So the give away here was the word "TYPE", which by its presence, negated any comfort that one could derive from concurrent use of the term "MIL-SPEC"?
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Eric Lemmon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes. In fact, only those manufacturers who are listed in the "QPL" > (Qualified Products List) as making approved cable that meets the > specification are allowed to mark it in such a way as to lead the buyer to > assume that the cable is genuine Military Specification cable. Any cable > that does not meet the applicable specification must have the word "TYPE" > following the part number. Of course, the makers of counterfeit cable are > depending upon the ignorance and/or naïveté of potential buyers, who > perhaps > may be clueless about coaxial cable quality variations. > > A case in point: Several years ago, a local Ham who is known for pinching > pennies (aren't we all?) spread the word that he had found a source for > "Genuine MIL-SPEC RG-213/U Coaxial Cable" for an incredibly low price, if > bought in 1,000 foot spools. I challenged him to prove that it really was > genuine Mil-Spec cable, and he showed me a sample of the cable on which was > printed "MIL-C-17 RG-213/U TYPE" without any manufacturer's name or CAGE > code. I stripped off some jacket and noted that the shield braid was > minimal, and coverage was probably less than 40%- the dielectric was > visible > through the gaps in the braid. I told him that he had been scammed, and he > said "Look right here, it is stamped MIL-C-17 RG-213/U TYPE, and that means > it is genuine Mil-Spec cable!" Yeah, as comedian Ron White often says, you > can't fix stupid! > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]<Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:[email protected]<Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>] > On Behalf Of Larry Horlick > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 5:02 PM > To: [email protected] <Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] New file uploaded to Repeater-Builder > > So does that mean that in order for a cable to be labeled RG-223 it must > meet this mil-spec? > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:57 PM, > <[email protected]<Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:[email protected]<Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > This email message is a notification to let you know that > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Repeater-Builder > group. > > File : /Coaxial Cable Specifications/MIL-C-17_84B RG-223 Cable.pdf > Uploaded by : wb6fly <[email protected] <wb6fly%40verizon.net> > <mailto:wb6fly%40verizon.net <wb6fly%2540verizon.net>> > > Description : MIL-C-17_RG-223 Cable > > You can access this file at the URL: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Speci > fications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf > < > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/files/Coaxial%20Cable%20Spec > ifications/MIL-C-17_84B%20RG-223%20Cable.pdf> > > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: > > > http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlf > iles > < > http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.html > files> > > Regards, > > wb6fly <[email protected] <wb6fly%40verizon.net> <mailto: > wb6fly%40verizon.net <wb6fly%2540verizon.net>> > > > > > > >
