Richard, I have no reason to doubt anything you say.
I have no reason to doubt what I have said.
But why imply there's serious disagreement when there is none?

From the tone of your comments I correctly guessed you were a 'magazine'
author.

Are you also a spare-time connector salesman? ;o) ;o)
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Richard, WE just look at PL259's from somewhat different viewpoints and see
different magnitudes of the factors involved, with different objectives,
even different costs.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
"Reg Edwards" wrote
Provided the mechanical connection is sound, you can use any coaxial
connectors you like, regardless of nominal impedance, at frequencies
less
than about 300 MHz without any observed ill effects.
_________________

??? Using connectors that don't maintain the characteristic impedance of
the
transmission lines they connect _will_ produce undesired effects. The
effects may be negligible to amateur radio operators used to operating
transmitters into rather high mismatches, but they would never be
tolerated
in most professional operations, including high-power broadcast systems.

Connectors available off the shelf are not perfect, especially the pl259
type that are usually used by many.
While I don't doubt the problems to TV signals, this is an amateur group
type discussion.
Many antennas are nowhere near the 50 ohms that the cable is. Most any
connector will not cause any more problems than the coax/antenna mismatch
will in all but the most demanding systems (maybe EME or some satellite
work).

"Reg Edwards" wrote
Richard, I have no reason to doubt anything you say.
I have no reason to doubt what I have said.
But why imply there's serious disagreement when there is none?
_______________________

Clips from our previous posts (below) -

I don't know what constitutes a "serious disagreement" to you, Reg, but I
think most readers would say that we have opposite conclusions about this
topic.

If you have no reason to doubt what I wrote about this, how can you continue
to support what you wrote? Our statements are mutually exclusive.

YOU: "Provided the mechanical connection is sound, you can use any coaxial
connectors you like, regardless of nominal impedance, at frequencies less
than about 300 MHz without any observed ill effects. A connector less than
1" long of impedance 51.5 ohms in a 50 ohm system will NOT produce an SWR of
1.03:1 or anything anywhere near to it at frequencies less than 1000 MHz."

ME: "This PRACTICAL experience illustrates that an impedance change even in
a 54-60MHz TV channel occurring within a physical space of less than one
inch can produce important and commercially supportable system benefits,
despite your statements quoted above."

- RF

God knows how you thought that one up! I think you know you're wrong.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Provided the mechanical connection is sound, you can use any coaxial
connectors you like, regardless of nominal impedance, at frequencies less
than about 300 MHz without any observed ill effects.

Richard,

A radio amateur, by an easy mistake, uses a 75-ohm plug and socket in a
50-ohm coaxial transmission system. The total length of the plug plus
socket is 1"

As a result of the mismatch what is the SWR produced on the 50-ohm line at 2
MHz. At 30 MHz? At 150 MHz?

Is the amateur, or anyone else, likely to be aware of any difference in
performance?

No need to make measurements. If you are unable to make a simple calculation
and answer the question then you are not qualified to continue the
discussion.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

God knows how you thought that one up! I think you know you're wrong.

=================================

I can see you are not accustomed to thinking in terms of magnitudes and
numbers.

A QUOTATION:

"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers
you know something about it. But when you cannot measure it, when you cannot
express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory
kind. It may be the beginning of knowledge but you have scarcely in your
thoughts advanced to the state of science."

: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.

----
Reg, G4FGQ

"Reg Edwards" wrote
No need to make measurements. If you are unable to make a simple
calculation
and answer the question then you are not qualified to continue the
discussion.
__________________

How convenient. Why _would_ you want to make measurements, and prove
yourself wrong?

On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:36:43 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:
If you have no reason to doubt what I wrote about this, how can you continue
to support what you wrote? Our statements are mutually exclusive.

Ah Richard!!

Tell me, please, this is the FIRST time you have read our master fence
sitter (in the American historical context otherwise known as a
Mugwump: someone who has his mug on one side of the fence and his wump
on the other).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg,

You sent the 2nd post below within ten minutes of the 1st one below.

Exactly WHAT is your position on this subject?

- RF
_______________________

"Reg Edwards" wrote first:

No need to make measurements. If you are unable to make a simple
calculation and answer the question then you are not qualified to
continue the discussion.

AND THEN, quoting Lord Kelvin:

"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers you know something about it. But when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. It may be the beginning of
knowledge but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the
state of science."