Up until the set of 83-1SP shells that did not even mate with their own body,
you could debate whether the 83-1SPs or the brand X SO-239s were at fault.
To be fair, all the vendors of the gear with the SO239s that did not mate took
steps to make it right. That includes my sending them an 83-1SP which they
used to select SO239s that would mate.
An example of how this can be frustrating.
I have a grounding bracket at the base of the tower for all the coax going to
the antennas. They were made by KF7P and had long barrels to join the coax. I
decided I would install lightning arresters instead of the barrels as an added
precaution. It meant undoing the waterproofing, replacing the bracket with one
that was already made and drilling holes for the lightning arrester bolts. My
wife was with me and said she could do all of this, other than drilling the
holes. I went on to do other stuff as there is always plenty to do.
Every time I checked in so basically said go away, I am doing fine. Later, I
could see she was getting frustrated. I thought the heat and relentless sun
was getting to her. Turns out, she could not get the coax cables to mate. The
whole job was done except for reattaching the cables and waterproofing. She
struggled for a long time, not wanting to admit she could not screw the
connectors back on. Turn out, they just would not engage. The coax was
already affixed to the tower on one side, and buried in conduit going back to
the shack on the other, so replacing it was not an option. It was not clear
where the fault lied. Since they both mated with the KF7P barrels, the logical
suspect was the lightning arrestors. However, subsequent date points suggest
the 83-1SP could have also been the problem.
It could be component tolerances at opposite limits or unclear/non-existent
standards, but I have never had a connector not mate in 50 years as a ham. I
suspect Amphenol has the bulk of the culpability here. The incompatible shells
and bodies was the last straw.
73, Tom W2SC 8P5A
-----Original Message-----
From: john@kk9a.com <john@kk9a.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 11:42 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Cc: tomgeorgens15@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Junk Coonectors (was Re: How lossy are PL-259s at HF?)
That is interesting.
The only 83-1SP failure I encountered was two decades ago when the threads on
the barrel were not completely cut and I could not assemble it. Of course I
discovered this after soldering on the inner portion so I had to cut it off and
toss it.
I have noticed a difference in the knurling pattern and on the marking fonts
even when purchased at the same time through the same vendor. I have also
noticed that the pin does not seem tight in the SO-239 of one manufacture's amp
but I assumed it was a socket issue.
It would be nice if you had samples of the two versions of 83-1SPs so the
5/8-24 threads could be measured or even checked with a go / no-go gauge if
someone had one. I am sure that you didn't have that capability on the
eastern Caribbean island where your station is and I am glad that everything is
working well for you but it would be nice to see the data.
John KK9A
-----Original Message-----
From: tomgeorgens15@gmail.com <tomgeorgens15@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 12:53 PM
To: 'Ron WV4P' <wv4ptn@gmail.com>; john@kk9a.com
Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Junk Coonectors (was Re: How lossy are PL-259s at HF?)
I have suspicions about the 83-1SP as well. In 2022, I did a full rebuild of
my contest station at a new location. In the process, I installed at least
100, 83-1SP connectors.
The story is too long to reproduce here, but the net is that there was
considerable variability in both commercial SO-239's as well as the outer
shells of the 83-1SP.
Some anecdotes -
One balun vendor had SO239s, that would not mate with the 83-1SP. The 83-1SP
shell would entirely slip over the threads of the SO 239 and never engage. All
my other cables laying around in the junk draw would mate.
Another common device has 2 SO239's on it. The 83-1SPs have shells with
slightly different size printing on them. One size printing would mate with
both SO239's. The other size printing would only mate with one of the two
connectors. The threads on the two connectors would not engage, and the PL259
would not screw on. Clearly there was variation in both the SO-239s and the
83-1SPs that would produce combinations that would not mate. I do not have the
ability to measure which were out of spec. The symptom was the same, the shell
seemed too big, or the threads too shallow.
All of the 83-1SP's would mate with an Amphenol SO-239 (which rarely exist on
commercial equipment). Admittedly, I only had a couple of SO-239's to test.
So, what to conclude. I wanted to believe that the issue was the unbranded
SO239. Possibly new vendors being used post Covid as supply shortages were
widespread. However, the data would indicate that that there was considerable
variability the 83-1SPs as well. Was it too much variability? I could not
tell, but this was a major headache.
It is possible that 83-1SP fakes had penetrated the supply chain. All the
connectors were new in bag, and purchased from DX Engineering, Mouser, or RF
Connection. Problematic 83-1SP's could be traced to at least two of them.
The last piece of information came from my last purchase. I bought a number of
83-1SPs, and the outer shells would not even mate with the threads on their own
body. The shell could be slid from behind the body, over the threads until it
bottomed out fully forward. I have video and pictures of all of these.
Samples were sent back the Amphenol by one of my suppliers, but no response.
While fakes are still a possibility, I think it is a low probability that all
three suppliers were fooled by this. What I do believe is that Amphenol had
productions issues in that timeframe regarding the outer shell. Attributing
root cause to multiple production sites, or different tooling would be pure
speculation on my part without detailed measurements, but the net is that the
83-1SP variability was a problem.
I have not purchased any connectors since this happened, and have not had any
failures or anomalous behavior with the installed connectors, but considerable
time was wasted on this. I plan to continue using the 83-1SP with the hope
they fixed whatever issues they had.
There are other stories out there as well
73, Tom W2SC 8P5A
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Ron WV4P
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:57 PM
To: john@kk9a.com
Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Junk Coonectors (was Re: How lossy are PL-259s at HF?)
The 83-1SP
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:42 PM <john@kk9a.com> wrote:
> Which model Amphenol PL-259's did not work for you?
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Ron WV4P wrote:
>
> Going by names is nearly useless.. Amphenol PL-259's are Banned from
> my station, After a sizable investment in them Real / Silver /
> Silver)(Real from Mouser and Verified) the threads were way out of
> spec from worn out equipment and they expressed no desire to re-tool.
> We had multiple failures during and after installation. Eventually we
> replaced them and Banned their use.
>
> Ron, WV4P
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|