How to Balance Mechanical and Electrical Performance in Ultra-Fine Coaxial Cables

As electronic devices continue to move toward miniaturization and higher levels of integration, ultra-fine coaxial cables are widely used in applications such as UAV imaging systems, medical imaging equipment, industrial cameras, and precision sensors. In these applications, cables are not only required to transmit high-frequency signals, but also to adapt to limited space, complex routing paths, and a certain degree of dynamic bending.

As a result, the trade-off between mechanical performance and electrical performance has become an unavoidable core issue in the design and selection of ultra-fine coaxial cables.

1. Why Do Ultra-Fine Coaxial Cables Have Higher Mechanical Requirements?

Compared with conventional coaxial cables, ultra-fine coaxial cables are typically used in much more demanding environments. On one hand, the internal space of the equipment is highly constrained, requiring cables to be routed within extremely limited areas. On the other hand, in applications such as gimbals, probes, or moving structures, the cables are often subjected to repeated, small-amplitude bending and torsional movements.

In such applications, mechanical performance is no longer simply about whether a cable is easy to bend. Instead, it is directly reflected in whether the cable can be assembled smoothly during production, whether conductor breakage occurs during long-term use, and whether electrical performance remains stable under continuous motion.

Therefore, flexibility, bending life, and structural stability are usually the first performance indicators considered when evaluating ultra-fine coaxial cables.

2. How Does Improving Mechanical Performance Affect Electrical Performance?

From an engineering perspective, improving mechanical performance often requires adjustments in materials or structure, and these changes frequently have a direct impact on electrical performance.

When flexibility is prioritized, the following design approaches are commonly adopted:

1) Reducing the conductor gauge

2) Lowering shielding density or using finer shielding wires

3) Reducing insulation thickness

However, these measures can lead to a decline in electrical performance.

As the conductor cross-section decreases, DC resistance increases accordingly. Under high-frequency conditions, skin effect becomes more pronounced, further amplifying signal loss.

Reducing shielding density or using finer shielding wires can improve overall flexibility, but may weaken electromagnetic shielding effectiveness, resulting in reduced immunity to interference—especially in complex electromagnetic environments.

Finally, thinner insulation makes impedance control more sensitive, placing higher demands on geometric consistency and dimensional accuracy.

When bending durability is prioritized, alloy conductors may be used to increase yield strength, and the outer diameters of insulation and jacket are often minimized as much as possible.

3. What Happens to Structural Design When Electrical Performance Is Prioritized?

When an application places higher demands on signal quality—such as high-resolution image transmission or high-speed data links—the design focus typically shifts toward electrical performance.

In these cases, engineering design tends to favor the use of conductors with higher conductivity, increased shielding coverage to stabilize electromagnetic field distribution, and stricter control of geometric structure to ensure impedance consistency.

These measures help reduce high-frequency loss and improve signal integrity, but they also make the cable overall stiffer, reducing its mechanical adaptability. As a result, such designs are more suitable for relatively static or controlled-motion applications.

4. Engineering Logic Behind the Trade-Off

In practical engineering applications, there is no ideal solution that simultaneously maximizes both mechanical and electrical performance for ultra-fine coaxial cables. A more realistic approach is to define priorities based on actual operating conditions.

In dynamic and space-constrained applications, mechanical reliability often takes precedence over extreme electrical specifications. In high-frequency, high-resolution, or high-speed data applications, electrical performance becomes the primary concern. In most real-world projects, the engineering goal is to find a stable, manufacturable balance between the two.

This is also why ultra-fine coaxial cables with seemingly similar specifications can exhibit significantly different performance in different projects.

Conclusion

For ultra-fine coaxial cables, mechanical and electrical performance are not independent parameters, but a set of interrelated engineering factors that must be optimized together. Truly reliable solutions are built on a clear understanding of application requirements, combined with careful control over material selection, structural design, and manufacturing processes.

Hotten has long focused on the development and manufacturing of ultra-fine coaxial and high-frequency cables, covering a wide range of fine gauges from 36 to 52 AWG. Through accumulated experience in material selection, structural design, production stability, and consistency management, Hotten is able to balance mechanical reliability and electrical performance at a system level, providing cable solutions that are closely aligned with real engineering needs.

As high-frequency and miniaturized applications continue to evolve, only cable designs that simultaneously address assemblability, long-term stability, and signal integrity can truly support the transition from prototype development to reliable mass production. This is the direction in which Hotten continues to refine its ultra-fine coaxial cable technologies.