Author Topic: Why does Huber+Suhner report their RG400 cable as having max frequency of 6GHz?  (Read 4402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matthuszaghTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 402
  • Country: us
Huber+Suhner reports the max frequency of their RG-400 cable as 6 GHz (https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/829/HUBER_2bSUHNER_RG_400_U_DataSheet-1489640.pdf). The typical max frequency given for RG-400 cable is 12.4 GHz. I also compared the construction with Pasternack's RG-400 (https://www.pasternack.com/images/ProductPDF/RG400-U.pdf) and it appears to be identical. Any idea why HS would report such a low max frequency? Are they simply being conservative?

Clearly, no one is using the cutoff frequency, which is 33.6 GHz for RG-400.
 

Offline Neomys Sapiens

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3268
  • Country: de
That H&S, being among the industries' leaders, is applying conservative measures is certainly one half of the explanation. Looking at their connector specs does support this.
Another possible explanation would be that they would like to sell you a Sucoflex variant instead.
 >:D
 

Offline Gerhard_dk4xp

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 353
  • Country: de
Yes, and RG-XYZ is not a standard. It has been withdrawn > maybe 30 years ago .
 

Offline Neomys Sapiens

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3268
  • Country: de
Yes, and RG-XYZ is not a standard. It has been withdrawn > maybe 30 years ago .
And yet, when you open the applicable MIL-C-17 typesheet (MIL-DTL-17/128C in this case, which is active), the designator appears again.
 :-//
 

Offline Neomys Sapiens

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3268
  • Country: de
BTW, while 6 GHz is a bit low, I would not consider it beyond 8 GHz.
 

Offline jonpaul

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3656
  • Country: fr
  • Analog, magnetics, Power, HV, Audio, Cinema
    • IEEE Spectrum
An Internet Dinosaur...
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10034
  • Country: gb
Huber+Suhner reports the max frequency of their RG-400 cable as 6 GHz (https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/829/HUBER_2bSUHNER_RG_400_U_DataSheet-1489640.pdf). The typical max frequency given for RG-400 cable is 12.4 GHz. I also compared the construction with Pasternack's RG-400 (https://www.pasternack.com/images/ProductPDF/RG400-U.pdf) and it appears to be identical. Any idea why HS would report such a low max frequency? Are they simply being conservative?

Clearly, no one is using the cutoff frequency, which is 33.6 GHz for RG-400.
The Huber+Suhner data sheet shows a frequency related loss of 1.51dB at 6GHz. The Pasternack just vaguely says the maximum operating frequency is 12.4GHz. My guess would be that means its 3dB or 6dB point. These two things look quite compatible.
 
The following users thanked this post: matthuszagh

Offline matthuszaghTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 402
  • Country: us
BTW, while 6 GHz is a bit low, I would not consider it beyond 8 GHz.

Why's that? Shielding effectiveness? Something else?
 

Offline Neomys Sapiens

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3268
  • Country: de
BTW, while 6 GHz is a bit low, I would not consider it beyond 8 GHz.

Why's that? Shielding effectiveness? Something else?
1.) see above post. I personally would not refer to a 3dB point as being 'within the usable BW' when I could get better.
2.) shielding indeed.
3.) At those frequencies, most signals occupy significant bandwith. Too much dispersion.
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13157
  • Country: ch
And here is what the aforementioned military spec says: https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=1019

(Pro tip: that is the official US government website for military standards. No need to pay for them on other websites.)
 
The following users thanked this post: matthuszagh

Offline matthuszaghTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 402
  • Country: us
BTW, while 6 GHz is a bit low, I would not consider it beyond 8 GHz.

Why's that? Shielding effectiveness? Something else?
1.) see above post. I personally would not refer to a 3dB point as being 'within the usable BW' when I could get better.
2.) shielding indeed.
3.) At those frequencies, most signals occupy significant bandwith. Too much dispersion.

Do you actually mean dispersion? The variation of permittivity of PTFE as a function of frequency (and therefore phase velocity) at 8 GHz is very small. Are you instead referring to attenuation as a function of frequency? If that's the case, do you stick to lower loss dielectrics like polyethylene foam at 8 GHz?
 

Offline Neomys Sapiens

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3268
  • Country: de
BTW, while 6 GHz is a bit low, I would not consider it beyond 8 GHz.

Why's that? Shielding effectiveness? Something else?
1.) see above post. I personally would not refer to a 3dB point as being 'within the usable BW' when I could get better.
2.) shielding indeed.
3.) At those frequencies, most signals occupy significant bandwith. Too much dispersion.

Do you actually mean dispersion? The variation of permittivity of PTFE as a function of frequency (and therefore phase velocity) at 8 GHz is very small. Are you instead referring to attenuation as a function of frequency? If that's the case, do you stick to lower loss dielectrics like polyethylene foam at 8 GHz?
To say it more precisely, I was thinking about group delay variation. But you seem to be right here. Regarding the polyethylene foam dielectrics: they help, but they do not make the complete cable automatically better. I have to admit that I'm working in areas spared from the usual monetary pressure. So I get the best cable that fits the budget and has (optimally) lots of margin in every parameter. This has carried over into my own lab. When you have ever handled (for example) the heavy duty Sucoflex variant with a PU mantle, which flexes and bends almost like an oversize test lead, it is hard to go back.
 ::)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf