From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
      
   Cursitor Doom  wrote:   
      
   > On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:34:17 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   > (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
   >   
   > >Cursitor Doom  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 17:38:41 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   > >> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >Cursitor Doom  wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:28:49 +0000, John R Walliker   
   > >> >>  wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >On 22/01/2026 16:16, john larkin wrote:   
   > >> >> >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:29:10 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   > >> >> >> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >>> What physical properties determine the velocity factor of co-ax?   
   > >> >> >>> Most of the amateur radio books give around 60% as the velocity   
   > >> >> >>> factor for 'common' types of 50-ohm co-ax.   
   > >> >> >>>   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> V = c/(sqrt(Er))   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> Solid polyethylene has Er around 2.3.   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> Foamed stuff is lower.   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> Polyethylene is awful. It melts when you solder it. Foamed is worse.   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> Your VNA measurement may be suspect.   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >I think it would be difficult to get it wrong when it is so   
   > >> >> >easy to check the calibration with a simple 50 ohm terminator.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> You really should use a proper calibration set: open, short and load   
   > >> >> and maybe a through too if circumstances require it. The quality of   
   > >> >   
   > >> >I did.   
   > >>   
   > >> Can you not do it by TDR? Use some fast switching logic, tee piece to   
   > >> a scope input and a dead short at the far end of the cable.   
   > >   
   > >I could; and some time ago I did try this with some cable from the same   
   > >drum.  The results were similiar, around 78%.   
   >   
   > Are you *sure* it's standard RG58? No suffixes/prefixes?   
      
   RG58    STD    04M   
      
   >Does it   
   > physically  (I mean from visual inspection) conform to the published   
   > specs if you peel back the layers and have a good look? And preferably   
   > a measure-up.   
      
   Seem to be normal RG58.   
      
   --   
   ~ Liz Tuddenham ~   
   (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)   
   www.poppyrecords.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)