RG6 and RG58

[ttyr2]

Is it worth the effort to use RG6 for longer runs if I end up connecting it to RG58 for the last short run to a scanner? The connections involved won't eliminate the benefit of using RG6?

I'm assuming that all RG58 is a lot more flexible (and thinner) than RG6.

 

[LtDoc]

It should work for only receiving. The connections would probably the least of your worries, the dissimilar impedance of those two types of cable would probably contribute to more losses. But using a more flexible cable for that final run to the radio is probably just fine.
- 'Doc

 

[ttyr2]

For scanner use, and I just better off using RG58 for the whole thing? I'm only looking at maybe a 30ft run total.

 

[LtDoc]

If the cable used is based on the calculated losses, then at 30 feet, either cable will do just dandy. There just is not enough loss in that length of run to make any practical differences at all. What's the impedance of your antenna, and the input impedance of your scanner? Use a cable who's impedance is the same. That will minimize any losses due to impedance mismatches. The losses from connectors is just not worth worrying about (too small) unless you have a large number of connectors in the feed line.
- 'Doc

 

[AronDouglas]

Slipping in a little question....would I see any benefits from RG6 instead of the Micro Loss 900 that I have now? (only about 12 feet of run) I'm asking because I have about 300 ft of RG6 lying around.

 

[cabletech]

After using differant cables for the last 30+ yrs, here is my take.

Any thing up to 2ft, I use RG214, up to 50 ft RG58, up to 150 RG 6 OR RG 8, all this for both RX and TX up 500 watts, HF VHF UHF.

Over 150 ft (I have three) I use hard line either 50 ohm helix or cable co. type 75 ohm.

I have never had any problems recieving or transmitting on any frequency.

Frequency's that I use/listen to go from 500hz to 900mhz.