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

[Neil L. Little]

N type connectors have a lower loss per connector that a PL-259.
It is much easier to weatherize an N connector than a PL-259.
They are much easier to assemble (in my opinion).

I use N type connectors when ever I can. Then again I'm a bit of a Nerd.
I will use a dipole or loop antenna rather than a Windom or G5RV. Yes, I 
even use N connectors for HF.
I also never buy HF antennas when I can make them.

73,
Neil, WA4AZL

Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> 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.)
>
> Thanks,
> Tanner
>