[HCARC] Icom BNC Connectors For RX Antenna Connections

[Gary J - N5BAA]

Thank you so much for the info and the research to find it.  Sometimes one 
wonders about why the choices that are made, are made that way..

73,

Gary J
N5BAA

-----Original Message----- 
From: Don Murray via HCARC
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:29 PM
To: hcarc at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [HCARC] Icom BNC Connectors For RX Antenna Connections

Hello all...

I still believe the usage of the BNC comes down to
the minimal space that is occupied by the connector.

Back in the day...  some rigs had "RCA" connectors for
outboard receiver.  I have no further commen on this!!  ;-)

Here are the Amphenol specs for TYPE N, BNC and UHF
(PL-259) connectors.  Interesting reading...

I have also included links to the wikipedia discussion
of each connector format.

TYPE N
http://www.amphenolrf.com/connectors/n-type.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_connector

BNC
http://www.amphenolrf.com/connectors/bnc.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNC_connector


UHF (PL-259)
http://www.amphenolrf.com/connectors/uhf.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_connector


73
Don
W4WJ




In a message dated 4/4/2017 7:37:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
robertson at ctesc.net writes:

Don  & Gary,

I would think if the truth were known, the BNC connector is  closer to the
N
in quality than the PL-259.

Dennis --   W5FBG


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Murray via HCARC"  <hcarc at mailman.qth.net>
To: <n5baa at hctc.net>;  <hcarc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 7:15  PM
Subject: Re: [HCARC] Icom BNC Connectors For RX Antenna  Connections


> Gary...
>
> Not only to prevent an  OOPS...  but also the BNC occupies
> less area of the rear  panel...  where space can be at a premium.
>
> 73
>  Don
> W4WJ
>
>
>
> In a message dated 4/4/2017  11:45:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> n5baa at hctc.net  writes:
>
> Is there  any reason other than size and lack of  need to handle any TX
> power that Icom  (and others) use the BNC  connector on their receive only
> antenna  connections??  This  is true of even the Icom 7800 series radios
> that cost
>  $13,000.00 plus.  You would not expect in a $13,000.00 radio (Icom  7851)
> that there would not be a need for a “cost cutting”  measure.  As one
> might
> tell, I am somewhat ignorant when  it comes to these fittings.
> Fortunately
> even Amphenol BNC’s  are inexpensive (around $1.00) to buy.   Just seems
> that we  could settle on one fitting for radios to keep things   simple.
>
> Could the BNC’s be used to prevent receive only  antennas from  being
> attached to antenna ports that COULD carry  transmit power.  That  would
> make the
> most  sense.
>
> 73,
>
> Gary  J
> N5BAA
>  ______________________________________________________________
>  HCARC  mailing list
> Home:  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help:   http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post:   mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by:   http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:   http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>  ______________________________________________________________
> HCARC  mailing list
> Home:  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
> Help:  http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post:  mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by:  http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:  http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


---
This email has been checked  for viruses by Avast antivirus  software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

______________________________________________________________
HCARC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcarc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:HCARC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html