"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz.

Where's your street address chicken.

I'll show you my drivers license this weekend, k?

Ewe got mail.

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
This is now between you and I, I've told you where I'll be

So there isn't a problem with refreshing my memory then is there? So
where? Exactly.

14 mile road! (ewe got mail)

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:25:15 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Mailbox is empty. Did you remove the "nospam"?

I did. In fact I just sent it again just now. It does have a file attached
so if your E-mail program filters out mail with attachments you will have to
turn it off.


I got the file with the pics. Nice work, and I'm glad to see your
acceptance of the fact that solid dielectrics (even teflon) have
dielectric constants that aren't constant with frequency. However,
your description of a UHF-type connector isn't particularly accurate.
If you had ever taken one apart you would have noticed that only a
small part of the conductor (maybe a mm or two) is actually contacting
the insulator. The rest is surrounded by an air gap, making most of
the coupled connection a section of coax using an insulator with a
dielectric constant of 1.

Regardless, I suggested that you -measure- this apparent loss, not
calculate it (.....gee, seems I've said that before.....). Since you
don't care to measure things, I did. The Adler I mentioned earlier is
a 100-watt translator tuned for TV channel 77. I measured the output
to my wattmeter through one 12' length of RG-11 and again through two
6' lengths of RG-11, the difference being that the latter adds a male
and female UHF-type connector to the line. The wattmeter showed no
visible difference. So I did the same test directly to the dummy load
and measured with an RF voltmeter at the dummy load. The difference
was a loss of 0.4 volts, which is slightly less than 1 watt, or about
0.05 dB. Yes, I use teflon connectors and I keep them clean. And no,
the coax wasn't overheated during soldering (it's all about the
technique!).

Feel free to repeat my tests, both for the UHF-type connectors and for
the mag-mounts. Just don't feed me any more calculations cause they
don't mean squat when the facts show something different.


while
impedance will "unnecessarily complicate things" for mag-mounts.

You have "unnecessarily complicate things" because you don't understand
the
difference.


Now that's an interesting answer..... the difference between impedance
and capacitance is that I don't understand the difference?

You haven't impressed me with knowing the difference.


It was intended to educate, not to impress.


I was addressing a
capacitance measurement only, exclusively and separate from any other
electrical property. You can't seem to figure out that your impedance
measurement combines capacitance, inductance, and resistance all together.


Yes it does! That's the point! Capacitance, "exclusively and separate
from any other electrical property", is academic and has no practical
value!


If I took a 1000pf vacuum capacitor and connected it in series with a 1000
ohm resistor, placed it in a black box you can't open, and brought out two
leads for you to connect to your Z-bridge then asked you to make your
measurement you would tell me I have a crappy capacitor.


Not at all. You can tell if the reactance is linear simply by changing
the frequency feeding your impedance bridge. If it's linear then the
capacitor is fine and you simply have 1k ohms of series resistance. If
it's not linear then you might have a problem (depending on the
intended application of this 'black box').


Then if I wanted to
give you somthing to think about I can stick a small inductor in series with
the capacitor and resistor to give some strange impedance variations with
frequency. Now try to figure out what's in the box from your Z-bridge
measurement.


Just swing the signal generator up from zero until you dip, just like
you would with a GDO. That's your resistance. If it peaks instead of
dipping then your reactances are in parallel and you must measure
resistance at DC. Then detune to measure reactances.

And at this point I need to make a point: What I just described is a
quick summary of the basic operation of a simple impedance bridge. The
impedance bridge is one of the most fundamental yet most useful tools
in radio. Now you claim to have a degree -and- you are a ham. For you
to even suggest that one can't determine the properties of an unknown
impedance network using an impedance bridge tells me that you have
never used one, or at least not more than once or twice. If you -do-
have a degree then either it isn't in electronics, you missed a lot of
labs, or the school was criminally negligent in it's course of study.
Either way, here's a few links to get you going:

http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14...s/14193_89.htm
ftp://bama.sbc.edu/downloads/heath/am1/
ftp://bama.sbc.edu/downloads/knight/z-brdg/

And here's a fascinating page on the dielectric properties of organic
tissue that also includes instructions for an impedance bridge. Note
the problems with electrode polarization at low frequencies when
measuring lossy dielectrics (iow, maybe you should take a second look
at your low-frequency DMM method of measuring a capacitor having a
dielectric of epoxy or paint):

http://safeemf.iroe.fi.cnr.it/docs/H...K/chp4-2-1.htm


That's the problem you have with your measurements where the
black box is the mag-mount. Making a capacitance measurenet, or some simple
calculations, would be like peeking inside the black box and saying, Oh now
I see what is going on.


Here's another "black box" scenario: Using the capacitance tester on
your DMM, measure the "pure" capacitance between two high impedance
windings of a power or audio transformer. I can tell you right now
that your measurement will be wrong, and you can't tell what's in the
"box" unless you change the frequency. Same deal for the mag-mount.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:31:19 GMT, Lancer wrote in
:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:43:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:29:17 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote in :


"Southern Kiwi" wrote in message
...
Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig?

Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the
coax?
With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost
between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large
hardline.


If the line is short, the type won't make much difference unless it's
RG-174 (really thin stuff). E.g, for a length of 18' @ 500 MHz I got
the following loss figures:

1/2" HL -- 0.3 dB
RG-17 -- 0.3
9913 -- 0.5
RG-8 -- 0.9
RG-58 -- 1.5
RG-174 -- 4.9


N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so
named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency")


I don't know where you get your information but it's wrong. UHF
connectors work fine for UHF. And to the best of my knowledge, the
current limits of the UHF spectrum (300 MHz to 3 GHz) were defined
long before the connectors ever existed.


Frank;
Back in the 40's UHF was defined a low as 100 MHZ. I had a
friend in school that had a Hallicrafters S-36A, covered 27 to 143
MHZ. S-36's were made in the 40's. The front panel had a "logo" on
it, " Ultra High Frequency Communications Receiver". I think that
the UHF connectors first showed up in the mid 1930's.


Ok, so I don't remember right:

http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/uhf.asp

Their explanation doesn't make much sense, but the connectors still
work fine for UHF.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:38:57 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:31:19 GMT, Lancer wrote in
:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:43:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:29:17 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote in :


"Southern Kiwi" wrote in message
...
Can I use my old coax and mounts from my 26 mhz days on a new uhf rig?

Probably, but how much of your signal do you want to waste, heating up the
coax?
With some types, it wouldn't be a surprise to see 3/4 of your power lost
between the rig and the antenna.. Andrews LMR-400 is good, as is all large
hardline.


If the line is short, the type won't make much difference unless it's
RG-174 (really thin stuff). E.g, for a length of 18' @ 500 MHz I got
the following loss figures:

1/2" HL -- 0.3 dB
RG-17 -- 0.3
9913 -- 0.5
RG-8 -- 0.9
RG-58 -- 1.5
RG-174 -- 4.9


N connectors are much better than the old "UHF" connectors (so
named when 30 MHz was "Ultra-high frequency")


I don't know where you get your information but it's wrong. UHF
connectors work fine for UHF. And to the best of my knowledge, the
current limits of the UHF spectrum (300 MHz to 3 GHz) were defined
long before the connectors ever existed.


Frank;
Back in the 40's UHF was defined a low as 100 MHZ. I had a
friend in school that had a Hallicrafters S-36A, covered 27 to 143
MHZ. S-36's were made in the 40's. The front panel had a "logo" on
it, " Ultra High Frequency Communications Receiver". I think that
the UHF connectors first showed up in the mid 1930's.


Ok, so I don't remember right:

http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/uhf.asp

Their explanation doesn't make much sense, but the connectors still
work fine for UHF.


Yes they do, I use them up to 1900 mhz, short runs of cable, with no
problems. Not sure what their loss is, but they are quite a bit
cheaper than N connectors.

Steveo wrote in message ...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz.

OK my name is Sterling Marlins and I live in Vienna VA.

Now you have as much info about me as I have about you LOL and they
are both unprovable


Where's your street address chicken.

I'll show you my drivers license this weekend, k?

Ewe got mail.


Forget it leland. no one in their right mind would go somewhere to
meet an anonymous usenet poster who "says" he will be somewhere. For
all you know it some kids playing jokes with there fathers computer

Steveo wrote in message ...
(I Am Not George) wrote:
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Why? You don't want to meet me next weekend?

So where are you going to be at?

Read the email, nad.

What's wrong? Can't muster up the courage to publicly answer the
question?
You hide your identity, scared to publicly answer my question as to
where
exactly you will be at can't be trusted and isn't worth wasting my
time
on.

you have got him pegged leland if he does show you wont see him he is
the type to hide behind corners and take pictures

Nad claims he doesn't want to "waste his time" meeting me

Hey Steve I'll meet you on the main street in Medina tomorrow at noon.
I'll even send you emails to prove I'll be there LOL

Steveo wrote in message ...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz.

Where's your street address chicken.

I'll show you my drivers license this weekend, k?


Why don't you come to the dream cruise and defend nad? You
obviously know he's not capable of facing me man to man.

sure i'll face you. my name is Stirling Marlins spelled with an "s" so
it's not like the racer. I live in Vienna VA. I'll meet you on the
main street in Medina tomorrow at noon lol

Dogie has warned him to stay clear of me, because of my
superior size, fighting skills and strength.

If doug warned him about anything he warned him not to waste his time
on an anonymous stalker like you lol

(I Am Not George) wrote:
Forget it leland. no one in their right mind would go somewhere to
meet an anonymous usenet poster who "says" he will be somewhere. For
all you know it some kids playing jokes with there fathers computer

...and camera

http://img11.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img11...ogie-house.jpg

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

(I Am Not George) wrote:
If doug warned him about anything he warned him not to waste his time
on an anonymous stalker like you lol

Dogie was too 'skeered to come out and play in the street.

http://img16.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img16...fuglydogie.jpg

--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

Steveo wrote in message ...
(I Am Not George) wrote:
Forget it leland. no one in their right mind would go somewhere to
meet an anonymous usenet poster who "says" he will be somewhere.
For all you know it some kids playing jokes with there fathers
computer

...and camera

exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared to
let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you afraid of?
if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you are shouldnt
make any difference to you.

"I Am Not George" wrote in message
m...
Steveo wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz.

OK my name is Sterling Marlins and I live in Vienna VA.

Now you have as much info about me as I have about you LOL and they
are both unprovable


Where's your street address chicken.

I'll show you my drivers license this weekend, k?

Ewe got mail.


Forget it leland. no one in their right mind would go somewhere to
meet an anonymous usenet poster who "says" he will be somewhere. For
all you know it some kids playing jokes with there fathers computer

Much like you.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:27:39 GMT, Lancer wrote in
:

snip
Ok, so I don't remember right:

http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/uhf.asp

Their explanation doesn't make much sense, but the connectors still
work fine for UHF.


Yes they do, I use them up to 1900 mhz, short runs of cable, with no
problems. Not sure what their loss is, but they are quite a bit
cheaper than N connectors.


Maybe you can explain that to Leland -- according to his calculations
and internet research, they shouldn't work at all at those freqs.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"I ain't George either" wrote:
"I Am Not George" wrote in message
om...
Steveo wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz.

OK my name is Sterling Marlins and I live in Vienna VA.

Now you have as much info about me as I have about you LOL and they
are both unprovable


Where's your street address chicken.

I'll show you my drivers license this weekend, k?

Ewe got mail.


Forget it leland. no one in their right mind would go somewhere to
meet an anonymous usenet poster who "says" he will be
somewhere. For
all you know it some kids playing jokes with there fathers computer

Much like you.

I may be anonymous but I am not sneaking around to people in the
groups houses leaving notes and taking pictures. I am not telling them
to meet me and threatening to beat them up. steveo is.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Regardless, I suggested that you -measure- this apparent loss, not
calculate it (.....gee, seems I've said that before.....).

I sent you a link to somebody who did using a RF network analyzer. He
reached the same conclusions I did. Give it a read.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Maybe you can explain that to Leland -- according to his calculations
and internet research, they shouldn't work at all at those freqs.

Why don't you show everybody where I said they don't work. Same goes for the
link I sent you. That person did exactly what you proposed, used an
expensive RF network analyzer, and reached conclusions just the opposite
from yours.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html

I'll let people read the paper for themselves. Nowhere does the aurthor say
"they shouldn't work at all at those freqs", which is a flat out lie on your
part.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
om:


exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared to
let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you afraid of?
if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you are shouldnt
make any difference to you.


Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

high five, lil bro ; )

"I Am Not George" wrote in message
m...
"I ain't George either" wrote:
"I Am Not George" wrote in message
om...
Steveo wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...

I've told you at least 50 times, Medina Ohio. Putz.

OK my name is Sterling Marlins and I live in Vienna VA.

Now you have as much info about me as I have about you LOL and they
are both unprovable


Where's your street address chicken.

I'll show you my drivers license this weekend, k?

Ewe got mail.


Forget it leland. no one in their right mind would go somewhere to
meet an anonymous usenet poster who "says" he will be
somewhere. For
all you know it some kids playing jokes with there fathers computer

Much like you.

I may be anonymous but I am not sneaking around to people in the
groups houses leaving notes and taking pictures. I am not telling them
to meet me and threatening to beat them up. steveo is

And this bothers you why? Is your name Leland?

Steveo wrote in message ...
(I Am Not George) wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
om:
exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared to
let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you afraid of?
if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you are shouldnt
make any difference to you.

Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

high five, lil bro ; )

I got five for nad boy..check yore mailbox.


From:
Subject: Woodward

Oh Lee please meet me do meet me so I can beat you up
If I dont beat someone up I'll just go crazy I drink too much
and then I start wanting to hit someone. Meet me on Woodward
I'll find you there hold up a sign with your name on it but first
I want to hide behind some buildings and take pictures I may
not come out only if therss no chance of you finding out who
I am and where I live. Stand on the corner so I can throw
my purse at you that way I never have to come out in the
open I am so scared anyone will find out where I live but
I do so need to beat people up. Please Lee please please please

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(I Am Not George) wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
om:


exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared to
let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you afraid of?
if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you are shouldnt
make any difference to you.


Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

high five, lil bro ; )

I got five for nad boy..check yore mailbox.

How pathetic, he still answers his own posts.
Leave him alone a Mopar, he's going through
withdrawals because people are ignoring him.

Have a great Time at Woodward!

Landshark


--
Courage is what it takes to stand up
and speak; courage is also what it
takes to sit down and listen.

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote
in :

Steveo wrote in
news:20040817215206.834 :

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
m:

exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared
to let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you
afraid of? if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you
are shouldnt make any difference to you.


Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

Eat **** you anonymous coward.

who you talking to steveo? I am not anonymous


LOL!! This Geo-logic reasoning thing is beyond words..!!!

BP wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote
in :

Steveo wrote in
news:20040817215206.834 :

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
m:

exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared
to let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you
afraid of? if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you
are shouldnt make any difference to you.


Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

Eat **** you anonymous coward.

who you talking to steveo? I am not anonymous


LOL!! This Geo-logic reasoning thing is beyond words..!!!

Deer lowered! What a crock-o-****e!

"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
(I Am Not George) wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
om:


exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared
to let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you
afraid of? if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you
are shouldnt make any difference to you.


Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

high five, lil bro ; )

I got five for nad boy..check yore mailbox.

How pathetic, he still answers his own posts.
Leave him alone a Mopar, he's going through
withdrawals because people are ignoring him.

Have a great Time at Woodward!

Landshark

He reminds me of a little punk in school that starts a
fight and then hides and watches.

Thanks, Shark.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:11:14 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Maybe you can explain that to Leland -- according to his calculations
and internet research, they shouldn't work at all at those freqs.

Why don't you show everybody where I said they don't work. Same goes for the
link I sent you. That person did exactly what you proposed, used an
expensive RF network analyzer, and reached conclusions just the opposite
from yours.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html

I'll let people read the paper for themselves. Nowhere does the aurthor say
"they shouldn't work at all at those freqs", which is a flat out lie on your
part.


It was a response to your comment in email about how I believe
impededance bumps don't exist, something which I never said or even
implied.







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:00:49 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Regardless, I suggested that you -measure- this apparent loss, not
calculate it (.....gee, seems I've said that before.....).

I sent you a link to somebody who did using a RF network analyzer. He
reached the same conclusions I did. Give it a read.


I did. This is what I read: "....I must admit that the UHF type barrel
connector employed here was of fairly poor quality....". That's not
exactly a fair evaluation, now is it? That's like declaring SSB sucks
because the Pace Sidetalk you picked up at a yard sale doesn't sound
like your surround-sound home theater system.

You work as an R&D engineer at an electronics firm, right? So why not
just take five minutes from your lunch hour to test the damn things?
Wouldn't that be a whole lot easier than spending all that time
digging up subjective internet pages and typing up excuses for not
doing the test? I have done tests (on both UHF connectors -and-
mag-mounts) that you can easily repeat for yourself. So what's the
problem?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , Steveo says...

(I Am Not George) wrote:
Steveo wrote in message
...
(I Am Not George) wrote:
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
om:
exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too scared
to let anoyone know your real name and address. what are you afraid
of? if you are such a tough guy then them knowing who you are
shouldnt
make any difference to you.

Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

high five, lil bro ; )

I got five for nad boy..check yore mailbox.

From:
Subject: Woodward

Oh Leland please meet me give blowjobs at the glory hole
this time, you always hog the trouser snake.

Hey can i get in on some of that gloryhole action you guys have all the fun

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote
in :

Steveo wrote in
:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Steveo wrote in
news:20040817215206.834 :

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I Am Not George) wrote in
m:

exactly. your just an anonymous stalker with a camera. too
scared to let anoyone know your real name and address. what are
you afraid of? if you are such a tough guy then them knowing
who you are shouldnt make any difference to you.


Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head.

Eat **** you anonymous coward.

who you talking to steveo? I am not anonymous

Go see a shrink, multiple personality disorder is treatable.

So are delusional thoughts. I only post under this account, dickface
sorry you're to paranoid and stupid to know otherwsie.then your sock
puppet BP posts, roflmao...


"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" + "I am not anonymous" = fuzzy AKC logic.

...And you call your cb'er enemys "paranoid and stupid"?? LOL!!

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
It was a response to your comment in email about how I believe
impededance bumps don't exist, something which I never said or even
implied.

It was a comment you made in a posted reply to Lancer. I have never said
"they don't work at UHF", those are your words not mine. They are NOT
RECOMMENDED for use at UHF because of the impedance bump they cause in the
transmission line. The higher the frequency the worse the problem gets. The
only connector that looks like the UHF is the "Mini-UHF" which IS a constant
impedance connector. In fact Amphenol states they should be good up to 2.5
GHz.

Link for spec's for UHF connectors, pay attention to the impedance and
recommended frequency application range.

http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/uhf.asp

Now compare that with the spec's for the "Mini-UHF" connector.

http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/miniuhf.asp

Then for comparative purposes with the "N" connector.

http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/typen.asp

Amphenol would not be manufacturing the last two connectors if the UHF
connector was as good as you implied. For those who think a quick and simple
SWR test proves the suitability of the connectors should read the link below
which does a good job explaining how a so-called SWR reading, or using
forward and reflected power reading, can lead you down the garden path if
the test isn't done right.

http://iwce-mrt.com/ar/radio_swr_name/

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:00:49 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Regardless, I suggested that you -measure- this apparent loss, not
calculate it (.....gee, seems I've said that before.....).

I sent you a link to somebody who did using a RF network analyzer. He
reached the same conclusions I did. Give it a read.


I did. This is what I read: "....I must admit that the UHF type barrel
connector employed here was of fairly poor quality....". That's not
exactly a fair evaluation, now is it?

Sure it is. The test data is quantitative, the graph and number don't lie,
and his remark about the "quality" is just qualitative. Now if you can
explain just what he means by "poor quality" in a way that's measurable let
me know.

I'm still waiting for your expert answer as to why Amphenol doesn't show the
application range for their UHF connectors above 300 MHz. And if they're so
great why doesn't everybody use them on UHF instead of the more expensive
constant impedance connectors like the "N", "BNC", "SMA" etc. You shouldn't
have to wait for me to do anything to answer that one. If they're so darn
good then tell every why. You seem to know more than the company that
designed, manufactures, and markets them. It seems really dumb of them to be
selling the other types when as you seem to think the cheaper UHF style
works just fine up on UHF, even for your TV channel 77 I think you mentioned
in your E-mail.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:15:49 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:00:49 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Regardless, I suggested that you -measure- this apparent loss, not
calculate it (.....gee, seems I've said that before.....).

I sent you a link to somebody who did using a RF network analyzer. He
reached the same conclusions I did. Give it a read.


I did. This is what I read: "....I must admit that the UHF type barrel
connector employed here was of fairly poor quality....". That's not
exactly a fair evaluation, now is it?

Sure it is. The test data is quantitative, the graph and number don't lie,
and his remark about the "quality" is just qualitative.


No, it's subjective, which means the test data is also subjective. And
the conclusions were also subjective, extrapolating the test results
from a single "poor quality" UHF connector to all such connectors
regardless of quality. One single connector is not even a valid sample
group, let alone a fair representation of a connector type that has
been sucessfully used in UHF applications for over 60 years.


Now if you can
explain just what he means by "poor quality" in a way that's measurable let
me know.


Assuming you can do anything for yourself, email the guy and ask -him-
what -he- meant by "poor quality". After all, it was -his- test and
-his- connector.


I'm still waiting for your expert answer as to why Amphenol doesn't show the
application range for their UHF connectors above 300 MHz. And if they're so
great why doesn't everybody use them on UHF instead of the more expensive
constant impedance connectors like the "N", "BNC", "SMA" etc. You shouldn't
have to wait for me to do anything to answer that one. If they're so darn
good then tell every why. You seem to know more than the company that
designed, manufactures, and markets them. It seems really dumb of them to be
selling the other types when as you seem to think the cheaper UHF style
works just fine up on UHF, even for your TV channel 77 I think you mentioned
in your E-mail.


I have answered that question, and more than once. You are avoiding
the answer almost as much as you are avoid the test. Are you going to
do the test or not?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----