As I remember, the bnc and n actually plug together. What then is the benefit of n? Water resistance?
Chuck Jack KE9UW Sent from my iPhone, cjack > On Sep 19, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Dave B via Elecraft <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Jim. > > Mostly, N connectors, BNC's, TNC's, SC and 7-16's. And for the big > stuff, EIA flange connectors. Plus some other weird stuff. (3 lug > BNC's and such, to prevent the "wrong connection".) The odd > appearance of the C connector on some US kit too. Some "Spinner" 'BN' > series connectors to, also often seen in the European Broadcast industry > and some military. > > A lot of US equipment also still use the various unique to the US > connectors, often seen on big Bird loads etc. Not so common over hear. > > That based on what I've seen on kit "being tested" at customers sites > over the last 28 years. > > The only UHF series connector commercially used, that I've personally > seen in that time frame is on a very old design of screened room weld > crack detector, and it's a nightmare to use as it's always working loose. > > To Charlie. > > The threads have no part to play in the RF path on a UHF connector, it's > all down to the two outer mating faces being pressed together. The > older (so called) MIL spec types, that had all the castelations at that > point were *MUCH* better because of it, as they sort of interlocked and > made a much better contact due to the metal to metal force > multiplication that results.. They also tended not to rotate relative > to each other so the retaining ring stayed tight. Basic mechanical > design feature, missing on the modern versions, where the two parts can > rotate, even when the ring is (allegedly) tight. > > The modern stuff with the 4 slots on the socket, and two bumps on the > plug, are just utter crap. (Built down to a cost.) > > I'm amazed that no maker has innovated gone back to the original design, > and fitted a crinkle spring washer behind the locking ring, so that > contact pressure can be maintained, and also helping to keep the threads > from working loose when subject to vibration... > > But even then, they'd still only be of any practical use below 100MHz > due to the impedance mismatch issue. (Originally for use below 30MHz.) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_connector > > Stick with BNC's, N's and if you have too, 7-16's. They are all easy to > fit to cable with practice, no special tools needed unless you insist on > the crimp types, and then you *MUST* have the correct tooling for that > particular make of connector. > > The pressure gland fitting types, are also easy to remove, clean up and > re-fit if a cable becomes damaged. > > All it takes is some practice. Buy some surplus ex-military patch > leads, and practice removing and refitting them. After a few of each it > becomes very easy. > > 73. > > Dave G0WBX. > > >> On 19/09/18 12:15, Jim Miller wrote: >> Hi Dave >> >> What does NATO use in place of pl259? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Jim ab3cv >> >> On Sep 19, 2018, at 4:16 AM, Dave B via Elecraft <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Wunder, I'll second you on that! >> >> Of all the 1000's of RF connectors I've assembled and used over the >> years for my own hobby and at work. The venerable "UHF" series have >> always proved to be the nastiest most unreliable types ever. Period. >> >> All my own personal radio kit, either get's them replaced (Sadly, not >> always an easy job) with a N or BNC (in one case, a TNC.) Or a BNC (or >> N) adapter is securely fitted as a permanent fixture (including LocTite >> on the threads, in mobile/portable situations!) >> >> I also use BNC's at HF, as we do at work. They can happily carry well >> over 150W at up to 220MHz even in the presence of some very bad VSWR's >> (6:1 or higher.) Assemble them correctly and look after them >> physically, and they will last a lifetime. >> >> The UHF series are just plain unreliable. It is no surprise that the >> military (NATO) don't use them any more. >> >> 73. >> >> Dave G0WBX (also G8KBV) >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> On 18/09/18 19:45, [email protected] wrote: >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:45:10 -0700 >>> From: Walter Underwood <[email protected]> >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] loss of RX sensitivity >>> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> >>> The next time someone challenges me on why I only use BNC and Type N >>> connectors, I?m going to send them this entire discussion. >>> >>> wunder >>> K6WRU >>> Walter Underwood >>> CM87wj >>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > > -- > Created on and sent from a Unix like PC running and using free and open > source software. > :: > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > Message delivered to [email protected] ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [email protected]
