Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so much
of over the years, RG-8? TIA.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so much
of over the years, RG-8?

RG-213 has less loss per 100 ft than RG-8. Nothing too significant though, not
at HF freq's at least. Check out:

http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB - WPYI880 (GMRS)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com

"VHFRadioBuff" wrote in message
...
Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so
much
of over the years, RG-8?

RG-213 has less loss per 100 ft than RG-8. Nothing too significant though,
not
at HF freq's at least. Check out:

http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB - WPYI880 (GMRS)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com

I think you are comparing RG-8X (the mini stuff) to RG-213. RG-8U has lower
lose than 213.

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, but as a new ham myself, I found the
various 8s confusing.

73

Paul AB0SI

I had noticed the same thing, that RG-213 seemed to have very slightly more
loss per foot than RG-8 did. Somewhere I got a feeling that perhaps
RG-213's strength was that it was longer lasting but even that doesn't make
sense for several reasons. I've even noticed antenna kits that include
RG-213 so maybe its just less expensive and they can make higher profits
with RG-213 than they can with RG-8 at the expense of slightly higher loss?

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

" wrote in message
news:w20Bb.461703$HS4.3603203@attbi_s01...
"VHFRadioBuff" wrote in message
...
Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and
there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so
much
of over the years, RG-8?

RG-213 has less loss per 100 ft than RG-8. Nothing too significant
though,
not
at HF freq's at least. Check out:

http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB - WPYI880 (GMRS)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com

I think you are comparing RG-8X (the mini stuff) to RG-213. RG-8U has
lower
lose than 213.

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, but as a new ham myself, I found the
various 8s confusing.

73

Paul AB0SI

RG-213 is also rated for somewhat higher power than RG-8.

Off the subject, but....

Last week I had an interesting QSO with a gentleman who runs nothing but
hard line -- and SERIOUS hardline at that. His jumpers are LHR 600 -- he
uses lower loss stuff (honest) for his runs. This includes the runs for his
160m and 80m antennas. Now, there is a person who does not like loss.

Paul AB0SI


"Jerry Bransford" wrote in message
news:je0Bb.30145$Bk1.26174@fed1read05...
I had noticed the same thing, that RG-213 seemed to have very slightly
more
loss per foot than RG-8 did. Somewhere I got a feeling that perhaps
RG-213's strength was that it was longer lasting but even that doesn't
make
sense for several reasons. I've even noticed antenna kits that include
RG-213 so maybe its just less expensive and they can make higher profits
with RG-213 than they can with RG-8 at the expense of slightly higher
loss?

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

" wrote in message
news:w20Bb.461703$HS4.3603203@attbi_s01...
"VHFRadioBuff" wrote in message
...
Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into
a
new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and
there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so
much
of over the years, RG-8?

RG-213 has less loss per 100 ft than RG-8. Nothing too significant
though,
not
at HF freq's at least. Check out:

http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB - WPYI880 (GMRS)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com

I think you are comparing RG-8X (the mini stuff) to RG-213. RG-8U has
lower
lose than 213.

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, but as a new ham myself, I found the
various 8s confusing.

73

Paul AB0SI

Hi:
RG-8 used to be a military specification cable but the military dropped it
in favor of a new specification called RG-213. They are very similar coaxes
in general, but manufactures are free to make any cable they like and call
it RG-8 so the quality and consistency can vary widely. Also RG-8 with foam
a center insulator, and all the other variations are not nor never were
MilSpec.That does not mean that all RG-8 cables are crap, but it could be
and it depends on the manufactures idea of what kind of cable they want to
sell. On the other hand RG-213 as a current MilSpec cable is a higher grade
cable and is more consistent from manufacture to manufacture. My feeling is
that if I'm going to go to all the work of installing a antenna, I want to
use the best material I can. So I use RG-213. But my favorite coax is Davis
RF Bury Flex, http://www.davisrf.com/ . It's a good coax that has low loss
and a very tough jacket. I have 500 feet of it in my antenna system and so
far I'm very happy.


--
John Passaneau W3JXP
State College Pa

This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.

"Jerry Bransford" wrote in message
news:moUAb.29779$Bk1.25134@fed1read05...
Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so much
of over the years, RG-8? TIA.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

THERE'S the answer I was looking for and it all now makes perfect sense.
Thank you very much John.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

"John Passaneau" wrote in message
...
Hi:
RG-8 used to be a military specification cable but the military dropped it
in favor of a new specification called RG-213. They are very similar
coaxes
in general, but manufactures are free to make any cable they like and
call
it RG-8 so the quality and consistency can vary widely. Also RG-8 with
foam
a center insulator, and all the other variations are not nor never were
MilSpec.That does not mean that all RG-8 cables are crap, but it could be
and it depends on the manufactures idea of what kind of cable they want to
sell. On the other hand RG-213 as a current MilSpec cable is a higher
grade
cable and is more consistent from manufacture to manufacture. My feeling
is
that if I'm going to go to all the work of installing a antenna, I want to
use the best material I can. So I use RG-213. But my favorite coax is
Davis
RF Bury Flex, http://www.davisrf.com/ . It's a good coax that has low loss
and a very tough jacket. I have 500 feet of it in my antenna system and so
far I'm very happy.


--
John Passaneau W3JXP
State College Pa

This mail is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to
be considered flaws or defects.

"Jerry Bransford" wrote in message
news:moUAb.29779$Bk1.25134@fed1read05...
Ok so I'm getting back active with my ham gear and while looking into a
new
HF antenna, discovered a new cable type being recommended here and
there,
RG-213. What is so much better about RG-213 than what I have used so
much
of over the years, RG-8? TIA.

Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

I think you are comparing RG-8X (the mini stuff) to RG-213. RG-8U has lower
lose than 213.

According to the webpage that I referenced, the differences are as follows:

RG-8X: 0.5dB at 1mhz
1.0 dB at 10mhz

RG-213: 0.2dB at 1mhz
0.6db at 10mhz

The original poster asked about RG-8. No reference to either X or U.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB - WPYI880 (GMRS)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:28:21 -0800, "Jerry Bransford"
wrote:

THERE'S the answer I was looking for and it all now makes perfect sense.
Thank you very much John.

Jerry

Not to confuse/clarify matters more, but try the coax chart at
http://thewireman.com/coaxp.html

They have five kinds of rg-8 and four kinds of 213. The rg-8s all show
less loss than the 213s.

Guess it all depends on who's manufacturing the stuff.

Bob
k5qwg

"VHFRadioBuff" wrote in message
...
I think you are comparing RG-8X (the mini stuff) to RG-213. RG-8U has
lower
lose than 213.

According to the webpage that I referenced, the differences are as
follows:

RG-8X: 0.5dB at 1mhz
1.0 dB at 10mhz

RG-213: 0.2dB at 1mhz
0.6db at 10mhz

The original poster asked about RG-8. No reference to either X or U.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I think most would assume he meant for similarly sized cables.