on 10/21/02 9:32 PM, Bob Nielsen at nielsen@oz.net wrote:
> RG-213 has a non-contaminating jacket, not a direct burial jacket. As
> I recall it is practically identical to one of the RG-8 versions and I
> would expect that the loss figures are identical. In this respect, I
> am referring to what was once a MIL-spec cable, but the term "RG-8" is
> now applied to quite a few other cables in the .405 diameter class (as
> is also the case with RG-6, RG-58 and RG-59, etc.)
There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this "direct burial" thing. My
RG-213 says it clearly on the jacket: "Direct Burial"
No, there's no goop in there, but according to what I have been told by the
folks at Cable Experts (where I got the cable), anything with a polyethelene
jacket is essentially capable of direct burial. PVC jackets such as RG-8,
are not rated for such. I will double check my information with them since
they are in my area and I regularly pick stuff up from them.
RG-213 is a mil-spec cable yes. It has a different dielectric than RG-8.
RG-8 typically has a foam dielectric. Has less loss than RG-213 but can't
handle the power.
73,
Jon
NA9D
-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)
Life Member: ARRL, NRA
Member: AMSAT, DXCC
http://www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
|