RG-8 Vs RG-213

Discussion in 'General Technical Questions and Answers' started by G7GPL, Sep 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: l-BCInc
ad: L-MFJ
  1. G7GPL

    G7GPL Ham Member QRZ Page

    RG-8 Vs RG-213 (Edited to 58)

    I am sure this question must have been asked a thousand times but I cannot find any reference to it.

    Next week I shall be installing a Comet H422 HF antenna.:)

    The cable run to it will be 20-25 yards

    So bearing in mind that the highest frequency will be the 10 meter band how much difference in 'Real terms' will be made if I feed it with either [edit] RG58 (thin stuff) or RG213 (thick stuff) over that distance.

    Basically is 213 worth the extra 'coins' for my particular installation.


    Thanks in advance, Nick G7GPL

    P.S. I cannot see me ever using a tranceiver giving more than 100w
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2008
  2. W8ATA

    W8ATA Ham Member QRZ Page

    The term "RG-8" covers several (maybe 10-12) "models" of coax with RG-213 being one of them. RG-8X is a smaller diameter one also. I suggest you go to one of the websites that have charts of all commonly used coax and get loss/antenuation figures and power handling capability. Universal Radio has good charts on their online catalog under the coax tab. www.universal-radio.com I hope this helps you. I use good quality RG-213 for my three HF antennas with about 75-80' runs.

    73,
    Russ
     
  3. G4LNA

    G4LNA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Have a read of this article Nick http://www.a1antennas.com/FAQ.html

    It's a bit of an eye opener regarding losses in coaxial cable. Do forget the loss works both ways as well, so it's like putting an attenuator in on receive as well as transmit.
     
  4. K7FE

    K7FE QRZ Lifetime Member #1 Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

  5. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    RG8/U does not exist anymore officially as the designation was a "mil spec" (military specification) issued by the United States military. The designation has been replaced by RG213/U. As such, there are RG8/U "types" the quality of which ranges from less than dismal to excellent. This is due to the fact that there is no longer any actual specifications for RG8/U coaxial cable.

    When RG8/U was a military specification such coaxial cable had to meet certain minimum standards including the percentage of braid coverage, the type of materials used as the insulating medium, and the materials used in the outer sheath. Since RG8/U has been eliminated as a military specification all sorts of cable manufacturers are manufacturing RG8/U "type" cable and what you get when purchasing these types of cable can vary considerably in quality.

    With RG213/U cable there exists a military specification that must be met in order to call the cable RG213/U. Of course there can be a small number of manufacturers that "fudge" the quality. However, the chances of getting a quality product is considerably higher when RG213/U cable is purchased and that is assured by purchasing a known brand name.

    Glen, K9STH
     
  6. G7GPL

    G7GPL Ham Member QRZ Page


    Thats a very cool and useful link.

    Thanks, :)


    Nick, G7GPL
     
  7. K4YAN

    K4YAN Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. K7KBN

    K7KBN Ham Member QRZ Page

    As far as "thin" and "thick", both RG8 and RG213 have the same OD: 0.405".
     
  9. G7GPL

    G7GPL Ham Member QRZ Page


    Eeeeeek ..... Sorry people !!!!! :eek:

    I meant for the RG8 to really be RG58


    Nick, G7GPL
     
  10. K9KJM

    K9KJM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Genuine Belden RG-213 coax is still the "top" coax available for HF use. It is so tough you could run over it with a truck and not hurt it!

    But if you are careful with it, Some "mini-8X" size coax will also work OK for HF through 10 meters at a length of 75 feet or less.

    Note that those types of coax are NO GOOD for VHF/UHF at those lengths!
    A low loss feedline like Times LMR-400 is needed for the higher frequencies!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page