Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 162, Issue 4

[Chortek, Robert L.]

Hi Scott,

It's true there is a lot of pressure on our kids today to build a resume for college but your statement is FAR too broad.  I have seen lots of kids volunteer in many capacities having nothing to do with their college resume.

73,

Bob AA6VB

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 4, 2016, at 9:57 AM, scott meister <scottmeister at me.com> wrote:
> 
> Young people do not volunteer. Only what counts on college applications they ste raising a generation of mercenarys
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2016, at 12:00 PM, topband-request at contesting.com wrote:
>> 
>> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
>>   topband at contesting.com
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>   http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>   topband-request at contesting.com
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>   topband-owner at contesting.com
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>  1. Re: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>>     (James Rodenkirch)
>>  2.  modeling BOGs (or whatever we call them) (Guy Olinger K2AV)
>>  3. UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Bob K6UJ)
>>  4. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Greg Zenger)
>>  5. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Clive GM3POI)
>>  6. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (donovanf at starpower.net)
>>  7. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Bob K6UJ)
>>  8. Re: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex (Clive GM3POI)
>>  9. 259- 1/2"  link (Clive GM3POI)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:08:13 +0000
>> From: James Rodenkirch <Rodenkirch_LLC at msn.com>
>> To: Kip Edwards <kedwards at ltol.com>, 'Top Band Contesting'
>>   <topband at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>> Message-ID:
>>   <SN1PR16MB0623D9134830762931E04BBFF0590 at SN1PR16MB0623.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> 
>> By the by: if anyone needs a competent web-site design/manager, my nephew does that sort of thing - he's worked on other sites I'm involved with and does excellent worth......71.5/72 de Jim R. K9JWV
>> 
>> Here's a representative site he runs: https://www.rmspartnership.org/
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Kip Edwards <kedwards at ltol.com>
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 7:57 AM
>> To: 'James Rodenkirch'; 'Top Band Contesting'; w8ji at contesting.com
>> Subject: RE: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>> 
>> Jim,
>> 
>>       The Yasme Foundation website is being completely re-done by the
>> person who did the NCJ website.  Unfortunately our webmaster resigned and it
>> has taken some time and one false start to find someone capable of doing it
>> right.  In the meantime the website is embarrassing and, as you noted,
>> woefully out of date.
>> 
>>       My apologies to all--and I'm glad you were able to find the press
>> release about Tom receiving the Yasme Excellence Award.
>> 
>>       73 Kip W6SZN
>>       Yasme Foundation Director/Secretary
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of James
>> Rodenkirch
>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 5:19 AM
>> To: Top Band Contesting; w8ji at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: Topband: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>> 
>> Based on some snooping around @ the YASME site, it's obvious no one is
>> keeping that site up to date - tnx to Mike, W0Btu, for listing the ARRL url
>> link.
>> 
>> Also, I didn't intend to diss the other current recipients...Tim Duffy (who
>> I believe shows up here once in a while with comments) and Carole Perry (I
>> am not familiar with her efforts)...AND, as I understand from a recent post,
>> our very own Tree has garnered that recognition.....BZ to all!
>> 
>> 71.5/72 de Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV
>> 
>> P.S. Hope to hear and work ya in the summer Stew...and sure HOPE you hear my
>> peanut whistle QRP signal...hihi ________________________________________
>> From: James Rodenkirch
>> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 4:07 PM
>> To: Top Band Contesting; w8ji at contesting.com
>> Subject: W8JI - recipient of the Yasme Excellence Award
>> 
>> No more deserving...good on ya, Tom! I've enjoyed AND miss your technical
>> and "how to operate" posts.
>> 
>> Tom Rauch, W8JI: "The Yasme Excellence Award is made in recognition of Tom's
>> many contributions to the technical advancement of the Amateur Service," the
>> announcement said. "Tom's willingness to provide education and direction to
>> amateurs through his website and other communications is a prime example of
>> hams mentoring, teaching, and training each other in the finest traditions
>> of Amateur Radio."
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4568/12243 - Release Date: 05/16/16
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:56:46 -0400
>> From: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy at gmail.com>
>> To: Carl Luetzelschwab <carlluetzelschwab at gmail.com>, N6lf at arrl.net
>> Cc: TopBand List <topband at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Topband:  modeling BOGs (or whatever we call them)
>> Message-ID:
>>   <CANckpc3wi=xuV_UwLVS1_CKaDEtTAMSOocKcjk6UCpo6sYuGTA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> 
>> Running way, way, way behind in responses to postings. Getting hopefully
>> well-thought-out responses the same day or even the same week or month is
>> apparently not always going to happen.
>> 
>> Short Version: Thank you Rudy. And there is more work to be done.
>> 
>> Long Version:
>> 
>> Please do not consider this to be dismissive of Rudy's work in any sense.
>> That's not at all what I intend. His (and our) proposition that an inert
>> BOG just laying there can be grown into the ground over time, and thereby
>> harshly deteriorate performance, is absolutely confirmed in our collection
>> of anecdota.
>> 
>> For long term performance, it is necessary to fix (make permanent) a BOG's
>> *electrical* relationship to ground by some mechanical design or process.
>> Lacking that, regular effective maintenance/adjustment must be kept up in
>> all but very arid environments. The deterioration in BOG performance is
>> without sudden drops like someone cut a wire. So it's very sneaky, and in
>> many cases sneaks toward extremes to the point of losing 10-15 dB and even
>> reversing pattern.
>> 
>> The QST article is rather severely edited for space. The full version will
>> apparently be in July QEX. For those who do not subscribe to QEX, or don't
>> want to wait, the full version can be found directly at
>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST%20Binaries/June2016/QST-in-Depth-0616-Serverns.pdf
>> 
>> NOTE: My comments refer to the FULL Severns article and set of graphs found
>> at the arrl.org URL above, and presume the reader is looking at the full
>> article, not QST.
>> 
>> I will remain differing with Rudy on whether NEC is accurate. I personally
>> think that has to do with how we separately define "accurate". I would say
>> that NEC with regard to ground and MF antennas invoking ground is
>> *approximate*, and only to a point carries a correct graphical "shape" of
>> expected results in presentations.
>> 
>> That does not mean I am at odds with Rudy's measurements. I will trust his
>> measurements long after I give up on NEC. Just looking at his graphs, I see
>> those as evidence that NEC is *not* accurate in the sense that *I* use the
>> word "accurate".
>> 
>> Brown, Lewis and Epstein, and Rudy, make current measurements along the
>> line that show some degree of wavelength related wiggle. NEC4.x shows no
>> wiggle. If NEC were calculating with all the variables at play, NEC would
>> show the wiggle even if located differently or with different amplitude or
>> distance between nodes. That makes the NEC curve only approximate, however
>> useful that approximation may or may not be. Without knowing WHY the wiggle
>> is absent in NEC curves, it's hard to make a case to the authors to fix
>> that.
>> 
>> Some of the divergences between NEC 4.2 and his measurements portrayed in
>> Rudy's graphs would render an antenna diminished if NEC was followed
>> blindly. I have learned the hard way not to follow NEC-based programs
>> blindly and have the scars to prove it. I believe Rudy's measurements. To
>> my eye NEC cannot reproduce Rudy's measurements.
>> 
>> Further, Rudy is measuring at a single location, which is NOT a criticism.
>> I give all due respect for the time and effort testing there. A project
>> like this can be full of mechanical-blowing-up-the-electrical-results
>> issues needing to be avoided. Realizing an issue at some point well into
>> the procedure can force one to redo everything all the way back from the
>> start. Having the experiment in one's own back yard, with zero travel time
>> to the experiment, under one's own self-permission is a huge advantage to
>> reforming/restarting/finally completing the experiment.
>> 
>> Or sadly, as seen in other cases, running into "issues" having exhausted
>> resources and time, one has to give up on the project.
>> 
>> To further carry this exercise to the level needed to publish is even more
>> work. But it IS a single location, and we have to remember that. We must
>> excuse location centric for cause because picking sites and repeating the
>> testing in a dozen places all around the USA would create a huge,
>> time-consuming and expensive undertaking. Even then the case can be made
>> that not everything happens in the USA. Then how expensive does it get?
>> 
>> Our testing (I call them the Rowdy Raleigh Radio Researchers out of
>> earshot) only in the 12 county area around Raleigh/Durham North Carolina
>> showed huge variations in the primary electrical length of a 151' (46m)
>> dipole laid on the ground. The often referenced FCC ground conductance maps
>> calls us all 2 milliSiemens. However...
>> 
>> The velocity factor of that Dipole On Ground (DOG) varied from 0.45 to 0.8
>> across all sites and placements. That's +/- 22% (twenty-two percent not two
>> point two). Consider what would happen to a Yagi if the manufactured
>> element dimensions could only be guaranteed to lengths +/- 22 %. An
>> intended 15 meter yagi +/- 22% could actually be on 17 or 12 meters. Or if
>> all yagi elements did not have their errors vary in unison, could render
>> the antenna completely dysfunctional. Enter into the world of "wonderful"
>> to "d*mned waste of time" customer performance reviews. Sound familiar?
>> 
>> This measured variation in eastern North Carolina VF was not a gradually
>> changing figure with area changes in geography. Reorienting the compass
>> bearing of the DOG around its center in the same back yard, or placing the
>> DOG at another part of the same back yard, or just linearly sliding the DOG
>> up it's line for 50 feet could generate large variation in VF. This even
>> without buried pipes, wires, or septic fields in the yard. What effect that
>> may have had on Rudy's graphs if measured by his procedures in a dozen
>> locales scattered around the US is anyone's guess. It certainly would have
>> been varied. Varied quite enough to take a SINGLE instance "good" layout
>> for a 160 BOG in a specified location (like Rudy's back yard) thrown down
>> anywhere else and produce results varying from "works wonderful" to
>> "doesn't work worth a d*mn".
>> 
>> What do you do to take the BOG construction and have it respond to a normal
>> "wild variation" in VF of specific chosen spots of ground to lay out a
>> BOG?  Is it to measure the ground characteristics? Rudy hints that NEC 4 is
>> accurate if the ground characteristics are accurate. There is a long and
>> difficult discussion that could be had to show that even the FCC does not
>> believe this in their administrata for commercial LF/MF AM broadcast
>> stations, and they have a we-will-not-get-on-your-case cobble to get around
>> it. But Rudy does get approximate correlation in his back yard. And I trust
>> his measurements.
>> 
>> But even if we let that stand without challenge to whether it works
>> everywhere, there is another problem. Rudy's methods are full-on lab and
>> academic quality. And he has the equipment, software and expertise to do
>> it. Certainly not a criticism in *any* sense, Rudy attacks the problem with
>> 1) a sophisticated knowledge base from an enviable employment experience,
>> and 2) a practiced experimenter's hand using 3) expensive equipment and 4)
>> expensive software, and 5) with a gift or two for excellence in technical
>> writing and publication skills.
>> 
>> Then there is Joe Average Ham, hereafter called Joe A H.
>> 
>> While Rudy's methods are full on lab and academic with adequate equipment
>> for those methods, Joe A H lacks the means to use *those* methods to do a
>> BOG on his own property. We need to arrive at something workable for Joe A
>> H with stuff *commonly available* to Joe A H.
>> 
>> Rudy's stuff and outstanding background makes him rare among the army of
>> Joe A H.
>> 
>> Rudy is using export controlled NEC 4.2. NEC 4.x is the only software from
>> the NEC family that can deal with buried conductors. One must pay a fee for
>> a license from a government agency to use Unix NEC on a Unix platform. If
>> you are not a naturally Unix person, then the high end professional EZNEC
>> Pro4 has a NEC 4.2 build that runs inside the EZNEC shell for Windows,
>> That's yet more $$ for the EZNEC Pro4 license, which is enabled by a key
>> that goes in a USB jack on your PC. You will not find any midnight copies
>> of Roy Lewallen's (W7EL) high end pro stuff on a Russian web site. (Read
>> around sometime about how hamdom screwed K6STI and shut him and his
>> excellent programs down.)
>> 
>> In addition to NEC 4.2, Rudy is using a VNA, and equipment sufficient for
>> accurate ground conductivity measurements. All his stuff and programs
>> together cost more than a high end state of the art HF transceiver.
>> 
>> Many Joe A H cannot find that kind of money in their budget for anything
>> other than necessities, if even that. And if they did have transceiver
>> level money, they would spend it on the transceiver, not the test equipment
>> and software. So who will be providing the instructions that allows Joe A
>> H, with typical Joe A H equipment, to hit the nail on the head with a BOG,
>> and maintain it?
>> 
>> I *personally* have found these expensive investments to be very
>> worthwhile, even if just for hobby and entertainment value since I find
>> this stuff extremely fun and interesting. But that's just me, and some
>> folks look at me just a bit askance...
>> 
>> I have had it unkindly hammered home to me that merely modest means
>> precludes the availability of Rudy-worthy equippage for practical Joe A H
>> construction of a BOG. Or for that matter, that even having time to do it
>> up to Rudy-grade standards just isn't going to happen. Again this is *not*
>> a criticism or dismissal of Rudy's article.
>> 
>> This is as well a hard-as-nails lesson regarding FCP kinds of things for
>> Joe A H. We need to write for Joe A H, design for Joe A H, and learn how to
>> do it with tools that can realistically belong to Joe A H.
>> 
>> To maintain a BOG that is working, Rudy's conclusions from his experiments
>> in the article and a large pile of anecdotal trial and error known to me,
>> some posted here, show that one cannot allow the wire to change its
>> effective height with respect to ground by allowing natural processes like
>> accumulating rotting leaves, etc, to gradually bury the wire, or bury it
>> deeper. Getting the BOG working well in the first place is a separate
>> story.
>> 
>> For MF ground-low-velocity-factor antennas, NEC requires a single
>> monolithic uniform ground medium. Real underfoot ground is most often
>> anything but uniform. NEC using "high accuracy ground" frequently
>> underestimates ground loss and can miss VF by a mile. The reasons for this
>> are not yet clear. And we got no Daddy Warbucks interested in the problem
>> to pay for the likes of the RCA funded Brown Lewis & Epstein study by
>> people PAID to keep at it and do it right with equipment and support
>> provided by their employer.
>> 
>> Thank you, Rudy.
>> 
>> And there is more work to be done.
>> 
>> 73, Guy K2AV.
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:26:06 -0700
>> From: Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net>
>> To: topband at contesting.com
>> Subject: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> Message-ID: <722e32b7-0a13-69c0-8fc4-c26f79e98b58 at pacbell.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>> 
>> 
>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex cable
>> I am making up.  I have an N connector on one end, no problem.  I like the
>> EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male (PL-259)
>> 
>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I 
>> would
>> prefer to not have an adapter if possible.  I did find one (below) its 
>> not an Andrew
>> EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.  Know of other options ?
>> 
>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>> 
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:52:40 -0400
>> From: Greg Zenger <n2gz at gregzenger.com>
>> To: Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net>
>> Cc: topband <topband at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> Message-ID:
>>   <CAE8nip1Uw70C3kpdjaYrHVPGh3zMJNjg3O4-J46_f+C4sfai+g at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> 
>> Bob,
>> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries.  They sell for ~$35 each new.
>> 
>> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
>> will work just fine with your cable.
>> 
>> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
>> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>> 
>> Greg, N2GZ
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex cable
>>> I am making up.  I have an N connector on one end, no problem.  I like the
>>> EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male (PL-259)
>>> 
>>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>>> would
>>> prefer to not have an adapter if possible.  I did find one (below) its not
>>> an Andrew
>>> EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.  Know of other options ?
>>> 
>>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> K6UJ
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:15:11 -0000
>> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>> To: "'Greg Zenger'" <n2gz at gregzenger.com>,    "'Bob K6UJ'"
>>   <k6uj at pacbell.net>
>> Cc: "'topband'" <topband at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> Message-ID: <000001d1bded$c7ba7700$572f6500$@btinternet.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>> 
>> Check out Chinarf  on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50
>> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
>> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper.  73 Clive
>> GM3POI
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
>> Zenger
>> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
>> To: Bob K6UJ
>> Cc: topband
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> 
>> Bob,
>> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries.  They sell for ~$35 each new.
>> 
>> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
>> will work just fine with your cable.
>> 
>> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
>> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>> 
>> Greg, N2GZ
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex 
>>> cable I am making up.  I have an N connector on one end, no problem.  
>>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male 
>>> (PL-259)
>>> 
>>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I 
>>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible.  I did find one 
>>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.  
>>> Know of other options ?
>>> 
>>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> K6UJ
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 23:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: donovanf at starpower.net
>> To: topband <topband at contesting.com>
>> Cc: Greg Zenger <n2gz at gregzenger.com>, Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net>,
>>   Clive GM3POI <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> Message-ID:
>>   <811817216.8557992.1465010406698.JavaMail.root at starpower.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> 
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com> 
>> To: "Greg Zenger" <n2gz at gregzenger.com>, "Bob K6UJ" <k6uj at pacbell.net> 
>> Cc: "topband" <topband at contesting.com> 
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM 
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex 
>> 
>> Check out Chinarf on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50 
>> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product. 
>> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper. 73 Clive 
>> GM3POI 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg 
>> Zenger 
>> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53 
>> To: Bob K6UJ 
>> Cc: topband 
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex 
>> 
>> Bob, 
>> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries. They sell for ~$35 each new. 
>> 
>> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it 
>> will work just fine with your cable. 
>> 
>> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to 
>> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years. 
>> 
>> Greg, N2GZ 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net> wrote: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex 
>>> cable I am making up. I have an N connector on one end, no problem. 
>>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male 
>>> (PL-259) 
>>> 
>>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I 
>>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible. I did find one 
>>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing. 
>>> Know of other options ? 
>>> 
>>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html 
>>> 
>>> Bob 
>>> K6UJ 
>>> 
>>> _________________ 
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________ 
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
>> 
>> _________________ 
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:40:03 -0700
>> From: Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net>
>> To: topband <topband at contesting.com>
>> Cc: Clive GM3POI <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> Message-ID: <345595fe-7f4c-3951-6677-c697caab1b06 at pacbell.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>> 
>> Thanks everyone for info on a source for the UHF connectors.
>> This is a great forum, help is here, all you gotta do is ask ! :-)
>> 
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6/3/16 8:20 PM, donovanf at starpower.net wrote:
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From: *"Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>>> *To: *"Greg Zenger" <n2gz at gregzenger.com>, "Bob K6UJ" <k6uj at pacbell.net>
>>> *Cc: *"topband" <topband at contesting.com>
>>> *Sent: *Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>>> 
>>> Check out Chinarf  on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to 
>>> LDF4-50
>>> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
>>> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper.  73 Clive
>>> GM3POI
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
>>> Zenger
>>> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
>>> To: Bob K6UJ
>>> Cc: topband
>>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>>> 
>>> Bob,
>>> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries.  They sell for ~$35 each new.
>>> 
>>> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
>>> will work just fine with your cable.
>>> 
>>> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
>>> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>>> 
>>> Greg, N2GZ
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ <k6uj at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex
>>>> cable I am making up.  I have an N connector on one end, no problem.
>>>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male
>>>> (PL-259)
>>>> 
>>>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I
>>>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible.  I did find one
>>>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.
>>>> Know of other options ?
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>>> 
>>>> Bob
>>>> K6UJ
>>>> 
>>>> _________________
>>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:49:38 -0000
>> From: "Clive GM3POI" <clive at gm3poi.com>
>> To: "'Bob K6UJ'" <k6uj at pacbell.net>,    "'topband'"
>>   <topband at contesting.com>
>> Cc: "'Clive GM3POI'" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> Message-ID: <000301d1be3e$074e0b20$15ea2160$@gm3poi.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> This is the link I used http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649 <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT> &ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 73 Clive GM3POI
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Bob K6UJ [mailto:k6uj at pacbell.net] 
>> Sent: 04 June 2016 04:40
>> To: topband
>> Cc: Clive GM3POI
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks everyone for info on a source for the UHF connectors.
>> This is a great forum, help is here, all you gotta do is ask !  :-)
>> 
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/3/16 8:20 PM, donovanf at starpower.net wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/PL259-UHF-male-1-2-for-Corrugated-copper-Standard-Andrew-Heliax-connector-QW-/321943672180?hash=item4af5569574:g:wKwAAOSw9uFW9Pfh
>> 
>> _____  
>> 
>> From: "Clive GM3POI"  <mailto:gm3poi2 at btinternet.com> <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>> To: "Greg Zenger"  <mailto:n2gz at gregzenger.com> <n2gz at gregzenger.com>, "Bob K6UJ"  <mailto:k6uj at pacbell.net> <k6uj at pacbell.net>
>> Cc: "topband"  <mailto:topband at contesting.com> <topband at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 11:15:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> 
>> Check out Chinarf  on ebay, I have just bought 10 off PL259 Plugs to LDF4-50
>> for about $4.5 delivered. High quality product.
>> Do a search for UHF Plug or UHF plug to 1/2" corrugated copper.  73 Clive
>> GM3POI
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
>> Zenger
>> Sent: 03 June 2016 22:53
>> To: Bob K6UJ
>> Cc: topband
>> Subject: Re: Topband: UHF Male connector for 1/2" cellflex
>> 
>> Bob,
>> Take a look at RFU502-H1 from RF industries.  They sell for ~$35 each new.
>> 
>> I don't have experience with that particular connector, but I suspect it
>> will work just fine with your cable.
>> 
>> Otherwise the RFS connectors like the ones in your link are super easy to
>> install. I've installed about a hundred of them over the years.
>> 
>> Greg, N2GZ
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Bob K6UJ  <mailto:k6uj at pacbell.net> <k6uj at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I need to have a PL-259 type connector on one end of a 1/2" cellflex 
>>> cable I am making up.  I have an N connector on one end, no problem.  
>>> I like the EZfit connectors and was hoping to find one for UHF male 
>>> (PL-259)
>>> 
>>> I can get another N connector and then get a N to PL-259 adapter but I 
>>> would prefer to not have an adapter if possible.  I did find one 
>>> (below) its not an Andrew EZfit but looks to be about the same thing.  
>>> Know of other options ?
>>> 
>>> http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfs-734745-5804.html
>>> 
>>> Bob
>>> K6UJ
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> 
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:51:33 -0000
>> From: "Clive GM3POI" <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com>
>> To: <topband at contesting.com>
>> Subject: Topband: 259- 1/2"  link
>> Message-ID: <000b01d1be3e$4c2e7d60$e48b7820$@btinternet.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
>> 
>> This is the link I used
>> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649
>> <http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/262144126639?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageN
>> ame=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT> &ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 73 Clive GM3POI
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Topband mailing list
>> Topband at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> End of Topband Digest, Vol 162, Issue 4
>> ***************************************
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband