Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] PL259 Insertion Loss?

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] PL259 Insertion Loss?
From: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:52:12 +0100
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
No, I don´t buy them, I use 7/16 only for more then 30 years and replaced
all PL259 by C connectors on the radios.
But I replaced more worn SO239 sockets then type N on repairs of others
equipment.
That were L4Bs, SB-220s, MN2000s, LK800/500 etc.

73
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 02:11
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] PL259 Insertion Loss?

On 1/16/2012 2:19 PM, Peter Voelpel wrote:
> Some PL259 stuff is suffering from production and /or material quality
more
> then type N

You or your friends must be buying junk connectors!  The discussion is 
about QUALITY connectors, not JUNK. REAL PL259s and SO239s from good 
manufacturers do not have the problems you describe.  The rule in the US 
is Amphenol, Amphenol, Amphenol.  You may have other good choices in EU.

I can show you N-connectors that are junk. Further, N-connectors on some 
cables are well known to suffer from "creep," whereby the center pin 
recedes back into the cable, no longer making contact with the mating 
connector. This cannot happen with the UHF family of connectors.

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>