[Milsurplus] [Boatanchors] CU-872A/U antenna coupler FS near Boston

B. Smith smithab11 at comcast.net
Sat Feb 23 13:30:32 EST 2019


   Perhaps they used 70 ohms to match a half wavelength doublet antenna.
k4che

On 2/21/2019 11:55 AM, Francesco Ledda wrote:
>
> Of course, the transmitter has its own tunable coupler, and all the TX 
> couplers I have seen tune  the antenna to 50 ohm.
>
> It may be that older ships had 70 ohm transmission lines and they 
> stick with 70 ohm for historical reason.
>
> In the 80s, I know that many NATO ships mostly used high temperature 
> Teflon insulated RG-115, and it was 50 ohm.
>
> *From:* milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net> *On Behalf Of *Peter Gottlieb
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:04 AM
> *To:* Francesco Ledda <frledda at att.net>
> *Cc:* MilSurplus QSLNet <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>; Jim Whartenby 
> <antqradio at sbcglobal.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] [Boatanchors] CU-872A/U antenna coupler FS 
> near Boston
>
> Multi couplers are for receivers, and isn’t the optimum coax impedance 
> around 70 ohms for signal loss?  The optimum for power transmission is 
> closer to 50 ohms IIRC. These were made some time ago, perhaps before 
> 50 ohms was settled on as the standard for radio gear except CATV 
> systems. Just trying to think out loud why those things were 70 ohms.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 10:56 AM, Francesco Ledda <frledda at att.net 
> <mailto:frledda at att.net>> wrote:
>
>     I understand the mismatch and its engineering implications.
>
>     My question is why would anybody design mismatch in the system. 
>     Most transmitters used an antenna coupler anyway.
>
>     *From:* milsurplus-bounces at mailmanqth.net
>     <mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
>     <milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>     <mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net>> *On Behalf Of *Jim
>     Whartenby
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2019 10:53 PM
>     *To:* Francesco Ledda <frledda at att.net <mailto:frledda at att.net>>
>     *Cc:* MilSurplus QSLNet <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>     <mailto:milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] [Boatanchors] CU-872A/U antenna
>     coupler FS near Boston
>
>     Frank asked: "Wonder why?"
>
>     Most likely since at HF, the impedance mismatch is pretty much
>     insignificant, especially if one considers the length of the coax
>     run from antenna to RX.
>     https://www.pasternack.com/images/ProductPDF/RG8A-U.pdf
>
>     So about 1 dB loss at 30 mc per 100 feet or 0.2 db loss at 1 mc
>     per 100 feet.
>
>     From: http://wc7i.com/Vertical%20Antenna%20Conclusions.htm
>
>     Z of a vertical antenna is about 36 ohms, Z of horizontal antenna
>     is about 72 ohms, both give a 1.4:1 VSWR.  The VSWR from mating a
>     50 to 75 ohm coax is 1.5:1  In all of the above cases, the load
>     mismatch attenuation is under 0.2 dB
>
>     Comparing UHF connectors to most modern connectors is also
>     interesting.  I myself wonder why the the UHF connector is still used?
>
>     See:
>     https://www.hamradio.me/connectors/uhf-connector-test-results.html for
>     connector comparisons from SMA to UHF.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Jim
>
>     /I wonder why people argue over the 10% of their differences and
>     ignore the 90% they agree on?/
>
>     On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 6:09:03 PM CST, Francesco Ledda
>     <frledda at att.net <mailto:frledda at att.net>> wrote:
>
>     Also, the CU-1099/FRR is 70 ohm. It was used with receivers with Z
>     50 ohm.  Wonder why....
>
>     Sent from my iPad
>
>
>     On Feb 20, 2019, at 17:50, W2HX <w2hx at w2hx.com
>     <mailto:w2hx at w2hx.com>> wrote:
>
>     Probably the gain in the unit compensated for any losses due to
>     impedance mismatch
>
>     Sent from Nine <http://www.9folderscom/>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:*Nick England <navy.radio at gmail.com
>     <mailto:navy.radio at gmail.com>>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:00 PM
>     *To:* W2HX
>     *Cc:* MilSurplus QSLNet; r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>     <mailto:r-390 at mailman.qth.net>; John Flood
>     *Subject:* Re: [Milsurplus] [Boatanchors] CU-872A/U antenna
>     coupler FS near Boston
>
>     The parts list says it has UG-58A/U connectors. Everything I can
>     find says that is a 50 ohm connector.
>
>     I think all the military type N listings are 50 ohm.
>
>     Nick England K4NYW
>     www.navy-radio.com <http://www.navy-radio.com>
>
>     On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:56 PM W2HX <w2hx at w2hxcom
>     <mailto:w2hx at w2hx.com>> wrote:
>
>         John et al.,
>
>         This is an interesting multicoupler. One interesting thing
>         I've wondered about...It has a 70 ohm antenna matching input
>         impedance. And i always wondered if the antenna connector was
>         a 75 ohm N connector or the standard 50 ohm (The difference is
>         that the male center pin is thicker on the 50 ohm version, and
>         will damage a 75 ohm female part)
>         Just something to look out for.
>
>         Wikipedia has a nice photo of both impedances and genders.
>
>         73 Eugene W2HX
>
>         ________________________________________
>         From: boatanchors-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>         <mailto:boatanchors-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
>         <boatanchors-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>         <mailto:boatanchors-bounces at mailman.qth.net>> on behalf of
>         John Flood via Boatanchors <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>         <mailto:boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>>
>         Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 1:24 PM
>         To: MilSurplus QSLNet; r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>         <mailto:r-390 at mailman.qth.net>; BOATANCHORS2 LIST
>         Subject: [Boatanchors] CU-872A/U antenna coupler FS near Boston
>
>         Greetings,
>         This is working, some "test" readings are a bit on the low
>         side so perhaps some of the 6922 tubes are getting tired. 
>         There is some glue residue below the normal data tag most
>         likely from some other data tag that was mounted there.
>         Looking for a local sale in the Metrowest or North Shore
>         Boston (This of course means that the first reply will come
>         from Alaska!).  I'm not really interested in shipping this or
>         dealing with Paypal any more in MA.  Any interest?  I could
>         bring it to the Lewiston ME, Nashua, NH, or Framingham, MA
>         fleas.  Nearfest as well but I hope it finds a home sooner
>         than May!
>         John Flood N1JAF978-979-2807
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         Boatanchors mailing list
>         Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
>         Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>         Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>         <mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
>
>         List Administrator: Gary Harmon, K5JWK
>         ** For Assistance: gharmon at idworld.net
>         <mailto:gharmon at idworld.net> **
>
>
>         This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>         Please help support this email list:
>         http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>         Message delivered to w2hx at w2hx.com <mailto:w2hx at w2hx.com>
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         Milsurplus mailing list
>         Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>         Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>         Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>         <mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>
>         This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>         Please help support this email list:
>         http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         Milsurplus mailing list
>         Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>         Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>         Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
>         This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>         Please help support this email list:
>         http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>     ______________________________________________________________
>     Milsurplus mailing list
>     Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>     Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>     Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>     <mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>
>     This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>     Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>     ______________________________________________________________
>     Milsurplus mailing list
>     Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>     Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>     <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaqhtm>
>     Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
>     This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net <http://www.qslnet>
>     Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html



More information about the Milsurplus mailing list