I spent a bit of time experimenting with drums of coax to measure the real losses... The second best low power coax I found in our garage was a drum of WF103. The loss at 100MHz was around 4.5dB/100m. It has the advantage that Westlake sell specially made N-connectors that fit it perfectly!

Better coax was the Ecoflex10. It was about 0.7 dB/100m better than the '103, and any old N-connector will fit it accurately.

The Ecoflex also has a higher power rating, but costs almost twice as much as the '103.

I would expect the Ecoflex10 to have lower loss than the WF103 as the dielectric material is a very well-engineered foamed PE (it looks very white like PTFE but it isn't) which is quite expensive to produce. WF103 uses a cheaper air-spaced core, which I assume is HDPE because it is quite rigid, unlike LDPE. The air-spacing works to some extent to reduce the dielectric constant but you just can't get away from the high dielectric constant of the base material. Hence the foamed PE will always win. Ultimately foamed PTFE will be the winner but you're really going to have to pay for that. I gloss over the fact that we can go even further as none of that is really open for discussion as a pirate.
The air-spaced dielectric of WF103 also does a brilliant job of providing five wide open channels ready to take water down to the output of your transmitter. Your transmitter will then do its expensive "welder" routine after a bit of rain.

Anyway, nice to see some real-world results as I see a lot of WF103 data being extremely optimistic - I've seen spec sheets quote 3.2 dB @ 100 m which is just not going to happen! Perhaps if you calibrate S21 with a 2 dB attenuator that doesn't exist for the measurement

I agree that the 10.2 mm format coaxes (i.e. LMR400 and the Ecoflex10 you mention, as well as the Aircom Premium that Brian mentioned) are way better regarding getting hold of good quality connectors to fit on them. I find they're more flexible than WF103 anyway, despite having a solid centre conductor, compared to the stranded centre of WF103.
Be careful buying cheap N connectors for 10.2 mm format coax, as you will find that the ferrules don't have sufficient wall thickness to be crimped properly using the standard crimp tools. I've had to machine my own crimp tools from tool steel to make some connectors work when I needed what I had in stock to work quickly.

thewisepranker wrote:I would expect the Ecoflex10 to have lower loss than the WF103 as the dielectric material is a very well-engineered foamed PE (it looks very white like PTFE but it isn't) which is quite expensive to produce. WF103 uses a cheaper air-spaced core, which I assume is HDPE because it is quite rigid, unlike LDPE. The air-spacing works to some extent to reduce the dielectric constant but you just can't get away from the high dielectric constant of the base material. Hence the foamed PE will always win. Ultimately foamed PTFE will be the winner but you're really going to have to pay for that. I gloss over the fact that we can go even further as none of that is really open for discussion as a pirate.
The air-spaced dielectric of WF103 also does a brilliant job of providing five wide open channels ready to take water down to the output of your transmitter. Your transmitter will then do its expensive "welder" routine after a bit of rain.

Anyway, nice to see some real-world results as I see a lot of WF103 data being extremely optimistic - I've seen spec sheets quote 3.2 dB @ 100 m which is just not going to happen! Perhaps if you calibrate S21 with a 2 dB attenuator that doesn't exist for the measurement

I agree that the 10.2 mm format coaxes (i.e. LMR400 and the Ecoflex10 you mention, as well as the Aircom Premium that Brian mentioned) are way better regarding getting hold of good quality connectors to fit on them. I find they're more flexible than WF103 anyway, despite having a solid centre conductor, compared to the stranded centre of WF103.
Be careful buying cheap N connectors for 10.2 mm format coax, as you will find that the ferrules don't have sufficient wall thickness to be crimped properly using the standard crimp tools. I've had to machine my own crimp tools from tool steel to make some connectors work when I needed what I had in stock to work quickly.

This is the stuff I have lmr-400 very good stuff. But if bent to much it can snap the centre copper part.

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

only lmr400 up to 10m, over 10m up to 20m lmr600 or 1/2 coax

rigmo wrote:only lmr400 up to 10m, over 10m up to 20m lmr600 or 1/2 coax

Yea at 10 meters with 100 Watts I'm only losing around 9 Watts so 91 Watts through it no bad really.

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

thewisepranker wrote:

Electronically wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 11:17 pm if you use rg213 you'll hardly lose any power if running 100 meters

If you consider losing about 80% as "hardly losing any power" then yeah, you're right.

Lol losing alot. meant 10 meters oops.

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

I used to use rg58 but I only found that coax to work better down on 27mhz. So I tried rg8x that was alot better above 88mhz

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

Electronically wrote:I used to use rg58 but I only found that coax to work better down on 27mhz. So I tried rg8x that was alot better above 88mhz

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

Even rg-8 is a bit better than rg8x I've heard but haven't tried it.

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

rg58 is peace of shit! rg213U but for me minimally acceptable.. recommended lmr400 up higher...

rigmo wrote:rg58 is peace of shit! rg213U but for me minimally acceptable.. recommended lmr400 up higher...

Rg58 is allright for few Watts other than that not for me. I'm sticking with my lmr-400 for the mean time at 10 meters.

Sent from my AMN-LX9 using Tapatalk

stretch just to let the swallows rest!

Great antenna! Have one myselve - and It's up in the air for more than 10 years already...

definitely manufactures Sirio built this antenna but has a sales contract with Norwalk so procurement is only possible through them.

ronald001 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:05 pm Great antenna! Have one myselve - and It's up in the air for more than 10 years already...

Looking good Ronald

10yrs --- wow

How tall is that telescopic mast? ....100ft?

No, around 50ft

Ahh OK, it looks a lot taller than 50ft in the picture.

....This dipole was mounted on a pole 46 ft 4 ins above ground, but your one looks over twice the height of it.

Ah but mine is not sitting on the ground (level ) - it is sitting on the 2nd floor, and goes thru my roof.
Bottom of my antenna is at 65ft approx

ronald001 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:00 pm Ah but mine is not sitting on the ground (level ) - it is sitting on the 2nd floor, and goes thru my roof.
Bottom of my antenna is at 65ft approx

Nice setup Ronald

What power are you driving your Dominator with

Ahh yes that makes more sense.

And yeah nice set up, .....I think most of the forum member's and their dogs would love one like that!