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

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"

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.

"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)

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.......

"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 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.