Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
1/28/2011 7:23:33 PM EDT


HF, looking at a 125 foot run, I only run 100w: is it worth going to a lower loss cable than RG8X? I run that on my 20meter diapole, and am going to be hanging another antenna ( thanks to A Free Mans old thread) here soon. Just wondering if the lower loss would justify the increase cost, or if I would even be able to tell the difference??





thanks

RJ



1/28/2011 8:22:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Coax Loss Guide

Comparing it to what????
1/28/2011 8:23:54 PM EDT
[#2]
If you have a good match on the antenna, the coax should have little loss in that run. What kind of antenna and is it resonant on the bands you're running?
1/28/2011 9:09:46 PM EDT
[#3]
For what frequency?  Anything HF you should be ok with that size, VHF or higher you would want a lower loss cable.

If you're hanging dipoles and you use a tuner, another (sometimes cheap) option is to use RG-6 CATV cable.  Dipoles are nominally 70 ohms or so anyway, and a tuner would easily take care of a small mismatch from the cable.
1/28/2011 10:06:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Its for HF, probably most of the time 40 and 80 meters.

I was looking at RG-213 or RG8U, but they are about twice as much.

I have LMR400 on my VHF/UHF antenna and know that it would be overkill for HF.

I know RG8x is probably the most commonly used for HF, just got to wondering if something else out there made more sense..
1/28/2011 10:13:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Its for HF, probably most of the time 40 and 80 meters.
I was looking at RG-213 or RG8U, but they are about twice as much.
I have LMR400 on my VHF/UHF antenna and know that it would be overkill for HF.
I know RG8x is probably the most commonly used for HF, just got to wondering if something else out there made more sense..

For 40 & 80 I wouldn't bother to go with anything larger.