I had noticed the same thing, that RG-213 seemed to have very slightly more
loss per foot than RG-8 did. Somewhere I got a feeling that perhaps
RG-213's strength was that it was longer lasting but even that doesn't make
sense for several reasons. I've even noticed antenna kits that include
RG-213 so maybe its just less expensive and they can make higher profits
with RG-213 than they can with RG-8 at the expense of slightly higher loss?

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

" wrote in message
news:w20Bb.461703$HS4.3603203@attbi_s01...
"VHFRadioBuff" wrote in message
...
Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and
there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so
much
of over the years, RG-8?

RG-213 has less loss per 100 ft than RG-8. Nothing too significant
though,
not
at HF freq's at least. Check out:

http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB - WPYI880 (GMRS)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com

I think you are comparing RG-8X (the mini stuff) to RG-213. RG-8U has
lower
lose than 213.

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, but as a new ham myself, I found the
various 8s confusing.

73

Paul AB0SI