RG58 or RG213
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 335
- Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 22:02
RG58 or RG213
Hi,
Having decided to put a g5rv outside and running about 15m of coax, I was wondering if RG58 would suffice, being at low frequencies/easier to manage. The coax would be coming out of the eaves and drape across to the g5rv feedpoint. I guess RG58 is lighter than RG213 and so would not put too much strain on the antenna.
Having decided to put a g5rv outside and running about 15m of coax, I was wondering if RG58 would suffice, being at low frequencies/easier to manage. The coax would be coming out of the eaves and drape across to the g5rv feedpoint. I guess RG58 is lighter than RG213 and so would not put too much strain on the antenna.
- northern35s
- Veteran
- Posts: 3780
- Joined: 02 Dec 2009, 16:09
- Location: Blackpool
Re: RG58 or RG213
Without doing a little research I don't know what the losses are in 15m of RG58, but at HF frequencies they are minimal. I feed all my antennas at home with RG213, mainly because I can and would like to reduce the loss, however for the length of run I have I doubt I'd notice the difference between RG213 and RG58. It's a different story at VHF and UHF, where RG213 becomes a bit too lossy.
Mobile DXing from the car and on foot
- MrWeetabix
- Admin
- Posts: 16395
- Joined: 26 Aug 2008, 13:34
- Call Sign: 26TM175
- Location: Gateshead
Re: RG58 or RG213
213 is regarded as better than 58, though at HF, you'll not notice the difference. If you can afford 213, then go for that, a much better buy and can be re-used for VHF/UHF at a later date.
26TM175. OP: Craig. QTH: Gateshead IO94EW. Also 163TM175 when mobile in Wales
Transmission1 on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TM1onFB | Tango Mike on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TangoMikeFB |
Transmission1 on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TM1onFB | Tango Mike on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TangoMikeFB |
- Jon_D
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 544
- Joined: 16 Apr 2010, 23:14
- Call Sign: G4FUT
- Location: Barnard Castle IO94an
Re: RG58 or RG213
Then if this is fed with coax, it is not a G5RV. That antenna is fed with open wire feeder at the feedpoint and the only coax is that which comes from the TX which is THEN attached to the open wire feed; the latter is generally 300 Ohm.The coax would be coming out of the eaves and drape across to the G5rv feedpoint.
Are you taking about a dipole fed with the coax?
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 335
- Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 22:02
Re: RG58 or RG213
Sorry, I meant to say that the coax plugs into the ladderline that hangs from the middle of the antenna.Jon_D wrote:Then if this is fed with coax, it is not a G5RV. That antenna is fed with open wire feeder at the feedpoint and the only coax is that which comes from the TX which is THEN attached to the open wire feed; the latter is generally 300 Ohm.The coax would be coming out of the eaves and drape across to the G5rv feedpoint.
Are you taking about a dipole fed with the coax?
- Jon_D
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 544
- Joined: 16 Apr 2010, 23:14
- Call Sign: G4FUT
- Location: Barnard Castle IO94an
Re: RG58 or RG213
Thanks for that...I didn't mean to be contentious. I was about to advise on velocity factor and ATUs. but needn't now.
Good luck with the G4RV; If you get it on 6 Metres, let us know as i need an antenna for that band.
Good luck with the G4RV; If you get it on 6 Metres, let us know as i need an antenna for that band.
Even if the voices on my head aren't real, they do have some pretty good ideas
Jon G4FUT
Ex-Army
RSARS 1425
Jon G4FUT
Ex-Army
RSARS 1425
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 1745
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 09:36
- Location: Gateshead
- Contact:
Re: RG58 or RG213
There used to be a (rough) guide.MrWeetabix wrote:213 is regarded as better than 58, though at HF, you'll not notice the difference. If you can afford 213, then go for that, a much better buy and can be re-used for VHF/UHF at a later date.
RG58 HF
RG213 VHF i.e. 6/4/2m
Westflex 103 UHF
SUHF, i.e. 23cm and up Ecoflex 15 - with an eye-watering cost of £5+ per meter to keep losses to a miimum!
G0SLQ website
Icom IC-7100 + two patchleads and a broken PL
Icom IC-7100 + two patchleads and a broken PL
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: 27 Mar 2010, 20:20
Re: RG58 or RG213
Yep, RG-58 is considerably lighter, so if that's a major issue then go for it.eswnl wrote:Hi,
I guess RG58 is lighter than RG213 and so would not put too much strain on the antenna.
Just don't go shoving a kilowatt of rtty up it on 10m, RG-58 doesn't like that... apparantly
- Yeti
- Veteran
- Posts: 4785
- Joined: 14 Nov 2007, 00:31
Re: RG58 or RG213
You forgot LDF450g0slq wrote:There used to be a (rough) guide.MrWeetabix wrote:213 is regarded as better than 58, though at HF, you'll not notice the difference. If you can afford 213, then go for that, a much better buy and can be re-used for VHF/UHF at a later date.
RG58 HF
RG213 VHF i.e. 6/4/2m
Westflex 103 UHF
SUHF, i.e. 23cm and up Ecoflex 15 - with an eye-watering cost of £5+ per meter to keep losses to a miimum!
Will the next movie in the series be The Fast and The Funeral?
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 1745
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 09:36
- Location: Gateshead
- Contact:
Re: RG58 or RG213
Ahem
Not forgetting LDF 450 of course for those whacky enough to transmit 2.4Ghz and higher
Not forgetting LDF 450 of course for those whacky enough to transmit 2.4Ghz and higher
G0SLQ website
Icom IC-7100 + two patchleads and a broken PL
Icom IC-7100 + two patchleads and a broken PL
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 335
- Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 22:02
Re: RG58 or RG213
Thanks for the replies. I managed to find a website that calculates line losses, so I've decided on the rg58.
So coax has power ratings? Too much power would cause the coax to melt?Just don't go shoving a kilowatt of rtty up it on 10m, RG-58 doesn't like that... apparantly
-
- Super Member
- Posts: 127
- Joined: 27 Mar 2010, 20:20
Re: RG58 or RG213
Said mainly in jest, but yes, all transmission lines have a limit but they are not really relevant to anyone using U.K. limits on HF. With RG-58 it's not an issue until using silly levels of power on higher bands and using 100% duty cycles modes, i.e. 10m and rtty.eswnl wrote:Thanks for the replies. I managed to find a website that calculates line losses, so I've decided on the rg58.
So coax has power ratings? Too much power would cause the coax to melt?Just don't go shoving a kilowatt of rtty up it on 10m, RG-58 doesn't like that... apparantly
- Yeti
- Veteran
- Posts: 4785
- Joined: 14 Nov 2007, 00:31
Re: RG58 or RG213
Yes.eswnl wrote:Thanks for the replies. I managed to find a website that calculates line losses, so I've decided on the rg58.
So coax has power ratings? Too much power would cause the coax to melt?Just don't go shoving a kilowatt of rtty up it on 10m, RG-58 doesn't like that... apparantly
Will the next movie in the series be The Fast and The Funeral?
- MrWeetabix
- Admin
- Posts: 16395
- Joined: 26 Aug 2008, 13:34
- Call Sign: 26TM175
- Location: Gateshead
Re: RG58 or RG213
sizzle sizzle
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
26TM175. OP: Craig. QTH: Gateshead IO94EW. Also 163TM175 when mobile in Wales
Transmission1 on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TM1onFB | Tango Mike on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TangoMikeFB |
Transmission1 on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TM1onFB | Tango Mike on Facebook http://tinyurl.com/TangoMikeFB |
-
- Radio Addict
- Posts: 706
- Joined: 16 Jan 2009, 10:13
Re: RG58 or RG213
May I draw your attention to this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8661228.stm
I think this picture was taken when wor bixy' downed the key on his new 10kW burner with very poor coax connected, as you can see from the previous picture that is what happened to the coax. Note on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8661228.stm the strong reading from the north east of england, maybe the newcastle region... hmmmm coincidence????
I think this picture was taken when wor bixy' downed the key on his new 10kW burner with very poor coax connected, as you can see from the previous picture that is what happened to the coax. Note on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8661228.stm the strong reading from the north east of england, maybe the newcastle region... hmmmm coincidence????
YB135