Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
On 1/25/2013 10:30 AM, Merv Schweigert wrote: Is there a brand of RG-6 that someone has tried that is recommended? I'd call Commscope quite dependable, first class cable mfr. It used to be one of the Bell companies. I've met their eng'rs at industry trade shows. DX Engineering sells a flooded version of their RG6 that is known to work well for Beverages. I've not used it, but I've used a lot of other Commscope coax. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Commscope, Times and what ever else quality distributors such as Tessco carry are what I suggest. Also see about buying from the local CATV installation contractors. Carl KM1H I have been watching this thread with interest, I am preparing to put up a receive array and it will have to be some distance from the shack. Is there a brand of RG-6 that someone has tried that is recommended? Or some idea of a good name to look for. Shipping to Molokai is more than 1000ft of coax costs, so need to make the right choice the first time. Not sure at this point of exact feedline length but will be more than 1000 ft. I see commscope RG-6 burial type orange on Ebay, anyone tested that and is commscope decent material?I will have to bury it due to mongoose chewing on most anything laying on the ground, they chewed through teflon coated wires for beverages that laid on the ground overnite before getting erected. Thanks 73 Merv K9FD/KH6 Several topbanders asked if I would measure the DC resistance of the solid copper and copper clad steel center conductors of the RG-6 coax for which I published the RF loss measurements. I also measured the quad-shield DC resistance, both cables measured the same. Here are my measurement results: Solid copper: 0.6 ohms per 100 feet Copper clad steel: 1.9 ohms per 100 feet Quad shield:0.3 ohms per 100 feet It appears that copper clad steel RG-6 is a good choice for remote powered preamps and relays except for very long cable runs. When using a remotely powered device its extremely important to prevent even the slightest moisture entry. RG-6 compression connectors are NOT waterproofed at the threaded end of the connector, additional waterproofing is absolutely essential. The Thomas Betts NS500 Nut Seal costs only a few cents and it very effectively waterproofs the connector threads. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-LRC-AUGAT-THOMAS-BETTS-NS-500-NUT-SEAL-50-LOT-/160703026841 The inside of the connector should be stuffed with STUF Di-Electric Filler to prevent moisture accumulation from condensation. The finished connection should first be wrapped with electrical tape, then a final layer of waterproofing should be applied such as Coax-Seal moldable tape. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: donov...@starpower.net Subject: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: topband@contesting.com Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper (SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed 350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in this table. The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative measurements should be valid. Solid Copper Cable length in Freq Copper Cladfeet for a 1 dB MHzLossLossloss difference 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 7.00.6 0.8 500 10 0.7 0.85 650 14 0.750.9 650 21 0.9 1.0 1000 28 1.0 1.1 1000 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2639/5556 - Release Date: 01/25/13 _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
hi Frank et al. preparing our last year's CR3L contest activity in the CQWW-CW, we wanted to try a remote RX-antenna to work in-band multipliers as DM6V in the WAG-contest at DL5AXX's qth... naively following the formula that quartering the frequency will half the attenuation Ulf ordered 500m of 75 Ohm CCS -TV coax promising about 15db loss at 500MHz per 100m... the calculated loss of about 10db for the Windom 400 m away was expected to be tolerable for our purpose... when we didn't hear literally anything on our RX-antenna we first thought of a faulty connector, but the SWR, totally flat at 1.5 (75 ohms) from 160 to 10m, made us suspicious and measuring the SWR into one (unbroken) 100m piece (open at the end) showed that the cable was responsible for the high losses... when taking a 100m bobin home for more exact measurements, at 30 MHz the attenuation was measured as 17db at 14MHz, 15 db and 8 db at 1.8 MHz ... no wonder that we couldn't hear anything at the end of the 400m feed line... as at 100 MHz the attenuation was 19.5 db, well above the promised 15 db at 500 MHz, we returned the cable to the distributor and hoped for reimbursement... to be fair, the cable was very cheap ( 20 EUR/100m) and we simply had to pay the price for saving the wrong way... we were almost determined to order 500m of H155 and pay a lot of money when I found a promising CCS-TV-cable in the catalogue of another distributor in Germany... at the price of EUR 25/100m the catalogue specified an attenuation of 5,64 db/100m and I had another try... with 6.1 db at 100 MHz it was pretty close to specifications and the losses (measured with my miniVNA ) for 100 m were 4,8 db on 30 MHz , 4.4 db on 14 MHz and 3.3 db 1.8 MHz , not very far away what you listed in the table in a recent e-mail and clearly better than the expensive H155 we were going to buy at three times the price... CONCLUSION: there are enormous differences in the quality of 75 ohms-CCS-TV cables in the low price segment here in Germany (presumably all made in China)... TV-cables are very rarely specified as RG-6 here and I wonder if there are standard specifications for RG-6 just as for RG-58 or RG-213 etc furthermore we learned (the hard way) that - obviously due to the characteristics of CCS-wire - the attenuation/frequency ratio is very different from that of our common 50 ohm coax with inner conductors of solid (or stranded) copper... before ordering a long run of TV-cable first I'll always try a sample... hoping that our experience will perhaps prevent others from making the same mistake... 73 Uli, DJ2YA - Original Message - From: donov...@starpower.net To: topband topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:28 AM Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor Hi Mike, Obviously I had computers on my mind... Yes, of course I meant to say quad-shield RG-6 CATV cable. I'll provide the manufacturers and part numbers in a subsequent e-mail, but its just typical inexpensive ebay RG-6 CATV cable. Inexpensive RG-6 with a copper clad steel (CCS) center conductor is much more widely available than solid copper, especially in desirable options such as a tough polyethylene (PE) jacket and flooded RG-6. CCS looks like a reasonable choice except for very long cable runs on 160 and 80 meters. A copper clad center conductor may be a problem if a device (e.g. a preamp or relay) is remotely powered through the coaxial cable. 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Uli, A very important lesson about CCS RG-6 has been communicated to topbanders by you and several others who have had bad experiences. Thanks for taking the time to describe your unfortunate experience in detail. When purchasing copper clad steel RG-6, its very important to immediately test its loss characteristics. It appears that some unscrupulous suppliers are selling factory rejected RG-6 or selling RG-6 from unreliable manufacturers. We should be careful to purchase from trusted suppliers, on ebay they will be suppliers with 100% positive feedback. Its easy to use an MFJ-259 to quickly check cable loss, using its cable loss mode. Its more accurate if you build or purchase a simple 50:75 ohm broadband matching transformer. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:21:48 +0100 From: Ulrich Weiss dj...@t-online.de Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: donov...@starpower.net, topband topband@contesting.com hi Frank et al. preparing our last year's CR3L contest activity in the CQWW-CW, we wanted to try a remote RX-antenna to work in-band multipliers as DM6V in the WAG-contest at DL5AXX's qth... naively following the formula that quartering the frequency will half the attenuation Ulf ordered 500m of 75 Ohm CCS -TV coax promising about 15db loss at 500MHz per 100m... the calculated loss of about 10db for the Windom 400 m away was expected to be tolerable for our purpose... when we didn't hear literally anything on our RX-antenna we first thought of a faulty connector, but the SWR, totally flat at 1.5 (75 ohms) from 160 to 10m, made us suspicious and measuring the SWR into one (unbroken) 100m piece (open at the end) showed that the cable was responsible for the high losses... when taking a 100m bobin home for more exact measurements, at 30 MHz the attenuation was measured as 17db at 14MHz, 15 db and 8 db at 1.8 MHz ... no wonder that we couldn't hear anything at the end of the 400m feed line... as at 100 MHz the attenuation was 19.5 db, well above the promised 15 db at 500 MHz, we returned the cable to the distributor and hoped for reimbursement... to be fair, the cable was very cheap ( 20 EUR/100m) and we simply had to pay the price for saving the wrong way... we were almost determined to order 500m of H155 and pay a lot of money when I found a promising CCS-TV-cable in the catalogue of another distributor in Germany... at the price of EUR 25/100m the catalogue specified an attenuation of 5,64 db/100m and I had another try... with 6.1 db at 100 MHz it was pretty close to specifications and the losses (measured with my miniVNA ) for 100 m were 4,8 db on 30 MHz , 4.4 db on 14 MHz and 3.3 db 1.8 MHz , not very far away what you listed in the table in a recent e-mail and clearly better than the expensive H155 we were going to buy at three times the price... CONCLUSION: there are enormous differences in the quality of 75 ohms-CCS-TV cables in the low price segment here in Germany (presumably all made in China)... TV-cables are very rarely specified as RG-6 here and I wonder if there are standard specifications for RG-6 just as for RG-58 or RG-213 etc furthermore we learned (the hard way) that - obviously due to the characteristics of CCS-wire - the attenuation/frequency ratio is very different from that of our common 50 ohm coax with inner conductors of solid (or stranded) copper... before ordering a long run of TV-cable first I'll always try a sample... hoping that our experience will perhaps prevent others from making the same mistake... 73 Uli, DJ2YA - Original Message - From: donov...@starpower.net To: topband topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:28 AM Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor Hi Mike, Obviously I had computers on my mind... Yes, of course I meant to say quad-shield RG-6 CATV cable. I'll provide the manufacturers and part numbers in a subsequent e-mail, but its just typical inexpensive ebay RG-6 CATV cable. Inexpensive RG-6 with a copper clad steel (CCS) center conductor is much more widely available than solid copper, especially in desirable options such as a tough polyethylene (PE) jacket and flooded RG-6. CCS looks like a reasonable choice except for very long cable runs on 160 and 80 meters. A copper clad center conductor may be a problem if a device (e.g. a preamp or relay) is remotely powered through the coaxial cable. 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
I have been watching this thread with interest, I am preparing to put up a receive array and it will have to be some distance from the shack. Is there a brand of RG-6 that someone has tried that is recommended? Or some idea of a good name to look for. Shipping to Molokai is more than 1000ft of coax costs, so need to make the right choice the first time. Not sure at this point of exact feedline length but will be more than 1000 ft. I see commscope RG-6 burial type orange on Ebay, anyone tested that and is commscope decent material?I will have to bury it due to mongoose chewing on most anything laying on the ground, they chewed through teflon coated wires for beverages that laid on the ground overnite before getting erected. Thanks 73 Merv K9FD/KH6 Several topbanders asked if I would measure the DC resistance of the solid copper and copper clad steel center conductors of the RG-6 coax for which I published the RF loss measurements. I also measured the quad-shield DC resistance, both cables measured the same. Here are my measurement results: Solid copper: 0.6 ohms per 100 feet Copper clad steel: 1.9 ohms per 100 feet Quad shield:0.3 ohms per 100 feet It appears that copper clad steel RG-6 is a good choice for remote powered preamps and relays except for very long cable runs. When using a remotely powered device its extremely important to prevent even the slightest moisture entry. RG-6 compression connectors are NOT waterproofed at the threaded end of the connector, additional waterproofing is absolutely essential. The Thomas Betts NS500 Nut Seal costs only a few cents and it very effectively waterproofs the connector threads. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-LRC-AUGAT-THOMAS-BETTS-NS-500-NUT-SEAL-50-LOT-/160703026841 The inside of the connector should be stuffed with STUF Di-Electric Filler to prevent moisture accumulation from condensation. The finished connection should first be wrapped with electrical tape, then a final layer of waterproofing should be applied such as Coax-Seal moldable tape. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: donov...@starpower.net Subject: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: topband@contesting.com Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper (SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed 350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in this table. The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative measurements should be valid. Solid Copper Cable length in Freq Copper Cladfeet for a 1 dB MHzLossLossloss difference 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 7.00.6 0.8 500 10 0.7 0.85 650 14 0.750.9 650 21 0.9 1.0 1000 28 1.0 1.1 1000 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
On 1/23/2013 2:58 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 Yes, and you can see this difference in mfr data sheets that are sufficiently detailed (Belden, for example). The differences are greatest at the lowest frequencies. Note also that copper clad aluminum does not suffer nearly as much from this, so I suspect it's the effect of the steel on the distribution of current. For example, loss in LMR400 (Cu clad Al) is quite close to solid Cu of the same diameter (Commscope 3227, #10 solid copper, same shield as LMR400) on 160M. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Hi Mike, Obviously I had computers on my mind... Yes, of course I meant to say quad-shield RG-6 CATV cable. I'll provide the manufacturers and part numbers in a subsequent e-mail, but its just typical inexpensive ebay RG-6 CATV cable. Inexpensive RG-6 with a copper clad steel (CCS) center conductor is much more widely available than solid copper, especially in desirable options such as a tough polyethylene (PE) jacket and flooded RG-6. CCS looks like a reasonable choice except for very long cable runs on 160 and 80 meters. A copper clad center conductor may be a problem if a device (e.g. a preamp or relay) is remotely powered through the coaxial cable. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:56:40 -0600 From: Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: topband topband@contesting.com Hello Frank, Thank you for this, but you meant quad-shield instead of quad-core, didn't you? I've never heard of coax with 4 cores, unless you mean the quad-coax stuff where the jackets are all joined together. Data on the coax companies and part numbers might be useful, if you have it handy. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:58 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Steel, being magnetic, is quite lossy at RF. OTOH, aluminum at RF is only 28% lossier than copper. However, no RG-6 (AFAIK) has a copper clad aluminum conductor. Rick N6RK Jim Brown wrote: On 1/23/2013 2:58 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 Yes, and you can see this difference in mfr data sheets that are sufficiently detailed (Belden, for example). The differences are greatest at the lowest frequencies. Note also that copper clad aluminum does not suffer nearly as much from this, so I suspect it's the effect of the steel on the distribution of current. For example, loss in LMR400 (Cu clad Al) is quite close to solid Cu of the same diameter (Commscope 3227, #10 solid copper, same shield as LMR400) on 160M. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
I successfully use 100s and 100s of feet of copper clad steel RG-6 in my 160m 4-square receive setup with a pre-amp at the station. Copper clad steel works for me. Doug Think of all the ways you can hurt yourself laughing. -Original Message- Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper (SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed 350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in this table. The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative measurements should be valid. Solid Copper Cable length in Freq Copper Cladfeet for a 1 dB MHzLossLossloss difference 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 7.00.6 0.8 500 10 0.7 0.85 650 14 0.750.9 650 21 0.9 1.0 1000 28 1.0 1.1 1000 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
I posted earlier on the list (31 January 2011 ) problems we had with some cheap ebay satellite cable CCS RG6 that I was using on a long run to 160m Beverages. The 250m reels came from different suppliers, though both of Chinese origin. The measured loss in the first 250m segment was ~ 6dB and about ~9dB in the second segment, 15dB total over 500m. This is way higher than published figures (eg at http://www.timesmicrowave.com/cgi-bin/calculate.pl) which suggest about 3dB per 250m. This is in line with your attenuation measurments of CCS (0.6 dB loss per 100 ft at 1.8MHz) , but shows that cheap cable can be even worse! I assumed that this cable was particularly bad at lower frequencies because of value engineering re the thickness of the copper coating. Rudy N6LF gives the skin depth at 2MHz as 40uM (Conductors for HF Antennas, Rudy Severns, QEX November/December 2000) and I guess that some CCS cable has copper covering much thinner than that! No doubt quality Comscope or Belden is better, but we stripped out the RG6 and used solid copper CX167 instead, more expensive but very useable over a 1km feed run. Jeremy G3XDK/G4AQG On 24 Jan 2013, at 02:28, donov...@starpower.net donov...@starpower.net wrote: Hi Mike, Obviously I had computers on my mind... Yes, of course I meant to say quad-shield RG-6 CATV cable. I'll provide the manufacturers and part numbers in a subsequent e-mail, but its just typical inexpensive ebay RG-6 CATV cable. Inexpensive RG-6 with a copper clad steel (CCS) center conductor is much more widely available than solid copper, especially in desirable options such as a tough polyethylene (PE) jacket and flooded RG-6. CCS looks like a reasonable choice except for very long cable runs on 160 and 80 meters. A copper clad center conductor may be a problem if a device (e.g. a preamp or relay) is remotely powered through the coaxial cable. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:56:40 -0600 From: Mike Waters mikew...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: topband topband@contesting.com Hello Frank, Thank you for this, but you meant quad-shield instead of quad-core, didn't you? I've never heard of coax with 4 cores, unless you mean the quad-coax stuff where the jackets are all joined together. Data on the coax companies and part numbers might be useful, if you have it handy. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:58 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Hi Doug, Quad shielded RG-6 with a copper clad steel center conductor is an excellent choice on 160 and 80 meters as long as the cable lengths aren't very long. Outdoor rated quad shielded CCS RG-6 is more readily available at low prices (typically less than 10 cents per foot) than solid copper center conductor RG-6. RG-6 with a CCS center conductor is a poor choice for the 1500 foot transmission lines to my 160 and 80 meter receiving antennas. I wouldn't hesitate to use CCS RG-6 if my cable lengths were less than 500 feet. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:48:25 -0600 From: Doug Renwick ve...@sasktel.net Subject: RE: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: donov...@starpower.net, topband@contesting.com I successfully use 100s and 100s of feet of copper clad steel RG-6 in my 160m 4-square receive setup with a pre-amp at the station. Copper clad steel works for me. Doug Think of all the ways you can hurt yourself laughing. -Original Message- Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper (SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed 350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in this table. The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative measurements should be valid. Solid Copper Cable length in Freq Copper Cladfeet for a 1 dB MHzLossLossloss difference 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 7.00.6 0.8 500 10 0.7 0.85 650 14 0.750.9 650 21 0.9 1.0 1000 28 1.0 1.1 1000 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
At KC1XX we also have a 1500-foot feedline run to one of our lowband receiving antennas. We use RG-6 with copper clad steel center conductor, but we install a preamp right at the antenna to compensate for feedline loss and some passive splitting losses at the station. A potential downside of a preamp is degradation in dynamic range in a strong signal environment, so you have to choose the preamp carefully. We have had very good results with some very high dynamic range preamps from Clifton Laboratories (http://cliftonlaboratories.com/current_products.htm). Incidentally I have also measured RG-6 feedline loss numbers that are virtually identical to what Frank has reported. 73, John W1FV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of donov...@starpower.net Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:11 PM To: topband@contesting.com Cc: Doug Renwick Subject: Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor Hi Doug, Quad shielded RG-6 with a copper clad steel center conductor is an excellent choice on 160 and 80 meters as long as the cable lengths aren't very long. Outdoor rated quad shielded CCS RG-6 is more readily available at low prices (typically less than 10 cents per foot) than solid copper center conductor RG-6. RG-6 with a CCS center conductor is a poor choice for the 1500 foot transmission lines to my 160 and 80 meter receiving antennas. I wouldn't hesitate to use CCS RG-6 if my cable lengths were less than 500 feet. 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Several topbanders asked if I would measure the DC resistance of the solid copper and copper clad steel center conductors of the RG-6 coax for which I published the RF loss measurements. I also measured the quad-shield DC resistance, both cables measured the same. Here are my measurement results: Solid copper: 0.6 ohms per 100 feet Copper clad steel: 1.9 ohms per 100 feet Quad shield:0.3 ohms per 100 feet It appears that copper clad steel RG-6 is a good choice for remote powered preamps and relays except for very long cable runs. When using a remotely powered device its extremely important to prevent even the slightest moisture entry. RG-6 compression connectors are NOT waterproofed at the threaded end of the connector, additional waterproofing is absolutely essential. The Thomas Betts NS500 Nut Seal costs only a few cents and it very effectively waterproofs the connector threads. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-LRC-AUGAT-THOMAS-BETTS-NS-500-NUT-SEAL-50-LOT-/160703026841 The inside of the connector should be stuffed with STUF Di-Electric Filler to prevent moisture accumulation from condensation. The finished connection should first be wrapped with electrical tape, then a final layer of waterproofing should be applied such as Coax-Seal moldable tape. 73 Frank W3LPL Original message Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: donov...@starpower.net Subject: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor To: topband@contesting.com Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper (SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed 350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in this table. The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative measurements should be valid. Solid Copper Cable length in Freq Copper Cladfeet for a 1 dB MHzLossLossloss difference 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 7.00.6 0.8 500 10 0.7 0.85 650 14 0.750.9 650 21 0.9 1.0 1000 28 1.0 1.1 1000 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector
Topband: Measured RG-6 Loss: Solid Copper vs. Copper Clad center conductor
Today I measured the difference in loss (dB per 100 ft) between solid copper (SC) center conductor RG-6 vs. copper clad steel (CCS) Quad-Core RG-6 coaxial cable. The difference is not significant until cable lengths exceed 350 feet. You can see the affect of the steel core at 7 MHz and below in this table. The cables were manufactured by two different companies, but the relative measurements should be valid. Solid Copper Cable length in Freq Copper Cladfeet for a 1 dB MHzLossLossloss difference 1.80.3 0.6 350 3.50.4 0.6 500 7.00.6 0.8 500 10 0.7 0.85 650 14 0.750.9 650 21 0.9 1.0 1000 28 1.0 1.1 1000 73 Frank W3LPL _ Topband Reflector
