![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ELIPPSE wrote:
I worked with an X-band extreme-accuracy Atlas guidance radar at Vandenberg AFB. It was necessaspecializedt least 150dB isolation to prevent interference in our test simulator. Solid jacket cable was the only thing that would allow this kind of performance. The Andrew cable was also the only kind that did not generate noise when flexed or vibrated, which was very important in our test operations. Remember that the transponder puts out 100W-400W peak. Leaking cables in close proximity can cross couple. Cable leakage also effects the apparent radiation pattern of antennas, generating undesired sidelobes and cancellations. Consider the 20' long com run from the instrument panel to the antenna buried in the tip sail of the VariEZ or LongEZ that passes near the extreme RFI generated by the engine's ignition. Has anyone ever had spark noise in their com radio? Your x-band does not compare with homebuilt even when talking about transponders and dme. Even 20 foot run for a com radio doesn't require that high a caliber cable. You will probably find that most of the noise from ignition isn't from the center conductor but from the shield and also then antenna itself. Most people do not run there coax next to their ignition wires anyway! Use a little common sense, it's a heck of a lot cheaper! John PS my background is in microwave measurements etc that doesn't mean I need to engineer my homebuilt around top end specialized cable. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I really like RG142 as well, especially the low loss and low leakage
in a fairly small and light cable. But for short runs, it is still overkill for much of anything besides a radio altimeter. Peter wrote in message oups.com... Andrew Heliax is fine cable - just what you need to run up a tower (it comes in many sizes). But in an airplane? Like the man said - it's overkill. I'd recommend RG142. As for the isolation - engineers have an inside joke that goes something like this: Oh say can you see..... Three Hundred Dee Bee.... This is a range greater than that between the smallest detectable signal to an unimaginable amount of power. In other words, it doesn't exist in the natural world. AFAIK, nobody makes anything with "300 dB of isolation". Any engineers out there who would care to comment? David Johnson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sorry that you think this is a marketing ploy. I thought that this was
a forum for information exchange. I just wanted to pass along my experiences working with all kinds of coax under a lot of extreme conditions, and the lessons learned from them. As far as the props, If you had designed a prop that gave performance so far beyond the others available and this performance was demonstrated in the best way, wouldn't you want to share that with others? I don't sell cables or props or ignitions; I leave that to others. I guess there are some of you who don't care that there is a revolution in prop design that can give you markedly better performance. Or coax that will up your radio's performance. Perhaps you don't also want me to share with you the research I and another have done to keep your prop bolts tensioned regardless of temperature or humidity. When all you do is put down others who want to share, you can suppress that sharing! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have rarely read such unmitigated horsepuckey in my engineering career.
Jim "ELIPPSE" wrote in message oups.com... If you would like to have the finest low-loss, light-weight coax cable for your aircraft radio installations |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Horsepuckey, unmitigated or otherwise, does not constitute a cogent
review of the technical information presented. It would be much more enlightening to all if the respondent had replied with a discussion of the technical merits as he sees them from his own perspective of theoretical and practical experience, rather than to launch into the vitriol of an ad hominem attack. This type of attack is often a shield for the attacker's own ignorance or incompetence! I presented the specs; he, for his part, should show how and in what way they are not applicable, along with his own recommendations, especially with practical examples of received and transmitted power levels and cable lengths. It would also be interesting to see, from his vantage point, what testing he has done on the effect of signal leakage in coax on the their concomitant creation of sidelobes resulting in attenna pattern distortion and signal dropout. Only in this way may all who are interested in the proper selection of cabling for their aircraft be able to intelligently make, what is for them, the proper choice of cable and connector type based on performance and economics. We report, they decide! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Double horsepuckey, and I don't appreciate your snide side emails. If you
have something to say to me, have the intestinal fortitude to post it in the newsgroup. What you recommended was a howitzer to kill an ant. Showing how and why 300 dB is a meaningless number is meaningless to somebody who doesn't have a concept of how impossible that is to measure. Signal leakage distortion of the antenna pattern is possible to measure on the pattern range. With the coax inside of a metal structure the concept is meaningless, as is it meaningless when the coax is bundled with other wires...a 99+% probability. Plonk. Jim "ELIPPSE" wrote in message oups.com... Horsepuckey, unmitigated or otherwise, does not constitute a cogent review of the technical information presented. It would be much more enlightening to all if the respondent had replied with a discussion of the technical merits as he sees them from his own perspective of theoretical and practical experience, rather than to launch into the vitriol of an ad hominem attack. This type of attack is often a shield for the attacker's own ignorance or incompetence! I presented the specs; he, for his part, should show how and in what way they are not applicable, along with his own recommendations, especially with practical examples of received and transmitted power levels and cable lengths. It would also be interesting to see, from his vantage point, what testing he has done on the effect of signal leakage in coax on the their concomitant creation of sidelobes resulting in attenna pattern distortion and signal dropout. Only in this way may all who are interested in the proper selection of cabling for their aircraft be able to intelligently make, what is for them, the proper choice of cable and connector type based on performance and economics. We report, they decide! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:21:38 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote: What you recommended was a howitzer to kill an ant. Showing how and why 300 dB is a meaningless number is meaningless to somebody who doesn't have a concept of how impossible that is to measure. Aw Jim, 0.1 microvolt to 1 Megavolt is "only" 260 dB ... g ... assuming 50 ohms, that is good receiver sensitivity vs 20 Gigawatt ... we have Gigahertz, why not Gigawatt ... OH, you mean that a large power plant turbine-generator is on the order of a Gigawatt ... OH ... Methinks he doesn't understand large (and small) numbers ... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ELIPPSE" wrote in message oups.com... Horsepuckey, unmitigated or otherwise, does not constitute a cogent review of the technical information presented. It would be much more enlightening to all if the respondent had replied with a discussion of the technical merits as he sees them from his own perspective of theoretical and practical experience, rather than to launch into the vitriol of an ad hominem attack. His attack was not ad hominem. I may not be an engineer, but I did take Latin. In fact, by usenet standards I would judge his comments as only border line rude. He likely felt free to snipe because your reputation here is already poor due to several missteps in ettiquette. This type of attack is often a shield for the attacker's own ignorance or incompetence! I also took Psych, Communications, and Logic. You made an obvious statement and that may or may not apply, and then qualified it with "often" so that you really didn't say anything. Which is good, because as I said before, I took Latin, and this IS an ad hominem attack. I presented the specs; he, for his part, should show how and in what way they are not applicable, along with his own recommendations, especially with practical examples of received and transmitted power levels and cable lengths. Maybe he should, or maybe he doesn't need to. Remember, "they decide". It would also be interesting to see, from his vantage point, what testing he has done on the effect of signal leakage in coax on the their concomitant creation of sidelobes resulting in attenna pattern distortion and signal dropout. Interesting to whom? If you don't respect his opinion, why do you care about his perspective? Only in this way may all who are interested in the proper selection of cabling for their aircraft be able to intelligently make, what is for them, the proper choice of cable and connector type based on performance and economics. We report, they decide! Actually, I, like many aviators, tend to go with what is tried and true until I see a desirable benefit that would result from a change. While a seriously detailed investigation and discussion may bring about new knowledge, its not like our we are all failing as it is. You are obviously a bright guy, but there are lots of those folks already here. Perhaps you should try to avoid any heavy arguments for a bit. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi, Dude!
It's funny! Here I post some info about a cable, and its characteristics, that I had a lot of excellent results with, and which I installed on my Lancair. I thought that this forum was for the exchange of information. I expected some replies such as: "Yeah, that cable has some good low-loss characteristics, but after checking the prices on the mfg's. site, I decided that the performance I'm getting with the cable I presently use is good enough for me." OK, that's reasonable! Or: "I'm building this hot Lancair IVP and I want the best cable I can get; money is no object! Thanks for the tip" OK, that's reasonable too! But do I get a discussion on the relative merits of this cable and others? No, I get a bunch of sharks and their sycophants who want to prove to each other just how smart they are and how they can take down this new guy."Who does he think he is, anyway?" I've met this type over and over in the Aerospace world. Those who can't get up a decent technical discussion and then hide their ignorance behind insults. Too bad that they don't see that when others see this type of diatribe over some little innocent posting, that they're afraid of posting something themselves and incurring this type of wrath. What a stifler of open discussion! The political world is full of this kind; look at the last election. I expected that on a homebuilder's site, at least, that that kind of thing would be dispensed with so that a dialogue of builder-helping-builder would prevail! Silly me! I guess even in homebuilding small egos prevail. Too bad there are not more like Corky Scott and the ones who contacted me about the ELIPPSE prop, looking for more performance. They weren't taken-in by these egomaniacal types who can't stand it if someone doesn't kiss their boots and acknowledge them as the pre-eminent authorities on everything! But as for me, as I get information that I think others may want to know, I will post it on the forum and ignore the sharks. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ellipse
My original post (and I think I started the replies) had more to do with the fact you came in with your first appearance with multiple post (4 or 5)the one with the coax was probably the most innocent with plenty of merit ( although I still believe for the vast majority of homebuilders it is gross overkill for the money). Go back and read your post on the prop, which has it's own merits I'm sure. The point is you flooded the news group with it and it was written as a "look at this prop go here and get it" post. I believe you meant well but you came on very strong and that's were the objections mainly came from. I'm sure you have a lot of positive input to this group and yes I do read your post! So I hope you'd go back a review and see where we came from. My intention was not to make you feel unwelcome but when I do see multiple posts (more than 2) directing me to a product, I'm skeptical. I hope that everyone can let this thread die and go on. If people want to discus the merits or use of the cable consider starting a new topic on it all over! John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Antenna ground plane and coax grounding | G. Fred McCutchen | Home Built | 2 | August 8th 04 12:27 PM |
Switching radios on 1 antenna | Nicholas J. Hirsch | Home Built | 16 | June 14th 04 01:49 PM |
Tefzel Wire, RG400 Coax, Crimpers, Terminals, etc.. | Stein Bruch | Home Built | 0 | September 20th 03 04:35 AM |
Military helmet, civilian radios - my solution | Dave Hyde | Home Built | 7 | September 16th 03 01:20 AM |
Transponders, Radios and other avionics procurement questions | Corky Scott | Home Built | 5 | July 2nd 03 11:27 PM |