Probably not the same stuff... but I have some RG-58 size 
Times Microwave Cable with the Label LMR-200 on it. Cell 
phone companies were replacing it in droves so it was pretty 
much a giveaway at some of our local flea markets. 

cheers,
skipp 

> "Tony Lelieveld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wayne,
> That's interesting.  I have some Times Microwave Systems cable 
> that looks exactly like RG223.  The numbers on the cable state 
> 68999 AA-8338. I contacted TMS and got the following information. 
> The 68999 is a "Code Identification number" the AA-8338 is the 
> drawing number.  The following provided specs are stated as.
> 
>  
> 
> RG142 type with Polyethylene Jacket.
> 
> Center Conductor: Solid Silver Plated Copper 0.037".
> 
> Dielectric: Solid Polytetrafluoroethylene 0.116"  (try saying that
fast 10
> times).
> 
> First Shield: 36 Ga. Silver Plated Copper 0.139".
> 
> Second shield: 36 Ga. Silver Plated Copper 0.162"
> 
> Jacket: Black Polyethylene.
> 
> Recommended minimum bend radius: 2.5"
> 
> Weight per 1000 ft (Nominal) 40 lbs.
> 
> Operating Temperature: -40 to +80 C.
> 
> Impedance (Nominal): 50 Ohm.
> 
> Velocity of Propagation (Nominal): 69.4 %.
> 
> Capacity (Nominal): 29.3 pf/ft.
> 
> Attenuation @ 400 MHz (Typical): 8.7 dB/100ft.
> 
> Power rating @ 400 MHz (Typical): 375 Watts.
> 
> Return Loss (50 MHZ - 2 GHz): 20 dB.
> 
> 73, Tony VE3DWI
> 
> *************************
> 
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon
> Sent: May 12, 2008 23:20
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Times Microwave RT142 Cable - UPDATED
> 
>  
> 
> Wayne,
> 
> My contact at Times Microwave Systems advised me that "RT-142" is a
triaxial
> cable in their "REMIT" specialty product line. The name refers to
"Reduced
> Electro Magnetic Interference." Although Times does claim that
"RT-142 is
> manufactured in accordance with the material requirements of
MIL-C-17" it is
> not a QPL-listed product. Times will not mark the jacket unless
specially
> requested by the customer. Here are the specs from the REMIT catalog
page:
> 
> Inner Conductor - 0.039" SCCS
> Dielectric OD - 0.116"
> Dielectric Material - Not specified
> Shield Braids - SC
> Shield Coverage - Not specified
> Jacket Material - FEP
> Jacket OD - 0.215"
> Nominal Impedance - 50 ohms
> Nominal Capacitance - 29.4 pF/ft
> Max Operating Voltage - 1,900 VRMS
> Max Attenuation at 400 MHz - 9.0 dB/100 ft
> Velocity of Propagation - Not specified
> 
> If this cable is used in place of double-shielded coaxial cable such as
> RG-400, the insulating barrier should be trimmed back from the connector
> clamping or crimping area, so that there is positive metal-to-metal
contact
> between the shields at both ends of the jumper. Care must be taken to
> select connectors that fit the dielectric without slop; otherwise, a
> significant "impedance bump" will occur at the cable/connector
interface.
> 
> 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:34 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Best coax for short jumpers in repeater
> cabinet?
> 
> I have some cable that I cannot find the true information for.
> it is labeled as follows:
> 68999, TIMES MICROWAVE SYSTEMS, RT142
> It is not listed, at least not readily seen, on the Times microwave web 
> site.
> It appears to be a version of RG142.
> It is tan outer cover
> Double shielded, high density silvered (or tinned) with insulation 
> between teh two shields..
> clear solid inner insulation, and stiff solid center conductor.
> I bought it to use as RG142 for jumpers.
> It looks virtually the same as some labeled RG142 that came with a
Micor 
> UHF duplexer, though less flexible than the RG142 seems to be.
> I now wonder if it is interchangeabe or not?
> I have never seen any cable labeled RT instead of RG...
> 
> Wayne WA2YNE
>


Reply via email to