Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:30 AM - Re: GPS (D.Munz)
2. 08:24 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (Jerry Isler)
3. 10:00 AM - Re: coax (Brian Lloyd)
4. 11:15 AM - Re: coax (Wayne Sweet)
5. 11:29 AM - Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) (AI Nut)
6. 11:51 AM - Re: coax (Brian Lloyd)
7. 12:56 PM - Re: coax (Wayne Sweet)
8. 01:11 PM - Re: coax (David Lloyd)
9. 01:23 PM - Re: coax (Mike Ferrer)
10. 05:05 PM - Re: coax (Brian Lloyd)
11. 07:58 PM - Re: coax (Ozarkseller2@aol.com)
12. 08:09 PM - Re: coax (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
13. 08:38 PM - Re: coax (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
14. 11:07 PM - Re: coax (Garth Shearing)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "D.Munz" <182ppl@comcast.net>
I have had this GPS for 3 years now and it is great. There are some down
sides though. The screen is large so the unit requires alot of power so
running it off a battery is mostly out of the question. With that power
there comes alot of heat so you cant really strap it to your thigh with any
comfort. With those things in mind a good hard mount (or panel mount) and a
good cigarette power plug are a must. As for the operation of the GPS I
never have lost a signal, the graphics are top notch (the terrain awareness
feature is very useful) and the interface is pretty easy to use. From what I
hear the unit is compatible with most auto-pilots on the experimental
market. The screen has always been readable in the brightest of light and it
will light up your cabin at night if you dont turn down the dimmer. All in
all a good buy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Black" <black@usa.sh>
Subject: Avionics-List: GPS
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bob Black" <black@usa.sh>
>
> There's a newer model GPS for sale on ebay. The bids look pretty low.
>
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem
> <http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4513914376>
> &item=4513914376
>
>
> Has anyone used one of these?
>
>
> Bob Black
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
If this scares anyone, you need to send off all of your Coleman lanterns as
nuclear waste. The mantles will also make a Geiger counter really scream due
to the Thorium contained in them. Thousands of disintegrations per minute. I
would not handle or breathe the ashes.
Jerry Isler
RV4 N455J
NRC Licensed Senior Reactor Operator
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
>
> Oh, I am not the least bit scared. In fact, I don't really care. I just
> thought that the hoopla was funny.
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 26, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> The installation manual calls for RG-58A/U for the GPS antenna and
> says to
> follow the com antenna manufacturer's instructions for it. I would
> use the
> same wire for it, use BNC connectors made for this cable, and make up
> the
> wires myself after runnng the cables.
Do not use RG-58A/U for GPS installations. The signal losses at the GPS
frequencies (1.7GHz) are astronomical. Use RG-400 instead. This is a
low-loss, 100% shielded coax that may be used anywhere one would use
RG-58U or RG-58A/U.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I have used the RG-58A/U for my GPS without any signal problems. However, I
have also recently tried making cables using RG-400 and BNC connectors from
ACS with a very curious problem. Seems the coax has the center insulation,
that around the center stranded wire, a bit larger in diameter than the BNC
connectors could be forced onto. Has anyone else experienced this problem.
At one time apparently, either the BNC or the RG-400 was a match, since I do
have the transponder coax made from the RG-400.
Out of frustration, I went back to the old RG-58A/U for my recent GNS430
installation.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
>> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>>
>> The installation manual calls for RG-58A/U for the GPS antenna and
>> says to
>> follow the com antenna manufacturer's instructions for it. I would
>> use the
>> same wire for it, use BNC connectors made for this cable, and make up
>> the
>> wires myself after runnng the cables.
>
> Do not use RG-58A/U for GPS installations. The signal losses at the GPS
> frequencies (1.7GHz) are astronomical. Use RG-400 instead. This is a
> low-loss, 100% shielded coax that may be used anywhere one would use
> RG-58U or RG-58A/U.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 648 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radium dial (was: Choice) |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Same goes for some smoke detectors, some welding rods, coal (yes coal,)
etc., etc.
AI Nut
Former Health Physicist/Radiation Protection engineer
Jerry Isler wrote:
>--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
>
>If this scares anyone, you need to send off all of your Coleman lanterns as
>nuclear waste. The mantles will also make a Geiger counter really scream due
>to the Thorium contained in them. Thousands of disintegrations per minute. I
>would not handle or breathe the ashes.
>
>Jerry Isler
>RV4 N455J
>NRC Licensed Senior Reactor Operator
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
>To: <avionics-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Radium dial (was: Choice)
>
>
>
>
>>Oh, I am not the least bit scared. In fact, I don't really care. I just
>>thought that the hoopla was funny.
>>
>>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
> <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
> I have used the RG-58A/U for my GPS without any signal problems.
Most GPS antennas have a 20db amplifier built-in which overcomes the
loss in the coax. Regardless, you will have much more loss with RG-58
than you will with RG-400. Also, RG-400 is much less prone to water
absorption than RG-58 (low-loss foam dielectric RG-58 is very prone to
water absorption) so will stay low-loss for much longer.
I stand by my original statement that one should not use RG-58 coax in
a GPS installation. You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS. If you must use RG-58
look for the double-shielded mil-spec stuff. That is ideal for your VHF
comm and nav runs.
> However, I
> have also recently tried making cables using RG-400 and BNC connectors
> from
> ACS with a very curious problem. Seems the coax has the center
> insulation,
> that around the center stranded wire, a bit larger in diameter than
> the BNC
> connectors could be forced onto. Has anyone else experienced this
> problem.
> At one time apparently, either the BNC or the RG-400 was a match,
> since I do
> have the transponder coax made from the RG-400.
> Out of frustration, I went back to the old RG-58A/U for my recent
> GNS430
> installation.
You should be using a good crimp-on BNC connector. It is more secure
than the solder/locking-collar type BNC connector.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I did use and have been using crimp-on connectors for some time. It was the
ACS BNC crimp-on connectors that absolutely would not fit over the center
insulation. I also tried BNC connectors from a local electronics shop; same
result. At around $2.00 a foot for the RG-400, I did not feel like
"experimenting" more by ordering new coax, in hopes that the other batch was
abnormal.
BTW, my A no luck. Really
weird.
I really would like to make all my coax the RG-400, but how???
If anyone would like to experiment, I would happily ship a section of wire
and a BNC connector for them to try.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
>> <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>>
>> I have used the RG-58A/U for my GPS without any signal problems.
>
> Most GPS antennas have a 20db amplifier built-in which overcomes the
> loss in the coax. Regardless, you will have much more loss with RG-58
> than you will with RG-400. Also, RG-400 is much less prone to water
> absorption than RG-58 (low-loss foam dielectric RG-58 is very prone to
> water absorption) so will stay low-loss for much longer.
>
> I stand by my original statement that one should not use RG-58 coax in
> a GPS installation. You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS. If you must use RG-58
> look for the double-shielded mil-spec stuff. That is ideal for your VHF
> comm and nav runs.
>
>> However, I
>> have also recently tried making cables using RG-400 and BNC connectors
>> from
>> ACS with a very curious problem. Seems the coax has the center
>> insulation,
>> that around the center stranded wire, a bit larger in diameter than
>> the BNC
>> connectors could be forced onto. Has anyone else experienced this
>> problem.
>> At one time apparently, either the BNC or the RG-400 was a match,
>> since I do
>> have the transponder coax made from the RG-400.
>> Out of frustration, I went back to the old RG-58A/U for my recent
>> GNS430
>> installation.
>
> You should be using a good crimp-on BNC connector. It is more secure
> than the solder/locking-collar type BNC connector.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 649 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
Brian,
If one uses RG-400, is there a special model BNC to use to mate up with this
coax dimensions?
Realizing that most the GPS manufs. seem to have standardized on the BNC for
the connector of choice I guess we are stuck with it.
I question whether staying with BNC is smart idea as it's impedance
characteristics start to degrade at the larger bandwidths. I don't recall
if it is still a clean connector in the low GHz range. Where does the BNC
connector start to fail in the GHz range?
Dave Lloyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
>> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>>
>> The installation manual calls for RG-58A/U for the GPS antenna and
>> says to
>> follow the com antenna manufacturer's instructions for it. I would
>> use the
>> same wire for it, use BNC connectors made for this cable, and make up
>> the
>> wires myself after runnng the cables.
>
> Do not use RG-58A/U for GPS installations. The signal losses at the GPS
> frequencies (1.7GHz) are astronomical. Use RG-400 instead. This is a
> low-loss, 100% shielded coax that may be used anywhere one would use
> RG-58U or RG-58A/U.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
There are several varieties of BNC connectors for different types of coax.
One size does not fit all. The AMP 225395-6 BNC connector works on RG-400
and RG-142.
Mike
Ferrer Aviation Services, LLC
www.ferrer-aviation.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: coax
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
> I did use and have been using crimp-on connectors for some time. It was
the
> ACS BNC crimp-on connectors that absolutely would not fit over the center
> insulation. I also tried BNC connectors from a local electronics shop;
same
> result. At around $2.00 a foot for the RG-400, I did not feel like
> "experimenting" more by ordering new coax, in hopes that the other batch
was
> abnormal.
> BTW, my A no luck. Really
> weird.
> I really would like to make all my coax the RG-400, but how???
> If anyone would like to experiment, I would happily ship a section of wire
> and a BNC connector for them to try.
> Wayne
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 27, 2004, at 3:10 PM, David Lloyd wrote:
> If one uses RG-400, is there a special model BNC to use to mate up
> with this
> coax dimensions?
I wasn't aware that it required different connectors. I used it and
had no problems with it.
> Realizing that most the GPS manufs. seem to have standardized on the
> BNC for
> the connector of choice I guess we are stuck with it.
It is a decent connector.
> I question whether staying with BNC is smart idea as it's impedance
> characteristics start to degrade at the larger bandwidths. I don't
> recall
> if it is still a clean connector in the low GHz range. Where does the
> BNC
> connector start to fail in the GHz range?
I don't recall. It is a constant impedance connector and I remember
reading to what freq it was good for but I just don't recall now where
it was. Regardless, it is what you have and it does work at 1.7GHz just
fine.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl@lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brianl@lloyd.com writes:
>
> You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
>
>
> What's better than RG-400?
>
>
>
>
>
>
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl@lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
&
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Nope, it was 393 but there's more negatives than positives with this stuff including
price, size, connector costs, etc.
But here's some specs on it:
RG-393 is 0.23 dB/ft at 4300 MHz (rated at about 50 W CW@ 4300). RG-400 is
twice the loss.
And for those looking for the 90 degree elbows, a piece of advice I got from work
is to use a swept elbow if you have to turn a corner. Do not use mitered elbows
as the pulse will get distorted from a non-linear group delay at the corner.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> 123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
> it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
> me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > brianl@lloyd.com writes:
> >
> > You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> > frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
> >
> >
> > What's better than RG-400?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
> it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
> me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brianl@lloyd.com writes:
>
> You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
> frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
>
>
> What's better than RG-400?
>
>
> &
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nope, it was 393 but there's more negatives than positives with this stuff including
price, size, connector costs, etc.
But here's some specs on it:
RG-393 is 0.23 dB/ft at 4300 MHz (rated at about 50 W CW@ 4300). RG-400 is
twice the loss.
And for those looking for the 90 degree elbows,a piece of advice I got from work
is touse a swept elbow if you have to turn a corner. Do not use mitered elbows
as the pulse will get distorted from a non-linear group delay at the corner.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl@lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
&
gt;
123 or something like that if you mean less signal loss and EMI rejection. But
it has more restrictions like larger bend radius and something else that turned
me off when I read it. It might be very heavy per foot.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- Avionics-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
In a message dated 12/27/2004 1:53:02 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl@lloyd.com writes:
You should use RG-400 or better for all higher
frequency runs, e.g. DME, transponder, and GPS.
What's better than RG-400?
gh the Contributions
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <garth@islandnet.com>
I'm going to go against the flow on this one.
The data I have shows the RF loss in RG-58 and RG-400 is about the same.
RG-58 uses a solid polyethylene dielectric and the RG-400 uses a solid
teflon which provides operating temperatures up to 200 degrees C. RG-58 can
only go to 80 degrees C. So RG-58 is just fine for comm, nav, GPS, and
transponder. RG-58 is quite limited in terms of its ability to handle
continuous high power at high frequencies because the dielectric can heat up
to 80 degrees C easily. This is not a problem with up to 200 watt
transponders because they are only transmitting a small part of the time.
RG-58 can be used up to around 3 GHz, much higher than the 1.2 and 1.5 GHz
frequencies of GPS. Same goes for the connectors. Unless the cable is in
the engine compartment, go with the RG-58. Way cheaper, easier to work with
and weighs half as much as RG-400. I have used some teflon wire in my
engine compartment, so I do think it has its uses.
I don't understand the moisture problem. There are millions of
installations out there working just fine. The only moisture problems we
had occurred in outdoor cables where the cable ends were installed without
drip loops and no shrink boots or tape wraps on the installed connectors.
We used to drill a small hole in the bottom of the drip loop to let any
moisture drain out, but this would not be needed in a typical aircraft
installation.
If you want lower losses or higher power, you have to go to larger diameter,
which means heavier cable and connectors. You can also choose a cable with
a foam or air dielectric. I think these choices are overkill given the
short lengths of cable normally required.
Sorry guys!
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message ----- >
> Do not use RG-58A/U for GPS installations. The signal losses at the GPS
> frequencies (1.7GHz) are astronomical. Use RG-400 instead. This is a
> low-loss, 100% shielded coax that may be used anywhere one would use
> RG-58U or RG-58A/U.
>
> Brian Lloyd
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|