On 12/2/2011 10:58 AM, Dave_A wrote:
> The reason I said 58U is that (From what I'd seen online) 58 U foam-core
> has some of the lowest attenuation of the 'common' cable types (1.7db,
> IIRC)
>
I don't disagree with you. I've used it with great results, as have
many people over the years.
On 12/2/2011 7:14 PM, Matt Elder wrote:
> On 12/2/2011 9:32 AM, Glenn Martin wrote:
>> Not RG-58. Too lossy. Use RG-8X instead.
> You say too lossy. At the frequencies we run at, what's the difference
> in attenuation?
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at htt
On 12/2/2011 8:44 AM, Matt Elder wrote:
> On 12/2/2011 9:32 AM, Glenn Martin wrote:
>> Not RG-58. Too lossy. Use RG-8X instead.
> You say too lossy. At the frequencies we run at, what's the difference
> in attenuation?
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at htt
On 12/2/2011 9:32 AM, Glenn Martin wrote:
> Not RG-58. Too lossy. Use RG-8X instead.
You say too lossy. At the frequencies we run at, what's the difference
in attenuation?
On 12/2/2011 3:08 AM, Dave_A wrote:
> I'm assuming RG58/U for antenna wire...
>
> ___
>
Not RG-58. Too lossy. Use RG-8X instead.
--
Glenn Martin,
KR2 N1333A,
Biloxi, MS
5 matches
Mail list logo