You want the 1/2" FSJ for minimum loss in the line.  the 1/4 " cable will have 
about twice as much loss.  With Heliax cable larger is better, up to what your 
pocket book can handle.   
--
Doug   
N3DAB/WPRX486/WPJL709

---- Chris Curtis <[email protected]> wrote: 

=============
I appreciate the tips on where to find the stuff.

Does anyone have an opinion of installing the FSJ product instead of the LDF
product?

Remember, my budget gives me 2 options at the moment.

LDF1 1/4 inch OR the cheap on ebay FSJ4 1/2 inch.

That's the crux, is flexi BAD for a run from the antenna to the shack?
Both connection points are weather proof.

Thanks
Chris
Kb0wlf

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Curt Seaton
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] WANTED: heliax

For heliax at 'make offer' prices, check the equipment for sale listings 
on the GNARC.org web page.   This is good quality and some have 
connectors already mounted.   Shipping will be a problem....   Good 
luck.  It is good stuff especially for VHF and UHF

73

Curt  W1FSM

Chris Curtis wrote:
> Ok, so I also could use some heliax.
>
> Now, I understand fsj is the flexi but is it really that bad to install
from
> antenna to shack?
>
> The reason I ask is there is some fsj4 on ebay.  No ldf in any
considerable
> length.
>
> I was looking at ldf1 but got quoted 1.25 a foot vs 190.00 for 250' of
fsj4.
> Yes, I realize they are also 2 difference diameters
>
> 100' run times 2 is what I need. Give or take.
> 1 for the actual repeater antenna system and 1 for a 70cm beam antenna for
> rx.
>
> I looked at the loss charts, so I'm just asking about the mechanical
sanity
> of using flexi vs not so flexi.
>
> So, what's the thought on all that?
>
> Thanks for the bandwidth.
>
> Chris
> Kb0wlf
>
>
>   


------------------------------------



Yahoo! Groups Links



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1964 - Release Date: 02/24/09
06:43:00


Reply via email to