Absolutely. Remember, when the "UHF" connector was developed in the late 1930s, anything above 30 MHz was "UHF"!!
Millions of "UHF" connectors could be bought for a penny in WWII surplus stores all over the USA in the late 1940's and 50's along with very cheap "surplus" RG-8 coax. Hams facing serious issues with interference with the rapidly growing numbers of TV viewers turned to coax and the "UHF" connectors as a way of keeping RF away from the TV sets. Early TV sets had virtually no ability to withstand overload from a nearby receiver. They were designed with the assumption that there would be no transmitter of any sort within miles of the set. So two standards came about in the 1950's and '60's: the SO- series "UHF" connectors and RG-8 size coax for transmission line. 73, Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- I can think of one other reason why UHF has hung around so long. It is cheap, easy to find, and mates nicely with the oh so common RG-8 sized cable that is generally used in HF shacks. N would probably be a better choice but is more expensive and fussier to install. BNC connectors for RG-8 do exist but are not cheap. A stiff chunk of RG-8/LMR400 can put quite a strain on a BNC connector if not routed and supported properly. David K0LUM On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Craig Smith wrote: > Even at 100 W, BNC is clearly the best choice. The first thing I did when I got my K3 was to get rid of the UHF connectors and put in proper BNCs. > > 73 Craig AC0DS > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
