I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:16:36 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:03:01 -0800 (PST), Skip Gundlach
wrote:



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?

Too confusing for me to look at. But I've seen in multiple places
that the 213 and 214 are identical on the electronics signal stuff.
The difference is double shielding versus single, copper versus
silver, implied longevity/signal degradation, and "guaranteed" quality
- all in 214's favor. Price is in 213's favor.

--Vic



Another "better" use for the price difference would be for purchase of
a second antenna on a fold down mount. These are often mounted to a
lifeline stanchion. If your call for help involves a dismasting, your
main antenna may be 50 feet under water, pointed towards Davey Jones.
No cable is going to overcome THAT, or when you lose your mast top
antenna in a knock down.

My guess is that more radio failures are caused by the cheap included
mics that come attached to most VHF radios, and the extremely failure
prone coily cord for the mic. Do you carry a spare mic and cord? You
can have the healthiest VHF carrier in the world, but without high
quality modualtion it won't matter. I often hear weak, garbled VHF
transmissions that have an adequate carrier to reach me. Stock mics
tend to be a very weak link.

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:16:36 -0600, Vic Smith

Another "better" use for the price difference would be for purchase of
a second antenna on a fold down mount. These are often mounted to a
lifeline stanchion. If your call for help involves a dismasting, your
main antenna may be 50 feet under water, pointed towards Davey Jones.
No cable is going to overcome THAT, or when you lose your mast top
antenna in a knock down.


Roger that!

Is this a viable alternative?

http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|302025|320647|321064&id=70975

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)

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:37:05 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:16:36 -0600, Vic Smith

Another "better" use for the price difference would be for purchase of
a second antenna on a fold down mount. These are often mounted to a
lifeline stanchion. If your call for help involves a dismasting, your
main antenna may be 50 feet under water, pointed towards Davey Jones.
No cable is going to overcome THAT, or when you lose your mast top
antenna in a knock down.


Roger that!

Is this a viable alternative?

http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|302025|320647|321064&id=70975

L8R

Skip

That would be FAR superior to nothing! LOL

You could have also used it for quickly verifying that the radio was
not your problem.

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:52:15 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

There are lower loss, cheaper coax choices out there.

Instead, 214 and the like are insurance against the day that may come in
12 years time, when the signal lines have taken a couple of knock-downs,
and weeks of sea fog end in a call for help. THAT'S the moment when the
cost earns its price.

This year, you would get more range from a much cheaper coax, before
time and weather take their toll....

That's exactly right. Anyone who has tried to maintain electronic
equipment on a salt water boat knows the value of long term
durability.

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:37:05 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

Is this a viable alternative?

http://www.defender.com/product.jsp?path=-1|344|302025|320647|321064&id=70975

Not really, it's not much better than a handheld rubber ducky. I
used to have a second Metz mounted on the stern pulpit, or in your
case, I'd mount it on the arch.

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance hereconcerning VHF antennas
 

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:52:15 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

wrote:

OR if Money is NO OBJECT RG-214, which is
what the Navy and Feds use....
A quick Google reveals the stuff on sale at $3.90/ft. Depends on how
much value you place on having your Mayday heard. If you are really
into saving money go with cheap flares and lifejackets.

Casady
Yep. I think the issue of cable value and what to get is over.
Now it mostly depends on how much you value your life.
And your passengers' lives.
Easy decision. Maybe.

--Vic
/snip/ The percentage of times where 214 will save you and 213
won't is essentially ZERO.

If you want to overspend on something meaningful for safety, look
elsewhere. Maybe use the money to buy an extra handheld or an Epirb
with better batteries.



There is yet another way of valuing coax. If you get into a situation
next year where a low-loss coax would JUST reach help, otherwise you
perish, then you SHOULDN'T choose 214 or one of the more expensive ones
still.
There are lower loss, cheaper coax choices out there.

Instead, 214 and the like are insurance against the day that may come in
12 years time, when the signal lines have taken a couple of knock-downs,
and weeks of sea fog end in a call for help. THAT'S the moment when the
cost earns its price.

This year, you would get more range from a much cheaper coax, before
time and weather take their toll....

Brian Whatcott

Huh? What?

This URL lists several lower loss cheaper coaxes than 214.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/cable/coax.html

Ones with a polythene cover won't give off acid - but air dielectric
will soak up moisture sooner or later.....

Brian W

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:08:47 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:52:15 -0600, brian whatcott
wrote:

wrote:

OR if Money is NO OBJECT RG-214, which is
what the Navy and Feds use....
A quick Google reveals the stuff on sale at $3.90/ft. Depends on how
much value you place on having your Mayday heard. If you are really
into saving money go with cheap flares and lifejackets.

Casady
Yep. I think the issue of cable value and what to get is over.
Now it mostly depends on how much you value your life.
And your passengers' lives.
Easy decision. Maybe.

--Vic
/snip/ The percentage of times where 214 will save you and 213
won't is essentially ZERO.

If you want to overspend on something meaningful for safety, look
elsewhere. Maybe use the money to buy an extra handheld or an Epirb
with better batteries.



There is yet another way of valuing coax. If you get into a situation
next year where a low-loss coax would JUST reach help, otherwise you
perish, then you SHOULDN'T choose 214 or one of the more expensive ones
still.
There are lower loss, cheaper coax choices out there.

Instead, 214 and the like are insurance against the day that may come in
12 years time, when the signal lines have taken a couple of knock-downs,
and weeks of sea fog end in a call for help. THAT'S the moment when the
cost earns its price.

This year, you would get more range from a much cheaper coax, before
time and weather take their toll....

Brian Whatcott

Huh? What?

This URL lists several lower loss cheaper coaxes than 214.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/cable/coax.html

Ones with a polythene cover won't give off acid - but air dielectric
will soak up moisture sooner or later.....

Brian W

Huh? What?

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:26:58 -0500, wrote:



To be honest, I'd probably go for the 214 as well - "just because". I
still don't think it would make a bit of difference as far as my level
of safety, now or 20 years from now. The cable will be well protected
INSIDE the mast and INSIDE the cabin. Very little, if any, will be
exposed to the elements. Careful attention to installation and
waterproof connections is what matters more than the differences
between "really good" and "slightly better than really good".

From the brief reading I did, the connections are indeed more
important than minor differences in cable.
"Liquid electric tape" was one item mentioned.
Whole other can of contention probably.
Anybody care to open it?

--Vic

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:27:43 -0500, wrote:

My guess is that more radio failures are caused by the cheap included
mics that come attached to most VHF radios, and the extremely failure
prone coily cord for the mic.

Funny you should mention that. I just had to replace the mic on my
ICOM SSB because of a coiling cord that suddenly went defective. It
is less than 5 years old and not exposed to the outside elements at
all. The good news is that West Marine actually stocks the mic and it
is halfway reasonably priced.

I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
 

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:17:58 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:27:43 -0500, wrote:

My guess is that more radio failures are caused by the cheap included
mics that come attached to most VHF radios, and the extremely failure
prone coily cord for the mic.

Funny you should mention that. I just had to replace the mic on my
ICOM SSB because of a coiling cord that suddenly went defective. It
is less than 5 years old and not exposed to the outside elements at
all. The good news is that West Marine actually stocks the mic and it
is halfway reasonably priced.

Those coily cords are constantly working the wires inside. They also
fail constantly on telephone handsets. For a period in the 1960's they
were popular for guitar patch cords. Guitarists eventually got tired
of having them quit mid-performance.