Ken:
Yes we have been using RG400 which is stranded rather than solid conductor of RG142. They are both double shielded. https://www.awcwire.com/allied-university/this-vs-that/rg142-vs-rg400 We only use RG214 for short outdoor jumpers for antenna connections to LDF4-50 hardline which is lower loss and much cheaper than RG214. We have been getting indoor jumper cables from https://www.coaxrf.com/product-category/1-rf-coaxial-cables/ for several years. They seem to be built well, they can produce any length or combination of connectors and they ship the next day for free and I usually get it overnight, they are in Valencia. The cost is just about the cost of the materials.
Wayne
On 1/13/2025 10:24 PM, WILLIAM TALANIAN via SBARC-list wrote:
Ken,
Saw the error and thought it was a new type.Emoji
Why bother making up jumpers. The factory made ones that Wayne got we well made and reasonable considering parts.
Get the company name from Wayne.
Bill
On Monday, January 13, 2025 at 09:10:48 PM PST, Ken Alker via SBARC-list sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com wrote:
Correction: The correct cable I'm after is "MIL-17-C RG-142". Thanks. Ken
--On Monday, January 13, 2025 6:48 PM -0800 Ken Alker ka6ken@alker.net wrote:
I am going to build all new patch cables for the WB6OBB repeater system and I'm wondering if anyone has any surplus MIL-17-C RG-214 coax (or equivalent) laying around they would be willing to part with. This is double shielded silver plated coax that is good for repeater systems in high-RF environments.
Thanks! Ken
SBARC-list mailing list -- sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com To unsubscribe send an email to sbarc-list-leave@lists.netlojix.com
SBARC-list mailing list --sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com To unsubscribe send an email tosbarc-list-leave@lists.netlojix.com