[Elecraft] Reliable PL-259 UHF connector engagement

[Wes]

Actually, the VNA crowd is finding that BNC is an acceptable series for 
precision work.  DG5MK's FA-VA5 vector impedance meter has a BNC interface and 
cal kits are available:

https://www.sdr-kits.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=66_91_94&product_id=181

There is also available a bracket for the DG8SAQ VNWA that converts the fragile 
SMA to BNC.  (I've lobbied to a type N version, but that has gone nowhere.)

https://www.sdr-kits.net/index.php?route=web/pages&page_id=86_86

Frankly (no pun intended) I've always been in the BNCs are iffy camp, but DK5MK 
and OZ7OU are really sharp guys and are convincing me otherwise.

Wes  N7WS




On 7/29/2020 3:23 PM, donovanf at erols.com wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
>
> Both N and BNC connectors have their own unique issues...
>
>
> BNC connectors have rather poor shielding performance caused by
> imperfect axial alignment and limited engagement pressure, both
> of which are easily demonstrated by a VNA, especially above 20 MHz.
>
>
> Both BNC and N connectors suffer from small center pin size and
> weak center pin engagement pressure, both of which affect reliability
> and power handling capability.
>
>
> Don't even consider installing the long obsolete multi-part BNC
> and N connectors with loose center pins requiring precise placement
> and axial orientation. Very many of these obsolete connectors are improperly
> installed by both hams and professionals. Modern BNC and N connectors
> with captive center pins are much more reliable and less subject to
> installation errors, although for some hams no job is so simple that
> it cannot be done wrong.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Bill Frantz" <frantz at pwpconsult.com>
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:05:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Reliable PL-259 UHF connector engagement
>
> As someone who is currently switching bands by going outside and
> replugging PL259s, I fully agree that other connectors, e.g. BNC
> would be nicer.
>
> I have gotten in the habit of skipping pulling out my LeatherMan
> and instead joining the connection to the point where I can feel
> the teeth engaging and there is still some slop in the
> connection. I then gently work the two connectors together,
> trying to move them back and fourth until there is no slop and
> the connection is solid. It does seem to work.
>
> 73 Bill AE6JV
>
> On 7/29/20 at 2:21 PM, wunder at wunderwood.org (Walter Underwood) wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 29, 2020, at 9:49 AM, donovanf at erols.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike N and BNC connectors, a PL-259 is dependent on proper
>>> engagement of its outer shell and interconnecting teeth to the
>>> mating SO-239 socket.
>> That is exactly why I consider UHF connectors to be a poor
>> design. I use connectors which are designed to connect without
>> special effort.
>> Seriously, that is the main point of a connector, to connect.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Frantz |The nice thing about standards| Periwinkle
> (408)348-7900 |is there are so many to choose| 150
> Rivermead Rd #235
> www.pwpconsult.com |from. - Andrew Tanenbaum |
> Peterborough, NH 03458
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to donovanf at starpower.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to wes_n7ws at triconet.org