Lightweight coax with less loss than RG-174

As discussed in the EFHW thread, many people use RG-174 to feed their antennas.

For a dipole, this means deploying 5-10M of coax or more. I can’t find it now, but I saw a table listing the loss factor for RG-174 at 3-4dB per 30m at HF frequencies (40-10m).

The easy solution is to use heavier cable, like RG58. But heavy RG58 is no fun to haul up a steep hill.

Are there coax cables offering significantly less loss than RG-174 without added weight?

(before someone chimes in from the peanut gallery – yes, this is a purely academic question for me right now)

3 Likes

I use RG316

I don’t understand the issue or concern

Climb up, activate, go home

Every antenna has its advantages and a 10m EFHW is too long but a Buddistick is just right on a summit

PoTA or WWFF go 132 ft

John ve3ips

2 Likes

This may help you compare different types loss vs weight etc:

portable-antennas - Extras, Coax Data

73 Ed.

1 Like

@VE3IPS In most cases you may be right, but some of us operate in conditions where every dB counts. High QRM, QSO partners far away, unfriendly geography, etc.

@DD5LP Thanks! According to that chart, RG316 offers a tiny improvement over RG174 and to get a significant improvement we’d need to go to LMR195, which is almost as heavy as RG58.

1 Like

Be advised that quoted loss numbers for coaxial cables only hold in case the cable is used at its characteristic impedance (50 ohms real in case of RG-174), in other words at a VSWR of 1. Dielectric losses rise quickly with increasing VSWR (which is one of the reasons why ladder line works so well!). Also why cables with more air in the dielectric (foam/Aircell-like) are lower loss under unmatched conditions.

73,

Wouter Jan PE4WJ

2 Likes

LMR-100

1 Like

If you worry about weight and not necessarily about size I like H-155, 5.5 mm diameter, but with foam dielectric, so less heavy and less lossy than RG-58

1 Like

This is a common misconception, but quite incorrect.

Polyethylene, Teflon, and most plastics that are not PVC, have negligible dielectric loss.
The loss is resistive. Loss increases with frequency due to skin effect in the conductor and not dielectric loss.
Most of the loss in coax occurs in the skin of the centre conductor. This is obvious, because the same RF current flows on the skin of the core as the inside skin of the shield, but the circumference of the core is less.
For a given outside diameter the inner diameter must be greater to keep Z0 constant when using foam dielectric, air dielectric, or a lower ϵR plastic like teflon.
It is this larger centre diameter that reduces the loss.

Counter intuitively increasing the centre conductor by lowering Z0 increases loss, because if Z0 is lower, current is greater. The optimum Z0 for low loss is 75Ω.

Low loss coaxes do several things that lower the skin resistance.

  • silver plate the centre conductor to the skin depth
  • use a solid i.e smooth centre conductor. A stranded conductor is knobbly which means the surface is a bit longer and lossier.
  • make the outer conduction layer smooth foil not knobbly braid.

Teflon coaxes have much higher power ratings than PE coax. This is not because of any significantly lower loss. Teflon can stand a couple of hundred degrees, which means a teflon coax can be run at 150 degrees above ambient, and PE at only 30 or so. One place this is useful is that very thin teflon coaxes can be used to wind common mode current chokes (1:1 balun) on small cores, at quite high powers

2 Likes

Yes, there are some lower loss small cables, but they might not be easy to find in small quantities.

Several decades ago I switched to using 8m of RG-174 for my portable dipoles. Yes, according to the tables in the ARRL Antenna Book, I might lose 1/4 of my power on 10m, but the benefit of getting the antenna up higher overcame the potential losses. (And the losses were lower than the speaker cable that I had been using, besides giving a better impedance match.)

This was before the EFHW designs with a transformer were popular (I used a manual antenna tuner back then). I carried dipole wires for all bands of interest, and could choose what bands to add each time I set up the antenna, depending on the specific circumstances. So I didn’t always need to set up enough wire for 40m or 80m, but I had them available.

But recently I’ve picked up some other sorts of cables, and done more analysis on the losses of the different types. Here is my summary of feedline types so far: I have some further work that doesn’t appear there yet.

Several findings…

A major issue is that the data for RG-174 (and some other small cables) aren’t always correct. I’ve recently double checked the data from my old ARRL Antenna Book and the stated losses are too high above about 10 MHz, and too low below that, compared to the Belden 8216 data sheet and my actual measurements of several samples. (Some of the error may be in interpolating the charts.)

The main source of loss in such small cables, especially in the lower HF range, appears to be in the stranded Copper Clad Steel (CCS) used in the center conductor. The result is that the loss curves tend to flatten out in the lower HF range, as the skin depth of the copper in the center conductor becomes inadequate. Tables that interpolate the losses based on a 50 MHz loss specification are not going to be accurate. You can see this effect in the ratio of the 40m loss to the 10m loss.

I’ve also found that some less expensive RG-174 appears to use less copper in the center conductor, which increases losses a little further, even though the cable is marked with the same type number.

Now, we often think of 75 ohm cables as having lower losses than 50 ohm cables, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to small types that need to use CCS center conductors for strength, because the center conductors are smaller. For example, RG-174 / RG-316 (50 ohms) and RG-179 (75 ohms) are about the same diameter, but the losses in RG-179 are higher, especially on 40m.

Some cable options:

Probably the most available low-loss small coax is LMR-100. I haven’t compared it to the other types yet. I have a bit of a concern with using a foam-dielectric cable outdoors for portable use where it may get stepped on, but that might not be an issue in practice.

RG-174 isn’t bad, as long as the lengths are kept reasonably short. RG-316 is the PTFE version. Both are solid dielectric 50 ohm cables.

Belden 88907 is a thinner version of RG-58 / UR-43. A bit lighter and less bulky, with similar losses. Might not be worth the effort of trying to find it, but worth trying if you do. Might have to add some heatshrink tubing to get connectors to fit.

Belden 9221 is a foam-dielectric 75 ohm cable the same size as RG-174, but somewhat lighter. I found a cheap spool at a hamfest because it was 75 ohms, and am trying out using a 1/2 wavelength for 40m (about 15m) in a 20/40m dipole kit. That’s more cable than I would normally carry, however, so I don’t really save anything. Would be better for just 20m. (If you have an antenna tuner, then the cable impedance shouldn’t matter, and you can use other lengths.) My measured cable losses are a bit higher than the data sheet.

Belden 735A1 is another 75 ohm cable, a bit larger (3.3mm) and heavier than RG-174, but with lower losses (partly due to a pure copper center conductor). This would be my choice for a 75 ohm cable when I wanted to get my antenna up higher than my typical 8m length. Again, might not be easy to find, and possibly only as a 305m spool. (Another hamfest find.)

The best 50 ohm cable that I have found is that used by Tektronix for internal wiring of their equipment. I don’t have a part number for it - probably a custom order. PTFE insulation, with stripes of various colo(u)rs. Size of RG-174, but solid copper center conductor gives it lower losses. It helps to have former Tek employees at local hamfests!

I wouldn’t recommend going smaller than RG-174 for any significant length: both RG-178 (50 ohms) and RG-179 (75 ohms) have higher losses. I use some RG-178 in a balun to get more turns in a small core.

3 Likes

I use a lighter 50ohm coax called cell foil. It is stightly thicker than RG316. It has a solid inner conductor and foil and braid outer. It means you need crimp on plugs to fit it up although the centre is copper so that can be soldered. Not sure who makes it I got it at our local computer shop. Use it on my VKFF parks antennas and it works ok. I have rg174 on my SOTA antennas done over 500 activations so it must work ok.
Ian vk5cz …

1 Like

I recommend the rg316 cable even if it is less flexible than the rg174 cable. In my opinion for portability the rg174 cable is better.

1 Like

Someone sent me a tip privately abut M&P’s Airborne 5.

It weighs 2.3kg/100m, so close to RG-174’s 1.3kg/100m, but gives us 4dB/100m loss at 14Mhz and 5.5dB/100m at 28Mhz.

Comparing to our 10m RG-174 feedline, we have 0.54dB improvement at 14Mhz and 0.91dB improvement at 30Mhz.

Considering the weight savings over H-155. this is clearly the “new best” cable.

1 Like

The Belden H-155 data sheet specifies 40kg/1km => 4kg/100m weight. Wimo specifies 38g/m or 3.8kg/100m.

Unfortunately I cannot find loss specifications at 14MHz or 30MHz, only 5Mhz (2.5dB/100m) and 50MHz (6.9dB/100m).

Using the Portable-Antennas.com chart after selecting H-155 as the cable type, we get about 4dB/100m at 14Mhz and 5.13dB at 28Mhz.

Compared to a 10m feedline of RG-174, that is an 0.57dB improvement at 10Mhz and 0.947dB improvement at 30Mhz.

Weight-wise, it’s 400g for 10m compared to RG-174’s 130g for 10m.

1 Like

@mm0fmf @wb6byu It does seem like LMR-100 is an improvement over RG-174 while maintaining the same form factor.

According to the Times Microwave calculator:

we can expect 8.9dB/100m at 14MHz and 13dB/100m at 30MHz.

For RG-174 the Coax Loss Calculator
https://kv5r.com/ham-radio/coax-loss-calculator/
gives us 9.7dB/100m at 14Mhz and 14.6dB/100m at 30Mhz.

If we have a 10m feedline, the improvement from switching to LMR-100 from RG-174 is about 0.079dB at 14MHz and 0.16dB at 30Mhz.

Belden 88907 is quoted at 1.3dB/100ft at 10MHz, so about 4.3dB/100m. But the weight is 26lbs/100ft => 11.8kg/30.5m => 38.7kg/100m.

By comparison RG-174 is 4kg/100m so Belden 88907 is almost a 10x increase in weight (4kg for a 10m length of cable, instead of 400g!) for a 2.25x reduction in loss.

I will skip surveying the 75 ohm cables, as I’d rather avoid using a tuner (lossy!) and I’d prefer to use one length of feedline on multiple bands.

1 Like

I absolutely agree. Picking the right Torroid and windings in the 49/56/64-1 transformer to get best efficiency is going to outweigh any losses in thicker, less lossy cable. MM0OPX did some YouTube videos on this and they are great. You can see some huge differences in efficiency depending on cores and windings. I use a 2643625002 with 3/24 64:1 windings for SOTA and it makes a difference. And I use RG174

If I want “the best” RX/TX, then an EFHW is not the antenna for me. It’s a multiband quick to deploy antenna that loves noise. For DX and those sketchy summit to summits, a band dedicated 1/4 vertical or dipole is a better choice!

1 Like