Glenn Little WB4UIV wrote:
>The PL-259 is not a connector anyone that is serious about communications
>would use. The connector is not waterproof, it is not constant impedance,
>it is just a very poor choice for a connector.
>
I have to disagree about the part of anyone serious about communications
shouldn't use a SO-239/PL-259. While the "PL" connector isn't constant
impedance, it's still a good connector. I have actually seen more
problems in the field with poorly/improperly installed "N" connectors
then I have because of a failure of a UHF connector. There are
instances where the use of a UHF connector actually provides benefit.
In talking to Kit Parsons from Wacom fame, he stated the isolation from
a WP-641 using UHF connectors was greater than one using "N". I have
also tried to change out the UHF connectors on a T-1504 Motorola
duplexer and had found the same thing. The impedance bump must have
been providing some situation that made it work better at the notch.
Motorola used UHF connectors on radio sets to 800 MHz. The bottom line
is if any connector is installed properly and used accordingly, it'll be
just fine. What I don't want to see is folks going out and cutting off
all of their UHF connectors and replace them with something else. That
is just plain stupid. If the UHF connector was really that bad, it
would have disappeared long ago.
Kevin Custer
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
