At 08:20 PM 1/10/2007, Daron J. Wilson wrote:
> > NOT .. means "Universal High Frequency"
> > (Have heard others .. but it did NOT mean Ultra High Frequency --- no
> > way!)
>
>Do you have one shred of support for this bogus claim? Every reference I've
>checked on my bookshelf defines it as Ultra High Frequency, which it was at
>the time the definition was proposed. So...show me the money. A simple
>google search for the definition of UHF will show you many reputable
>resources defining it as Ultra High Frequency.
One might want to look for books and such published before, say,
1930. Someone have a pre-war Terman? What about RadLab series?
When did the MF, HF, VHF, UHF, SHF, etc sequence for the decades come into use?
Clearly, anything that was written in the last 50 odd years is going
to equate UHF with Ultra.
However, back in the day, conventional usage might have been different.
All these connector names have varying stories.. BNC (Bayonet Navy,
Bayonet Neill Concelman (sp?)) etc. SMA (sub mini A, or is that OSM
OmniSpectra Mini?) K (for the band it works with) APC-7, GPC-7, etc.
>Share the knowledge!!
>
>73
>
>N7HQR
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
|