|
KØHB wrote:
Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane If Mike and Dee say it's junk, then don't you be goin' messin' up their conservative minds with any such heresy. I don't recall saying dessert was junk. Besides, if you haven't time to learn Morse, then you ain't got no time to be eating no sweetened food. Clean up those green beans too, before you go study your code. I just finished up my dinner of Sausage and Green beans. Lots of green beans. No dessert, and didn't miss it either. Might have bit of sugar free gelatin later for a snack. 73, de Hans, K0HB (My kids think I'm a real "mother"!) I think you're ok... - Mike KB3EIA - |
K=D8HB wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... I can already read Steve's mind at 20WPM. ;^) Because you've memorized the answers. =20 dit dit From the entire Question Pool? |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:31:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: Well I've yet to find a "low fat" or "low/no sugar" food that tastes like the real thing. It always tastes a little different. So my choice is simply to bypass the desserts as much as I can discipline myself to do so (sometimes I fail miserably). As the old Ross Bagdasarian/Rosemary Cloony song of the late '40s went: "C'mon a' my house, my house, I'm gonna' give you candy...." That's why she's a specialist......the "store-bought" stuff can't make it, and the sweetener used in most of those products (Sorbitol or Manitol) is colloquialy known as "Laxitol". Since the commercial sweetener Sucralose went "retail" under the name of "Splenda" it's a lot easier to get the right taste. Splenda isn't too bad at all. In fact, I've used the artificial sweeteners for so long that I dislike the taste of "real" sugar. Leaves a unpleasnt after taste. - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Tell me of your desserts? Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes. Yup that works. Or my regular email addy. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Tell me of your desserts? Is your QRZ snail mail address OK? I'll send you some excellent recipes. 73, de Hans, K0HB Me too, PLEASE !! My husband is borderline diabetic so even if they don't suit me, I can still make use of them. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat, potatoes, and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes, gravy, and meat!" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Phil Kane wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:55:51 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: If you don't have room for good food then you don't have room for junk. Dessert is junk???? Not when K0CKB puts it on the dining table! Maybe you need some of her recipes, if your desserts are "junk"! Refined sugar is indeed junk. No matter how good it tastes. One of my wife's avocations is specialty dessert and cake catering (she's taught that for years and at times has even made money doing it commercially). Her specialty is diabetic-safe products (I'm a diabetic) - low fat and no refined (or unrefined) sugar. She duplicates about 95% of what one can find on a fancy "sweet table" (marshmellow requires the crystalline structure of "real" sugar) and I most certainly do not suffer from a lack of "goodies" all year round. Sounds awfully yummy, Phil. I'm not anti-sweet, just anti-sugar. Dessert is one of the basic food groups..... ggg In my family, desserts were not really all that big a thing. Some sweets around the holidays, but otherwise we were (are) big meat eaters. Kinda like leftover hunter gatherers... 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - I understand the feeling. When I was growing up, we had "meat, potatoes, and gravy" as our main staple. For a change, we had "potatoes, gravy, and meat!" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE In the Army chow halls, you're actually allowed to tell them to "hold the gravy." Otherwise... |
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, but if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper safety techniques of doing such a job, wherein "actual" "physical" demonstration is not needed nor required. Given that - a wheel chair bound person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing becoming a major issue. There is a question or so relating to wearing a "hard hat" when working "near" a tower in case someone drops a tool or other item. So, there ya go. Perhaps you can consider that as a step in the "tower" safety process. It would be only "questions" relating to such things, what's the big deal about pass/fail? You either answer the question correctly as you would be expected to with any other - or you don't! We have to count the number of correct answers given and see it they add up to a passing grade, if not - too bad! It won't matter if they're handicapped or not. We can accommodate them as to taking the exam, we don't accommodate them as to giving them the "answers". cl |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1114118689.984407.281600 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1113743129.236382.299700 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. This is based on what FCC has done in the past. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY You're being a Jonah again, Jim. Hello Alun, I'm not sure what you mean by "being a Jonah". Does it have anything to do with the bible story of Jonah and the whale - aka "You Can't Keep A Good Man Down"? It means someone preaching doom Well, I wasn't trying to do that! But the way FCC has worked in the past, I wouldn't count on fast changes. That's the reality of how the process works. 73 de Jim, N2EY the announcement guesstimates all done within a year, i.e. by spring '06. So they meant *next* summer (2006), not *this* summer (2005). Sounds about right to me. Granted that the comments about what the FCC might do (and the title of the post) were all the poster's own, and not Hamwave's. Exactly. My time estimates are based on what FCC has done in the past on a number of issues. FCC doesn't seem to be in any big hurry to change the rules - heck, it's been over 5 years since the last restructure, over 21 months since WRC 2003 ended, and yet there's no NPRM on the street yet. My own crystal ball guess is that the FCC will just delete the code test and rearrange some subbands around this time next year. That's still much longer than I originally thought. My guess is there will be some more-substantive changes, and that the code test deletion isn't a done deal - yet. I base the above on the fact that FCC could have simply dumped Element 1 back in summer 2003, without an NPRM, comments, or any of the rest. They received at least two proposals to do just that. All it would take is for FCC to say, in effect: "This subject was discussed thoroughly back in 1998-1999, and we kept Element 1 only because of the treaty. Now the treaty's gone, so we're dropping Element 1." Or some such verbiage - the basic idea is still the same. There's a procedure for such changes. Yet there have been no changes yet, just proposals *to* FCC, and comments. Last time FCC did a restructure, the comment period was what - six-seven months or more? Then it took about 11 months for the Report and Order, and another four months or so before the rules changed. That's over 20 months from NPRM to new rules in effect. 21 months from summer 2005 is spring 2007. Maybe FCC will say something at Dayton. Maybe not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. I know someone who is going to bust my chops now!!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. But the skill demonstration should bear relationship to the privilege granted as a RESULT of that demonstration. In other words, USE of Morse should be restricted only to those who have successfully demonstrated their skill. Or to use your example, the USE of Morse should be the carrot offered as a result of passing a Morse test. But by FCC regulation, a code-free Technician is allowed to use Morse on the air WITHOUT a successful Morse demonstration, and the "demonstrate BEFORE privilege" model is disconnected; ergo the demonstration is not vital to the successful use of the mode and serves no rational regulatory purpose. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Blasphemy! Off with your head! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE w3rv |
cl wrote: "bb" wrote in message oups.com... K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! 73, de Hans, K0HB I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Not that Tower climbing will likely ever become an issue with the exam, I'm going to advocate it during the next NPRM. but if it were, then I'd suggest there would be questions relating to the proper safety techniques of doing such a job, No questions. They need to climb a 60 foot tower, haul up the coax and an HF-tribander, fasten it, point it north, and make the connections. wherein "actual" "physical" demonstration is not needed nor required. But it is. Otherwise, how would we know they could do it? Given that - a wheel chair bound person "could" pass those parts of an exam. I can't fathom tower climbing becoming a major issue. Yet Morse Code has become a major issue. Just because not everyone is going to have a tower is no excuse for not being able to demonstrate the ability. |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... No other part of the testing is a skill. My point EXACTLY, Mike. While there are many skills associated with our hobby, only one of those skills is singled out for a required demonstration. Interestingly, if that skill is so vital as to need a skill demonstration, it would seem that no-one who had not been tested would be allowed to use it on the air. Yet a basic Technician licensee is perfectly free to use Morse on the air without having passed a Morse test. So much for the need for a demonstration before a license grant! I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. But the skill demonstration should bear relationship to the privilege granted as a RESULT of that demonstration. In other words, USE of Morse should be restricted only to those who have successfully demonstrated their skill. Or to use your example, the USE of Morse should be the carrot offered as a result of passing a Morse test. But by FCC regulation, a code-free Technician is allowed to use Morse on the air WITHOUT a successful Morse demonstration, and the "demonstrate BEFORE privilege" model is disconnected; ergo the demonstration is not vital to the successful use of the mode and serves no rational regulatory purpose. =20 73, de Hans, K0HB We deserve logical regulations. |
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Brad VK2QQ |
"bb" wrote I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? The Somolian judges gave this a 9.8 on the Olympic Troll-O-Meter, but they were over-ruled by the umpires in instant replay, who award it a 2.6 The Somolian judges lodged a formal protest! It was sufficiently trollish, of course, but way too obvious. It was poorly written, poorly executed, and was so incredibly lame as to lack the true drawing power of a really masterful troll. Maybe as high as a 3.3 for the intense stupidity of the premise, but a 9.8? Never! The Somolian judges tear their hair out, throw their balalaikas down in dismay, and perform the traditional Somolian Dismay Chant! They demand a recount! Recount denied. |
Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) |
I see it as a license progression thing. The Morse code is the skill demonstration, and HF access is the carrot. What does the FCC and the government get out of it today? I know someone who is going to bust my chops now!!! 8^) This wouldn't be rrap otherwise ;-) |
"robert casey" wrote in message hlink.net... Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) Or they could demonstrate extra skills and just use crimp on PL259's like I do. These are much easier and more reliable. They are more expensive but their construction is superior. My original comment was directed at Dee offering points for something called a "PL256". Brad |
robert casey wrote:
Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. I also used my Sprague TO-6 to put a couple hundred volts across the cable to make sure there were no loose strands waiting to short out. I had Hams and CBers tell me my cables were too expensive but they kept coming back to buy more to replace other bad cables, and they started sending other people to me, as well. I had someone bring me a cable he bought somewhere else. He said it was "Kind of lossy" No wonder. It was a dead short at one end. He didn't want two new plugs so i walked out the door to my truck and raised the hood. I touched the center pin of one plug and the sleeve of the other plug across the battery. Smoke and flames came out of one plug. A true "Quick & Dirty" test that never fails to find the shorted plug. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
|
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... robert casey wrote: I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. Brad. |
Brad wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... robert casey wrote: I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. Brad. Solderless connectors for RF applications? A quick fix for sure but not a lasting one! The only crimped connector I've ever seen work is the cable TV connectors and the center conductor us used directly. Hey Mike, Don't rule all Hams. I will agree that most look down their noses and anyone with a lesser class of ticket and none at all is even worse but there are some that are helpful and knowledgeable in their field. I would guess that most hams don't know sqat anymore. Store bought radios and cables and antennas really are the problem here. Everyone operates and yaks about the weather and their latest hemmroid attack but no one know how to fix a broken radio. Heck, I even saw a post from a Canadian Ham that wanted some one to align his Heath stuff, How easy can you get and yet he can't do it or won't even learn how to do it. My mentor in the 60's in Ham radio is now long dead but when that man taught you something it stuck and we built some of the most God awful transmitters and regen receivers but they worked and the knowledge stuck. His motto was "Why buy it when you can build it" and he built everything he used on the air too. People looked down on him too as he held a Conditional class back then. noyk in Ocala |
"Da udder one ya dont know" wrote in message oups.com... Solderless connectors for RF applications? A quick fix for sure but not a lasting one! The only crimped connector I've ever seen work is the cable TV connectors and the center conductor us used directly. Crimp on RF connectors have been used for decades, BNC, TNC and N connectors, good to 1.5GHz, UHF connectors to 500MHz. Used in most avionic and military applications. (many of the connectors have a mil p/n) The crimp forms a cold weld which is better than solder and more reliable considering that the crimp tools are calibrated. http://www.radiall.com/vdocportal/po...egoryId=382831 Download the BNC catalog, go to Page 12 for a sample of BNC crimp on connectors. The UHF's are similar. Brad. |
"Brad" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Brad VK2QQ OOPS! Sometimes my typing just goes to pot. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Brad" wrote in message ... "robert casey" wrote in message hlink.net... Perhaps they could demonstrate a PL259 connector instead? Extra credit if they can do it without melting the dielectric insulation of the coax. More points if they can get the solder to actually flow onto the connector body where the shield solder holes are located (helps if you use a small file to remove the plating first). And more points if they remember to put the shell on the cable in the correct direction before doing any soldering ;-) Or they could demonstrate extra skills and just use crimp on PL259's like I do. These are much easier and more reliable. They are more expensive but their construction is superior. My original comment was directed at Dee offering points for something called a "PL256". Brad Yup, some days I can't type. The crimp on would also be an option since I did (purposely) phrase it as install it. In either case, the pass/fail criteria would be continuity with no shorts. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Brad" wrote in message ... "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... robert casey wrote: I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. Brad. As with anything else, there are both advantages and disadvantages. The crimp on ones seem to be more prone to having a shorter life. Why, I don't know. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Brad" wrote in message ... "Da udder one ya dont know" wrote in message oups.com... Solderless connectors for RF applications? A quick fix for sure but not a lasting one! The only crimped connector I've ever seen work is the cable TV connectors and the center conductor us used directly. Crimp on RF connectors have been used for decades, BNC, TNC and N connectors, good to 1.5GHz, UHF connectors to 500MHz. Used in most avionic and military applications. (many of the connectors have a mil p/n) The crimp forms a cold weld which is better than solder and more reliable considering that the crimp tools are calibrated. http://www.radiall.com/vdocportal/po...egoryId=382831 Download the BNC catalog, go to Page 12 for a sample of BNC crimp on connectors. The UHF's are similar. Brad. Unfortunately too many of the installations are sub par. When I have purchased antennas that came with crimp on connectors, such as many mobile antennas, I've had to replace the connector in under a year. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Userbeam Remailer" wrote in message ... In article "Dee Flint" wrote: "cl" wrote in message o.verio.net... "bb" wrote in message oups.com... [snip] I wonder how VE Dee would accomodate the disabled in the Tower Climbing pass/fail skill exam? Tower climbing is not a basic skill so there is no need to test for it. One can put up a wide variety of antennas without a tower. True! On the other hand, I've often thought that a person (unless handicapped) should demonstrate putting a simple PL-256 on coax. Oh, is that a new kind of connector? I like using PL-259's on coax myself! :) Ok, I accept the 50 lashes with a wet noodle. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote:
"Brad" wrote in message ... "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... robert casey wrote: I used to tin the braid then use a small tubing cutter to trim the shield to the right length. I used a drill to remove the plating from the holes and file all the chrome off between the holes. I tinned the center conductor and put a drop of liquid RMA flux on the center conductor and the braid before I put the coax into the plug, then soldered all four holes and the center pin. I didn't melt the dielectric, and you couldn't pull the coax out of the plug. That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. Brad. As with anything else, there are both advantages and disadvantages. The crimp on ones seem to be more prone to having a shorter life. Why, I don't know. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, I have worked in broadcast and manufacturing. 95% of the failed RF connectors I've seen were crimped. I've never had a soldered PL259 come off after I started using the described method. The assemblers at Microdyne were required to put completed crimped cables into a fixture that applied the manufacturer's specified tension on each crimped connector. Most of the SMA we used were still soldered, either on flex or semi-rigid cable. In 30 years I have only seen a few cracked solder joints on semirigid, and that was on N" connectors in Collins 4 GHz Satellite TV receivers. Over half of the units I repaired for United Video Cablevision had bad solder work on the RF input connectors. I was at a hamfest a few years ago and bought a box full of PL259 connectors that were cut off bad cables. I used needle nose to pull the insulation out and held the shell over a propane torch a few seconds and dropped it on the bench to remove the loose stands and old solder. After they had cooled I did the center pins that way. No damage to any of them and all were nicely tinned for re-use. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
Brad wrote:
That's a hell of a lot of messing about and time consuming too. A crimp on PL259 for RG58 series or RG213 series cables would take about 2 minutes to install, no soldering, no chance of heat damage, no shorts and they can be fitted in the field. I didn't make the cables one at a time. I would make dozens and it went very fast because I did it like a small assembly line. Not only that but people paid about $3 per connector I installed than anyone else in the area wanted. I could make about a dozen cables in an hour, back when I was in the RF business. I didn't make, or use RG58 cables. Only RG-8 or 213. I have to find the right connectors for the teflon coax I have in the shop. I think its two spools of RG-179 and a spool of RG-400 Who says you can't get a shorted cable with crimp connectors? I've seen plenty of shorted cables with crimped connectors. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
K4YZ wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I've heard of some pretty wild times long before things were "dumbed down"! - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, I've been meaning to ask. Are you still sore at me for not giving your grief about the balloon project? HEH! Now you confused me Brian. But seriously, that you *didn't* give me grief was duly noted! I've been stressing over Steve's label of "antagonist" for not giving you grief for some time now. I'm such a terrible person. Hi! Ohh, you know how newsgroups are..... I know how they are, Mike! You sure know how to destroy one. They're populated by people who don't have the intestinal fortitude to sign their names to their posts and they make up allegations to try and hide behind. And people who sign their names to every made up, false allegation. Ask Brain where the Techs went. He insists that they were "chased away", yet refuses to say who chased them away or where they went. I've asked him repeatedly after he unequivocally stated they had. Steve, it's old news. You're welcome to research it in the archives unless you're just too lazy and/or inept. Ask Brain where the "unlicensed devices" are. He insists that "unlicensed devices" play a "major roll" in emergency communications. He WON'T provide any evidence of it, but he insists it's true. It's true. Brain has also recently asserted that ARES is "overblown", and that it won't respond to "real disasters" due to the age of it's membership. I've posted several news releases, all of them from within the last 2 weeks, and Brain won't explain how it is ARES is "overblown" when there's evidence to the contrary. You failed as shift writer. You failed miserably, and you proved my point. Those are just the recents ones...The Somalia horse is pretty dead...He could never make that horse trot no matter how colorful a jockey he put on it. I'd like to see the documentation that you were the IMD on Okinawa. His "I've worked DXCC several times over" stories are cute, too... Please retell those stories, Steve. Now his most current diversion is adding up non-existant "lies". It just makes him look more feeble, but hey, it keeps him warm. They are well documented, and you just issued lie #27. Keeps me warm too....from laughing so hard! Oh, yeh, the "bwhahaha" laugh that you claimed to not make. |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I've heard of some pretty wild times long before things were "dumbed down"! - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, I've been meaning to ask. Are you still sore at me for not giving your grief about the balloon project? HEH! Now you confused me Brian. But seriously, that you *didn't* give me grief was duly noted! I've been stressing over Steve's label of "antagonist" for not giving you grief for some time now. I'm such a terrible person. Hi! Ohh, you know how newsgroups are..... I know how they are, Mike! You sure know how to destroy one. How? By making fun of persons who insist on lying in public...such as yourself, Brian? They're populated by people who don't have the intestinal fortitude to sign their names to their posts and they make up allegations to try and hide behind. And people who sign their names to every made up, false allegation. Such as? Ask Brain where the Techs went. He insists that they were "chased away", yet refuses to say who chased them away or where they went. I've asked him repeatedly after he unequivocally stated they had. Steve, it's old news. You're welcome to research it in the archives unless you're just too lazy and/or inept. Oh no, Brain! This was YOUR assertion! YOU stated all the Techs have allegedly been "chased" somewhere.. Let's see you pony-up that proof, Lying One. Ask Brain where the "unlicensed devices" are. He insists that "unlicensed devices" play a "major roll" in emergency communications. He WON'T provide any evidence of it, but he insists it's true. It's true. If it was, where's your proof? It was your assertion. I say Brian P. Burke is was jsut caught up in the moment, tried to bluff his way through, but got caught on a techniccality...The truth... Brain has also recently asserted that ARES is "overblown", and that it won't respond to "real disasters" due to the age of it's membership. I've posted several news releases, all of them from within the last 2 weeks, and Brain won't explain how it is ARES is "overblown" when there's evidence to the contrary. You failed as shift writer. You failed miserably, and you proved my point. You keep saying that but it's still not true. Again, you are lying, Brian P Burke. Why do you insist on doing that in the face of evidence to the contrary...?!?! Those are just the recents ones...The Somalia horse is pretty dead...He could never make that horse trot no matter how colorful a jockey he put on it. I'd like to see the documentation that you were the IMD on Okinawa. You've got the dates, callsigns and places, Brian. It's more than enough to substantiate MY claims...Now...About those techs and ARES claims...??? His "I've worked DXCC several times over" stories are cute, too... Please retell those stories, Steve. They weren't my stories, Brian. They were yours. Now his most current diversion is adding up non-existant "lies". It just makes him look more feeble, but hey, it keeps him warm. They are well documented, and you just issued lie #27. Nope. Still at zero, Brain. But you keep trying. Keeps me warm too....from laughing so hard! Oh, yeh, the "bwhahaha" laugh that you claimed to not make. I never made that claim, Brian. I DID claim that I DON'T use your "Hi" in written communication as alleged "laughter". You are welcome to re-post the item wherein you think I said I never use that "Bwwwhahahahahahaha...." And if we stack up the lies, Brian P., we'll have quite an archive to leave for your heirs...Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar in excess of the "27" you alledge that I have authored. Steve, K4YZ |
In rec.radio.amateur.misc Da udder one ya dont know wrote:
Solderless connectors for RF applications? A quick fix for sure but not a lasting one! The only crimped connector I've ever seen work is the cable TV connectors and the center conductor us used directly. Some would argue that SO-239/PL-259s are not RF connectors (I/F possibly and DC for sure)... -- Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345 If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. |
see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm wrote:
Some would argue that SO-239/PL-259s are not RF connectors (I/F possibly and DC for sure)... -- Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC They are not constant impedance connectors, but they were designed for RF. Look at what they replaced. ;-) -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com