Young people do not volunteer. Only what counts on college applications they
ste raising a generation of mercenarys
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 4, 2016, at 12:00 PM, topband-request@contesting.com wrote:
>
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
> topband@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> topband-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> topband-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
> (James Rodenkirch)
> 2. modeling BOGs (or whatever we call them) (Guy Olinger K2AV)
> 3. UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Bob K6UJ)
> 4. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Greg Zenger)
> 5. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Clive GM3POI)
> 6. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (donovanf@starpower.net)
> 7. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Bob K6UJ)
> 8. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Clive GM3POI)
> 9. 259- 1/2" link (Clive GM3POI)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:08:13 +0000
> From: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC@msn.com>
> To: Kip Edwards <kedwards@ltol.com>, 'Top Band Contesting'
> <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
> Message-ID:
>
> <SN1PR16MB0623D9134830762931E04BBFF0590@SN1PR16MB0623.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> By the by: if anyone needs a competent web-site design/manager, my nephew
> does that sort of thing - he's worked on other sites I'm involved with and
> does excellent worth......71.5/72 de Jim R. K9JWV
>
> Here's a representative site he runs: https://www.rmspartnership.org/
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Kip Edwards <kedwards@ltol.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 7:57 AM
> To: 'James Rodenkirch'; 'Top Band Contesting'; w8ji@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>
> Jim,
>
> The Yasme Foundation website is being completely re-done by the
> person who did the NCJ website. Unfortunately our webmaster resigned and it
> has taken some time and one false start to find someone capable of doing it
> right. In the meantime the website is embarrassing and, as you noted,
> woefully out of date.
>
> My apologies to all--and I'm glad you were able to find the press
> release about Tom receiving the Yasme Excellence Award.
>
> 73 Kip W6SZN
> Yasme Foundation Director/Secretary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of James
> Rodenkirch
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 5:19 AM
> To: Top Band Contesting; w8ji@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>
> Based on some snooping around @ the YASME site, it's obvious no one is
> keeping that site up to date - tnx to Mike, W0Btu, for listing the ARRL url
> link.
>
> Also, I didn't intend to diss the other current recipients...Tim Duffy (who
> I believe shows up here once in a while with comments) and Carole Perry (I
> am not familiar with her efforts)...AND, as I understand from a recent post,
> our very own Tree has garnered that recognition.....BZ to all!
>
> 71.5/72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
>
> P.S. Hope to hear and work ya in the summer Stew...and sure HOPE you hear my
> peanut whistle QRP signal...hihi ________________________________________
> From: James Rodenkirch
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 4:07 PM
> To: Top Band Contesting; w8ji@contesting.com
> Subject: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>
> No more deserving...good on ya, Tom! I've enjoyed AND miss your technical
> and "how to operate" posts.
>
> Tom Rauch, W8JI: "The Yasme Excellence Award is made in recognition of Tom's
> many contributions to the technical advancement of the Amateur Service," the
> announcement said. "Tom's willingness to provide education and direction to
> amateurs through his website and other communications is a prime example of
> hams mentoring, teaching, and training each other in the finest traditions
> of Amateur Radio."
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4568/12243 - Release Date: 05/16/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:56:46 -0400
> From: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>
> To: Carl Luetzelschwab <carlluetzelschwab@gmail.com>, N6lf@arrl.net
> Cc: TopBand List <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: modeling BOGs (or whatever we call them)
> Message-ID:
> <CANckpc3wi=xuV_UwLVS1_CKaDEtTAMSOocKcjk6UCpo6sYuGTA@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Running way, way, way behind in responses to postings. Getting hopefully
> well-thought-out responses the same day or even the same week or month is
> apparently not always going to happen.
>
> Short Version: Thank you Rudy. And there is more work to be done.
>
> Long Version:
>
> Please do not consider this to be dismissive of Rudy's work in any sense.
> That's not at all what I intend. His (and our) proposition that an inert
> BOG just laying there can be grown into the ground over time, and thereby
> harshly deteriorate performance, is absolutely confirmed in our collection
> of anecdota.
>
> For long term performance, it is necessary to fix (make permanent) a BOG's
> *electrical* relationship to ground by some mechanical design or process.
> Lacking that, regular effective maintenance/adjustment must be kept up in
> all but very arid environments. The deterioration in BOG performance is
> without sudden drops like someone cut a wire. So it's very sneaky, and in
> many cases sneaks toward extremes to the point of losing 10-15 dB and even
> reversing pattern.
>
> The QST article is rather severely edited for space. The full version will
> apparently be in July QEX. For those who do not subscribe to QEX, or don't
> want to wait, the full version can be found directly at
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST%20Binaries/June2016/QST-in-Depth-0616-Serverns.pdf
>
> NOTE: My comments refer to the FULL Severns article and set of graphs found
> at the arrl.org URL above, and presume the reader is looking at the full
> article, not QST.
>
> I will remain differing with Rudy on whether NEC is accurate. I personally
> think that has to do with how we separately define "accurate". I would say
> that NEC with regard to ground and MF antennas invoking ground is
> *approximate*, and only to a point carries a correct graphical "shape" of
> expected results in presentations.
>
> That does not mean I am at odds with Rudy's measurements. I will trust his
> measurements long after I give up on NEC. Just looking at his graphs, I see
> those as evidence that NEC is *not* accurate in the sense that *I* use the
> word "accurate".
>
> Brown, Lewis and Epstein, and Rudy, make current measurements along the
> line that show some degree of wavelength related wiggle. NEC4.x shows no
> wiggle. If NEC were calculating with all the variables at play, NEC would
> show the wiggle even if located differently or with different amplitude or
> distance between nodes. That makes the NEC curve only approximate, however
> useful that approximation may or may not be. Without knowing WHY the wiggle
> is absent in NEC curves, it's hard to make a case to the authors to fix
> that.
>
> Some of the divergences between NEC 4.2 and his measurements portrayed in
> Rudy's graphs would render an antenna diminished if NEC was followed
> blindly. I have learned the hard way not to follow NEC-based programs
> blindly and have the scars to prove it. I believe Rudy's measurements. To
> my eye NEC cannot reproduce Rudy's measurements.
>
> Further, Rudy is measuring at a single location, which is NOT a criticism.
> I give all due respect for the time and effort testing there. A project
> like this can be full of mechanical-blowing-up-the-electrical-results
> issues needing to be avoided. Realizing an issue at some point well into
> the procedure can force one to redo everything all the way back from the
> start. Having the experiment in one's own back yard, with zero travel time
> to the experiment, under one's own self-permission is a huge advantage to
> reforming/restarting/finally completing the experiment.
>
> Or sadly, as seen in other cases, running into "issues" having exhausted
> resources and time, one has to give up on the project.
>
> To further carry this exercise to the level needed to publish is even more
> work. But it IS a single location, and we have to remember that. We must
> excuse location centric for cause because picking sites and repeating the
> testing in a dozen places all around the USA would create a huge,
> time-consuming and expensive undertaking. Even then the case can be made
> that not everything happens in the USA. Then how expensive does it get?
>
> Our testing (I call them the Rowdy Raleigh Radio Researchers out of
> earshot) only in the 12 county area around Raleigh/Durham North Carolina
> showed huge variations in the primary electrical length of a 151' (46m)
> dipole laid on the ground. The often referenced FCC ground conductance maps
> calls us all 2 milliSiemens. However...
>
> The velocity factor of that Dipole On Ground (DOG) varied from 0.45 to 0.8
> across all sites and placements. That's +/- 22% (twenty-two percent not two
> point two). Consider what would happen to a Yagi if the manufactured
> element dimensions could only be guaranteed to lengths +/- 22 %. An
> intended 15 meter yagi +/- 22% could actually be on 17 or 12 meters. Or if
> all yagi elements did not have their errors vary in unison, could render
> the antenna completely dysfunctional. Enter into the world of "wonderful"
> to "d*mned waste of time" customer performance reviews. Sound familiar?
>
> This measured variation in eastern North Carolina VF was not a gradually
> changing figure with area changes in geography. Reorienting the compass
> bearing of the DOG around its center in the same back yard, or placing the
> DOG at another part of the same back yard, or just linearly sliding the DOG
> up it's line for 50 feet could generate large variation in VF. This even
> without buried pipes, wires, or septic fields in the yard. What effect that
> may have had on Rudy's graphs if measured by his procedures in a dozen
> locales scattered around the US is anyone's guess. It certainly would have
> been varied. Varied quite enough to take a SINGLE instance "good" layout
> for a 160 BOG in a specified location (like Rudy's back yard) thrown down
> anywhere else and produce results varying from "works wonderful" to
> "doesn't work worth a d*mn".
>
> What do you do to take the BOG construction and have it respond to a normal
> "wild variation" in VF of specific chosen spots of ground to lay out a
> BOG? Is it to measure the ground characteristics? Rudy hints that NEC 4 is
> accurate if the ground characteristics are accurate. There is a long and
> difficult discussion that could be had to show that even the FCC does not
> believe this in their administrata for commercial LF/MF AM broadcast
> stations, and they have a we-will-not-get-on-your-case cobble to get around
> it. But Rudy does get approximate correlation in his back yard. And I trust
> his measurements.
>
> But even if we let that stand without challenge to whether it works
> everywhere, there is another problem. Rudy's methods are full-on lab and
> academic quality. And he has the equipment, software and expertise to do
> it. Certainly not a criticism in *any* sense, Rudy attacks the problem with
> 1) a sophisticated knowledge base from an enviable employment experience,
> and 2) a practiced experimenter's hand using 3) expensive equipment and 4)
> expensive software, and 5) with a gift or two for excellence in technical
> writing and publication skills.
>
> Then there is Joe Average Ham, hereafter called Joe A H.
>
> While Rudy's methods are full on lab and academic with adequate equipment
> for those methods, Joe A H lacks the means to use *those* methods to do a
> BOG on his own property. We need to arrive at something workable for Joe A
> H with stuff *commonly available* to Joe A H.
>
> Rudy's stuff and outstanding background makes him rare among the army of
> Joe A H.
>
> Rudy is using export controlled NEC 4.2. NEC 4.x is the only software from
> the NEC family that can deal with buried conductors. One must pay a fee for
> a license from a government agency to use Unix NEC on a Unix platform. If
> you are not a naturally Unix person, then the high end professional EZNEC
> Pro4 has a NEC 4.2 build that runs inside the EZNEC shell for Windows,
> That's yet more $$ for the EZNEC Pro4 license, which is enabled by a key
> that goes in a USB jack on your PC. You will not find any midnight copies
> of Roy Lewallen's (W7EL) high end pro stuff on a Russian web site. (Read
> around sometime about how hamdom screwed K6STI and shut him and his
> excellent programs down.)
>
> In addition to NEC 4.2, Rudy is using a VNA, and equipment sufficient for
> accurate ground conductivity measurements. All his stuff and programs
> together cost more than a high end state of the art HF transceiver.
>
> Many Joe A H cannot find that kind of money in their budget for anything
> other than necessities, if even that. And if they did have transceiver
> level money, they would spend it on the transceiver, not the test equipment
> and software. So who will be providing the instructions that allows Joe A
> H, with typical Joe A H equipment, to hit the nail on the head with a BOG,
> and maintain it?
>
> I *personally* have found these expensive investments to be very
> worthwhile, even if just for hobby and entertainment value since I find
> this stuff extremely fun and interesting. But that's just me, and some
> folks look at me just a bit askance...
>
> I have had it unkindly hammered home to me that merely modest means
> precludes the availability of Rudy-worthy equippage for practical Joe A H
> construction of a BOG. Or for that matter, that even having time to do it
> up to Rudy-grade standards just isn't going to happen. Again this is *not*
> a criticism or dismissal of Rudy's article.
>
> This is as well a hard-as-nails lesson regarding FCP kinds of things for
> Joe A H. We need to write for Joe A H, design for Joe A H, and learn how to
> do it with tools that can realistically belong to Joe A H.
>
> To maintain a BOG that is working, Rudy's conclusions from his experiments
> in the article and a large pile of anecdotal trial and error known to me,
> some posted here, show that one cannot allow the wire to change its
> effective height with respect to ground by allowing natural processes like
> accumulating rotting leaves, etc, to gradually bury the wire, or bury it
> deeper. Getting the BOG working well in the first place is a separate
> story.
>
> For MF ground-low-velocity-factor antennas, NEC requires a single
> monolithic uniform ground medium. Real underfoot ground is most often
> anything but uniform. NEC using "high accuracy ground" frequently
> underestimates ground loss and can miss VF by a mile. The reasons for this
> are not yet clear. And we got no Daddy Warbucks interested in the problem
> to pay for the likes of the RCA funded Brown Lewis & Epstein study by
> people PAID to keep at it and do it right with equipment and support
> provided by their employer.
>
> Thank you, Rudy.
>
> And there is more work to be done.
>
> 73, Guy K2AV.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:26:06 -0700
> From: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
> Message-ID: <722e32b7-0a13-69c0-8fc4-c26f79e98b58@pacbell.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>
> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex cable
> I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. I like the
> EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male (PL-259)
>
> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
> would
> prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one (below) its
> not an Andrew
> EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. Know of other options ?
>
> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:52:40 -0400
> From: Greg Zenger <n2gz@gregzenger.com>
> To: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
> Cc: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
> Message-ID:
> <CAE8nip1Uw70C3kpdjaYrHVPGh3zMJNjg3O4-J46_f+C4sfai+g@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Bob,
> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new.
>
> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
> will work just fine with your cable.
>
> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>
> Greg, N2GZ
>
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex cable
>> I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. I like the
>> EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male (PL-259)
>>
>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>> would
>> prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one (below) its not
>> an Andrew
>> EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. Know of other options ?
>>
>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:15:11 -0000
> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> To: "'Greg Zenger'" <n2gz@gregzenger.com>, "'Bob K6UJ'"
> <k6uj@pacbell.net>
> Cc: "'topband'" <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
> Message-ID: <000001d1bded$c7ba7700$572f6500$@btinternet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50
> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive
> GM3POI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Zenger
> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
> To: Bob K6UJ
> Cc: topband
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>
> Bob,
> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new.
>
> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
> will work just fine with your cable.
>
> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>
> Greg, N2GZ
>
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex
>> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem.
>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male
>> (PL-259)
>>
>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one
>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.
>> Know of other options ?
>>
>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
> From: donovanf@starpower.net
> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Cc: Greg Zenger <n2gz@gregzenger.com>, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>,
> Clive GM3POI <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
> Message-ID:
> <811817216.8557992.1465010406698.JavaMail.root@starpower.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> To: "Greg Zenger" <n2gz@gregzenger.com>, "Bob K6UJ" <k6uj@pacbell.net>
> Cc: "topband" <topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>
> Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50
> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive
> GM3POI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Zenger
> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
> To: Bob K6UJ
> Cc: topband
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>
> Bob,
> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new.
>
> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
> will work just fine with your cable.
>
> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>
> Greg, N2GZ
>
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex
>> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem.
>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male
>> (PL-259)
>>
>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one
>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.
>> Know of other options ?
>>
>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:40:03 -0700
> From: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>
> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Cc: Clive GM3POI <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
> Message-ID: <345595fe-7f4c-3951-6677-c697caab1b06@pacbell.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Thanks everyone for info on a source for the UHF connectors.
> This is a great forum, help is here, all you gotta do is ask ! :-)
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>
>> On 6/3/16 8:20 PM, donovanf@starpower.net wrote:
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From: *"Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
>> *To: *"Greg Zenger" <n2gz@gregzenger.com>, "Bob K6UJ" <k6uj@pacbell.net>
>> *Cc: *"topband" <topband@contesting.com>
>> *Sent: *Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>>
>> Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to
>> LDF4-50
>> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
>> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive
>> GM3POI
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
>> Zenger
>> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
>> To: Bob K6UJ
>> Cc: topband
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>>
>> Bob,
>> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new.
>>
>> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
>> will work just fine with your cable.
>>
>> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
>> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>>
>> Greg, N2GZ
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex
>>> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem.
>>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male
>>> (PL-259)
>>>
>>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one
>>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.
>>> Know of other options ?
>>>
>>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>>
>>> Bob
>>> K6UJ
>>>
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:49:38 -0000
> From: "Clive GM3POI" <clive@gm3poi.com>
> To: "'Bob K6UJ'" <k6uj@pacbell.net>, "'topband'"
> <topband@contesting.com>
> Cc: "'Clive GM3POI'" <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
> Message-ID: <000301d1be3e$074e0b20$15ea2160$@gm3poi.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This is the link I used
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649
> <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT>
> &ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
>
>
>
> 73 Clive GM3POI
>
>
>
> From: Bob K6UJ [mailto:k6uj@pacbell.net]
> Sent: 04 June 2016 04:40
> To: topband
> Cc: Clive GM3POI
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone for info on a source for the UHF connectors.
> This is a great forum, help is here, all you gotta do is ask ! :-)
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/3/16 8:20 PM, donovanf@starpower.net wrote:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh
>
> _____
>
> From: "Clive GM3POI" <mailto:gm3poi2@btinternet.com> <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> To: "Greg Zenger" <mailto:n2gz@gregzenger.com> <n2gz@gregzenger.com>, "Bob
> K6UJ" <mailto:k6uj@pacbell.net> <k6uj@pacbell.net>
> Cc: "topband" <mailto:topband@contesting.com> <topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>
> Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50
> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive
> GM3POI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Zenger
> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
> To: Bob K6UJ
> Cc: topband
> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>
> Bob,
> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new.
>
> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
> will work just fine with your cable.
>
> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>
> Greg, N2GZ
>
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <mailto:k6uj@pacbell.net>
>> <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex
>> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem.
>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male
>> (PL-259)
>>
>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one
>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.
>> Know of other options ?
>>
>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:51:33 -0000
> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2@btinternet.com>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: 259- 1/2" link
> Message-ID: <000b01d1be3e$4c2e7d60$e48b7820$@btinternet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> This is the link I used
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649
> <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageN
> ame=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT> &ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
>
>
>
> 73 Clive GM3POI
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 162, Issue 4
> ***************************************
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|