| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| 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 | |||
Threaded Mode
