Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+BELDEN\s+9913\s+vs\s+RG\-213\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TopBand\:\s+BELDEN\s+9913\s+vs\s+RG\-213\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. TopBand: BELDEN 9913 vs RG-213 (score: 1): Author: km3g@cts.com (Lane C. Zeitler); Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:06:38 -0700; Gentlemen, I loaned out my ARRL Handbook hence this question: Which has the lower loss per 100 feet at 30 mhz and lower-- 9913 or RG-213?? I am ready to make up phasing lines for a phased array and p; /archives//html/Topband/1997-10/msg00127.html (6,901 bytes)
2. TopBand: BELDEN 9913 vs RG-213 (score: 1): Author: w5un@wt.net (David Blaschke); Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 02:20:26 -0100; Beware of 9913, as it can get water inside, as so many have sadly found in the 2 meter eme group. Texas Towers in Plano, TX (and others, I'm sure) has a nice alternative coax which does not have this; /archives//html/Topband/1997-10/msg00128.html (7,928 bytes)
3. TopBand: BELDEN 9913 vs RG-213 (score: 1): Author: midnite2@concentric.net (Robert Kile); Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 20:22:36 -0700; Coax Questions, Belden 9913 has considerably less loss at vhf and microwave frequencies than RG-213. It costs less because there is less material used than in RG-213. However, the losses are almost t; /archives//html/Topband/1997-10/msg00129.html (7,823 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]