RadioBanter - UHF Mounts ??

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- CB (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/)

- - UHF Mounts ?? (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/32320-uhf-mounts.html)

"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! =-----