BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tom Behler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:07:02 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (129 lines)
Thanks, Matt.

I'll check into this.

Tom Behler: KB8TYJ


-----Original Message-----
From: For blind ham radio operators [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Matthew Chao
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 8:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RG8X VS RG8U

My station has all LMR240.  Easy to work with, and not too heavy.--Matt,
N1IBB.

At 08:42 PM 4/25/2015 -0700, you wrote:
>For whatever it might be worth, I will not use any of the RG series of 
>coax, with the one exception of RG-142 which is a very good cable to 
>use in the shack for low power jumpers.  For example, as a jumper 
>between the transceiver and amplifier.  Otherwise, I use only cable 
>from Times Micro, or hard line from Andrew.  For low power jumpers, 
>LMR240UF works very well, and for high power jumpers I typically use 
>LMR400UF or LMR600UF.  For my money, Time Microwave makes better cable 
>than Beldin.  You can buy any cable at all from Tessco.com.
>
>Alan - N7MIT
>
>
>
>
>Alan R. Downing
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: For blind ham radio operators 
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>On Behalf Of Tom Behler
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 8:21 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: RG8X VS RG8U
>
>Thanks, Howard.
>
>Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: For blind ham radio operators 
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>On Behalf Of Howard, W A 9 Y B W
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 11:07 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: RG8X VS RG8U
>
>Tom,
>
>The RG8X is rated at 1500 watts and is a smaller diameter about that of 
>RG59. RG8U is much larger and heavier and the losses below 30 MHz are 
>probably similar.  I would go with the smaller, lighter RG8x.
>
>My thoughts
>
>Howard #3
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 9:23 PM
>Subject: RG8X VS RG8U
>
>
> > Hello, everyone.
> >
> >
> >
> > This afternoon, A friend and I took down my Alpha Delta DXCC antenna 
> > from the camp site we used last year, and I'm getting ready to put 
> > the antenna up at a different camp site that we will be using this
season.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have noticed that the 75 feet of RG8X coax I have used as a 
> > feedline for probably the past 1 or two years seems flaky, in that I 
> > get a short across both of the coax connectors when I check for 
> > continuity.  I took off one of the connectors that I felt was 
> > questionable, and installed a new one, just to have the same problem 
> > recur.  I am beginning to think that my best option might be simply 
> > to replace the old coax with something new, rather than risk getting 
> > the antenna up in the air at the new camp site, only to have a bad 
> > feed line.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have 100 feet of RG8U here, and am considering using part or all 
> > of that coax run, depending upon how much I will need, rather than 
> > buying completely new RG8X.  I will have to put connectors on the 
> > RG8U if I go this route, but that shouldn't be too big of a deal.
> >
> >
> >
> > My question is this:  Can someone tell me how RG8X and RG8U compare, 
> > for a simple HF installation?  Initially, I was going to put the 
> > RG8U in my go kit, and use it  for emergency VHF/UHF communications, 
> > but if it would be ok for my HF RV installation, I may just go that 
> > route for now.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any wisdom on the topic would be appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>---
>This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
>protection is active.
>http://www.avast.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2