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