"Doug" wrote in
nk.net:

RAG-58

What's RAG?? I've never seen that designation before. Is it like RG-
58A/U?

--
Larry

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:23:22 -0400, Larry wrote:

(Bob) wrote in
:

but never, never, never ever use rg 58 cable. it's not shielded
properly. it has high loss.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field


Hogwash. There's RG-58 in every boat I work on and it works just
fine....

it's unreliable. you may know boats. you don't know electronics

rg 58 is poorly shielded. that makes it more susceptible to
interference...

although it's not a big issue for short runs (like on boats), its
loss/ft is much higher than other cables.

its diameter is not compatible with pl 259's which means many are
installed wrong.


Besides, I can't imagine running hardline through those little holes to the
masthead....(c;


try rg 213 or rg 8. much, much better.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:44:36 -0300, Terry Spragg
wrote:

Lynn Coffelt wrote:


The obvious weak link in most masthead installations is in the PL-259 coax
connector installation. There are not many out there who can do a proper,
watertight soldering job up at the top of a wavering, windy masthead. Been
there, done that, was not always proud of my work.

Old Chief Lynn, W7LTQ, PG-13-20604


Hay, chief, did ya ever think to push the wire down the mast using a
messenger to guide it, like the old wire being replaced, or a fish
line? that way, you leave the end with the on deck pre installed
connector on it at the top

except what happens when this thing sits in the wind, and rocks with
boat motion? the mechanical support for the cable/connector interface
isn't there. hell, these fail on CB installs all the time (no ham i've
never known ever used rg 58).

.

How long do hams spend sending? Rael hams use code, light duty
cycle,

rtty is light duty? it's 100% duty cycle at full power.


Mil RG58 is good enough for most, cheap, light.
Communications is our most valuable resource.

it'll work. but i wouldnt bet my life on it.


---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Doug" wrote in
nk.net:

RAG-58

What's RAG?? I've never seen that designation before. Is it like RG-
58A/U?

--
Larry

Looks like the spell checker got me and converted RG to RAG...I must have
hit the correct all button in error. RG is correct.
73
Doug

In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

it's unreliable. you may know boats. you don't know electronics

rg 58 is poorly shielded. that makes it more susceptible to
interference...

although it's not a big issue for short runs (like on boats), its
loss/ft is much higher than other cables.

its diameter is not compatible with pl 259's which means many are
installed wrong.

Hmmm, another flatlander, who thinks Marine Electronics is the same as
Ham Radio......

RG-58 comes in a whole pile of different forms, of which, some are
prefectly adequite for some specific Maritime uses. It is enherently
just as reliable as any other coax type, when installed properly.

There certainly are some forms of RG-58 that have poor shielding, but
there are also some forms of RG-58 that provide for 100% shileding, as
well. Better go back and look at a Beldon Catalog again......

Run Length and Frequency certainly are part of the list of things that
determine the suitability of any Coaxial Cable installation.

Obviously, you have never hear of the UG-174U Adapter..... and
what makes you think that a PL-259 is the "Be All, and End all"
of Marine Radio connectors?

Me who wonders where these guys come from......

What's RAG?? I've never seen that designation before. Is it like RG-
58A/U?

--
Larry

Looks like the spell checker got me and converted RG to RAG...I must have
hit the correct all button in error. RG is correct.
73
Doug

Whew! Thought I'd missed another new product!

Old Chief Lynn

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:00:40 GMT, Me wrote:

In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

it's unreliable. you may know boats. you don't know electronics

rg 58 is poorly shielded. that makes it more susceptible to
interference...

although it's not a big issue for short runs (like on boats), its
loss/ft is much higher than other cables.

its diameter is not compatible with pl 259's which means many are
installed wrong.

Hmmm, another flatlander, who thinks Marine Electronics is the same as
Ham Radio......

ROFLMAO! do much radio work?

RG-58 comes in a whole pile of different forms, of which, some are
prefectly adequite for some specific Maritime uses. It is enherently
just as reliable as any other coax type, when installed properly.

and you're missing the point.

There certainly are some forms of RG-58 that have poor shielding, but
there are also some forms of RG-58 that provide for 100% shileding, as
well. Better go back and look at a Beldon Catalog again......

kinda missed the total picture, didn't you?

part of the reason thicker cables work with pl 259's is the fact that,
installed properly, the jacket seats itself in the connector. this
functions as a stress relief and stabilizes the connector. rg58 is too
thin to take advantage of this. and, again, the thicker cable has a
mechanical advantage when inserted into the connecter since vibration
is reduced, thereby reducing stress.


Run Length and Frequency certainly are part of the list of things that
determine the suitability of any Coaxial Cable installation.

Obviously, you have never hear of the UG-174U Adapter..... and
what makes you think that a PL-259 is the "Be All, and End all"
of Marine Radio connectors?

Me who wonders where these guys come from......

ever been on a boat? how many pl259's are out there? how many of them
have adapters?

answer: almost none.

as to the adapter, it's unreliable since the mechanical advantage is
not present over the entire length of the jacket/connector interface.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

"Lynn Coffelt" wrote in message
...

What's RAG?? I've never seen that designation before. Is it like RG-
58A/U?

--
Larry

Looks like the spell checker got me and converted RG to RAG...I must
have
hit the correct all button in error. RG is correct.
73
Doug

Whew! Thought I'd missed another new product!

Old Chief Lynn

No it was a senility attack (or is it way too many years of RF radiation
exposure?)!
Doug K7ABX
"real radios communicate with smoke signals!"

Am I missing something here? Surely the RG-58 wouldn't be attached to a
PL-259 without a UG-175 reducing adapter, would it? Is it being said
that even with the UG-175, there is insufficient strain relief?

Thanks for the clarification.

Chuck

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:45:06 GMT, chuck wrote:

Am I missing something here? Surely the RG-58 wouldn't be attached to a
PL-259 without a UG-175 reducing adapter, would it? Is it being said
that even with the UG-175, there is insufficient strain relief?


in my opinion the answer is there is insufficient strain relief for
critical applications. the jacket of thicker cables, such as rg 213,
when inserted into the pl 259, provide quite a bit of support for the
connector.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field