Most people worry about how much power out they loose in cheap coax but never look at RX loss. Loss out is equal to loss in. The M&P Ultraflex 10 with it's better shielding also picks up less noise when used at home in an urban environment, that also improves RX signals.
Liked your approach to this test. Like you, not sure if it meant much but there was a definite increase with the better coax. I needed a new piece of coax so ordered some M&P from Gigaparts to give it a try. Thanks for the video. Do enjoy them. Steve, k7ofg.
I Mike, Thanks for the effort in doing the testing. You tried to keep most of the variables as constant as possible, and the trend did show better numbers with better coax. I would be interested in how the numbers compare when changing out different antennas. Stay safe, 73 WJ3U
Tried my first ever 75 ohm feed line to a 40 meter dipole, and to me, it was Night and Day ! Granted, I used RG - 6 Quad shield, and after using it for awhile, something kept nagging at me, and it was that the receive was actually more quiet ! With out any perceived loss of received signals ! Try it you'll like it ! 👍😉
It matters. It all matters. But.....Does it matter enough to "matter?" It's a little bit subjective. Obviously, better coax is more efficient. Cheap, small coax if going to be less efficient both transmit and receive. A better, LESS compromised antenna will do more than changing coax, sure. The other variable that you simply can't calculate for is propagation. It was a look test none the less and thanks for trying it!
Great analysis, I love me some spreadsheet 🤣. While the difference is "only" a portion of an s unit, a different antenna might be "only" a portion of an s unit, a different rig might be "only" a portion of an s unit. Keep tweaking your gear and eventually it's not "only" a little bit better, it's a lot better.
I agree. Optimize everything you can. For the weak ones, it doesn't take an S unit to make the difference between "I think I hear a voice" and "Oh, there they are" in my experience, so I'm not sure why all the experts say "it's only half an S unit". That little bit can entirely make the difference.
These types of tests are tough. Real world tests require a lot of data points and time to have a good idea on how things perform. But as you stated in your testing, you’re looking for just enough data to give you that warm and fuzzy feeling to make the right choice. And you nailed it.
You rock, amigo. I've heard higher quality coax described as a "cheat code" for digital HF modes. Didn't quite know what to make of it. Now I have at least something to go on.
Good vid Mike...interesting results. Here's a twist on your video test...for an individual length of coax, what about coax configuration? For example, does the layout of the coax (straight run, layered, looped), have any impact on TX/RX performance? Also, what about height off the ground? I'd imagine you'd probably get similar effects to your test depending on how the coax was oriented in space? Thoughts?
nice job comparing different coax on receive. a outher way is to use station WWV on 7300. 2.5,5,10,15,20,25 Mhz whatever you pick up. record signal received. S units is ok. swap coax make a spreadsheet if you do test in about a hour should be fairly same signal. WWV is fixed and transmits 24/7. just propagation difference. just another way . 73's
It would take days and lots of effort but I would like to see all those cables and hyperflex 13 at 100 foot lengths on the same antenna talking to the same local line of sight with a weak signal. That would give real world Tx and Rx results. I've got some hyperflex 13 on the way. Replacing the RG8X will gain about 1.2 db in just the coax...not to mention the barrel connector I have in the RG8X line. I'll probably gain a bit more because of the insertion losses of the barrel connector and the 4 pl259 connectors in the RG8X run. The hyperflex 13 will connect to the beam with an N connector and inside at the switch with a pl259
According to wsprnet I made the Ultraflex 7 list but just not on video as I was above the scroll at 21:10. 😂 To think of all the women I could have impressed. Oh well. Thank you for the work you put into this.
Thanks for getting out there and doing this! Lab test are one thing but real world is where it all matters! Yes, I look at lab test because I want to see what the best potential piece of equipment is but my main concern is how does it perform in the real world and how does it perform after a couple of years out in the weather...Nicely done video..73
Awesome, glad to help. I love doing real world tests like this. Lab tests are one thing, but I've found that often, real world results are much different.
Great video, Mike. I would like to see a video made using a better antenna and more realistic POTA coax length. Maybe using 25 feet of coax just to see if great coax really makes a difference then. 73
First off, good video. I will say that hamsticks are a horrible compromise antenna and I'm not surprised the other station could hear them better than the hamstick. But enough hamstick bashing, I've used them myself. What I'd like to see is the same stations compared to each other in the various test cases. You already have the data in your spreadsheet. I think the lower loss coax, by virtue of the fact that it heard more stations (probably weaker ones) is skewing the test results to be less accurate. But again, good test, good video.
Great video. Your Better by "line" numbers should be positive numbers. The RG8X is 1.3 dB better than the RG58....etc. I also worked you a couple of weeks ago when you were doing a dual op POTA.
My one question would be. Does the radio used have or did use the ATU? Velocity factor and actual impedance might very. Great video thought, thanks for all the work you put in
Meh, all in a days work. I like doing stuff like this. I've spent a lot of time this year leaning about coax. Being an antenna nerd, it kinda goes hand in hand.
Hi nice video , But there is another way to improuve the ability of working those really far and weak stations better. Go from using 50 ohm coax to 75 ohm !!! yep if you have an antenna thats will allow the use of 75 ohm in general it's less lossy for the same diameter coax.. I have three Windoms, NOT CAROLINA my own version the MODEX WINDOM but with a 4/1 guenella double balun design and I use a 75 ohm double silvered screened 11mm coax and have a feed point on the antenna at 300 ohms before the balun. The 4/1 gives me a 75 ohm match and the coax also has a thin microline current trap 10 x 10 turns to stop anything radiating from the coax, so it's NOT part of the radiating antenna.. Reception on this antenna is FAR SUPERIOR than the 50 ohm fed ones and ive added so many new countries by searching for those super weak stations that I can even work with just 100 watts and my country list has shot up and im still finding new countries to work...my noise level is very low so i can pick them out whereas using the antennas on 50 ohm they are too deep in the noise !! try it...
cavo perdita db per 12.5mt RG 58 C/U MIL a 28mhz 0.97db con 15w in antenna va 12w AIRBORNE 5 a 28mhz 0.67db con 15w in antenna va 12.8w HyperFlex 5 a 28mhz 0.52db con 15w in antenna va 13.3w UltraFlex 7 a 28mhz 0.37db con 15w in antenna va 13.7w RG-213 a 28mhz 0.32db con 15w in antenna va 13.9w UltraFlex 10 a 28mhz 0.27db con 15w in antenna va 14w ExtraFlex Bury a 28mha 0.25db con 15w in antenna va 14.1w AIRBORNE 10 a 28mhz 0.25db con 15w in antenna va 14.1w HyperFlex 10 a 28mhz 0.17db con 15w in antenna va 14.4w UltraFlex 13 a 28mhz 0.17db con 15w in antenna va 14.4w
Have to love them haters that aren't able to back up there claims. Never mind in a cival constructive manner for all of us to learn . Thank you Mike for the effort and love you have for us Hams 👍
I think another issue is that many operators give "reports" with a lot of "room"... that is they do exaggerate the reported strength. I usually use my S meter reading for the second number in the report. If they are clear, that's a 5 and if the s meter hits 7 that's a 57. That's my system. However I have been "tempted" to say 59 for 56's or 57's and I have SEEN people in videos add s units to the second number as well.
Yeah I hear ya. I usually try to give real signal reports though sometimes I'm not actually looking at the radio as I'm logging. Sometimes you may get a 57, 59, whatever and your signal isn't actually that strong. If I catch it I'll give them another report and correct it. At the end of the day, when I'm doing a POTA, everyone gets logged 59. I really don't care for the log.
I know it’s pricey, but I’d love to hear what the results would be on hyperflex 13 Sahara just for poop and giggles… I will say that I am sold on Ultraflex seven Sahara for portable operations. So much so that I’m probably going to upgrade my Buddipole coax from RG 58 to Ultraflex seven and even upgrade my shack jumpers as well at some point.
I would love to see that test with the EFHW. I just got a K6ARK kit for my 705 and need the feed line if I get over the fear of soldering that capacitor.
Coax loss,which is kinda what this test shows, is measured in db/100ft. So going from his measurement to a 25ft run would reduce the loss introduced by the coax by 1/4. So where one of his measurements was like 4db difference between the rg58x and whatever,the difference would be like 1db difference.
SNR is the real measure of receive performance in my mind. How about a steady signal like WWV measured into an sdr and program that can measure SNR. That should be the most controlled test I can think of. May need more data points though.
Someone else suggested that as well. I don't really have the means to do a more accurate test other than WSPR though. I was thinking of doing a TX test and compiling the data from the stations who hear me. Either way, there is always varying propagation, but yes, more data points are going to give more credit to the results in the long term.
It's literally an all day thing to do that honestly. I don't know if I see myself doing that. I may do a TX test and compare the overall RX signal strength from stations hearing me.
I think your right better antenna would be a better approach to improve recieve and transmit loss should be your focus when choosing coax. As far as another way to test is SNR with the same stations same day\timeframe that way there is another constant. I can be one of these stations if you want. Sorry but gonna go nerdie on ya and share what I learned which I don't even know if it correct but make sence to my peanut brain. We all know coax has loss some more than others, the same loss characteristics apply to recieve too just not as dramatic to transmit. It isn't as dramatic since the recieve power (how much power into your antenna from the other station) is very small and since it is much less the amount of power loss from antenna to your reciever is minimimal due to how db of loss works. How to test this theory would be same coax but at different lengths say 50' vs 100' and if theory is correct the SNR should get better but I think you will see the same marginal improvements.
I have heard a guy say he dropped two S points going from RG8X to LMR600 on HF. Even some of the smartest people in ham say just use RG58 for HF as they're only looking at one or two aspects. Like engines in my work and hand loading for target rifles in my other hobby, there is always a crowd that dismisses ideas based on the most obvious reasons. But there are always some other reasons things are done the way they're done in non-conventional ways.
@@hamradiotube it sounds stupid but I have seen a video where a guy tested cable with an SDR. RG58 had so much noise on it then the bigger the cable got the less noise. He had a signal generator and measured the SNR with the SDR with different lengths of different cable. At 100m the RG58 had as much noise as signal.
Hi Mike, I’m not trying to be critical, but I’m not sure what you’re testing. Any conductive metal can “receive” electromagnetic energy. So when you look at the coax, is it your thought that if you receive more random RF through the braid it’s “better” coax? I mean you’re not saying a 100’ length of coax amplifies a received signal, right? You’re not saying a 100’ length of coax improves antenna reception by 1-2 dB, right? Because that’s preposterous. You could look at your results another way. Maybe the coax receiving fewervstation is better - because who wants a feed line contributing to your antenna system. The ideal feed line should be invisible to radio waves in the air, it should magically deliver all energy transmitted or received to your antenna without loss or radiation.
What he’s receiving is intelligible data. Poor coax would more random RF in and drown out the stations. Better coax will keep what the antenna is receiving ‘clean’ allowing his WSPR machine to give better signal to noise reports, at least that’s what I gathered.
@@62chevrolet but that’s the exact opposite of what he’s saying. He saying the “better” coax is receiving more signals with a higher S/N than the worse coax. All feed lines radiate, all feed lines pick up RF. The guy who asked Mike the original question about his mobile set up was wondering if his coaxial cable made his antenna better, not worse. I can’t think of a situation where feed line helps receive or transmit - with the exception of using a specific length of 75-ohm coax to match the antenna or a phased array- but that’s not what we’re taking about here. Typically feed line is an absolute negative on performance, but with short runs in otherwise well-matched systems up to 30 MHz, it’s negligible.
I never said anything about the braid, so I have no idea where you're going with that one. And it's not random RF. I'm receiving other radio stations. But...Yes, that is what I'm saying. And it's not preposterous. The numbers I've presented are the strength of the signal. Keep in mind, they are negative numbers. And per my video, the closer to zero or above, the better the signal was received. So a -24 would be a weaker signal that a -10. And yes, anything conductive will receive, but not all things conduct the same. Some are better, some are worse. Just as power loss going through the coax on TX is perceived, so is the RX signal. It's a two way street. Imagine a pipe of water and how much is flowing through it. Now imagine a bigger pipe. Which one will allow more water flow? Same reason we use different size wires for electrical connections. There is loss everywhere. So yes, a 100' length of a bigger, better coax will improve your RX vs. a smaller less better coax.
@@hamradiotube Nah, it’s preposterous. Coaxial cable does NOT amplify receive signals. With that logic, put out 500’ of coax. 1000’. Why not a mile of coax? I mean if that’s your contention, what’s the problem? Or maybe, just possibly, your methodology was wrong. But I still like your videos even when you’re wrong. It’s ok, nobody’s perfect.
It's about dB loss in the transmission line. NOTHING is being amplified. Lower loss coax will allow more of your transmitters power to reach the antenna. Lower loss coax won't burn up the received signal due to conductivity losses and noise like a higher loss coax. It's about the periodic table of elements and their conductive properties and the way it is used in coax design. Heck, if coax doesn't matter, why not just run RG 58.
Hi Mike, interesting experiment! However, did you need to do this as you are only checking the efficiency of the cable. By my limited understanding, surely, as you are only looking at how many of Callum's"Wiggleys" leak out, transmit or receive makes no difference? If this is indeed the case, looking up the specs of the cables will provide the answer. That said, I, like you, am a sucker for the fun side of science, and your experiment (I think) gives the answer, although I have not checked! Keep up the good work! 73 Jim M7BXT
I've found the specs provided by manufactures to be quite different to what we can expect in the real world. So yes, I think these experiments are important. Plus, who doesn't want to get out and play some radio?
Go put 100' of RG316 on a UHF antenna and tell me how well that works for you. On RX or TX. Then go put some Hyperflex 10 or LMR400 on it. I'll wait for your apology.
@@hamradiotube Lol, yes that’s why icom developed the brand new 905 with an external, POE RF module specifically designed to bypass lossy feed line on VHF/UHF so it transmits and receives into its attached antenna with as little feedline as possible, with almost no loss. Maybe you should send your video to ICOM? Their engineers would love to hear your take - which is, ahem, unique- and antithetical to their engineering expertise. Or, just man up and admit you got this one wrong. I won’t ask you to apologize to me; that’s like asking a child to apologize for thinking the moon is made out of cheese. It’s kind of endearing, the innocence of ignorance. Just learn and move on my friend.
Most people worry about how much power out they loose in cheap coax but never look at RX loss. Loss out is equal to loss in. The M&P Ultraflex 10 with it's better shielding also picks up less noise when used at home in an urban environment, that also improves RX signals.
Liked your approach to this test. Like you, not sure if it meant much but there was a definite increase with the better coax. I needed a new piece of coax so ordered some M&P from Gigaparts to give it a try.
Thanks for the video. Do enjoy them. Steve, k7ofg.
I Mike,
Thanks for the effort in doing the testing. You tried to keep most of the variables as constant as possible, and the trend did show better numbers with better coax. I would be interested in how the numbers compare when changing out different antennas. Stay safe, 73 WJ3U
I want to re-visit this test. Prob a couple times. One with a different antenna, and another on TX.
Tried my first ever 75 ohm feed line to a 40 meter dipole, and to me, it was Night and Day !
Granted, I used
RG - 6 Quad shield,
and after using it for awhile, something kept nagging at me, and it was that the receive was actually more quiet !
With out any perceived loss of received signals !
Try it you'll like it !
👍😉
It matters. It all matters. But.....Does it matter enough to "matter?" It's a little bit subjective. Obviously, better coax is more efficient. Cheap, small coax if going to be less efficient both transmit and receive. A better, LESS compromised antenna will do more than changing coax, sure. The other variable that you simply can't calculate for is propagation. It was a look test none the less and thanks for trying it!
Great analysis, I love me some spreadsheet 🤣. While the difference is "only" a portion of an s unit, a different antenna might be "only" a portion of an s unit, a different rig might be "only" a portion of an s unit. Keep tweaking your gear and eventually it's not "only" a little bit better, it's a lot better.
I agree. Optimize everything you can.
For the weak ones, it doesn't take an S unit to make the difference between "I think I hear a voice" and "Oh, there they are" in my experience, so I'm not sure why all the experts say "it's only half an S unit". That little bit can entirely make the difference.
Good stuff, and efforts appreciated! 73
Thanks so much for watching.
These types of tests are tough. Real world tests require a lot of data points and time to have a good idea on how things perform. But as you stated in your testing, you’re looking for just enough data to give you that warm and fuzzy feeling to make the right choice. And you nailed it.
Thanks Chris, I appreciate that.
I do like the no nonsense approach of your channel. Makes a refreshing change from the overly complicated material out there.
I'm just not smart enough to make it complicated, but I appreciate your kind words 😆
Excellent delivery and to the point.. a lot to think about. The results ask many more questions after watching.
You rock, amigo. I've heard higher quality coax described as a "cheat code" for digital HF modes. Didn't quite know what to make of it. Now I have at least something to go on.
Nice Mike. I keep watching your channel because of the variety of videos you do. Also, appreciate your no BS approach. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much, glad to have you here. Although I would have to disagree with you. I'm full of BS lol!
As a newbie to ham radio, this is great information. Guess once I finally get a portable HF rig, I'll have to pick up a roll of that flex cable.
Thanks so much. Glad to help. Remember, any HF rig is portable when you take it out of the shack!
Thanks for all you do! I enjoy your videos and have learned much!
thx. great demo. i use rg-213 for jumpers and portable. and LMR-400 STRANDED at my base stations.
I love your videos and the fact that you keep truckin’ through with a smile. You rock. Ham on….
I appreciate that, thank you.
Good vid Mike...interesting results. Here's a twist on your video test...for an individual length of coax, what about coax configuration? For example, does the layout of the coax (straight run, layered, looped), have any impact on TX/RX performance? Also, what about height off the ground? I'd imagine you'd probably get similar effects to your test depending on how the coax was oriented in space? Thoughts?
Very interesting & educational Vid Mike! Enjoyed it!!! Thanks!!!
nice job comparing different coax on receive. a outher way is to use station WWV on 7300. 2.5,5,10,15,20,25 Mhz whatever you pick up. record signal received. S units is ok. swap coax make a spreadsheet if you do test in about a hour should be fairly same signal. WWV is fixed and transmits 24/7. just propagation difference. just another way . 73's
This was a great test! Thanks for all the work!
My pleasure.
Nice work. "Coax... Bridging the air gap between the rig and the antenna since..." Lol
If only we had wireless coax lol!
Thanks Mike. As always a good and informative video. 73
It would take days and lots of effort but I would like to see all those cables and hyperflex 13 at 100 foot lengths on the same antenna talking to the same local line of sight with a weak signal. That would give real world Tx and Rx results. I've got some hyperflex 13 on the way. Replacing the RG8X will gain about 1.2 db in just the coax...not to mention the barrel connector I have in the RG8X line. I'll probably gain a bit more because of the insertion losses of the barrel connector and the 4 pl259 connectors in the RG8X run. The hyperflex 13 will connect to the beam with an N connector and inside at the switch with a pl259
According to wsprnet I made the Ultraflex 7 list but just not on video as I was above the scroll at 21:10. 😂 To think of all the women I could have impressed. Oh well. Thank you for the work you put into this.
Oh man, I'm so sorry. I would have loved to be your wing man.
Thanks for getting out there and doing this! Lab test are one thing but real world is where it all matters! Yes, I look at lab test because I want to see what the best potential piece of equipment is but my main concern is how does it perform in the real world and how does it perform after a couple of years out in the weather...Nicely done video..73
Awesome, glad to help. I love doing real world tests like this. Lab tests are one thing, but I've found that often, real world results are much different.
Great video, Mike. I would like to see a video made using a better antenna and more realistic POTA coax length. Maybe using 25 feet of coax just to see if great coax really makes a difference then. 73
Can we use an RG cable as an antenna itself instead of the thin wire for shortwave reception?
First off, good video. I will say that hamsticks are a horrible compromise antenna and I'm not surprised the other station could hear them better than the hamstick. But enough hamstick bashing, I've used them myself.
What I'd like to see is the same stations compared to each other in the various test cases. You already have the data in your spreadsheet. I think the lower loss coax, by virtue of the fact that it heard more stations (probably weaker ones) is skewing the test results to be less accurate. But again, good test, good video.
Great video. Your Better by "line" numbers should be positive numbers. The RG8X is 1.3 dB better than the RG58....etc. I also worked you a couple of weeks ago when you were doing a dual op POTA.
Negative, positive, who's counting lol! Good point and thanks for the contact.
My one question would be. Does the radio used have or did use the ATU? Velocity factor and actual impedance might very.
Great video thought, thanks for all the work you put in
I would be very interested in this test on an EFHW antenna. So what is the main advantage of the M&P coax comparatively
Wow!!! That took a fair bit of homework. Thanks!!!!! really appreciate it!! 73!! N8SOT
Meh, all in a days work. I like doing stuff like this. I've spent a lot of time this year leaning about coax. Being an antenna nerd, it kinda goes hand in hand.
Hi nice video , But there is another way to improuve the ability of working those really far and weak stations better. Go from using 50 ohm coax to 75 ohm !!! yep if you have an antenna thats will allow the use of 75 ohm in general it's less lossy for the same diameter coax.. I have three Windoms, NOT CAROLINA my own version the MODEX WINDOM but with a 4/1 guenella double balun design and I use a 75 ohm double silvered screened 11mm coax and have a feed point on the antenna at 300 ohms before the balun. The 4/1 gives me a 75 ohm match and the coax also has a thin microline current trap 10 x 10 turns to stop anything radiating from the coax, so it's NOT part of the radiating antenna.. Reception on this antenna is FAR SUPERIOR than the 50 ohm fed ones and ive added so many new countries by searching for those super weak stations that I can even work with just 100 watts and my country list has shot up and im still finding new countries to work...my noise level is very low so i can pick them out whereas using the antennas on 50 ohm they are too deep in the noise !! try it...
interesting isn't RG6/U coax 75 ohm? I was wondering if I could use the existing (Old Install of a DirecTV) for an antenna?
@@scvdad Yes, that's 75 ohm.
cavo perdita db per 12.5mt
RG 58 C/U MIL a 28mhz 0.97db con 15w in antenna va 12w
AIRBORNE 5 a 28mhz 0.67db con 15w in antenna va 12.8w
HyperFlex 5 a 28mhz 0.52db con 15w in antenna va 13.3w
UltraFlex 7 a 28mhz 0.37db con 15w in antenna va 13.7w
RG-213 a 28mhz 0.32db con 15w in antenna va 13.9w
UltraFlex 10 a 28mhz 0.27db con 15w in antenna va 14w
ExtraFlex Bury a 28mha 0.25db con 15w in antenna va 14.1w
AIRBORNE 10 a 28mhz 0.25db con 15w in antenna va 14.1w
HyperFlex 10 a 28mhz 0.17db con 15w in antenna va 14.4w
UltraFlex 13 a 28mhz 0.17db con 15w in antenna va 14.4w
Very interesting. Thanks.👍👍
Glad you enjoyed it
Great video again Mike.
Thanks for watching
Have to love them haters that aren't able to back up there claims. Never mind in a cival constructive manner for all of us to learn . Thank you Mike for the effort and love you have for us Hams 👍
Comes with the territory. Thanks for watching!
I think another issue is that many operators give "reports" with a lot of "room"... that is they do exaggerate the reported strength. I usually use my S meter reading for the second number in the report. If they are clear, that's a 5 and if the s meter hits 7 that's a 57. That's my system. However I have been "tempted" to say 59 for 56's or 57's and I have SEEN people in videos add s units to the second number as well.
Yeah I hear ya. I usually try to give real signal reports though sometimes I'm not actually looking at the radio as I'm logging. Sometimes you may get a 57, 59, whatever and your signal isn't actually that strong. If I catch it I'll give them another report and correct it. At the end of the day, when I'm doing a POTA, everyone gets logged 59. I really don't care for the log.
@@hamradiotube Not to mention certain Contesters are used to just handing out 59 automatically
Good video, very interesting 🤔 KV5P
I know it’s pricey, but I’d love to hear what the results would be on hyperflex 13 Sahara just for poop and giggles…
I will say that I am sold on Ultraflex seven Sahara for portable operations. So much so that I’m probably going to upgrade my Buddipole coax from RG 58 to Ultraflex seven and even upgrade my shack jumpers as well at some point.
I would love to see that test with the EFHW. I just got a K6ARK kit for my 705 and need the feed line if I get over the fear of soldering that capacitor.
Lol that capacitor!! It's really not that bad.
What would be the result if I am only running a 25 foot coax? How would these results change?
Coax loss,which is kinda what this test shows, is measured in db/100ft. So going from his measurement to a 25ft run would reduce the loss introduced by the coax by 1/4. So where one of his measurements was like 4db difference between the rg58x and whatever,the difference would be like 1db difference.
What Matt said.
SNR is the real measure of receive performance in my mind. How about a steady signal like WWV measured into an sdr and program that can measure SNR. That should be the most controlled test I can think of. May need more data points though.
Someone else suggested that as well. I don't really have the means to do a more accurate test other than WSPR though. I was thinking of doing a TX test and compiling the data from the stations who hear me. Either way, there is always varying propagation, but yes, more data points are going to give more credit to the results in the long term.
I'd be interested to see it done on multiple bands, but, yeah, I'm too lazy to do it myself.
It's literally an all day thing to do that honestly. I don't know if I see myself doing that. I may do a TX test and compare the overall RX signal strength from stations hearing me.
I think your right better antenna would be a better approach to improve recieve and transmit loss should be your focus when choosing coax.
As far as another way to test is SNR with the same stations same day\timeframe that way there is another constant. I can be one of these stations if you want.
Sorry but gonna go nerdie on ya and share what I learned which I don't even know if it correct but make sence to my peanut brain. We all know coax has loss some more than others, the same loss characteristics apply to recieve too just not as dramatic to transmit. It isn't as dramatic since the recieve power (how much power into your antenna from the other station) is very small and since it is much less the amount of power loss from antenna to your reciever is minimimal due to how db of loss works. How to test this theory would be same coax but at different lengths say 50' vs 100' and if theory is correct the SNR should get better but I think you will see the same marginal improvements.
I have heard a guy say he dropped two S points going from RG8X to LMR600 on HF. Even some of the smartest people in ham say just use RG58 for HF as they're only looking at one or two aspects. Like engines in my work and hand loading for target rifles in my other hobby, there is always a crowd that dismisses ideas based on the most obvious reasons. But there are always some other reasons things are done the way they're done in non-conventional ways.
Dropped S units going to LMR600? Yeah I'm going to say he screwed something up big time. LMR600 is a serious cable.
@@hamradiotube it sounds stupid but I have seen a video where a guy tested cable with an SDR. RG58 had so much noise on it then the bigger the cable got the less noise. He had a signal generator and measured the SNR with the SDR with different lengths of different cable. At 100m the RG58 had as much noise as signal.
@@shanerorko8076 that doesn’t sound stupid at all. That’s just one of the differences you will find in coax.
Hi Mike, I’m not trying to be critical, but I’m not sure what you’re testing. Any conductive metal can “receive” electromagnetic energy. So when you look at the coax, is it your thought that if you receive more random RF through the braid it’s “better” coax? I mean you’re not saying a 100’ length of coax amplifies a received signal, right? You’re not saying a 100’ length of coax improves antenna reception by 1-2 dB, right? Because that’s preposterous. You could look at your results another way. Maybe the coax receiving fewervstation is better - because who wants a feed line contributing to your antenna system. The ideal feed line should be invisible to radio waves in the air, it should magically deliver all energy transmitted or received to your antenna without loss or radiation.
What he’s receiving is intelligible data. Poor coax would more random RF in and drown out the stations. Better coax will keep what the antenna is receiving ‘clean’ allowing his WSPR machine to give better signal to noise reports, at least that’s what I gathered.
@@62chevrolet but that’s the exact opposite of what he’s saying. He saying the “better” coax is receiving more signals with a higher S/N than the worse coax. All feed lines radiate, all feed lines pick up RF. The guy who asked Mike the original question about his mobile set up was wondering if his coaxial cable made his antenna better, not worse. I can’t think of a situation where feed line helps receive or transmit - with the exception of using a specific length of 75-ohm coax to match the antenna or a phased array- but that’s not what we’re taking about here. Typically feed line is an absolute negative on performance, but with short runs in otherwise well-matched systems up to 30 MHz, it’s negligible.
I never said anything about the braid, so I have no idea where you're going with that one. And it's not random RF. I'm receiving other radio stations. But...Yes, that is what I'm saying. And it's not preposterous. The numbers I've presented are the strength of the signal. Keep in mind, they are negative numbers. And per my video, the closer to zero or above, the better the signal was received. So a -24 would be a weaker signal that a -10. And yes, anything conductive will receive, but not all things conduct the same. Some are better, some are worse. Just as power loss going through the coax on TX is perceived, so is the RX signal. It's a two way street. Imagine a pipe of water and how much is flowing through it. Now imagine a bigger pipe. Which one will allow more water flow? Same reason we use different size wires for electrical connections. There is loss everywhere. So yes, a 100' length of a bigger, better coax will improve your RX vs. a smaller less better coax.
@@hamradiotube Nah, it’s preposterous. Coaxial cable does NOT amplify receive signals. With that logic, put out 500’ of coax. 1000’. Why not a mile of coax? I mean if that’s your contention, what’s the problem? Or maybe, just possibly, your methodology was wrong. But I still like your videos even when you’re wrong. It’s ok, nobody’s perfect.
It's about dB loss in the transmission line. NOTHING is being amplified. Lower loss coax will allow more of your transmitters power to reach the antenna. Lower loss coax won't burn up the received signal due to conductivity losses and noise like a higher loss coax. It's about the periodic table of elements and their conductive properties and the way it is used in coax design. Heck, if coax doesn't matter, why not just run RG 58.
Hi Mike, interesting experiment! However, did you need to do this as you are only checking the efficiency of the cable. By my limited understanding, surely, as you are only looking at how many of Callum's"Wiggleys" leak out, transmit or receive makes no difference? If this is indeed the case, looking up the specs of the cables will provide the answer. That said, I, like you, am a sucker for the fun side of science, and your experiment (I think) gives the answer, although I have not checked! Keep up the good work! 73 Jim M7BXT
I've found the specs provided by manufactures to be quite different to what we can expect in the real world. So yes, I think these experiments are important. Plus, who doesn't want to get out and play some radio?
@@hamradiotube Good point Jim M7BXT
If your coax improves your antenna’s reception, you have a bad antenna.
Go put 100' of RG316 on a UHF antenna and tell me how well that works for you. On RX or TX. Then go put some Hyperflex 10 or LMR400 on it. I'll wait for your apology.
@@hamradiotube Lol, yes that’s why icom developed the brand new 905 with an external, POE RF module specifically designed to bypass lossy feed line on VHF/UHF so it transmits and receives into its attached antenna with as little feedline as possible, with almost no loss. Maybe you should send your video to ICOM? Their engineers would love to hear your take - which is, ahem, unique- and antithetical to their engineering expertise. Or, just man up and admit you got this one wrong. I won’t ask you to apologize to me; that’s like asking a child to apologize for thinking the moon is made out of cheese. It’s kind of endearing, the innocence of ignorance. Just learn and move on my friend.
Thanks Mike, nicely done. HF is somewhat forgiving. Would have been an interesting test with bigger SNR numbers on vhf and uhf. 73 de KM4SON
Hmmm, that's not a bad idea at all. That would be a great way to eliminate a LOT of variables. Good thinking!
That's a great real-world use test! Thanks! W5ZYM