Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Belden 8267

To: "TOWERTALK@contesting.com" <TOWERTALK@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Belden 8267
From: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: "Tower and HF antenna construction topics." <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:03:42 -0700
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Roger said,

>It appears to be pretty expensive for what is apparently the equivalent
>of the old standard coax with a solid PE dielectric, bare copper
>braid/shield, and 5" bending radius. 

As best I can tell from the Belden catalog, it's essentially the same as 
8237, but with a non-contaminating jacket, and a dielectric that gives 
lower loss at UHF (but both are solid PE). The cost premium at places 
like Markertek (a broadcast house) is about 22%. Sorry John -- their 
catalog lists only 500 ft and 1,000 ft spools. 

But that brings up an interesting question. When I talked with Belden 
engineers several years ago, they sort of downplayed the importance of a 
non-contaminating jacket, saying that all black PVC was pretty UV 
resistant. If that is true, given that the result of contamination is a 
degradation of the dielectric, and that loss at HF and VHF is almost 
entirely copper, should we still CARE about a non-contaminating jacket on 
cable that will be used only at HF?  

Important note -- I'm not stating this as fact, nor as a request for 
"opinions" or "what you've always heard/read," but as a question to those 
who may have seriously studied this and have real information on the 
topic. 

73,

Jim K9YC


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>