BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:44:14 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:35 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:45:06 GMT, chuck wrote:

Am I missing something here? Surely the RG-58 wouldn't be attached to a
PL-259 without a UG-175 reducing adapter, would it? Is it being said
that even with the UG-175, there is insufficient strain relief?

in my opinion the answer is there is insufficient strain relief for
critical applications. the jacket of thicker cables, such as rg 213,
when inserted into the pl 259, provide quite a bit of support for the
connector.

And what about the PL-259 which is specifically made for RG-58, without
using an UG-175 adapter?

i haven't seen one of those, but there are other factors which argue
against rg 58 when there are superior cables out there. the loss
factor is one...physics itself causes rg58 to be lossier than cables
like rg213 or rg 8. although this is not a factor for a short run,
depending on how long the run is, it could be an issue.

also, thicker cables are going to be more mechanically sound than
thinner cables.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

The type of connector has little to do with how well the cable holds
up. You are supposed to provide support for the cable irrespective of
the connector. The connector is not supposed to support the cable. The
cable should be properly strapped down so the connector does not take
any load.

As far as RG58 cable being no good, I suppose you might want to tell
Motorola and many other radio manufacturers about that. They have for
many years supplied that cable on their VHF and UHF mobile antenna
installations. And by the way the PL259 was the standard connector for
both too.

In marine VHF antenna applications you will be hard pressed to find
any marine VHF antenna that comes with a length of cable pre attached
that does not use RG58 type cable.

The size of a cable has little to do with its mechanical durability.
There are small cables that are much more robust than larger cables.
It all depends on how each is constructed.

The amount of shielding of coax cable is of little importance in most
typical radio installations. Coax with 70 or 80% coverage verses 100%
will not matter unless it is used in multicoupling or duplex systems
where high isolation is important. Otherwise you will not be able to
measure any difference in performance.

Each type of cable has its applications. While RG8 type of cable
generally has less loss than RG58 type, there are some of the RG58
types that are far superior to some RG8 types of cable in terms of
durability, shielding, mechanical stability, phase stability, constant
impedance, being able to handle high heat and overall ruggedness.

If running a cable for a VHF antenna up the mast of a sail boat I
would opt for an RG8 type of cable over the RG58 type for the lower
loss benefit. Other than that RG58 cable would be the choice for HF or
VHF unless I happen to have some extra RG8 type cable handy at the
time.

Regards
Gary