I had a bad experience with Belden 9913 and if Davis 9914 has the same
mechanical properties, be careful. I taped some 9913 to a mast and
sometime later discovered it had been squished flat from the tight wrap
of electrical tape. I have also seen people ty-rap 9913 and destroy its
shape. If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral
thing like 9913, I would not be surprised with varying performance when
bending it. Here is some coax that looks like better performance than
9913 or Davis 9914 (2.7dB/450MHz/100ft) has the same Polyethylene outer
jacket as Davis and is cheaper. Check
http://yanta.pair.com/jefatech/specs...LL400Specs.pdf
Mike

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

Mike wrote:
I had a bad experience with Belden 9913 ...

Me too. I just can't seem to keep water out of it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral
thing like 9913,

Davis BuryFlex 9914 does not have the center conductor suspended by a thin
spiral.
1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex

It amazes me that no one else (that I can find) has found Davis BuryFlex to
be "bad coax". It has been in production well over 10 years.
Moreover I am amazed how many of you are non-thinking lambs following along
head-to-tail after your shepherd.
And also Davis emphasizes in it's data that this coax is flexible enough for
rotator loops and yet one guy says it is "bad coax" and so everyone falls to
their knees and worships accordingly?

And as far as data goes...is this guys data more accurate then the Davis RF
company that has been in the wire and cable business
with engineering professionals on the payroll since 1980? Sheesh......take
off the blinders people.....thousands of miles of Davis 9914 have been
installed by government,commercial and amateur stations and just now we find
out it's "bad coax" after more than 10 years?

Somebody is asleep at the switch.......

--

Charlie


"Mike" wrote in message
. net...
I had a bad experience with Belden 9913 and if Davis 9914 has the same
mechanical properties, be careful. I taped some 9913 to a mast and sometime
later discovered it had been squished flat from the tight wrap of
electrical tape. I have also seen people ty-rap 9913 and destroy its shape.
If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral thing
like 9913, I would not be surprised with varying performance when bending
it. Here is some coax that looks like better performance than 9913 or Davis
9914 (2.7dB/450MHz/100ft) has the same Polyethylene outer jacket as Davis
and is cheaper. Check
http://yanta.pair.com/jefatech/specs...LL400Specs.pdf
Mike

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

Charlie wrote:
Somebody is asleep at the switch.......

The great majority of humans who have ever lived
found it easier to follow than to think. (Just an
observation - I don't know anything about 9914.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

TY Cecil...sadly that is the essence of this thread.....

--

Charlie


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Charlie wrote:
Somebody is asleep at the switch.......

The great majority of humans who have ever lived
found it easier to follow than to think. (Just an
observation - I don't know anything about 9914.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I'd be glad to compare results and methodologies with anyone else who
has measured this coax. It would be particularly interesting and
educational if someone else's results are significantly different from mine.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Charlie wrote:
If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral

thing like 9913,

Davis BuryFlex 9914 does not have the center conductor suspended by a thin
spiral.
1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex

It amazes me that no one else (that I can find) has found Davis BuryFlex to
be "bad coax". It has been in production well over 10 years.
Moreover I am amazed how many of you are non-thinking lambs following along
head-to-tail after your shepherd.
And also Davis emphasizes in it's data that this coax is flexible enough for
rotator loops and yet one guy says it is "bad coax" and so everyone falls to
their knees and worships accordingly?

And as far as data goes...is this guys data more accurate then the Davis RF
company that has been in the wire and cable business
with engineering professionals on the payroll since 1980? Sheesh......take
off the blinders people.....thousands of miles of Davis 9914 have been
installed by government,commercial and amateur stations and just now we find
out it's "bad coax" after more than 10 years?

Somebody is asleep at the switch.......

I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results. Yes
it will be interesting.

Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex
production has cited these same alarming "test results".


--

Charlie


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I'd be glad to compare results and methodologies with anyone else who has
measured this coax. It would be particularly interesting and educational
if someone else's results are significantly different from mine.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Charlie wrote:
If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral

thing like 9913,

Davis BuryFlex 9914 does not have the center conductor suspended by a
thin spiral.
1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex

It amazes me that no one else (that I can find) has found Davis BuryFlex
to be "bad coax". It has been in production well over 10 years.
Moreover I am amazed how many of you are non-thinking lambs following
along head-to-tail after your shepherd.
And also Davis emphasizes in it's data that this coax is flexible enough
for rotator loops and yet one guy says it is "bad coax" and so everyone
falls to their knees and worships accordingly?

And as far as data goes...is this guys data more accurate then the Davis
RF company that has been in the wire and cable business
with engineering professionals on the payroll since 1980?
Sheesh......take off the blinders people.....thousands of miles of Davis
9914 have been installed by government,commercial and amateur stations
and just now we find out it's "bad coax" after more than 10 years?

Somebody is asleep at the switch.......

Charlie wrote:
I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results. Yes
it will be interesting.

Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex
production has cited these same alarming "test results".

No. My experience is that the vast majority of amateurs don't have the
ability and/or confidence and/or interest and/or equipment to make good
measurements. And lacking the ability to measure it, very few would be
able to discern the difference in loss. If my measurements are typical,
commercial and government users (if there indeed are any for this
particular cable type) would quietly reject the stuff on incoming
inspection and order something else.

I do have a high degree of confidence that my measurements are accurate.
I took a lot of care in characterizing the cable before using it for
making remote antenna impedance measurements in the course of a
consulting job. But it's entirely possible that the particular piece of
cable I have is defective. That would just point to a quality control
problem rather than overzealous specsmanship.

In your query of Davis, I hope you asked them if they routinely test
production batches for loss, and if so how often and when the last test
was run. It's possible that something in their process changed
relatively recently.

If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the
ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make
measurements and post results.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy the kind of test results you cited would be extremely evident whether
someone has a network analyzer or just an swr meter.
That defense is sorely transparent in my opinion. To suggest that most
amateurs would not even have any interest if their bent or coiled 9914
suddenly jumped off the scale for loss and mismatch is ludicrous to say the
least.

Let me be clear ...I am not disputing what you claim you got as test
results. My conclusion is either the 100ft length you had was bad or
something skewed your calibrated setup. My career was in microwave r&d and
I know that it takes repeatable test results to form a valid, verifiable and
publishable data.
This is not personal Roy....but it is somewhat stimulating.


--

Charlie


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Charlie wrote:
I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results.
Yes it will be interesting.

Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex
production has cited these same alarming "test results".

No. My experience is that the vast majority of amateurs don't have the
ability and/or confidence and/or interest and/or equipment to make good
measurements. And lacking the ability to measure it, very few would be
able to discern the difference in loss. If my measurements are typical,
commercial and government users (if there indeed are any for this
particular cable type) would quietly reject the stuff on incoming
inspection and order something else.

I do have a high degree of confidence that my measurements are accurate. I
took a lot of care in characterizing the cable before using it for making
remote antenna impedance measurements in the course of a consulting job.
But it's entirely possible that the particular piece of cable I have is
defective. That would just point to a quality control problem rather than
overzealous specsmanship.

In your query of Davis, I hope you asked them if they routinely test
production batches for loss, and if so how often and when the last test
was run. It's possible that something in their process changed relatively
recently.

If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the
ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make
measurements and post results.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Charlie wrote:
Roy the kind of test results you cited would be extremely evident whether
someone has a network analyzer or just an swr meter.
That defense is sorely transparent in my opinion. To suggest that most
amateurs would not even have any interest if their bent or coiled 9914
suddenly jumped off the scale for loss and mismatch is ludicrous to say the
least.

Would you really notice if your cable loss was about 3 dB higher than
specified at 400 MHz and if it varied by a dB or two when the cable is
flexed and bent? What measurement equipment do you use which would cause
this amount of extra loss to "jump off the scale"? And what causes you
to think that increased loss would cause mismatch to "jump off the
scale"? Increased loss will improve, not degrade, the impedance match.

Let me be clear ...I am not disputing what you claim you got as test
results. My conclusion is either the 100ft length you had was bad or
something skewed your calibrated setup.

What you have as evidence is Davis' spec on the one hand, and my
measurement report on the other. You've chosen to believe that Davis'
cable all meets its published specifications. I have exactly the same
evidence, but know my capabilities and that of my equipment, so I
believe my measurements -- but always keeping in mind that it's a single
sample. Additional measurements made by someone else on another piece of
the cable would increase the knowledge base, although I'm sure there are
people who would choose to ignore the evidence no matter how much is
presented.

My career was in microwave r&d and
I know that it takes repeatable test results to form a valid, verifiable and
publishable data.

That's great! Then you have the background to be able to make decent
measurements, and you said you're using some of the cable. Why not just
measure the loss in a length of it and report your results?

This is not personal Roy....but it is somewhat stimulating.

I hope it's caused a few people to think a bit about how they evaluate
evidence to determine the truth of a matter. It's something which too
many people are woefully unable or unwilling to do.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL