You Won’t Believe How Light Weight and Efficient This Coax Is (!)

Ah yes... another day in the mystical realm of YouTube RF science — where math bends and coax losses transcend the laws of physics. Our hero compares three cables: RG-174, RG-316, and Airborne 5 — all different lengths, of course — then draws sweeping conclusions about efficiency.

The “Comparison” Setup

• RG-174 = 35 ft
• RG-316 = 25 ft
• Airborne 5 = 30 ft

And off he goes measuring total loss. Because, obviously, attenuation is not per meter — it’s per mood swing. 🙃

Physics Calls — It Wants Its Linear Function Back

Coax loss is linear with length. That’s it. Multiply dB/m by distance, and voilà — no surprises, no revelations. At 30 MHz the total loss spread between all three is under 0.8 dB. That’s below atmospheric noise on HF. In receive? You won’t hear it. In transmit? You’ll “lose” maybe 17 W out of 100. That’s the heat from your coffee mug, not your finals melting.

But Wait, There’s Marketing!

“The Airborne 5 crushed it!” — sure, it’s thicker, lower-loss, and mechanically solid. We love it for QRO durability. But calling that 0.8 dB difference “night and day” is like polishing your N-connector and claiming 3 S-units more signal. 🫠

Meanwhile, in the Real World...

At 10 m or 20 m, the background noise alone swamps any loss under 1 dB. You can swap all three and your receiver’s S-meter won’t even twitch. Use Airborne 5 because it’s tough, UV-resistant, and nice to work with — not because it performs RF miracles.

Closing Thoughts

Once again, YouTube proves that confidence ≫ calibration. Next time: same length — and maybe, just maybe, a touch of math.

Disclaimer: this roast is for educational entertainment. No decibels were harmed, though a few were misinterpreted.

Questions or experiences to share? Feel free to contact RF.Guru.

Interested in more satirical content like this? Subscribe to our notification list — we only send updates when new roasts or technical pieces go live:
https://listmonk.rf.guru/subscription/form