Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: RG-58 coax for Base Antenna  (Read 9191 times)
G8YMW
Member

Posts: 237




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2013, 06:58:44 PM »

At home I have a 20 metre run of coax from my colinear to the radio.
I had originally RG213 coax but then swapped it for Ecoflex15 , UHF seemed livelier afterwards.

My advice, get the best you can afford. I don't subscribe to the notion of cheap when you have shelled out good money on a radio and aerial. ( Perhaps that's why there is all this tosh about VHF being "line of sight" all the signal has been mopped up by the string with a Bobby Charlton comb over)
Logged

73 details Tony
Sent by WW2 Royal Navy signal lamp
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6036




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2013, 07:17:20 PM »

In any event, to each their own. My thought is that 58 just doesn't have the durability for all that much and should not be used where there is even a chance of too much flexing--and failure. 

I worked with a LOT of 58 style coax in R&D and flight test fir DOD for many years in past and never had any durability problems with cables when connectors were properly installed. It was actually quite superior to R213 type coax in that it was far more flexible and easier to route and placed less strain on connectors. And on a aircraft, reliability is very important.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
G8YMW
Member

Posts: 237




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2013, 05:52:50 AM »

Several issues with that,
Firstly on an aircraft there is a finite amount of space to play with, with sharp(ish) corners. On the ground, no such constraints.

In an aircraft ( or any PMR systems) you are dealing with solid contacts, in the Amateur setup you are dealing with possibly marginal contacts so any help you can get etc

No comments on the durability as you are quoting from experience.

 As an aside, a friend was listening to the Civil Aircraft Band to the ATC at RAF Waddington with a handheld, he was hearing aircraft solidly that the ATC was struggling with.
Logged

73 details Tony
Sent by WW2 Royal Navy signal lamp
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6036




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2013, 06:28:48 AM »

Several issues with that,
Firstly on an aircraft there is a finite amount of space to play with, with sharp(ish) corners. On the ground, no such constraints.

This was large test bed aircraft like KC/EC135 and C141. Some had massive patch panels that were reconfigured in flight at times and frequencies used were from 1mhz to ghz range.

In an aircraft ( or any PMR systems) you are dealing with solid contacts, in the Amateur setup you are dealing with possibly marginal contacts so any help you can get etc

Actually the need for solid contacts places stiffer requirements than amateur service.

No comments on the durability as you are quoting from experience.

Reliability is everything here.

As an aside, a friend was listening to the Civil Aircraft Band to the ATC at RAF Waddington with a handheld, he was hearing aircraft solidly that the ATC was struggling with.

Lot of variables can cause/explain this with LOS communication.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6042




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2013, 10:10:07 AM »

Get used to it Tony.  No matter the subject, 'JX is ALWAYS right and everyone else is ALWAYS wrong.  That's why he's back on 'ignore' as far as I'm concerned.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 10:17:51 AM by K1CJS » Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6036




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2013, 11:38:01 AM »

Get used to it Tony.  No matter the subject, 'JX is ALWAYS right and everyone else is ALWAYS wrong.  That's why he's back on 'ignore' as far as I'm concerned.

 I have installed more connectors on 58 type cable than I can begin to count and many many times what most hams do in a life time. Most were TNC and BNC and then some 259's for ham radio stuff. The stiffer/bigger the cable the more strain it can potentially place on the connector and its backshell. We also have those that are obsessed with line loss, like a extra DB or two so of line loss is a deal killer and it is LMR400 or nothing. I never bought into this line of thought or drank that koolaid. Because of that I am sometimes targeted. I never openly start a attack on someone or get personal when I disagree with someone but there are those that may be insecure and do otherwise.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K7RNO
Member

Posts: 279




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2013, 07:15:25 PM »

I'm a newbie ham and was wondering about this, can I run RG-58 coax to an Diamond X-50 antenna or do I need to run RG-8 coax?

It just so happens that I installed the very same antenna (NA version), and I chose LMR-400 for the 55 feet I need to cover. The stiffness was not really a problem, and the last length into the HT is delivered by a few feet of RG58 (fully braided!). Installation was not easy but very doable with some planning, and now that it is done, I am very glad that I went this route.

KK4NZO, what did you end up doing?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 07:29:27 PM by KG7BJM » Logged

73,
aRNO
NAQCC #6870, SKCC #11131
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!