[Amps] Fwd: Re: soldering vs crimping

[Carl]

Ive run numerous VNA tests of both and see minimal differences thru low VHF; 
so close as to call it measuring or assembly error. Above that the nod goes 
to crimp but there is also some garbage out there from the same sources that 
show up everywhere like a virus.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac at arrl.net>
To: "amps" <amps at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] Fwd: Re: soldering vs crimping


>> As for the shield, there's no question in my mind that crimping is
>> superior to soldering.
>
> When I was working for RKO Radio in Chicago back in the early '80s, we
> analyzed return loss measurements of various crimp v. soldered 
> connections.
> This was an important consideration when measuring synchronous AM noise in 
> a
> bandwidth-limited FM system.  Among other factors, accuracy in the depth 
> of
> measurement was dependent on the quality of connector.  Crimp N connectors
> were superior to soldered N for this purpose.
>
> I have no doubt that a well-crimped connector is better, at least for the
> short term.  However, I have a problem with a universal statement that all
> crimp connectors are the better performing type regardless of environment
> and age of the crimp.
>
> For outdoor installations where the connector is exposed to water, ice, or
> high levels of humidity, I cannot see using crimp UHF/BNC/N connectors.
> For indoor cabling, I've standardized on RG-400 coax with crimp 
> connectors.
> They work well although in instrumentation cables that I use often where
> they are subject to a lot of handling, the soldered connectors have held 
> up
> better over time.
>
> So, I think the environment needs to be qualified before we claim that one
> type of connector is superior that of another.
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4973 - Release Date: 05/02/12
>