[TowerTalk] Junk Coonectors (was Re: How lossy are PL-259s at HF?)

[john at kk9a.com]

That is interesting.

The only 83-1SP failure I encountered was two decades ago when the threads on the barrel were not completely cut and I could not assemble it.  Of course I discovered this after soldering on the inner portion so I had to cut it off and toss it.  

I have noticed a difference in the knurling pattern and on the marking fonts even when purchased at the same time through the same vendor. I have also noticed that the pin does not seem tight in the SO-239 of one manufacture's amp but I assumed it was a socket issue.

It would be nice if you had samples of the two versions of 83-1SPs so the 5/8-24 threads could be measured or even checked with a go / no-go gauge if someone had one.   I am sure that you didn't have that capability on the eastern Caribbean island where your station is and I am glad that everything is working well for you but it would be nice to see the data.

John KK9A 



-----Original Message-----
From: tomgeorgens15 at gmail.com <tomgeorgens15 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 12:53 PM
To: 'Ron WV4P' <wv4ptn at gmail.com>; john at kk9a.com
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Junk Coonectors (was Re: How lossy are PL-259s at HF?)

I have suspicions about the 83-1SP as well.  In 2022, I did a full rebuild of my contest station at a new location.  In the process, I installed at least 100, 83-1SP connectors.

The story is too long to reproduce here, but the net is that there was considerable variability in both commercial SO-239's as well as the outer shells of the 83-1SP.

Some anecdotes -

One balun vendor had SO239s, that would not mate with the 83-1SP.  The 83-1SP shell would entirely slip over the threads of the SO 239 and never engage.  All my other cables laying around in the junk draw would mate.

Another common device has 2 SO239's on it.  The 83-1SPs have shells with slightly different size printing on them.  One size printing would mate with both SO239's.  The other size printing would only mate with one of the two connectors.  The threads on the two connectors would not engage, and the PL259 would not screw on.  Clearly there was variation in both the SO-239s and the 83-1SPs that would produce combinations that would not mate.  I do not have the ability to measure which were out of spec.  The symptom was the same, the shell seemed too big, or the threads too shallow.  

All of the 83-1SP's would mate with an Amphenol SO-239 (which rarely exist on commercial equipment).  Admittedly, I only had a couple of SO-239's to test.

So, what to conclude.  I wanted to believe that the issue was the unbranded SO239.  Possibly new vendors being used post Covid as supply shortages were widespread.  However, the data would indicate that that there was considerable variability the 83-1SPs as well.  Was it too much variability?  I could not tell, but this was a major headache.

It is possible that 83-1SP fakes had penetrated the supply chain.  All the connectors were new in bag, and purchased from DX Engineering, Mouser, or RF Connection.  Problematic 83-1SP's could be traced to at least two of them.

The last piece of information came from my last purchase.  I bought a number of 83-1SPs, and the outer shells would not even mate with the threads on their own body.  The shell could be slid from behind the body, over the threads until it bottomed out fully forward.  I have video and pictures of all of these.  Samples were sent back the Amphenol by one of my suppliers, but no response.

While fakes are still a possibility, I think it is a low probability that all three suppliers were fooled by this.  What I do believe is that Amphenol had productions issues in that timeframe regarding the outer shell.  Attributing root cause to multiple production sites, or different tooling would be pure speculation on my part without detailed measurements, but the net is that the 83-1SP variability was a problem.  

I have not purchased any connectors since this happened, and have not had any failures or anomalous behavior with the installed connectors, but considerable time was wasted on this.  I plan to continue using the 83-1SP with the hope they fixed whatever issues they had.  

There are other stories out there as well

73, Tom W2SC 8P5A


-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Ron WV4P
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:57 PM
To: john at kk9a.com
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Junk Coonectors (was Re: How lossy are PL-259s at HF?)

The 83-1SP



On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:42 PM <john at kk9a.com> wrote:

> Which model Amphenol PL-259's did not work for you?
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Ron WV4P wrote:
>
> Going by names is nearly useless.. Amphenol PL-259's are Banned from 
> my station, After a sizable investment in them Real / Silver / 
> Silver)(Real from Mouser and Verified) the threads were way out of 
> spec from worn out equipment and they expressed no desire to re-tool.
> We had multiple failures during and after installation. Eventually we 
> replaced them and Banned their use.
>
> Ron, WV4P
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk