View Single Post
  #29   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
Skip Gundlach Skip Gundlach is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 540
Default I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance hereconcerning VHF antennas

On Nov 27, 2:18*pm, Vic Smith wrote:

I just put in the "saving lives" to prod Skip. *It can be valid though
for the ultra-cautious.
Plenty of other reasons to go with the best cable in the mast.
Wayne's mentioned some.
Did a bit of reading on it, and saw some comments that since the 214
is mil spec, the quality isn't spotty. *It is with 213.

This is interesting, though I won't swear by it. *Might be relevant to
mast movement though.
http://www.mail-archive.com/repeater.../msg28257.html
"The silver plating is what makes RG-214 advantageous over RG-213 in a
duplex environment moreso than just the difference in braid coverage
with respect to shielding effectiveness. Movement of the braid strands
each other doesn't make nearly as much noise with the silver plated
strands of RG-214 as compared to bare copper RG-213. And as the cable
ages and the braid strands tarnish (oxidize), the difference becomes
progressively greater as silver oxide is a very good conductor unlike
cupric oxide (or is it cuprous, I forget, cupric oxide is black-ish
and cuprous is red-ish IIRC."

This is all voodoo to me, so I tend to listen to those with
experience. *Couldn't find anybody who would go with 213 over 214
except for price.
Now, regarding price.http://therfc.com/coax.htm
RG-213/U
$ .68/ft
$63.00/100'

RG-214/U MIL
$2.25/ft
$194.00/100'

$131 difference for 100'

Up to the individual.
Personally, I'd go the $131 just for the voodoo protection.
Maybe I'm superstitious.
Skip will do what Skip does.
BTW, one radio guy gets his 214 from a mil surplus seller near his
home for $.90 a foot. *Not on the net though, and price hunting isn't
always cost-effective. *

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Great info, thanks. Looks like a good place to buy....

Pulling up the attenuations next to each all came up with the same
page. Perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, but I can't seem to
see the relevant categories, and the header is confusing, as it
relates to per 100' but then seems to give different distances.

If I ignore the header, I see 400 at 1.2, 8x at 2.5, 58 at 4.6, etc.
Is it not there, or am I missing the 213/4?


Thanks...