Hi Bob McGraw, I agree, except on one point: I’s say 90%, rather than 75%, of the stuff we use and methods employed would put most of the station stuff in the trash.
73, Bob Nobis - N7RJN n7...@nobis.net > On Feb 9, 2016, at 08:01, Bob McGraw K4TAX <rmcg...@blomand.net> wrote: > > I'm one of the other Bob's or Robert's........ > > Since the assembly of coax wound around a toroid doughnut style bobbin is > typically not exposed to vibration, such as might exist in an airplane, boat > or space vehicle, the use of a solid conductor coax such as RG-303 would not > seem to be of concern. The more important point and my experience and as > related by others, the use of coax which has foam dielectric in a tight > radius bend has been proven or shown to be problematic. As to if the > manufactures bending radius dimension is being violated, I find to be of > little concern. > > After all, as a rule, hams are noted for pushing things to the limit and then > some and getting buy with it. If hams choose to "stick to the rules 100% in > all aspects of their stations"............I'd say 75% of the stuff we use and > methods employed would put most of the station stuff in the trash. > > 73 > Bob, K4TAX > > > > > > On 2/9/2016 8:45 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: >> Hi Bob, et al, >> >> Thank you all for your careful attention. >> >> I read it wrong, as several have pointed out overnight. I transposed that >> to a percentage in my memory after reading it. One of the reasons for >> referring people to the original material in these cases. Someone will get >> it right. >> >> That makes it two and a half hairs :>) Doesn't appear to change the >> argument. To me anyway the method is still a crude measurement instead of >> watching a wide frequency scan while bending the cable along with other >> performance specific measurements. >> >> I still would not use the solid center conductor versions (RG142/303) on a >> winding. >> >> 73, Guy K2AV >> >> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016, Robert Nobis <n7...@nobis.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi Guy, >>> >>> I am not sure how you arrived at the “2/1000 of an inch” figure from the >>> ANSI spec? The spec actually says “A change in ovality from a given >>> sample’s initial measured value of 0.010 inches or more (> 0.010) >>> represents the point of non-acceptable bending performance.” >>> >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> >>> Bob Nobis - N7RJN >>> n7...@nobis.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','n7...@nobis.net');> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 18:01, Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av....@gmail.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','k2av....@gmail.com');>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I also suggest that everyone carefully study the ANSI standard until it is >>> clear what they are doing mechanically and see what they are actually >>> measuring: >>> >>> http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/standards/ANSI_SCTE%2039%202007.pdf >>> >>> The method of measuring is in section 4. They are looking for a limit of >>> 1% surface deformity when bending. >>> >>> In the case of RG400 with .195 inch OD, that would be 2/1000 of an inch >>> (yes, that's three zeros, two one thousandths of an inch) bending deformity >>> at the surface of the teflon jacket, or half the thickness of an average >>> human hair. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to n7...@nobis.net ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
