| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:15:52 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: 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. Um, Wilbore... All coax is shielded. It's called coax because it is co-axial, with the grounded shield forming a woven tube out side the center conductor. 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. In most cases that would be true. However, if you have coax or an antenna that are BAD, or filled with water, you may not get such great reception, either. Just as you would not have much reception if you used that coathanger to tie the center of the pl259 to the shield. 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 Good, because I don't think we could stand too much more of your "advice" |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance hereconcerning VHF antennas
WOW! Gregbur must be sober tonight. He signed in and out using the
same name. Pretty lame info that most any novice would know, but I'm sure it made him feel good to think he was again, "sh**ting on the rec.boats.cruising board. Sign the donor card. Do oneting good with your remains. |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
"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... 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
In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: 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 IT is a good thing you aren't trying to pass yourself off as a Marine Radioman, because the above certainly demonstrates, that your knowledge of VHF Radio Technology, RF Transmission Lines and Antenna Theory is sadly lacking.... Me Someone with 40 years in the Biz....... |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
"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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
----- 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) |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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 ? |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
"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) |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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. |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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) |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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. |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
----- 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) |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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 |
More On Skip's Antenna (was I hate to say it but ...)
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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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. |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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) |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:02:01 -0500, "Flying Pig"
wrote: 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... OK, I see what you mean. Apparently your angle bracket is too thick for the threads provided by Metz. There is a cheap and dirty solution to that kind of mounting problem involving Ty-Wraps and JB Weld that might just do the job if you're so inclined. I won't tell anyone as long as you don't look too closely at how my latest WiFi antenna is mounted at the top of our trawler mast. :-) |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:50:47 -0900, Bruce in alaska
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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:18:01 -0600, Richard Casady
wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:50:47 -0900, Bruce in alaska 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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:28:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:18:01 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:50:47 -0900, Bruce in alaska 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 Baloney. If you are THAT worried, you shouldn't be on a boat. 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. |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:57:56 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:28:48 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:18:01 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:50:47 -0900, Bruce in alaska 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 Baloney. If you are THAT worried, you shouldn't be on a boat. 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. 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 |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:18:53 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:57:56 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:28:48 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:18:01 -0600, Richard Casady wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:50:47 -0900, Bruce in alaska 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 Baloney. If you are THAT worried, you shouldn't be on a boat. 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. 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 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". |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance hereconcerning VHF antennas
|
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: 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? |
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... |
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
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 |
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
|
I hate to say it but there sure is a bunch of ignorance here concerning VHF antennas
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:51 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com