John Popelish wrote:

Chris W wrote:
(snip)

BTW, who is the inept clueless moron that decided UHF Female should
be called SO-239 and UHF Male should be called PL-259? And why do
people still call them that? While I'm ranting, they should rename
it to VHF or maybe even HF, it certainly shouldn't be called a UHF
connector.


The SOcket-239 is obviously the female half and the PLug-239 is the
male half, if you are into innies and outies.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation for SO and PL, but it doesn't
explain the 239 vs 259


This page has a pretty good description of various connectors:
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~kuester/Coax/connchart.htm
and mo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_connector


Thanks for the links


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

Chris W wrote:
John Popelish wrote:

Chris W wrote:
(snip)

BTW, who is the inept clueless moron that decided UHF Female should
be called SO-239 and UHF Male should be called PL-259? And why do
people still call them that? While I'm ranting, they should rename
it to VHF or maybe even HF, it certainly shouldn't be called a UHF
connector.



The SOcket-239 is obviously the female half and the PLug-239 is the
male half, if you are into innies and outies.


Sounds like a reasonable explanation for SO and PL, but it doesn't
explain the 239 vs 259

I didn't even see that there were two numbers. These part numbers
were originally in a list of many variations in military part numbers.
Perhaps these two examples were just the most popular ones in that
list of variations.

"Chris W" wrote in message
news:R7Vrf.44546$ih5.34081@dukeread11...
John Popelish wrote:

Chris W wrote:
(snip)

BTW, who is the inept clueless moron that decided UHF Female should be
called SO-239 and UHF Male should be called PL-259? And why do people
still call them that? While I'm ranting, they should rename it to VHF
or maybe even HF, it certainly shouldn't be called a UHF connector.

Perhaps not exclusively UHF- but what do you perceive the problem of
SO-239/PL-259 at UHF- say 70cM? If it is loss, how much is the loss of a
mated pair?

Dale W4OP

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:39:27 GMT, "Dale Parfitt"
wrote:


Perhaps not exclusively UHF- but what do you perceive the problem of
SO-239/PL-259 at UHF- say 70cM? If it is loss, how much is the loss of a
mated pair?

Though people often concern themselves about whether UHF connectors
introduce significant impedance mismatch / loss, to my mind the much
greater problem is their reliability.

The 'outer' connection depends on being properly seated and coupling
ring tightened very tight for reliable connection. The connectors work
loose readily and are then unreliable at any frequency.

UHF connectors are an example of a poor design that will probably
never be displaced from the amateur market.

Owen
--