Jim Higgins wrote in
:

....
Which "RG-8" is the author referring to? Belden 8237, Belden 8267 or
Belden 9913? His cited loss figures are way too low for Belden 8267
(RG-213), probably the most common coax in use by hams on HF and high
for Belden 9913, a spiral wound largely air dielectric coax that's a
bitch to keep dry in outdoor use. He only cites the loss at 4MHz.
Loss at 14 MHz is almost 3dB and at 28 MHz exceeds it. I'll fix the
antenna before I'll use a tuner to fool the transmitter.

When they does get down to some hard numbers they can be wanting. Re your
example above, they say "Since a 10:1 swr on 100 feet of RG8U at 4 Mhz
increases loss by less than 1 db, don't worry...". The loss on 100' of
RG8/U at 4MHz with a 50+j0 ohm load is 0.35dB, the loss with a 5+j0 ohm
load is 1.64dB (a bad case of load end VSWR=10), some 1.3dB higher and
clearly not less than 1dB higher as he explains. Since it is not clear,
some readers might even think that the statements apply to indicated VSWR
at the source end of the line.

When they get some things that are easy to check quite wrong, it does
cast doubt on the credibility of the paper. Their point in this case
about band edge VSWR is probably fair if qualified for usual
configurations... but it needs qualfication and the premise they use to
support the assertion is plain wrong. Why didn't they just correctly
state the increased loss at VSWR=2 in support of their argument (it is
about 0.1dB)?

You could pick through the technical content of the paper in this way,
and try to discover if there is any real value to the name dropping...
but it is a mix of good stuff and not so good stuff. There is still a
place in the world for text books.

Nevertheless, I sympathise with them trying to find good reviewers... it
is a challenge.

Owen