LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #5   Report Post  
Old March 26th 07, 08:40 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 232
Default al coax

Ed wrote:

I've seen recently that some companies such as andrews etc are now
offering different coax and hardline with al outer shielding

they advertise lower cost, and lighter weight then copper , ok i
get that

but then they say the rf spec's are 'the same' so i ponder how do
they do that i would think copper would have better spec's ?
obviously i am missing something obvious



Actually, the loss characteristics of solid jacket heliax depends much
more on the dielectric material, physical diameter, and the size of the
center conductor, than it does on the jacket material. Also, aluminum is
a pretty good conductor anyway.


In order of importance, the size of the centre conductor contributes
most to losses, followed by the outer shield and the dielectric.

This is simply because the centre conductor is smallest. It carries the
same current as the shield; but the current *density* on the centre
conductor is several times higher. RF current flows only on the surfaces
- the outside of the centre conductor, and the inside of the shield - so
it works out that the resistive losses are proportional to
diameter-squared.

Because losses in the shield are much less important, a small increase
due to using aluminium will have almost no effect on the overall cable
losses. The problems with aluminium-shielded coax are almost entirely
about corrosion.

Dielectric losses don't come into this at all, because they are only a
small part of the overall cable loss (at least, for frequencies up
through UHF). "Low-loss foam" is simply marketing guff. When someone
designs a lower-loss version of a standard cable, it has to start with a
larger centre conductor - because that is the only change that *really*
makes a difference. A foamed or semi-airspaced dielectric is something
the designer was *forced* to use, to keep the same characteristic
impedance.

It is technically true that the dielectric losses are a little bit lower
than for the same solid material; but dielectric losses aren't important
anyway, so using foam makes almost no difference to the overall cable
loss. The designer knows that... but at some stage the message switches
over to "low-loss foam", because that's what the managers, the company,
the industry and its victXXXXcustomers expect to hear.



--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek


 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Coax Connectors, Adapters & Bulk Coax Cable AAA RF Products Swap 1 December 20th 06 03:13 AM
Coax To Coax Noise transfer ? Robert11 Antenna 2 March 18th 06 09:16 PM
Coax To Coax Noise Transfer ? Robert11 Shortwave 5 March 13th 06 10:05 PM
Skywire coax cable vs. regular coax cable Jack Antenna 6 November 1st 04 04:04 PM
FS:RG8X 18 FT LENGTH COAX WITH COAX CONNECTOR Kb9igg Swap 0 October 31st 03 04:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017