"Flying Pig" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
For transmitting you need a good coax cable with clean tight fittings.
You need the shielding on the outside so the signal goes all the way to
the antenna and out the top (the antenna itself) and not bleeding out the
sides of the cable.

For receiving you don't need coax at all. You could stick a freaking coat
hanger into the center part of the connecter at the radio and receive
just fine. If you aren't receiving well it's because your receiver is on
the fritz or going on the fritz. Fiddling around with your coax or
antenna is a waste of time.

I hope this helps because I'm through wasting my time with a bunch of
rank radio newbs who won't freaking listen to reason.

Wilbur Hubbard


Heh. Sorry Wilbur, but you haven't been following the thread.

My unit wouldn't receive worth a damn - until I hooked it to a good
antenna and feed.

My last showed that even a lousy position, so long as I had a good feed,
was fine for reception and transmission. Had me going for a bit on the
radio, but it's fine. The antenna works, with just a pigtail. Nothing
left but the cable...



For NOW. But, did I not state that it is a condition that becomes
progressively worse? Or did you forget you read it? But, suit yourself.
Remember when it goes out completely when needed the most way down island
that I TOLD YOU SO.

Wilbur Hubbard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilbur Hubbard"
Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:00 PM
Subject: I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here
concerning VHF antennas



Heh. Sorry Wilbur, but you haven't been following the thread.

My unit wouldn't receive worth a damn - until I hooked it to a good
antenna and feed.

My last showed that even a lousy position, so long as I had a good feed,
was fine for reception and transmission. Had me going for a bit on the
radio, but it's fine. The antenna works, with just a pigtail. Nothing
left but the cable...



For NOW. But, did I not state that it is a condition that becomes
progressively worse? Or did you forget you read it? But, suit yourself.
Remember when it goes out completely when needed the most way down island
that I TOLD YOU SO.

Wilbur Hubbard


Ya, but it's no longer an issue. It never "got worse" - it's been that way
sorta forever, and until here in MH, it hadn't been an issue. Many times in
Georgetown, we'd not hear very well - but everyone was a lot closer. Before
then, it was a head-scratcher which got lost in the shuffle of all the other
stuff which was going on simultaneously.

Until here, it didn't really matter. And, having proven, with about as
lousy a possible antenna position as possible, that the antenna and radio
worked just fine, I'm not going to worry about it (the radio).

Now, I'm just looking for the best cable for the application - lighter, more
flexible, best resistance to water/salt intrusion, and best throughput. A
3db loss is half power, and given that I've got somewhere on the order of
75-80 feet, a multiplier of 1.5 on a 50' (or .75 on a 100') spec would give
me my loss, using 100, 150 and 200 mHz, those covering all the VHF
channels - and 150 a reasonable place if I didn't want to mess with the
math. I'm surely not interested in something like 3, and would prefer
something like 1 or less.

Finding all of those in one cable will involve tradeoffs, for sure, but - I
guess, but am willing to be convinced otherwise - the order of preference
for me would be signal loss, water/salt prevention, and then ease of
handling. Cost, given the relatively small amount in the scheme of things,
is a distant 4th.

This is only one of several places this discussion is happening, and I get
constant reference to both positive and negatives on 400, 8x, 58, 142, 9913,
and a few others...

Let the debate continue :{))

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 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:29:14 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

This is only one of several places this discussion is happening, and I get
constant reference to both positive and negatives on 400, 8x, 58, 142, 9913,
and a few others...

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 ?

"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

--
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 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

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 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:29:14 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilbur Hubbard"
Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:00 PM
Subject: I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here
concerning VHF antennas



Heh. Sorry Wilbur, but you haven't been following the thread.

My unit wouldn't receive worth a damn - until I hooked it to a good
antenna and feed.

My last showed that even a lousy position, so long as I had a good feed,
was fine for reception and transmission. Had me going for a bit on the
radio, but it's fine. The antenna works, with just a pigtail. Nothing
left but the cable...



For NOW. But, did I not state that it is a condition that becomes
progressively worse? Or did you forget you read it? But, suit yourself.
Remember when it goes out completely when needed the most way down island
that I TOLD YOU SO.

Wilbur Hubbard


Ya, but it's no longer an issue. It never "got worse" - it's been that way
sorta forever, and until here in MH, it hadn't been an issue. Many times in
Georgetown, we'd not hear very well - but everyone was a lot closer. Before
then, it was a head-scratcher which got lost in the shuffle of all the other
stuff which was going on simultaneously.

Until here, it didn't really matter. And, having proven, with about as
lousy a possible antenna position as possible, that the antenna and radio
worked just fine, I'm not going to worry about it (the radio).

Now, I'm just looking for the best cable for the application - lighter, more
flexible, best resistance to water/salt intrusion, and best throughput. A
3db loss is half power, and given that I've got somewhere on the order of
75-80 feet, a multiplier of 1.5 on a 50' (or .75 on a 100') spec would give
me my loss, using 100, 150 and 200 mHz, those covering all the VHF
channels - and 150 a reasonable place if I didn't want to mess with the
math. I'm surely not interested in something like 3, and would prefer
something like 1 or less.

Finding all of those in one cable will involve tradeoffs, for sure, but - I
guess, but am willing to be convinced otherwise - the order of preference
for me would be signal loss, water/salt prevention, and then ease of
handling. Cost, given the relatively small amount in the scheme of things,
is a distant 4th.

This is only one of several places this discussion is happening, and I get
constant reference to both positive and negatives on 400, 8x, 58, 142, 9913,
and a few others...

Let the debate continue :{))

L8R

Skip


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.

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)