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...

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

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.

In article ,
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. 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.

In 40+ years of being a Marine Radioman, I have replaced 50 times more
Mic Cords than sections of Bad Coax... What is it with Boat Skippers,
that they just have to stretch the Mic Cords clear out to the Breaking
Point.....

--
Bruce in alaska
add path after fast to reply

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:12:25 -0900, Bruce in alaska
wrote:

In 40+ years of being a Marine Radioman, I have replaced 50 times more
Mic Cords than sections of Bad Coax... What is it with Boat Skippers,
that they just have to stretch the Mic Cords clear out to the Breaking
Point.....

The mic cord that I just replaced for the ICOM M802 had never been
over stretched, was lightly used, and less than 5 years old. I think
the rubber quality leaves a lot to be desired.

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.