"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can
explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors

You checked your E-mail? You have the detailed answer there in the attached
zip file.

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

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

Are
you saying that impedance is important for connectors but not for
antenna grounds?

See the file I sent to you.

Why not fall back to your "pure capacitance" excuse
where UHF connectors are concerned?

Why don't you explain it. Funny why "N" connectors and other "constant
impedance" connectors are used at UHF almost exclusively.

Make up your mind, Leland. What's important -- impedance or 'pure
capacitance'?

Its very clear to me Frank. What is also clear is you don't.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:26:51 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can
explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors

You checked your E-mail? You have the detailed answer there in the attached
zip file.


Mailbox is empty. Did you remove the "nospam"?


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?


Are
you saying that impedance is important for connectors but not for
antenna grounds?

See the file I sent to you.


Checked again. Still empty.


Why not fall back to your "pure capacitance" excuse
where UHF connectors are concerned?

Why don't you explain it.


Alrighty.....

Any capacitor is basically a network of capacitance, inductance and
resistance. The circuit can't see the "pure capacitance" without
seeing the inductance and resistance, hence the necessity of measuring
a capacitor as an impedance since impedance = resistance + reactance.
And because frequency is directly related to reactance, impedance
changes in relation to frequency. The other issue to consider is the
dielectric of the capacitance, which will affect the frequency
linearity (Z/f curve) of the device. For all practical purposes, only
vacuum and air capacitors are linear in this respect -- all others are
not. This means that as the frequency changes, so will the resistance
and/or 'pure' capacitance, or both. And this is why you -must- measure
impedance at the operating frequency.

As far as connectors are concerned, both N-type and UHF-type
connectors are low-impedance coaxial designs, so unless the wavelength
is a few cm or higher there will be little or no reflection due to
impedance mismatch (assuming there -is- an impedance mismatch). With
that out of the way, the insulation is the other cause of concern. It
is effectively the dielectric of the capacitance between the center
conductor and the shield. So in this respect, the quality of the
connector depends on the quality of the insulation. Cheap insulation
will have poor high-frequency characteristics, while.... well, you get
the idea. So if there is power loss it will be due to poor insulation
properties (cheap materials, contamination, etc.). And -that- is why
the N-type connectors are preferred for UHF and up since it is (or
rather, it's -supposed- to be) a sealed connector, thereby preventing
humidity and other crud from contaminating the dielectric (or
corroding the contacts) and therefore causing power loss.

There you have it. It's ironic that while impedance is the primary
factor in both these issues, you have misunderstood both from totally
opposite ends of the spectrum. But hey, nobody's perfect.


Funny why "N" connectors and other "constant
impedance" connectors are used at UHF almost exclusively.

Make up your mind, Leland. What's important -- impedance or 'pure
capacitance'?

Its very clear to me Frank. What is also clear is you don't.


Checked again. Mailbox is still empty.





-----= 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! =-----

"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.


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. 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.

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. 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. 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.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

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! =-----

"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

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! =-----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
news
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

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
You checked your E-mail?

Have you checked yours, coward?

14 mile road!

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

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:26:51 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Measure it. If you actually find this impedance "bump", maybe you can
explain why impedance is so significant for these connectors

You checked your E-mail? You have the detailed answer there in the attached
zip file.


I finally got the file but the images are sourced for a local
directory. If you want to send an html that will pull pics from a
remote website, the full url must be used in the call or the website
must be sourced in the header.





-----= 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! =-----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
I finally got the file but the images are sourced for a local
directory. If you want to send an html that will pull pics from a
remote website, the full url must be used in the call or the website
must be sourced in the header.

Frank it works just fine on my laptop. I stuck the whole thing in a
directory named "temp". You should have ONE file named
"AdapterSWRcalsRevC.htm, and ONE DIRECTORY named "AdapterSWRcalsRevC_images"
with everything else in it. That should work.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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