Ok, I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a new
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? TIA.

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

Thank you Bob.

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

"Bob Nielsen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:01:45 -0800, Jerry Bransford wrote:
Ok, I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
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? TIA.

The original RG-8 spec was superceded by RG-213 over 40 years ago, but
they were pretty much the same cable, as I recall (although I don't
think all RG-8 cables had non-contaminating PVC jackets). Since then,
manufacturers have called all sorts of cable by the name "RG-8",
including foam dielectric cable, different diameters, such as RG-8X,
etc.

The QPL for the MIL-C-17 coax spec actually lists cables as M17/xxxxx,
rather than RG numbers.


--
Bob Nielsen, N7XY n7xy (at) n7xy.net
Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.n7xy.net

Thank you Bob.

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

"Bob Nielsen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:01:45 -0800, Jerry Bransford wrote:
Ok, I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
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? TIA.

The original RG-8 spec was superceded by RG-213 over 40 years ago, but
they were pretty much the same cable, as I recall (although I don't
think all RG-8 cables had non-contaminating PVC jackets). Since then,
manufacturers have called all sorts of cable by the name "RG-8",
including foam dielectric cable, different diameters, such as RG-8X,
etc.

The QPL for the MIL-C-17 coax spec actually lists cables as M17/xxxxx,
rather than RG numbers.


--
Bob Nielsen, N7XY n7xy (at) n7xy.net
Bainbridge Island, WA http://www.n7xy.net

"Jerry Bransford" wrote in message
news:ZATAb.29762$Bk1.10606@fed1read05...
Ok, I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a new
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? TIA.


Hi,

Read this, http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-longwire.htm
and probably other stuff on the website

Thierry
ON4SKY

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

"Jerry Bransford" wrote in message
news:ZATAb.29762$Bk1.10606@fed1read05...
Ok, I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a new
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? TIA.


Hi,

Read this, http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-longwire.htm
and probably other stuff on the website

Thierry
ON4SKY

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