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

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

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

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 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