Andrew has a coaxial cable similar (remarkably similar) to LMR, called CNT.
I guess the same cautions apply to
this product, too?

lh

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mike Morris WA6ILQ <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>
> Go here:
> < http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/ant-sys-index.html>
>
> Scroll down to the article titled "Recommended Coax and Connectors
> for the iDEN Enhanced Base Transceiver System". and read it,
> and the one following it ("HELIAX Coaxial Cable for Low
> Intermodulation Generation".
>
> Basically the Time Wire LMR series of cables (that's
> a LMR followed by any 3 or 4 digit number) are not
> long-term duplexable feedlines.  They have an internal
> construction that has aluminum foil rubbing against copper braid
> and the dissimilar metals create desense.  Also the center
> conductor is copper clad aluminum.
>
> One of the kickers is that in many cases the noise problem
> doesn't happen immediately - the cable works fine for a
> while, then gets noisy, and the cable doesn't get immediate
> attention - because "it's working fine".
>
> Mike WA6ILQ
>
>
> At 04:26 PM 02/28/10, you wrote:
>
> What's the rationale behind the LMR ban? Leakage?
>
> lh
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Kevin Custer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> You wrote:
> > Switchers -as a class- are more efficient and reliable than linear
> supplies.
>
> As a Class...
> More efficient - yes, More reliable - that's debatable.
>
> In the two-way radio world, linear supplies are the rule, switchers are
> the exception. In 25 or 30 years, we'll see if switchers are 'really'
> as reliable. In my experience with switchers (as a class), they are
> hard on filter capacitors, with failures of them way before the normal
> 'dry out' time - many times in just a few years.
>
> There are a few tower management companies that I know of that won't let
> you install a switcher because of the possibility of interference. The
> same companies also do not let anyone install LMR coax onto the site.
>
> I'll be interested to see the results too, Bob.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>   
>

Reply via email to