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

Ken,

Saw the error and thought it was a new type.

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 to sbarc-list-leave@lists.netlojix.com