"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
--