| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:47:27 -0400, Larry wrote:
( Mika) wrote in : Need to install a new VHF antenna to a sailboat. Put a 1/2 wave antenna as high as you can get it. 2000 meters is great! but the top of the tallest mast will do just fine. When you're screaming for help in a sinking boat, you can never have an antenna that's too high! The altitude of the mast antenna more than makes up for the length of the cabling losses. With a 25W Icom and 1/2 wavelength Metz whip at 55 ft on the other end of 30 meters of RG-58/U coax, Lionheart can call the US Coast Guard station way out of sight of land. 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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:47:27 -0400, Larry wrote: ( Mika) wrote in : Need to install a new VHF antenna to a sailboat. Put a 1/2 wave antenna as high as you can get it. 2000 meters is great! but the top of the tallest mast will do just fine. When you're screaming for help in a sinking boat, you can never have an antenna that's too high! The altitude of the mast antenna more than makes up for the length of the cabling losses. With a 25W Icom and 1/2 wavelength Metz whip at 55 ft on the other end of 30 meters of RG-58/U coax, Lionheart can call the US Coast Guard station way out of sight of land. but never, never, never ever use rg 58 cable. it's not shielded properly. it has high loss. Many Marine VHF antennas have the cable moulded in and it's RG-58 so the argument between RG-58 and RG-8 is purley acedemic. Unlike the radio Ham, where every last inch of tx distance is a feather in the cap and one up on the next person, on a boat it's just a tool, boating is the hobby. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| SSB Antenna connection | Electronics | |||
| Notes on short SSB antennas, for Larry | Cruising | |||
| Notes on short SSB antennas, for Larry | Electronics | |||
| How to use a simple SWR meter and what it means to your VHF | Electronics | |||