"Bob" wrote in message
...
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.

And what about the PL-259 which is specifically made for RG-58, without
using an UG-175 adapter?

Meindert

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:35 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
.. .
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.

And what about the PL-259 which is specifically made for RG-58, without
using an UG-175 adapter?


i haven't seen one of those, but there are other factors which argue
against rg 58 when there are superior cables out there. the loss
factor is one...physics itself causes rg58 to be lossier than cables
like rg213 or rg 8. although this is not a factor for a short run,
depending on how long the run is, it could be an issue.

also, thicker cables are going to be more mechanically sound than
thinner cables.

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:44:14 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:35 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..
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.

And what about the PL-259 which is specifically made for RG-58, without
using an UG-175 adapter?


i haven't seen one of those, but there are other factors which argue
against rg 58 when there are superior cables out there. the loss
factor is one...physics itself causes rg58 to be lossier than cables
like rg213 or rg 8. although this is not a factor for a short run,
depending on how long the run is, it could be an issue.

also, thicker cables are going to be more mechanically sound than
thinner cables.

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

The type of connector has little to do with how well the cable holds
up. You are supposed to provide support for the cable irrespective of
the connector. The connector is not supposed to support the cable. The
cable should be properly strapped down so the connector does not take
any load.

As far as RG58 cable being no good, I suppose you might want to tell
Motorola and many other radio manufacturers about that. They have for
many years supplied that cable on their VHF and UHF mobile antenna
installations. And by the way the PL259 was the standard connector for
both too.

In marine VHF antenna applications you will be hard pressed to find
any marine VHF antenna that comes with a length of cable pre attached
that does not use RG58 type cable.

The size of a cable has little to do with its mechanical durability.
There are small cables that are much more robust than larger cables.
It all depends on how each is constructed.

The amount of shielding of coax cable is of little importance in most
typical radio installations. Coax with 70 or 80% coverage verses 100%
will not matter unless it is used in multicoupling or duplex systems
where high isolation is important. Otherwise you will not be able to
measure any difference in performance.

Each type of cable has its applications. While RG8 type of cable
generally has less loss than RG58 type, there are some of the RG58
types that are far superior to some RG8 types of cable in terms of
durability, shielding, mechanical stability, phase stability, constant
impedance, being able to handle high heat and overall ruggedness.

If running a cable for a VHF antenna up the mast of a sail boat I
would opt for an RG8 type of cable over the RG58 type for the lower
loss benefit. Other than that RG58 cable would be the choice for HF or
VHF unless I happen to have some extra RG8 type cable handy at the
time.

Regards
Gary

In article ,
(Bob) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:35 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
.. .
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.

And what about the PL-259 which is specifically made for RG-58, without
using an UG-175 adapter?


i haven't seen one of those, but there are other factors which argue
against rg 58 when there are superior cables out there. the loss
factor is one...physics itself causes rg58 to be lossier than cables
like rg213 or rg 8. although this is not a factor for a short run,
depending on how long the run is, it could be an issue.

also, thicker cables are going to be more mechanically sound than
thinner cables.

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

If you "haven't seen one of those", you need to get out more, as they
have been around for years. I especially like Gary's post, as he
covered the same items that I covered, only with better diction, and
clarity. As I stated before, Marine Electronics is a different
Ballgame, than your typical Ham Radio experience, and if you don't know,
or can't see, the difference, then you really need to go "Buy a Clue",
at ITT VOGTech....

Me

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:33:18 -0400, Gary Schafer
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:44:14 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:35 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:


i haven't seen one of those, but there are other factors which argue
against rg 58 when there are superior cables out there. the loss
factor is one...physics itself causes rg58 to be lossier than cables
like rg213 or rg 8. although this is not a factor for a short run,
depending on how long the run is, it could be an issue.

also, thicker cables are going to be more mechanically sound than
thinner cables.


The type of connector has little to do with how well the cable holds
up. You are supposed to provide support for the cable irrespective of
the connector. The connector is not supposed to support the cable. The
cable should be properly strapped down so the connector does not take
any load.

i agree. in a perfect world this would be true. but the fact is that a
connector with rg 58 is less able to handle mechanical stress than one
using a more robust cable. lots of boats have connectors attached
improperly.


As far as RG58 cable being no good, I suppose you might want to tell
Motorola and many other radio manufacturers about that. They have for
many years supplied that cable on their VHF and UHF mobile antenna
installations. And by the way the PL259 was the standard connector for
both too.

as someone pointed out here, the marine environment is different than
the land based one. for short runs not subject to stress rg 58, while
obsolete, can work. but it's ridiculous to use when when other,
superior cables are available.


In marine VHF antenna applications you will be hard pressed to find
any marine VHF antenna that comes with a length of cable pre attached
that does not use RG58 type cable.

agreed again. ease of installation, cost, etc. has alot to do with
it. rg 58 generally costs a few cents a foot less than its competitors

The size of a cable has little to do with its mechanical durability.
There are small cables that are much more robust than larger cables.
It all depends on how each is constructed.

we're comparing apples to apples here. coax cables of the type rg
8/213/58 have basically similar constructions. the diameter of the
cable DOES affect its mechanical stability when compared to cables of
similar construction.


The amount of shielding of coax cable is of little importance in most
typical radio installations.

disagree. with the increasing amount of electronics on boats nowadays,
more shielding is better.

Coax with 70 or 80% coverage verses 100%
will not matter unless it is used in multicoupling or duplex systems
where high isolation is important. Otherwise you will not be able to
measure any difference in performance.

again, disagree. many people report GPS, electronic compass, and
computer problems when they key up their radios. of course some of
this is overload from the antenna, etc. but more shielding on the
cable reduces inteference to and from the radio.


If running a cable for a VHF antenna up the mast of a sail boat I
would opt for an RG8 type of cable over the RG58 type for the lower
loss benefit. Other than that RG58 cable would be the choice for HF or
VHF unless I happen to have some extra RG8 type cable handy at the
time.


rg 58 losses become significant even at 10 meter HF frequencies.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:24:32 GMT, Me wrote:


If you "haven't seen one of those", you need to get out more, as they
have been around for years. I especially like Gary's post, as he
covered the same items that I covered, only with better diction, and
clarity. As I stated before, Marine Electronics is a different
Ballgame, than your typical Ham Radio experience, and if you don't know,
or can't see, the difference, then you really need to go "Buy a Clue",
at ITT VOGTech....


see my response to gary.

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:45:33 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:33:18 -0400, Gary Schafer
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:44:14 GMT, (Bob) wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:51:35 +0200, "Meindert Sprang"
wrote:


i haven't seen one of those, but there are other factors which argue
against rg 58 when there are superior cables out there. the loss
factor is one...physics itself causes rg58 to be lossier than cables
like rg213 or rg 8. although this is not a factor for a short run,
depending on how long the run is, it could be an issue.

also, thicker cables are going to be more mechanically sound than
thinner cables.


The type of connector has little to do with how well the cable holds
up. You are supposed to provide support for the cable irrespective of
the connector. The connector is not supposed to support the cable. The
cable should be properly strapped down so the connector does not take
any load.

i agree. in a perfect world this would be true. but the fact is that a
connector with rg 58 is less able to handle mechanical stress than one
using a more robust cable. lots of boats have connectors attached
improperly.


Lots of boats have a lot of things improperly attached. That is no
evidence bigger is better unless you plan to swing from the cable.


As far as RG58 cable being no good, I suppose you might want to tell
Motorola and many other radio manufacturers about that. They have for
many years supplied that cable on their VHF and UHF mobile antenna
installations. And by the way the PL259 was the standard connector for
both too.

as someone pointed out here, the marine environment is different than
the land based one. for short runs not subject to stress rg 58, while
obsolete, can work. but it's ridiculous to use when when other,
superior cables are available.

Then I suppose all boat antennas should be fitted with hard line. Why
would you even want to use RG8 type cable if bigger cable is
available.
I was refering here to your stance that RG58 was a poor cable for VHF
and HF frequencies because of its loss.



In marine VHF antenna applications you will be hard pressed to find
any marine VHF antenna that comes with a length of cable pre attached
that does not use RG58 type cable.

agreed again. ease of installation, cost, etc. has alot to do with
it. rg 58 generally costs a few cents a foot less than its competitors

The fact is that it doesn't make any noticiable performance difference
either electrical or mechanical.


The size of a cable has little to do with its mechanical durability.
There are small cables that are much more robust than larger cables.
It all depends on how each is constructed.

we're comparing apples to apples here. coax cables of the type rg
8/213/58 have basically similar constructions. the diameter of the
cable DOES affect its mechanical stability when compared to cables of
similar construction.

Again, only if you plan to swing from the cable. As a matter of fact a
smaller cable is much easier to keep stable than a larger one on a
boat.



The amount of shielding of coax cable is of little importance in most
typical radio installations.

disagree. with the increasing amount of electronics on boats nowadays,
more shielding is better.

Coax with 70 or 80% coverage verses 100%
will not matter unless it is used in multicoupling or duplex systems
where high isolation is important. Otherwise you will not be able to
measure any difference in performance.

again, disagree. many people report GPS, electronic compass, and
computer problems when they key up their radios. of course some of
this is overload from the antenna, etc. but more shielding on the
cable reduces inteference to and from the radio.

You can bet that the problems are not from poor shielding of the coax
cable. How much leakage do you think coax has anyway? Even poor coax.



If running a cable for a VHF antenna up the mast of a sail boat I
would opt for an RG8 type of cable over the RG58 type for the lower
loss benefit. Other than that RG58 cable would be the choice for HF or
VHF unless I happen to have some extra RG8 type cable handy at the
time.


rg 58 losses become significant even at 10 meter HF frequencies.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

Regards
Gary

In article , "Doug" wrote:

"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

You just made everyone feel like an idiot for not knowing what you were talking about!!
Had me going!!

greg

N6GS

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:33:18 -0400, Gary Schafer
wrote:
The amount of shielding of coax cable is of little importance in most
typical radio installations.

disagree. with the increasing amount of electronics on boats nowadays,
more shielding is better.

Theorethically yes. In practice, it doesn't matter that much. A shield works
because it creates loops of current, opposite of that in the inner conductor
which keeps the field in. A practical mesh size on for instance parabolic
antenna's is 1/10 of the wavelength. This will yield a good field
reflection. So on VHF, where the wavelength is about 6 ft, a mesh size of 7
inches would already shield. On many older FM radiostations, "coax" was was
made by an inner conductor surrounded by a "screen" of many (say 20) outer
conductors supported by metal rings.

again, disagree. many people report GPS, electronic compass, and
computer problems when they key up their radios. of course some of
this is overload from the antenna, etc. but more shielding on the
cable reduces inteference to and from the radio.

This kind if interference is more likely caused by improper termination
(standing waves), which causes currents to flow on the outside of the
shield. Nothing to do with bad shielding.

Meindert

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:04:06 -0400, Gary Schafer
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:45:33 GMT, (Bob) wrote:


i agree. in a perfect world this would be true. but the fact is that a
connector with rg 58 is less able to handle mechanical stress than one
using a more robust cable. lots of boats have connectors attached
improperly.


Lots of boats have a lot of things improperly attached. That is no
evidence bigger is better unless you plan to swing from the cable.

communications is one area where bigger is better, in this case.


as someone pointed out here, the marine environment is different than
the land based one. for short runs not subject to stress rg 58, while
obsolete, can work. but it's ridiculous to use when when other,
superior cables are available.

Then I suppose all boat antennas should be fitted with hard line. Why
would you even want to use RG8 type cable if bigger cable is
available.
I was refering here to your stance that RG58 was a poor cable for VHF
and HF frequencies because of its loss.

it's poor at HF (10 meters). it's very lossy at VHF.




In marine VHF antenna applications you will be hard pressed to find
any marine VHF antenna that comes with a length of cable pre attached
that does not use RG58 type cable.

agreed again. ease of installation, cost, etc. has alot to do with
it. rg 58 generally costs a few cents a foot less than its competitors

The fact is that it doesn't make any noticiable performance difference
either electrical or mechanical.

unless, of course, you want to HEAR what's being said on the radio.



we're comparing apples to apples here. coax cables of the type rg
8/213/58 have basically similar constructions. the diameter of the
cable DOES affect its mechanical stability when compared to cables of
similar construction.

Again, only if you plan to swing from the cable. As a matter of fact a
smaller cable is much easier to keep stable than a larger one on a
boat.

disagree. it's generally a bad idea to flex wire. this leads to cold
working of the material and premature failure. again, thicker is
better.


again, disagree. many people report GPS, electronic compass, and
computer problems when they key up their radios. of course some of
this is overload from the antenna, etc. but more shielding on the
cable reduces inteference to and from the radio.

You can bet that the problems are not from poor shielding of the coax
cable. How much leakage do you think coax has anyway? Even poor coax.

quite a bit. i used rg58 a bit for the connector between radio and
amplifier. i had a computer right next to it. the hash was s5.
replacement of this by rg 213 eliminated it completely.



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