[Linux-ham] Is LMR-400 cable all the same?

Tanner Lovelace kb4tye at arrl.net
Wed Mar 25 15:53:27 EDT 2009

2009/3/25 David Black <dave at jamsoft.com>:

> There's no downside I know of in using N connectors for any band you want,
> except they tend to be more expensive.   At lower frequencies like 2 meters
> and below, the performance difference between constant impedance/very low
> loss connectors like N and others such as the PL-259 is relatively small.

At what point does it become a good idea to switch to something like an
N connector?  At home, I have a dual band 2m/70cm radio hooked to a
Ventenna antenna on the roof and to run to the radio I have to go from
the attic to the crawlspace and then up to the radio.  I first tried a normal
RG-8 cable and while that worked on 2m, on 70cm the length of the cable
run made it so that no one could hear anything I transmitted.  I swapped
that out for an LMR-type cable (don't remember the exact designation
right now, but it was similar to LMR and on sale at RARSFest one year
since I think it was basically what was left from a spool) and with the
LMR-type cable doing the run 70cm works very well.  However, I am
using PL-259 connectors on it, but the LMR cable does go directly
to the radio (there's a short section of RG-8M in the attic to get to
the LMR cable.

So, basically, my question is would I have been better served by
using an N connector? (My guess is the answer is no, but I'd
love to hear the more detailed explanation of why that is.)

Tanner Lovelace
(fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an
increscent, all sable.

More information about the Linux-ham mailing list