I don't like it. On many types of coax, the threads can barely be screwed
over the jacket alone. If you wedge the shield braid in between, it will be
shredded as you screw the connector on.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill VanAlstyne [mailto:w5wvo@cybermesa.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 2:32 PM
> To: _Mailing List Tower-Talk
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Alternate method, PL-259 on RG-8-type coax
>
>
> I read through an extensive, several-years-old archived
> thread the other day, -- somewhere, maybe on QRZ.com -- on
> UHF vs. N-type connectors. While the recent discussion of UHF
> connector loss at various frequencies has been very
> enlightening, the caveat "high-quality, properly installed"
> is always stated or implied.
>
> One of the things I read in the aforementioned thread was
> from a guy who believed that the PL-259 connector is much
> better installed in a manner that differs significantly from
> the "standard" method. I'm wondering what the group here
> thinks of this idea. This is paraphrasing from memory:
>
> "Slip the connector sleeve ring and a length of heat-shrink
> 2-3" long over the coax. Strip the outer jacket and center
> dielectric using the same dimensions as for the "standard"
> method, but don't trim the shield braid. Instead, pull the
> shield braid inside-out back over the outer jacket. Screw the
> connector body over the prepared cable end such that the
> braid is compressed between the connector threads and the
> jacket of the cable. This will be hard and will require hand
> tools, but keep screwing it on until you can just see the
> braid through the solder holes. You stop there. You don't
> solder it through the solder holes, but rather around the
> rear edge of the connector body. Then trim off the excess
> braid and apply the heat-shrink over the connector body and
> the cable behind it. Solder the center conductor and trim off
> any excess length. Then thread on the sleeve ring."
>
> That's it. I don't recall that the guy said exactly WHY he
> thought this was a better method, but after thinking about
> it, I'm not sure I like it. The good point is that it would
> result in less deformation of the dielectric material by
> soldering heat. But the shield connection seems problematical
> to me. While compression of the braid against the inside of
> the connector body would make a good unsoldered shield
> connection (assuming you were using good-quality silver
> plated connectors), that connection would degrade over time,
> as the connector is not weather-resistant like the N-type.
> Soldering it as proposed in his method, on the other hand,
> would effectively relieve the beneficial pressure of the
> braid against the inside of the connector body by melting the
> jacket material. Of course soldering would provide its own
> permanent electrical connection to the shield, but only at
> the back edge of the body. Because of the squirrelly
> back-looped path of the shield to the connector body
> attachment point, it seems to me that this method would
> create even more of an impedance hump that the "standard"
> method. (Though at HF, as discussed here earlier, it probably
> wouldn't matter a hill of beans one way or the other.)
>
> But I could be completely off the wall here. What do y'all
> think of his method?
>
> Bill / W5WVO
>
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|