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

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......

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

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

"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