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.

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! =-----

"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

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! =-----

"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