[amsat-bb] Re: RG316/U

[Alan VE4YZ]

The loss compared to RG58 is about 2 times greater.  But if you are
typically runs about 5' or 6' lengths, then the loss is 2 X (next to
nothing).

Expensive when you have connectors mounted for you.  I've only used 174
which is almost the same with DIY SMA connectors to make much shorter WiFi
cables.  Now you have me thinking more about this.  The HT already has SMA
and SMA/BNC adapters are readily available to connect to my Arrow... hmmmm  

http://www.on4sh.be/ham/coax/

Or

http://www.hamuniverse.com/coaxdata.html





-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On
Behalf Of Amateur Radio Station W4MPS
Sent: October 6, 2009 2:16 PM
To: amsat-bb at amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] RG316/U

I will be traveling to Ireland next week and will be taking my FT60R
handheld and an Elk antenna. I purchased a short length of RG316 with
appropriate connectors installed to avoid the need for several adapters and
bulkier RG58. I was shocked at how small the diameter is for the 316.
Manufacturer assures me it will work quite well at 145/435 for the use
intended. Has anyone had experience with this cable? Tnx

73
Marc, W4MPS
W4MPS at nc.rr.com

 

 

_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb