Young people do not volunteer. Only what counts on college applications they ste raising a generation of mercenarys
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 4, 2016, at 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send Topband mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award > (James Rodenkirch) > 2. modeling BOGs (or whatever we call them) (Guy Olinger K2AV) > 3. UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Bob K6UJ) > 4. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Greg Zenger) > 5. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Clive GM3POI) > 6. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex ([email protected]) > 7. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Bob K6UJ) > 8. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Clive GM3POI) > 9. 259- 1/2" link (Clive GM3POI) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:08:13 +0000 > From: James Rodenkirch <[email protected]> > To: Kip Edwards <[email protected]>, 'Top Band Contesting' > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award > Message-ID: > > <sn1pr16mb0623d9134830762931e04bbff0...@sn1pr16mb0623.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > By the by: if anyone needs a competent web-site design/manager, my nephew > does that sort of thing - he's worked on other sites I'm involved with and > does excellent worth......71.5/72 de Jim R. K9JWV > > Here's a representative site he runs: https://www.rmspartnership.org/ > > ________________________________________ > From: Kip Edwards <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 7:57 AM > To: 'James Rodenkirch'; 'Top Band Contesting'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award > > Jim, > > The Yasme Foundation website is being completely re-done by the > person who did the NCJ website. Unfortunately our webmaster resigned and it > has taken some time and one false start to find someone capable of doing it > right. In the meantime the website is embarrassing and, as you noted, > woefully out of date. > > My apologies to all--and I'm glad you were able to find the press > release about Tom receiving the Yasme Excellence Award. > > 73 Kip W6SZN > Yasme Foundation Director/Secretary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James > Rodenkirch > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 5:19 AM > To: Top Band Contesting; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award > > Based on some snooping around @ the YASME site, it's obvious no one is > keeping that site up to date - tnx to Mike, W0Btu, for listing the ARRL url > link. > > Also, I didn't intend to diss the other current recipients...Tim Duffy (who > I believe shows up here once in a while with comments) and Carole Perry (I > am not familiar with her efforts)...AND, as I understand from a recent post, > our very own Tree has garnered that recognition.....BZ to all! > > 71.5/72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV > > P.S. Hope to hear and work ya in the summer Stew...and sure HOPE you hear my > peanut whistle QRP signal...hihi ________________________________________ > From: James Rodenkirch > Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 4:07 PM > To: Top Band Contesting; [email protected] > Subject: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award > > No more deserving...good on ya, Tom! I've enjoyed AND miss your technical > and "how to operate" posts. > > Tom Rauch, W8JI: "The Yasme Excellence Award is made in recognition of Tom's > many contributions to the technical advancement of the Amateur Service," the > announcement said. "Tom's willingness to provide education and direction to > amateurs through his website and other communications is a prime example of > hams mentoring, teaching, and training each other in the finest traditions > of Amateur Radio." > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4568/12243 - Release Date: 05/16/16 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:56:46 -0400 > From: Guy Olinger K2AV <[email protected]> > To: Carl Luetzelschwab <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: TopBand List <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: modeling BOGs (or whatever we call them) > Message-ID: > <CANckpc3wi=xuv_uwlvs1_ckadettamsoockcjk6ucpo6syu...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Running way, way, way behind in responses to postings. Getting hopefully > well-thought-out responses the same day or even the same week or month is > apparently not always going to happen. > > Short Version: Thank you Rudy. And there is more work to be done. > > Long Version: > > Please do not consider this to be dismissive of Rudy's work in any sense. > That's not at all what I intend. His (and our) proposition that an inert > BOG just laying there can be grown into the ground over time, and thereby > harshly deteriorate performance, is absolutely confirmed in our collection > of anecdota. > > For long term performance, it is necessary to fix (make permanent) a BOG's > *electrical* relationship to ground by some mechanical design or process. > Lacking that, regular effective maintenance/adjustment must be kept up in > all but very arid environments. The deterioration in BOG performance is > without sudden drops like someone cut a wire. So it's very sneaky, and in > many cases sneaks toward extremes to the point of losing 10-15 dB and even > reversing pattern. > > The QST article is rather severely edited for space. The full version will > apparently be in July QEX. For those who do not subscribe to QEX, or don't > want to wait, the full version can be found directly at > http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST%20Binaries/June2016/QST-in-Depth-0616-Serverns.pdf > > NOTE: My comments refer to the FULL Severns article and set of graphs found > at the arrl.org URL above, and presume the reader is looking at the full > article, not QST. > > I will remain differing with Rudy on whether NEC is accurate. I personally > think that has to do with how we separately define "accurate". I would say > that NEC with regard to ground and MF antennas invoking ground is > *approximate*, and only to a point carries a correct graphical "shape" of > expected results in presentations. > > That does not mean I am at odds with Rudy's measurements. I will trust his > measurements long after I give up on NEC. Just looking at his graphs, I see > those as evidence that NEC is *not* accurate in the sense that *I* use the > word "accurate". > > Brown, Lewis and Epstein, and Rudy, make current measurements along the > line that show some degree of wavelength related wiggle. NEC4.x shows no > wiggle. If NEC were calculating with all the variables at play, NEC would > show the wiggle even if located differently or with different amplitude or > distance between nodes. That makes the NEC curve only approximate, however > useful that approximation may or may not be. Without knowing WHY the wiggle > is absent in NEC curves, it's hard to make a case to the authors to fix > that. > > Some of the divergences between NEC 4.2 and his measurements portrayed in > Rudy's graphs would render an antenna diminished if NEC was followed > blindly. I have learned the hard way not to follow NEC-based programs > blindly and have the scars to prove it. I believe Rudy's measurements. To > my eye NEC cannot reproduce Rudy's measurements. > > Further, Rudy is measuring at a single location, which is NOT a criticism. > I give all due respect for the time and effort testing there. A project > like this can be full of mechanical-blowing-up-the-electrical-results > issues needing to be avoided. Realizing an issue at some point well into > the procedure can force one to redo everything all the way back from the > start. Having the experiment in one's own back yard, with zero travel time > to the experiment, under one's own self-permission is a huge advantage to > reforming/restarting/finally completing the experiment. > > Or sadly, as seen in other cases, running into "issues" having exhausted > resources and time, one has to give up on the project. > > To further carry this exercise to the level needed to publish is even more > work. But it IS a single location, and we have to remember that. We must > excuse location centric for cause because picking sites and repeating the > testing in a dozen places all around the USA would create a huge, > time-consuming and expensive undertaking. Even then the case can be made > that not everything happens in the USA. Then how expensive does it get? > > Our testing (I call them the Rowdy Raleigh Radio Researchers out of > earshot) only in the 12 county area around Raleigh/Durham North Carolina > showed huge variations in the primary electrical length of a 151' (46m) > dipole laid on the ground. The often referenced FCC ground conductance maps > calls us all 2 milliSiemens. However... > > The velocity factor of that Dipole On Ground (DOG) varied from 0.45 to 0.8 > across all sites and placements. That's +/- 22% (twenty-two percent not two > point two). Consider what would happen to a Yagi if the manufactured > element dimensions could only be guaranteed to lengths +/- 22 %. An > intended 15 meter yagi +/- 22% could actually be on 17 or 12 meters. Or if > all yagi elements did not have their errors vary in unison, could render > the antenna completely dysfunctional. Enter into the world of "wonderful" > to "d*mned waste of time" customer performance reviews. Sound familiar? > > This measured variation in eastern North Carolina VF was not a gradually > changing figure with area changes in geography. Reorienting the compass > bearing of the DOG around its center in the same back yard, or placing the > DOG at another part of the same back yard, or just linearly sliding the DOG > up it's line for 50 feet could generate large variation in VF. This even > without buried pipes, wires, or septic fields in the yard. What effect that > may have had on Rudy's graphs if measured by his procedures in a dozen > locales scattered around the US is anyone's guess. It certainly would have > been varied. Varied quite enough to take a SINGLE instance "good" layout > for a 160 BOG in a specified location (like Rudy's back yard) thrown down > anywhere else and produce results varying from "works wonderful" to > "doesn't work worth a d*mn". > > What do you do to take the BOG construction and have it respond to a normal > "wild variation" in VF of specific chosen spots of ground to lay out a > BOG? Is it to measure the ground characteristics? Rudy hints that NEC 4 is > accurate if the ground characteristics are accurate. There is a long and > difficult discussion that could be had to show that even the FCC does not > believe this in their administrata for commercial LF/MF AM broadcast > stations, and they have a we-will-not-get-on-your-case cobble to get around > it. But Rudy does get approximate correlation in his back yard. And I trust > his measurements. > > But even if we let that stand without challenge to whether it works > everywhere, there is another problem. Rudy's methods are full-on lab and > academic quality. And he has the equipment, software and expertise to do > it. Certainly not a criticism in *any* sense, Rudy attacks the problem with > 1) a sophisticated knowledge base from an enviable employment experience, > and 2) a practiced experimenter's hand using 3) expensive equipment and 4) > expensive software, and 5) with a gift or two for excellence in technical > writing and publication skills. > > Then there is Joe Average Ham, hereafter called Joe A H. > > While Rudy's methods are full on lab and academic with adequate equipment > for those methods, Joe A H lacks the means to use *those* methods to do a > BOG on his own property. We need to arrive at something workable for Joe A > H with stuff *commonly available* to Joe A H. > > Rudy's stuff and outstanding background makes him rare among the army of > Joe A H. > > Rudy is using export controlled NEC 4.2. NEC 4.x is the only software from > the NEC family that can deal with buried conductors. One must pay a fee for > a license from a government agency to use Unix NEC on a Unix platform. If > you are not a naturally Unix person, then the high end professional EZNEC > Pro4 has a NEC 4.2 build that runs inside the EZNEC shell for Windows, > That's yet more $$ for the EZNEC Pro4 license, which is enabled by a key > that goes in a USB jack on your PC. You will not find any midnight copies > of Roy Lewallen's (W7EL) high end pro stuff on a Russian web site. (Read > around sometime about how hamdom screwed K6STI and shut him and his > excellent programs down.) > > In addition to NEC 4.2, Rudy is using a VNA, and equipment sufficient for > accurate ground conductivity measurements. All his stuff and programs > together cost more than a high end state of the art HF transceiver. > > Many Joe A H cannot find that kind of money in their budget for anything > other than necessities, if even that. And if they did have transceiver > level money, they would spend it on the transceiver, not the test equipment > and software. So who will be providing the instructions that allows Joe A > H, with typical Joe A H equipment, to hit the nail on the head with a BOG, > and maintain it? > > I *personally* have found these expensive investments to be very > worthwhile, even if just for hobby and entertainment value since I find > this stuff extremely fun and interesting. But that's just me, and some > folks look at me just a bit askance... > > I have had it unkindly hammered home to me that merely modest means > precludes the availability of Rudy-worthy equippage for practical Joe A H > construction of a BOG. Or for that matter, that even having time to do it > up to Rudy-grade standards just isn't going to happen. Again this is *not* > a criticism or dismissal of Rudy's article. > > This is as well a hard-as-nails lesson regarding FCP kinds of things for > Joe A H. We need to write for Joe A H, design for Joe A H, and learn how to > do it with tools that can realistically belong to Joe A H. > > To maintain a BOG that is working, Rudy's conclusions from his experiments > in the article and a large pile of anecdotal trial and error known to me, > some posted here, show that one cannot allow the wire to change its > effective height with respect to ground by allowing natural processes like > accumulating rotting leaves, etc, to gradually bury the wire, or bury it > deeper. Getting the BOG working well in the first place is a separate > story. > > For MF ground-low-velocity-factor antennas, NEC requires a single > monolithic uniform ground medium. Real underfoot ground is most often > anything but uniform. NEC using "high accuracy ground" frequently > underestimates ground loss and can miss VF by a mile. The reasons for this > are not yet clear. And we got no Daddy Warbucks interested in the problem > to pay for the likes of the RCA funded Brown Lewis & Epstein study by > people PAID to keep at it and do it right with equipment and support > provided by their employer. > > Thank you, Rudy. > > And there is more work to be done. > > 73, Guy K2AV. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:26:06 -0700 > From: Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > > I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex cable > I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. I like the > EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male (PL-259) > > I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I > would > prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one (below) its > not an Andrew > EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. Know of other options ? > > http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html > > Bob > K6UJ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:52:40 -0400 > From: Greg Zenger <[email protected]> > To: Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> > Cc: topband <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > Message-ID: > <cae8nip1uw70c3kpdjayrhvpgh3zmjnjg3o4-j46_f+c4sfa...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Bob, > Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new. > > I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it > will work just fine with your cable. > > Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to > install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years. > > Greg, N2GZ > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex cable >> I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. I like the >> EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male (PL-259) >> >> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I >> would >> prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one (below) its not >> an Andrew >> EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. Know of other options ? >> >> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html >> >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:15:11 -0000 > From: "Clive GM3POI" <[email protected]> > To: "'Greg Zenger'" <[email protected]>, "'Bob K6UJ'" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "'topband'" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50 > for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product. > Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive > GM3POI > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg > Zenger > Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53 > To: Bob K6UJ > Cc: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > > Bob, > Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new. > > I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it > will work just fine with your cable. > > Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to > install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years. > > Greg, N2GZ > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex >> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. >> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male >> (PL-259) >> >> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I >> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one >> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. >> Know of other options ? >> >> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html >> >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:20:06 -0400 (EDT) > From: [email protected] > To: topband <[email protected]> > Cc: Greg Zenger <[email protected]>, Bob K6UJ <[email protected]>, > Clive GM3POI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Clive GM3POI" <[email protected]> > To: "Greg Zenger" <[email protected]>, "Bob K6UJ" <[email protected]> > Cc: "topband" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > > Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50 > for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product. > Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive > GM3POI > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg > Zenger > Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53 > To: Bob K6UJ > Cc: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > > Bob, > Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new. > > I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it > will work just fine with your cable. > > Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to > install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years. > > Greg, N2GZ > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex >> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. >> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male >> (PL-259) >> >> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I >> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one >> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. >> Know of other options ? >> >> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html >> >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:40:03 -0700 > From: Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> > To: topband <[email protected]> > Cc: Clive GM3POI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Thanks everyone for info on a source for the UHF connectors. > This is a great forum, help is here, all you gotta do is ask ! :-) > > Bob > K6UJ > > > > >> On 6/3/16 8:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *"Clive GM3POI" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"Greg Zenger" <[email protected]>, "Bob K6UJ" <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *"topband" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM >> *Subject: *Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex >> >> Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to >> LDF4-50 >> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product. >> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive >> GM3POI >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg >> Zenger >> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53 >> To: Bob K6UJ >> Cc: topband >> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex >> >> Bob, >> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new. >> >> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it >> will work just fine with your cable. >> >> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to >> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years. >> >> Greg, N2GZ >> >> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex >>> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. >>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male >>> (PL-259) >>> >>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I >>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one >>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. >>> Know of other options ? >>> >>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html >>> >>> Bob >>> K6UJ >>> >>> _________________ >>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:49:38 -0000 > From: "Clive GM3POI" <[email protected]> > To: "'Bob K6UJ'" <[email protected]>, "'topband'" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "'Clive GM3POI'" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This is the link I used > http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649 > <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT> > &ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT > > > > 73 Clive GM3POI > > > > From: Bob K6UJ [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 04 June 2016 04:40 > To: topband > Cc: Clive GM3POI > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > > > > Thanks everyone for info on a source for the UHF connectors. > This is a great forum, help is here, all you gotta do is ask ! :-) > > Bob > K6UJ > > > > > > On 6/3/16 8:20 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh > > _____ > > From: "Clive GM3POI" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > To: "Greg Zenger" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>, "Bob > K6UJ" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Cc: "topband" <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > > Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50 > for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product. > Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive > GM3POI > > -----Original Message----- > From: Topband [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg > Zenger > Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53 > To: Bob K6UJ > Cc: topband > Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex > > Bob, > Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new. > > I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it > will work just fine with your cable. > > Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to > install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years. > > Greg, N2GZ > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <mailto:[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex >> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. >> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male >> (PL-259) >> >> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I >> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one >> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. >> Know of other options ? >> >> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html >> >> Bob >> K6UJ >> >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:51:33 -0000 > From: "Clive GM3POI" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Topband: 259- 1/2" link > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > This is the link I used > http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649 > <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageN > ame=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT> &ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT > > > > 73 Clive GM3POI > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Topband mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Topband Digest, Vol 162, Issue 4 > *************************************** _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
