Actually, the VNA crowd is finding that BNC is an acceptable series for
precision work. DG5MK's FA-VA5 vector impedance meter has a BNC interface and
cal kits are available:
https://www.sdr-kits.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=66_91_94&product_id=181
There is also available a bracket for the DG8SAQ VNWA that converts the fragile
SMA to BNC. (I've lobbied to a type N version, but that has gone nowhere.)
https://www.sdr-kits.net/index.php?route=web/pages&page_id=86_86
Frankly (no pun intended) I've always been in the BNCs are iffy camp, but DK5MK
and OZ7OU are really sharp guys and are convincing me otherwise.
Wes N7WS
On 7/29/2020 3:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Bill,
Both N and BNC connectors have their own unique issues...
BNC connectors have rather poor shielding performance caused by
imperfect axial alignment and limited engagement pressure, both
of which are easily demonstrated by a VNA, especially above 20 MHz.
Both BNC and N connectors suffer from small center pin size and
weak center pin engagement pressure, both of which affect reliability
and power handling capability.
Don't even consider installing the long obsolete multi-part BNC
and N connectors with loose center pins requiring precise placement
and axial orientation. Very many of these obsolete connectors are improperly
installed by both hams and professionals. Modern BNC and N connectors
with captive center pins are much more reliable and less subject to
installation errors, although for some hams no job is so simple that
it cannot be done wrong.
73
Frank
W3LPL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Frantz" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:05:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Reliable PL-259 UHF connector engagement
As someone who is currently switching bands by going outside and
replugging PL259s, I fully agree that other connectors, e.g. BNC
would be nicer.
I have gotten in the habit of skipping pulling out my LeatherMan
and instead joining the connection to the point where I can feel
the teeth engaging and there is still some slop in the
connection. I then gently work the two connectors together,
trying to move them back and fourth until there is no slop and
the connection is solid. It does seem to work.
73 Bill AE6JV
On 7/29/20 at 2:21 PM, [email protected] (Walter Underwood) wrote:
On Jul 29, 2020, at 9:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Unlike N and BNC connectors, a PL-259 is dependent on proper
engagement of its outer shell and interconnecting teeth to the
mating SO-239 socket.
That is exactly why I consider UHF connectors to be a poor
design. I use connectors which are designed to connect without
special effort.
Seriously, that is the main point of a connector, to connect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz |The nice thing about standards| Periwinkle
(408)348-7900 |is there are so many to choose| 150
Rivermead Rd #235
www.pwpconsult.com |from. - Andrew Tanenbaum |
Peterborough, NH 03458
______________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________
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]
