"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
news:K6Qsj.387$ph.169@trnddc06...

"Sarge" wrote in message
...
If you're not transmitting, you don't need a low loss coax.
mini 8 will work or 58/u or rg8, whatever blows your skirt up.
Right- if you don't care about Signal/Noise- then use anything you
want.But if you want to preserve the best possible S/N, then use the
lowest loss coax you can afford.
Dale

you sure don't need to lay out money for LMR400. Just going from rg58 to rg8
or mini 8 would do it.

"Sarge" wrote in message
...

"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
news:K6Qsj.387$ph.169@trnddc06...

"Sarge" wrote in message
...
If you're not transmitting, you don't need a low loss coax.
mini 8 will work or 58/u or rg8, whatever blows your skirt up.
Right- if you don't care about Signal/Noise- then use anything you
want.But if you want to preserve the best possible S/N, then use the
lowest loss coax you can afford.
Dale

you sure don't need to lay out money for LMR400. Just going from rg58 to
rg8 or mini 8 would do it.

RG58 100ft @ 900mhz = 14.5 db loss (significant)
Mini 8 100ft @900mhz = 8.8 db loss (thats about a 6db gain and that will
make a difference.
LMR400 100ft @ 900mhz = 4.1 db loss ( thats a 4db improvement over mini 8)
Everyone knows that the first 6db gain or loss will make a difference that
you'll see and hear. However, 4 db you won't see or hear. Therefore there is
no reason to go the extra cost plus have to work with LMR400 which is a bit
unwieldy . Now on my ham gear vhf/uhf, yes I use LMR400 because it is that
much better for transmit. It helps on both ends.
A scanner is only a recvr. Plus I seriously doubt anyone is using a 100ft
coax run for a scanner. On my stuff I use 130ft run.
Got a 50ft run? cut those figures in half.

Thats all I meant in my post. LMR400 just is not going to do that much over
rg8 or mini8 or 8x to justify the hassle and expense over a short run of any
other coax.

Sarge W5SRG