"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