Flex is equivalent to 2800 MHz, after which LMR  400 is a bit lower loss.


Both LMR 400, and Bury-FLex Tm, use a PE (polyethylene) outer jacket which is direct burial.  There are a few durometer (relates to density) specs for PE, but LMR 400 and Bury-Flex Tm, are OK as direct burial in dirt (and water, oil, gas and certain chemicals).

The main difference between the two is the flexibility.  LMR- 400 uses a solid center copper clad aluminum conductor where my design uses a  19 strand tinned copper conductor (not aluminum clad).  Stranded conductors, OD size to size, are most always more flexible than solid, but that assumes same strand metallurgy and same durometer outer jacket.  Both OD's are the same @  .406 " .

Our price for any LMR products (and any Times Microwave , the mfr. parts for any Times cable products) is lower than any other dealer, with
Bury-Flex Tm being a little less in price vs. LMR-400.

Bury-Flex Tm has been used by NASA ground station , Lockheed Northrup, and many other commercial &  military entities.

I hope this info helps in your decision.  You may contact me at any time for any other questions.

Best regards,  Steve Davis   K1PEK   Snr. Cable Design Eng'r and Founder,  DAVIS RF, a div. of Orion Wire Co., Inc.
                                                                                                                           and DavisRopeAndCable.com

Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:54:10 -0700
> From: Larry Gadallah <lgadallah at gmail.com>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Coax Q
> Message-ID:
>    <CAPtFaQtpAC9dwCn1x6aiUg2H5P=jcp6nwW9OvRX1Jp4ytRJTww at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi all:
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the merits/shortcomings of LMR-400 vs.
> BuryFlex for on/in ground use at HF?
>






Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Coax Q (Richard Bell)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 12:01:41 -0500
From: Richard Bell <richfbell at sbcglobal.net>
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Coax Q
Message-ID: <1DE2178F-4BCC-4135-9A37-43E86D7B813C at sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

How about a little more info such planned frequencies, length of run, power.

73 W5BXE

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:54:10 -0700
> From: Larry Gadallah <lgadallah at gmail.com>
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Coax Q
> Message-ID:
>    <CAPtFaQtpAC9dwCn1x6aiUg2H5P=jcp6nwW9OvRX1Jp4ytRJTww at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi all:
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the merits/shortcomings of LMR-400 vs.
> BuryFlex for on/in ground use at HF?
>