Sounds like a flawed test setup. Davis bury flex gets rave reviews (except
for yours) all over the net and on-the -air.
I have over 450ft of the stuff and it's super. I see no effects from
coiling or bending....


Sorry you're having a difficult time...
--

Charlie


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Charlie wrote:
I would recommend you take a look at Davis RF "BuryFlex" 9914. It is
very nearly the exact same loss per 100ft (within a couple tenths of a
db) as LMR400 and/or 9913. It can be directly buried in the soil with no
other provisions needed. It has an abrasion resistant non-contaminating
jacket that has a warranted 20 year service life. It is also quite
affordable at about $.60/ft. It is very flexible and indeed is fine even
as rotator loops. I use it on all bands I run from HF thru 6M and 2M. It
uses standard UHF or N connectors as well. Loss per 100ft at 400MHZ is
2.9db

Check it out here....

1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex

I've got some of that which I purchased new, and did some extensive tests
on it with a network analyzer. The loss varies all over the map depending
on how you coil, bend, or flex the cable, and I never saw loss anywhere
near as low as the spec says. A typical value at 400 MHz was more like 5 -
5.5 dB/100 ft. Glad you're happy with it.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:

Sounds like a flawed test setup.

Hah hah. Very funny.

If Roy says it's bad--it's bad.

I don't know what you two have going but his "analysis" flies in the face of
every other review and/or comment I have ever read about Davis 9914. As
well as my own experience of low loss and great performance. I have several
bends in my runs of 9914 and no adverse swr.

Have you looked at all the positive user's reviews at eHam about it? Not a
single negative remark..
1. http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/4515

One might also want to check this link for another endorsement of Davis
BuryFlex 9914
2.
http://lists.contesting.com/archives.../msg00010.html

The again one could just read what is posted at this link at the eHam
Elmer's Forum - all very positive
3. http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/38717


I'm not saying Roy is misstating what he saw. I'm saying what he saw
misstates the real quality of this coax.
1. Maybe he got a bad piece
2. Maybe he had a loose connector
3. Maybe he didn't calibrate the network analyzer
4. etc etc etc....NO ONE else I can find dislikes this 9914!!!





--

Charlie


"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:

Sounds like a flawed test setup.

Hah hah. Very funny.

If Roy says it's bad--it's bad.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:59:27 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:

Have you looked at all the positive user's reviews at eHam about it?

User reviews are testimonial, not skilled measurement.

One might also want to check this link for another endorsement of Davis

Endorsements are just that, again, not skilled measurement.

The again one could just read what is posted at this link at the eHam
Elmer's Forum - all very positive

Being positive and being correct are not the same thing.

I'm saying what he saw

Roy and anyone else is perfectly capable of speaking for him(them)self
and telling us what he (they) saw. Interpretation is prone to
transcription error, a frequent element of testimonial and
endorsement.

1. Maybe he
2. Maybe he
3. Maybe he

There are no maybes. Within this group there are experts in every
sense of the word that are credentialed and experienced. Among this
group are several Metrologists who do or have done these kind of
things (determine loss) for a living.

4. etc etc etc....NO ONE else I can find dislikes this 9914!!!

Roy is not offering an expression of personal taste, he is merely
stating that products often suffer claim inflation, which we can
observe to be inflated further by uninformed testimony. He offered
one very specific counter-claim in a region of RF that is especially
prone to error from the horde of eham testifiers. Their possession of
exotic tools does not confer upon them the ability to correctly
determine power (and by that extension loss).

If you want to challenge a technical statement, you have to go to the
statement and examine it by parts. Ask for data. Ask for the
references (and I don't mean chapter citations). Look at the
computations. Rebutting with testimonials is useless as they only
serve vanity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The biggest problem needs to be solved - the fact that the shack is too far
from the antenna.
Move the darn shack and be done with it!

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:


Sounds like a flawed test setup.


Hah hah. Very funny.

If Roy says it's bad--it's bad.

Agreed!

Phil Wheeler wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie"
wrote:


Sounds like a flawed test setup.



Hah hah. Very funny.

If Roy says it's bad--it's bad.


Agreed!

Please, folks, I didn't say that Davis BuryFlex is bad. I said that
careful measurements of the one 100 foot piece I have show it to have
much more loss than the specification indicates, and that the loss is
variable with flexing and bending. It's possible that the piece I have
is somehow defective. Everyone can interpret and act on this or not as
they choose. But I certainly won't be installing this brand and type of
cable in a critical application without carefully testing it first.

Huge numbers of ravingly positive testimonials can be found for CFA
antennas, cryogenically treated oxygen-free speaker cable, astrological
forcasts, and homeopathic remedies. I'm not interested in testimonials
for those or for coax cable either, all for the same reason. But I'd
love to see the results of anyone else's measurements.

The 100 foot piece I have was purchased several years ago from The
Wireman, so I know it's the genuine article. (It's also marked as Davis
BuryFlex.) It's been inside and unused since.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL