Рет қаралды 8,377
Jim Heath, W6LG KZbin Elmer compares the loss of UHF connectors to N connectors in order to answer the question: Which type of connector should you use at HF?
From David Gold, a correction to my video where I use the term connector and it should have been adapter. He also adds to the explanation of what I was attempting to do in the "test". Please read his comments moved to here in the description.
Hi Jim- thanks for the video. I agree with you regarding VHF and HF frequencies.
When did we start calling "adapters" "connectors"? To me, a connector is directly attached to a cable, and an adapter goes between the connector and the equipment (or another adapter).
The PL-259 was termed a "UHF connector", because back when it was developed, VHF was "ultra high frequency". But for 400mhz up, I believe the N connector is the way to go. For HF and VHF, I use a PL259 SO239... they are cheaper and work fine.
And for the "experts" who question your measurement methods....this is a relative comparison, and this video was not intended as part of an engineering syllabus....it was a nice demonstration.
Let me just add one more thing: I believe that if you added a well-used (not brand new) cheap 90-degree adaptor into the mix, your losses would be greater, especially if you actually measured power dissipation and not just low-level signals from a VNA....I have removed ALL of the cheap (amazon, not amphenol) right angle adapters from my gear. 73