Re: [amsat-bb] LMR-400 vs 9913F?

["kc6uqh" <kc6uqh@xxxxxxx>]

Allen,
I have had good luck with LMR 400 Its center conductor is a copper clad 
alluminum hence cheeper and lighter. Both use alluminum foil shield covered 
with copper braid, do not play well at 3000 + foot sites, or near salt 
water. The alluminum is sacrisifical with moisture. Andrews is the cable of 
choice for mountain sites, but for your application LMR  400 may  work well, 
if  it properly sealed.

Art,
KC6UQH
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan P. Biddle" <APBIDDLE@mailaps.org>
To: "AMSAT-BB" <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:19 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] LMR-400 vs 9913F?


> Hi,
>
> I am going to be replacing the feeds to my tower, and am looking at the
> above two types of cable.  According to the loss tables, they have
> essentially the same losses in the range of interest, with LMR-400 being
> fractionally better and also cheaper.  Any practical experience input on
> either the cable or connectors?  These will be to the tower, not around 
> the
> rotators, for which I am using Ultraflex.
>
>
> Alan
> WA4SCA
> ----
> Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org
----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org