This discussion is getting VERY far afield from the topic of connectors
used on HF equipment.
However, the analysis in this tome is rather flawed, which renders the
conclusion the author draws misleading at best. The flaw is that the
author measures the impedance bump at the connector, computes a quantity
called "mismatch loss" that is fictional in most ham antenna systems,
and decides that there is massive power loss in the system.
Most of us who do anything serious on 2M and above use BNCs and Ns at
those frequencies. But I've visited several big contesting stations
built by very good engineers, and UHFconnectors are the weapon of choice.
73, Jim K9YC
On 4/28/2013 2:31 PM, Rich - K1HTV wrote:
> In response to the Dick Knadle (K2RIW) article concerning UHF connector losses at VHF/UHF frequencies, local Fauquier Amateur Radio Association club member John Huggins, KX4O wrote:
> "I challenge it because I did make the measurements...
> http://www.hamradio.me/connectors/uhf-connector-test-results.html "
> John's test results and graphics make for even more interesting reading on the topic of UHF connectors.
> ....the analysis in this tome is rather flawed...
Agreed, Jim. Nonetheless, the measurements therein confirm that a UHF
connector is as good as any other at frequencies of 144 or less. This
started out as a discussion of the new Elecraft 100W amp, which operates
only up to 50 mhz, a range where there is nothing to be gained by replacing
UHF connectors with something else. By now it should be clear that if you
are looking for a way to improve your signal by 1/4 db, there are probably
other places in your shack or antenna system that are more likely to be
fruitful than changing all your connectors.
Folks, this thread has already been closed. Please take further
discussion off list inthe interest of keeping posting traffic under control.
On 4/28/2013 7:53 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> This discussion is getting VERY far afield from the topic of
> connectors used on HF equipment.
> However, the analysis in this tome is rather flawed, which renders the
> conclusion the author draws misleading at best. T