->  TW> BAD idea. RG-58 is totaly UN-suitable. As I recall he was talking
->  TW> maybe a 50 Foot cable run! Look up the Cable loss you have to live
->  TW> with at those frequencies.

-> What cable is suitable?

-> I thought maybe there was some verion of low loss RG58 like the low-loss
-> RG6 they use for digital television and satellite antennas.

 Not that I recall. But the old brain is a bit fuzzy. I will
make a few Interent searches. 
Incidently RG-58 has a loss of 32.2 Db at 2.4 GHz per 100 Feet.
Factoring the rough rule of thumb of 33% loss for each 3 Db you can see
that very little would come out the other end. Even bringing the cable
run to 25 Feet is still a good hit. 
And before some jumps in and says 10 hits of 33% would be less then
nothing it works this way. In the example of the RG-58 losses you have
the equilivent of 10 33% hits effectively. The first takes a 33% hit
on the signal, The second 33% of what is left, The third 33% of what was
left after the second and so on.
Of course this is a very Untechnical explination, mostly becaue nowdays
I don't bother with the Nity Grity and deal in Generalities. I will
leave it to the Younger Kids to Argue the "Fine Points"  :-)  :-) but
you can get the Idea. 



--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5