"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message news:rhwDd.29479$2X6.1694@trnddc07...

My I am ever so impressed with someone that has nothing
intelligent
to say and says it in such a quaint way. No I dont speak horsefeathers and
yes
the truth is out there. Try
http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
and do the math yourself, providing you know how to figure averages. The
difference IS insignificant, for runs under 100',, if you choose to not
believe
it, thats your problem.

Jeff

Averages are perhaps meaningful if the process is linear- however,
attenuation vs freq is not linear and that is why one does not speak of loss
averages- you won't find it in the literature.
2nd- 1mhz is millihertz= 0.001 Hz. You likely mean MHz.

Dale W4OP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Dale,, at least its nice to read someones post that makes sense. And
yes I realize that "averages" do not directly apply to rf attenuation per coax.
My point was, no one parks there scanner on .9-1 Ghz. and leaves it there. Most
people usually listen to where 90% of the action is and that is usually between
100-500Mhz. Given worst case scenario at 1Ghz the difference between
9913 and RG 6 is -1.6db/100'. I believe the original poster said his run was
less than 50',, which would put cable loss at around -.8db between the 2.
Given the capture affect of FM transmissions a -.8db isnt going to mean the
difference of hearing or not hearing a signal. And yes I meant Mhz not mhz,
a typo. My whole point was there is "very" little if any noticeable difference
between using RG 6 and 9913 for general scanning purposes, and its a whole
lot easier to work with.


Jeff