Hi Scott, It's true there is a lot of pressure on our kids today to build a resume for college but your statement is FAR too broad. I have seen lots of kids volunteer in many capacities having nothing to do with their college resume.
73, Bob AA6VB Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 4, 2016, at 9:57 AM, scott meister <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
