"David G. Nagel" wrote in
:

Owen Duffy wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in news:12suqifm1gfv596
@corp.supernews.com:

Before you invest to much more time and money in your project, no
matter how necessary it may be, you need to look at the signal loss
generated by the RG174 you are proposing to use. It is so extreme
only very short lengths should be used, 1" to 3'.

RG174 would be a very poor choice.

LMR195 (RG58 dimensions) is more likely to be the type of cable used
for small diameter, or larger LMR types for a long run like 40'.

The loss in 40' of LMR195 at 2400MHz is ~8dB, not a pretty picture.
Losses in a metre or three are practical.

Owen


Owen;

I just picked on RG 174 as an example. Your choice is not very much
better which only points out the problem with coax at high
frequencies. I think that the original writer has decided on his own
to do something else.

The LMR195 is 12.4dB better, I will leave it to the end user to make his
mind up about whether that is "not very much better".

Yes, clearly the message is to minimise the length of RF transmission
lines, and to use line types appropriate to the length and application.

Owen