wrote in message
...

RG-213 is similar to RG-142, except you can find it for 70 cents a
foot. Mil spec and everything! Rated for both direct burial
(waterproof) and UV exposure.


Hi, Salty,

I didn't find, in my looking, any 213 MilSpec - can you give me a link?

However, and significantly, I did find that 213 is 2.8 vs 400's 1.5 loss on
the 150mHz band - and, much worse, of course, are the 8x at 4.7. 9913 is
only 1.7, and I can't put my hands on 142's at the moment...

Meanwhile, I've been seeing reference to copperplated aluminum center
conductors, or copper tube (on the monster sizes), along with the solid and
stranded copper. I have some challenges with clad/plated, cuz if it doesn't
hold up well in soldering, then I'm trying to solder AL. Anyone have any RW
experience with this? I know that AL was used in some house wiring, due to
costs, with some disastrous (heating/expansion-contraction) results in some
cases. Should I be nervous about this, or does the much higher copper melt
temp make this a non-issue for soldering?

Thanks for all the inputs. I'm slow, but I'm learning :{))

L8R

Skip

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in
its hand
(Richard Bach)

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:44:15 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

RG-213 is similar to RG-142, except you can find it for 70 cents a
foot. Mil spec and everything! Rated for both direct burial
(waterproof) and UV exposure.


Hi, Salty,

I didn't find, in my looking, any 213 MilSpec - can you give me a link?

However, and significantly, I did find that 213 is 2.8 vs 400's 1.5 loss on
the 150mHz band - and, much worse, of course, are the 8x at 4.7. 9913 is
only 1.7, and I can't put my hands on 142's at the moment...

Meanwhile, I've been seeing reference to copperplated aluminum center
conductors, or copper tube (on the monster sizes), along with the solid and
stranded copper. I have some challenges with clad/plated, cuz if it doesn't
hold up well in soldering, then I'm trying to solder AL. Anyone have any RW
experience with this? I know that AL was used in some house wiring, due to
costs, with some disastrous (heating/expansion-contraction) results in some
cases. Should I be nervous about this, or does the much higher copper melt
temp make this a non-issue for soldering?

Thanks for all the inputs. I'm slow, but I'm learning :{))

L8R

Skip

My feeling is that you are overanalyzing this. Comparing anything to
400 is pointless, as 400 is not practical on a boat. Worrying about
which cable has the lowest loss amongst a bunch of cables that are all
"low loss" is also pointless. If you go to some place like a West
Marine and they have a "standard" cable and a "better" cable", buy the
"better cable" and you will have what you need. That's really as hard
as this decision needs to be. The RG142 might be nice, but I honestly
doubt you will get anything out of it that you won't get from the
"better" cable at West. It may give slightly better measurements in a
lab, but out on a pitching boat, with a less than 100 foot run of
cable, there will be NO discernable difference in performance. None,
nada, zip.

I just did a google and found this place that has it. There is also a
PDF there that, just for laughs, compares RG-213 side by side with 8x.
http://www.jefatech.com/product/RG21..._The_Foot.html

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:09:23 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

Follow the link in the anomaly thread, and you'll see why. It wouldn't fit
on the bracket...

OK, based on the following picture, I think I see the problem. It
looks like the coil on the bottom of the Metz was interfering with the
upright portion of your aluminum angle bracket, requiring you to space
it higher?

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/892...tzbracket3.jpg

You are incurring at least 1 db of extra loss as a result of that
connector stack (0.5 db per extra connection), and that's assuming
that no moisture has gotten in, and the connectors are all top shelf.
1+ db is a lot of loss, about equal to an 80 ft run of good quality
coax.

It looks like the solution is to trim away some small portion of the
outer end of the angle bracket as indicated in the cross-hatching so
that the Metz can be mounted flush the way it was intended. That
would eliminate both adapters that you have now.

While you're doing all that you might want to retighten the nut under
the red shrink tubing that holds the whip in place. They sometimes
loosen up over time and let the whip get away. It happened to us
about 20 years ago on a cruise to Maine. The good news was that while
up the mast fixing the Metz, I spotted a pod of whales on the horizon
and they put on quite a show for us.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne.B"


On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:09:23 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

Follow the link in the anomaly thread, and you'll see why. It wouldn't
fit
on the bracket...

OK, based on the following picture, I think I see the problem. It
looks like the coil on the bottom of the Metz was interfering with the
upright portion of your aluminum angle bracket, requiring you to space
it higher?

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/892...tzbracket3.jpg

You are incurring at least 1 db of extra loss as a result of that
connector stack (0.5 db per extra connection), and that's assuming
that no moisture has gotten in, and the connectors are all top shelf.
1+ db is a lot of loss, about equal to an 80 ft run of good quality
coax.

It looks like the solution is to trim away some small portion of the
outer end of the angle bracket as indicated in the cross-hatching so
that the Metz can be mounted flush the way it was intended. That
would eliminate both adapters that you have now.

While you're doing all that you might want to retighten the nut under
the red shrink tubing that holds the whip in place. They sometimes
loosen up over time and let the whip get away. It happened to us
about 20 years ago on a cruise to Maine. The good news was that while
up the mast fixing the Metz, I spotted a pod of whales on the horizon
and they put on quite a show for us.


Hi, Wayne, and list,

Thanks for the note - but the entire reason for the connector was that there
aren't any threads on the Metz which would allow attachment to the bracket.

As it is, the nut, which might be seen in one or more of the pix, on the
original connector (it's the same, as far as I can tell, is a standard
connector, one end in the base, and the other to the usual thin bracket),
but which (the bottom nut) broke off when I was getting the down-and off the
bracket, probably made the connector end too short to fully seat the ring
from the cable.

The way I have it installed allows plenty of room for the collar to screw on
tightly without contacting the nut securing it to the bracket.

Is there any reason to believe that this bulkhead mount connector is any
different electrically from the "standard" connector which was supplied with
the Metz (I have three - MMSI, AM/FM and this - and they all have what
appears to be the same connector as part of the original antenna)?

You'll note in the pic sequence that my original thought was to use the
original antenna. Then I found that the bracket interfered, so cut away the
offending part. It's not as big a cutaway as you have, but would have
allowed the Metz to mount to the bracket. Then I found that the threads
weren't long enough on the original connector to even get a nut on, let
alone the cable, and thus the kludge.

It's my presumption that I can do away with the double male under the
antenna as currently installed, along with the Metz-supplied connector,
using the bulkhead connector instead of the original, screwing the coil
directly to it (the new longer connector).

So, the question of the moment was whether I'm correct in that
presumption...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in
its hand
(Richard Bach)

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:07:25 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

It's my presumption that I can do away with the double male under the
antenna as currently installed, along with the Metz-supplied connector,
using the bulkhead connector instead of the original, screwing the coil
directly to it (the new longer connector).

So, the question of the moment was whether I'm correct in that
presumption...

There's something about your antenna that I don't understand. Does
yours look like the follwing drawing:

http://www.metzcommunication.com/ima...heetforweb.jpg

That diagram clearly shows an SO-239 female connector with plenty of
threads showing, which is how I remember it.

Is yours different in some way?

Is your coax terminated with a PL-259 male connector? That is what
the Metz is expecting.

http://www.universal-radio.com/CATAL...ts/plconn.html

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:58:21 -0500, wrote:

The RG142 might be nice, but I honestly
doubt you will get anything out of it that you won't get from the
"better" cable at West. It may give slightly better measurements in a
lab, but out on a pitching boat, with a less than 100 foot run of
cable, there will be NO discernable difference in performance. None,
nada, zip.

I just did a google and found this place that has it. There is also a
PDF there that, just for laughs, compares RG-213 side by side with 8x.
http://www.jefatech.com/product/RG21..._The_Foot.html

RG213 is good cable, reasonably priced, and perfectly adequate for
most applications. That said, an 80 ft run to the top of a sailboat
mast is not "most" applications and every db counts. Durability
counts for a lot also and I don't think you can beat double shielding
and silver plated conductors in that department, and let's not forget
the teflon insulation which is *much* more durable than polyethylene,
and *much* less susceptible to being damaged by soldering.

If it was my mast, and was about to go to the trouble of snaking in a
new coax, I'd go with the best available if the price difference was
not astronomical.

Flying Pig wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
...
400 is too big, too heavy and too inflexible. I think you know that.
I've also heard bad things about water intrusion but I have used it
successfully on our boat for short runs to WiFi antennas which operate
at *much* higher frequencies than marine VHF (max about 162 MHz).

8x is highly susceptible to water intrusion.

58 is cheap junk suitable only for short runs in non-critical
applications.

142 (MIL spec variety) I like and have had good experience in the
past, no need to belabor those points. Have you heard any negatives
other than price?

9913 I have no experience with but I'm pretty sure it does not have
teflon insulation or silver plated conductors.

Here's a brief comparison from a respected source:

http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/...-net/coax.html

They don't mention 142 for some reason, perhaps because of price or
availability but I don't know.

I'm trying to understand your issue with the Metz antenna that
required extra connectors. I've had several Metz over the years and
don't recall having that problem. I believe the Metx comes with a
small "L" shaped bracket that mounts to the side on the mast, and the
female connector on the bottom of the coil goes through the top of the
"L" and is held in place with a thin lock nut. The top of your coax
should be terminated with a male PL-259 connector that hooks right up
with the Metz female connector protruding through the "L" bracket.
Make sure that top connection is well taped and sealed. I like to
use several layers of self-sticking silicone tape topped off with more
layers of white vinyl rigging tape to provide UV protection.

What am I missing ?


Hi, Wayne,

Follow the link in the anomaly thread, and you'll see why. It wouldn't fit
on the bracket...

Thanks for the detail on coax...

L8R

Skip


Looks like Skip is using a UG363 - adaptor. This is a UHF female to
female and comes in various lengths from 1 to 12 inches see, for example
http://www.universal-radio.com/CATALOG/parts/ug363.html

His relevant pictures are 8291135 -6 -7 -9

He is constrained by mounting on a metal angle, flange up - the flange
interfering with the antenna base. Not great practice but acceptable.

Brian W

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:58:21 -0500, wrote:

The RG142 might be nice, but I honestly
doubt you will get anything out of it that you won't get from the
"better" cable at West. It may give slightly better measurements in a
lab, but out on a pitching boat, with a less than 100 foot run of
cable, there will be NO discernable difference in performance. None,
nada, zip.

I just did a google and found this place that has it. There is also a
PDF there that, just for laughs, compares RG-213 side by side with 8x.
http://www.jefatech.com/product/RG21..._The_Foot.html

RG213 is good cable, reasonably priced, and perfectly adequate for
most applications. That said, an 80 ft run to the top of a sailboat
mast is not "most" applications and every db counts. Durability
counts for a lot also and I don't think you can beat double shielding
and silver plated conductors in that department, and let's not forget
the teflon insulation which is *much* more durable than polyethylene,
and *much* less susceptible to being damaged by soldering.

If it was my mast, and was about to go to the trouble of snaking in a
new coax, I'd go with the best available if the price difference was
not astronomical.

In article ,
"Flying Pig" wrote:

However, and significantly, I did find that 213 is 2.8 vs 400's 1.5 loss on
the 150mHz band - and, much worse, of course, are the 8x at 4.7. 9913 is
only 1.7, and I can't put my hands on 142's at the moment...

Beldon 9913 is NOT really what you want in a Marine Situation, as it is
HOLLOW Core, and NEEDS a 1 Foot Bending Radius... You could try 9914, if
the still make it, but again it is,t really a Marine type Coax. RG-213
is what MOST Marine Folks use, OR if Money is NO OBJECT RG-214, which is
what the Navy and Feds use....

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

Hi, Wayne, and list

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

There's something about your antenna that I don't understand. Does
yours look like the follwing drawing:

http://www.metzcommunication.com/ima...heetforweb.jpg

That diagram clearly shows an SO-239 female connector with plenty of
threads showing, which is how I remember it.

Is yours different in some way?


http://www.justpickone.org/skip/gall...onics&start=88
and the next page have pix of the current Metz antenna. Apparently, they've
changed their antennae, as the MMSI, AM/FM and this Metz I have all have the
type of connector shown, which is a discontinous thread. The pix of my
holding the still-mounted-to-original-bracket antenna show that it's not
long enough to mount with a nut, thus the extended connector I used...

Is your coax terminated with a PL-259 male connector? That is what
the Metz is expecting.

http://www.universal-radio.com/CATAL...ts/plconn.html


Yes...

L8R

Skip

--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in
its hand
(Richard Bach)