[Jeff Liebermann[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:35:41 EDT, (Bill
Horne W1AC) wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 17:25:15 EDT, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 18:24:05 EDT, DrTeeth wrote:

Is it worth paying a high price for sa supposed quality plg or can
equally used the much cheaper ones?

Ummm... a Flexradio 6300 retails for $2500 and you're trying to be
cheap on coax connectors? That's 0.1% of the retail price for a
silver plated and PTFE connector.

According to Edmunds, a Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG has an MSRP of over
$200,000.00. Does that mean that everyone who buys one should always
use the most expensive brand-name fuel available?

The CL65 AMG probably is designed to on premium high performance
gasoline. Running it on low octane fuel is probably a bad idea.
Somehow, I don't think the owner of a $200,000 vehicle is going to
risk running it on low octane fuel.

You're making the assumption that since I recommended to not use the
cheapest connector, I must obviously be recommending the most
expensive connector available. That's not the case. I provided a
list of possible problems with low quality connectors. I've
personally experienced all the problems listed in commercial
installations and designs. If one doesn't care about any of the
listed problems, then they can probably do well using low end
connectors. If the problems itemized are deemed to be important, then
there are better connectors available. The OP may not need the
absolute best. For example, a silver plated, PTFE insulated PL-259 is
probably sufficient. No need for expensive low-PIM white bronze
plating material:
http://www.amphenolconnex.com/landing/low-pim-adapters


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Jeff Liebermann[_2_]]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:35:27 EDT, DrTeeth wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 17:25:15 EDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Jeff Liebermann disturbed my reverie and wrote:

Ummm... a Flexradio 6300 retails for $2500 and you're trying to be
cheap on coax connectors?

No I was not. I was just asking if it is worth spending more.

I believe that I supplied that information in the technical part of my
posting which you trimmed. If none of the problems I mentioned are
applicable to your situation, then you are probably safe using low end
connectors. However, if one or more appear to be applicable, you
might do well to buy something better. It's YOUR decision.

I am
very happy to pay for quality but not prepared to throw my money away.

On the other hand, I'm fully prepared to spend quite a bit of money on
connectors and coax if I suspect that using junk might be problematic.
For the PL259, the problem is not the connector or the coax. The
problem is the person that assembles the connector. I've seen some
very bad assembly and soldering on PL259. The more expensive crimp
connectors are much better.

Got some very nice RG213 coax too - even though the run will be less
than 10 meters.

RG-213/u is good stuff. Double shielded and 95% coverage. However,
I've seen some RG-213 "style" coax, which is basically junk
counterfeit coax. If it's not from a known name brand manufactory, it
might become a problem.

Just because something is more expensive does not necessarily mean
that it is better. Many things do not sell if priced cheap and fly off
the shelf when over-priced.

Yep. A friend had trouble selling his house. He kept lowering the
price, but nothing helped. The realtor suggested that he raise the
price instead. That worked because it brought in a new class of
buyer, that wasn't interested in buying a cheap house. I assumed that
anyone purchasing a $2500 radio would be a better class of buyer. I
guess not.

I do not mind paying for quality at all. In fact, I have bought some
very expensive high-quality compression PL259s that cost approx $9
each.

I can't tell without a manufacturer and model number for the
connectors if they are worth $9/ea.

Incidentally, I recently bought some 7/8" Heliax "N" connectors for
about $25/ea. It was for 900 Mhz, so the criteria is quite different
from HF. In this case, it was low PIM and reliable enough so that I
don't have to pay an overpriced tower climber to fix the installation.
Perhaps you can compromise with your installation. Use a cheap
connector on the ground, where it can easily be replaced, and use a
more expensive connector on top of the tower or pole, where
replacement and repair are more of a problem.

Incidentally, various cheap crimpers that work well:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Misc/slides/crimpers.html
About $25/ea. The largest size (yellow handles) is for LMR-400.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Steve Bonine]

On 8/25/14, 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

RG-213/u is good stuff. Double shielded and 95% coverage. However,
I've seen some RG-213 "style" coax, which is basically junk
counterfeit coax. If it's not from a known name brand manufactory, it
might become a problem.

I expect that this is a story most of you have heard in one form or
another and/or experienced.

A local ham was having trouble hitting the repeater using his handheld
at home, so he decided to put a whip up on his tower. He did so, and
discovered that he couldn't hit the repeater at all with the new
improved antenna.

The problem was that he bought poor quality coax. Note that I did not
write "cheap coax". Based on the type designation he shouldn't have had
much loss in the run. The designation makes little difference if the
manufacturer and/or vendor is providing shoddy merchandise that doesn't
really meet the standards implied by the designation of the coax.

So perhaps more important than the price is the source.

73, Steve KB9X

[Jeff Liebermann[_2_]]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:43:15 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:

On 8/25/14, 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

RG-213/u is good stuff. Double shielded and 95% coverage. However,
I've seen some RG-213 "style" coax, which is basically junk
counterfeit coax. If it's not from a known name brand manufactory, it
might become a problem.

I expect that this is a story most of you have heard in one form or
another and/or experienced.

Yep. I've seen plenty of counterfeit cables of all types. Usually
the cable leaves out something, such as insufficient shielding, or
lack of tin or silver plating. Sometimes they substitute copper
plated steel wire for solid copper. Others have outer jackets that
fall apart in the sun, or are full of holes.

It's an all too common problem:
http://www.belden.com/blog/datacenters/5-Things-You-Need-to-Know-About-Counterfeit-Cable-and-Connectivity.cfm
http://mpddigital.us/lmr-coaxial-cable-counterfeiting-rises/

In about 2011, UL instituted and anti-counterfeiting move that
required anything with a UL label to include a holographic label on
the box, and very specific labeling on the cable:
http://www.cablinginstall.com/articles/2011/02/counterfeit-cable-exposed.html
At the time, I went through my bulk cable inventory and discovered
that about 25% of the cable I had in stock was counterfeit, mostly
CAT5e and CAT6 cable.

I haven't seen any counterfeit RG-213/u but did run into a
malfunctional UHF duplexer that used RG-214/u. The previous owner had
built and installed new phasing lines in order to move it onto ham
frequencies. It would tune to frequency, but the isolation (i.e.
notch depth) was insufficient. I eventually took apart one of the
phasing lines and immediately noticed that the shielding was not
plated. RG-214/u is suppose to be silver plated. Although this was
well past the return date for an eBay purchase, I contacted the
seller, who was sufficiently horrified to send me a replacement set of
cables. That fixed the tuning problem.

So perhaps more important than the price is the source.

Generally true. However, I suspect that some vendors are unaware that
they're selling counterfeit products.

Caveat Emptor.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Barry OGrady[_3_]]

Some can work at 2Thz. I have a HENE gas laser that connects to the
handpiece via a PL-259.

--
Fool me once, shame, shame on you.
Fool me twice, fool me, won't get fooled again.

[Channel Jumper]

Originally Posted by DrTeeth

Is it worth paying a high price for sa supposed quality plg or can
equally used the much cheaper ones?

Been QRT for over 25 years and should be on the air in a few weeks
with a FlexRadio 6300

TIA

Guy G4DWV/4X1LT

You have been QRT for 25 years and then you go out and buy a junk radio and ask if the quality of the PL connector makes a difference.
It sounds once again, like someone that wants to come back to amateur radio that thinks that they can set the world on fire - if they buy the radio with the most technology or the biggest amplifier.

The cheap PL's with the nylon in the center are made for CB radio - a couple of watts - maybe 100 max. and are a one time use connector.

The good ones - Amphenol - are good for a couple of thousand watts and can be reused. I use crimp on connectors, not the screw on type.

The frequency range has nothing to do with the construction materials.

UHF / PL Connectors are good for maybe 500 MHz and that is it.

There are other connectors that are a lot less lossy above 500 Mhz such as the BNC.

[Channel Jumper]

Originally Posted by DrTeeth

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 17:25:15 EDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Jeff Liebermann disturbed my reverie and wrote:

Ummm... a Flexradio 6300 retails for $2500 and you're trying to be
cheap on coax connectors?

No I was not. I was just asking if it is worth spending more. I am
very happy to pay for quality but not prepared to throw my money away.
Got some very nice RG213 coax too - even though the run will be less
than 10 meters.

Just because something is more expensive does not necessarily mean
that it is better. Many things do not sell if priced cheap and fly off
the shelf when over-priced.

I do not mind paying for quality at all. In fact, I have bought some
very expensive high-quality compression PL259s that cost approx $9
each.
--
73's de Guy G4DWV/4X1LT

RG 213 - Yep - CB'r

[Channel Jumper]

Originally Posted by Steve Bonine

On 8/25/14, 10:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

RG-213/u is good stuff. Double shielded and 95% coverage. However,
I've seen some RG-213 "style" coax, which is basically junk
counterfeit coax. If it's not from a known name brand manufactory, it
might become a problem.

I expect that this is a story most of you have heard in one form or
another and/or experienced.

A local ham was having trouble hitting the repeater using his handheld
at home, so he decided to put a whip up on his tower. He did so, and
discovered that he couldn't hit the repeater at all with the new
improved antenna.

The problem was that he bought poor quality coax. Note that I did not
write "cheap coax". Based on the type designation he shouldn't have had
much loss in the run. The designation makes little difference if the
manufacturer and/or vendor is providing shoddy merchandise that doesn't
really meet the standards implied by the designation of the coax.

So perhaps more important than the price is the source.

73, Steve KB9X

Steve - a real ham wouldn't be using a handheld radio as their primary amateur radio.
The handheld works on the principal of nodes and junctions / Kirchoffs circuit law - the same principal that holds true for all electronic circuits.

When the antenna is attached directly to the board, there is no feed line loss or impedance mismatch.
The handheld radio is designed around the rubber duck antenna.
When the rubber duck antenna was removed and a feed line was connected it became a imbalance load, the radio did not see the same impedance as a direct connected antenna, so it immediately thought that the radio was being operated out of band - or off frequency or that the antenna was missing, so it just folded back it's transmit power to nothing.

There is a difference between receiving and transmitting. You don't have to know much or do much to receive a radio signal.

It wouldn't matter if you used 3.250 hardline - the handheld was not designed to be operated this way.

Had the new ham had an Elmer that knew this, the Elmer would have advised the new ham not to buy the handheld radio as a primary radio for amateur radio.
The handheld should have been the last radio that the new ham should have bought, not the first. The handheld technically doesn't talk anywhere - except the local repeater, and it doesn't do anything except let the person talk to whom ever can hear their signal.

This is the problem that the Original Poster has.. The OP doesn't know anything about amateur radio today and thought that he could compensate for a lack of intelligence with a more high tech transceiver.

The Flex on the other hand takes more skill to operate than say a old Kenwood TS 520 that needs to be plate and tuned before you can operate it.
There are many menu's in the Flex and unless you have someone that can help you set it up - it probably isn't going to work very well or sound the way you want it to sound or do the things you want it to do.

My thought would be that if I knew nothing, I would at least ask someone which transceiver would be a good entry level transceiver.
Even if it was just an Icom IC 7100 or a Kenwood TS 590 - he would probably have a better radio then the Flex...

There is no use arguing with someone that doesn't know anything and is only concerned with price.

Unless you were operating QRP - you darn well better have a lot more then one piece of coax and a lot more then 40'....

Even a dipole antenna needs to be 40' off the ground before it starts to perform.

Maybe we can sell him a good G5RV and a Palomar tuner to go along with his Flex...

[Jeff Liebermann[_2_]]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:08:12 EDT, Barry OGrady
wrote:

Some can work at 2Thz.

I suspect you might mean 2 GigaHz. The PL-259 is only rated to 300
MHz:
http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/uhf.asp

Tests of the PL-259/SO-239 connectors:
http://www.hamradio.me/subjects/connectors/

I would say that it's potentially a problem above about 300 MHz:
http://www.hamradio.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UHFvsOtherConnectors.png

Mo
http://www.wa1mba.org/UHFconn.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_connector

However, lousy performance above about 300 MHz doesn't have any effect
on HF operation from 2 to 30 MHz, so they're perfectly acceptable for
use with the OP's SDR radio.

I have a HENE gas laser that connects to the
handpiece via a PL-259.

Ummm... PL-259 connectors are only rated to 500 VDC:
http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/uhf.asp
How many volts (peak) are you using to drive your laser?
1400v is typical.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[DrTeeth]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:06:05 EDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Jeff Liebermann disturbed my reverie and wrote:

However, I suspect that some vendors are unaware that
they're selling counterfeit products.
If they charge enough some people might think they are good quality.
--
Cheers,

DrT

** You've never known happiness until you're married;
** but by then it is too late.