My coax debate

[GnG8d]

Type-N connectors are considerably better than SO-239 / PL-259 connectors in every way I can think of.

Have you seen the tests, or are you drinking the kool-aid?

 

[vo1ks]

I challenge you to find a single manner in which the PL259 is superior.

Oops, other than at DC... I'm assuming we're talking RF work here.

 

[GnG8d]

I challenge you to find a single manner in which the PL259 is superior.

Oops, other than at DC... I'm assuming we're talking RF work here.

Have you seen the tests?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vo1ks]

Would doing measurements personally using an Agilent E5071B network analyzer count as seeing them? If so, yes, I've seen the tests.

 

[GnG8d]

Since you have good equipment, you know UHF connectors aren't so bad are they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

The ONLY time I have seen anything where the N was inferior to the UHF type PL-259 was a test that was done that determined that in very high power situations the centre pin of the male type N connector may not handle the higher RF current than the UHF due to it being much smaller in size.This is not normally an issue at amateur power levels. As for losses and constant impedance, the N wins every time especially at VHF and above. For normal amateur uses, yes, the UHF connector is not that bad and is often used at 2m. "Often used", and "not that bad", are different however than "could be improved upon".


http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html

 

[vo1ks]

They beat spade terminals hands down.

 

[GnG8d]

I'll have to go back and see where I said the N was inferior to the UHF .......... Hmmm, I can't seem to find it. This damn phone, can you quote it for me so I can find it?


Oh, BTW, how many dB better was the N over the UHF at VHF or at HF, and which connector arced 1st at high power?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Type-N connectors are considerably better than SO-239 / PL-259 connectors in every way I can think of.

Have you seen the tests, or are you drinking the kool-aid?

I'll have to go back and see where I said the N was inferior to the UHF .......... Hmmm, I can't seem to find it. This damn phone, can you quote it for me so I can find it?

By asking "Have you seen the tests, or are you drinking the kool-aid?" in response too "Type-N connectors are considerably better than SO-239 / PL-259 connectors in every way I can think of." is a pretty good indication that you disagree with what VO1KS said. Since VO1KS said the N is better than the UHF and you apparently disagreed with what he said it can be inferred that you think that the N is inferior to the UHF. Let's not get into a pissing contest and kool-aid is for kids.

 

[vo1ks]

I'm somewhat confused by what you're attempting to discuss. What exactly are you asking? No more flipping and flopping around.

Return loss measurements are superior with the Type-N connector compared to the PL259, particularly at VHF and UHF. Connectors are often the weak point in terms of power ratings. If you're just trying to pound power through a cable with no regard to VSWR then why bother with connectors at all?

It is irresponsible and wreckless to try to destroy connectors. The typical power handling levels should be known and adhered to. If I were to operate at higher power than a Type-N will handle the connector of choice would be 7-16DIN and next a 7/8"EIA.

I see no need and have no desire to use PL259 connector other than with an adapter to almost anything else.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

There is more to rating connectors than using illegal power levels to determine how much power they will handle. Both the type N and the UHF will handle full legal amateur power levels up to 2m. That being said it comes down to other parameters to determine which is better.


Amphenol RF- UHF Connector Series


Amphenol RF- Type N Connector Series

 

[towerdog]

I think the service life of a PL-259 is better. If I recall, type-n is only rated to be connected about 500 times.

7/16" DIN still PWNZ everything. In telcom, not much of anything uses type-n anymore, ATT's stuff is all DIN and most other carriers only legacy stuff use N.

As for LMR I think its crap in comparison to heliax. LMR leaks, a bird chews on it and soon water will intrude into your line. A certain wireless internet provider known for using WIMAX used alot of LMR400 and 600 and eventually I ended up ripping out almost every installation that used it. Why, it leaks, it crushes and it kinks. Sure heliax will kink too but not like LMR. Replaced with 1/2", LDF4-50 and not a problem since.

Actually there is nothing wrong with LMR for ham, I would definitely run LMR, if it was free. I rather pay a few more $$$ and run heliax.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

I think the service life of a PL-259 is better. If I recall, type-n is only rated to be connected about 500 times.

I agree that the PL-259 is a bit more robust. I have taken out the centre pin of a type N female connector by not paying attention but that was really my fault and not that of the connector's. With a service life of 500 matings however I have no problems with it as 99.99% of the applications will hardly,if ever, be disconnected/reconnected on a regular basis.

 

[GnG8d]

If I remember, the UHF connector exhibits .01dB attenuation or less at VHF, and considerably less than that at HF. So when someone says that a different connector is "considerably better in every way", I have to assume that it's a HAM thing and with no real foundation.

 

[hookedon6]

If I remember, the UHF connector exhibits .01dB attenuation or less at VHF, and considerably less than that at HF. So when someone says that a different connector is "considerably better in every way", I have to assume that it's a HAM thing and with no real foundation.

I guess you have never had much luck at EME.

the N connector is FAR superior to a UHF connector as far as constant impedance which is important at VHF and higher frequencies .

also I consider it more water resistant (I won't say waterPROOF) than any UHF connector