Does the PL259 (etc.) have more loss than an N connector at HF? Which should you use?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.พ. 2022
- Jim Heath, W6LG TH-cam Elmer compares the loss of UHF connectors to N connectors in order to answer the question: Which type of connector should you use at HF?
From David Gold, a correction to my video where I use the term connector and it should have been adapter. He also adds to the explanation of what I was attempting to do in the "test". Please read his comments moved to here in the description.
Hi Jim- thanks for the video. I agree with you regarding VHF and HF frequencies.
When did we start calling "adapters" "connectors"? To me, a connector is directly attached to a cable, and an adapter goes between the connector and the equipment (or another adapter).
The PL-259 was termed a "UHF connector", because back when it was developed, VHF was "ultra high frequency". But for 400mhz up, I believe the N connector is the way to go. For HF and VHF, I use a PL259 SO239... they are cheaper and work fine.
And for the "experts" who question your measurement methods....this is a relative comparison, and this video was not intended as part of an engineering syllabus....it was a nice demonstration.
Let me just add one more thing: I believe that if you added a well-used (not brand new) cheap 90-degree adaptor into the mix, your losses would be greater, especially if you actually measured power dissipation and not just low-level signals from a VNA....I have removed ALL of the cheap (amazon, not amphenol) right angle adapters from my gear. 73 - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 1 // GEN vs RRQ | TLN vs TS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JhkzKOhvOps/mqdefault.jpg)
I am sure that with countless viewers, you won't remember me. But you TOOK TIME for me when I had questions, at a time when no one else was willing. THANK YOU! We had a QSO about a year ago and followed up via email; you shared with me that you had a bad diagnosis. Yet, there you were, still making videos and helping others. Honestly, I was amazed. NOW THEN, your advice is spot on!!! My wife has lung disease and was misdiagnosed for years - resulting in damage that she should not have sustained. From that point on, we had a mantra: "Be your own advocate" - which is exactly what you are saying. Since we began being our own advocates, the difference has been surreal. Just one example was my battle with cancer. No one caught it - but we researched and researched - pushed and pushed. Undoubtedly, it saved my life. There are many other examples I could give, but I just want to echo your wisdom: "Be your own advocate." Some doctors have empathy, and some do not, but they all have been turned into corporate robots. They have to see X number of patients, make the profit, etc. Again, THANK YOU Jim, for helping countless thousands - THANK YOU for having the courage to share your story and share your experiences, your wisdom. There is no doubt but that it will impact countless lives. You are in my prayers my friend. MAY GOD BLESS - de WR4N
Once again thank you for taking the time to make the video Jim. I think many of us in the trade have almost a phobic response to Pl259/SO239 connectors. For an easy to fit crude connector they are pretty good, IMHO the biggest problem is the lack of certainty with the shield connection.
Thanks and I agree. Soooo, I crimp the shield. I have good tools for crimping. 73, Jim
@@ham-radio, thanks for the reply, I meant the shield connection between plug and socket, if the collar is not tightened properly. An N-type of course is not as fussy if the collar is not tightened. One of these days I should start using crimped RF connectors.... I am a bit of a dinosaur! 73
Thank you, Jim. Great test and video.
Thanks Randy. 73, Jim
Thanks Jim, interesting look at the differences.
Thanks. Some guys missed the point. I may try that yet again from a different approach. 73, Jim
Hi, Jim. Thanks again for an informative and useful video for all of us hams. Alan KZ6B
Nice Video Jim, Good information, Thanks
Thanks. 73, Jim
Very nice test. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching! Nice to hear from you again. 73, Jim
Jim w6lg what a interesting hobby to get in to ham radio
Jim in the house! We need more Jim!
Thanks. Some days I have good ideas but no energy. The emergency surgery really had an impact for several weeks. A doctor and ham radio friend in another country has offered to help and I have sent much of my medical record. So I am hoping with his advice I can get my strength up. I really do enjoy making the videos. I learn each time I do the research. 73, Jim
Great video Idea !
Thanks Jim, Interesting. By the by, you're looking good!
😀
Next week I have more tests to see if the MDS has gotten worse. I am hoping just the opposite is true. I sure don't want to do another bone biopsy. That test was the most painful test. 73, Jim
Great video Jim…
Thanks Chandler. 73, Jim Heath
I picked the wrong career; I should have created a connector type. That would secure my future, hundreds or thousands of radio enthusiasts each with twenty inches of barrel connectors all laying around in toolboxes, drawers, under couches... ;)
Hello Jim, love your videos. Be careful about saying "double the loss" with dB measurements. 73, Jamie VK2YCJ.
Thanks for the tip! I assumed.....need I say more? 73, JIm
I was always informed, when I started in Ham Radio over 45 years ago that N was always a better connector; 50 Ohms and usually weatherproof.
N connectors are usually also used for U/VHF frequencies. To support that, Yaesu uses the N connector for V/UHF connection and PL-259 for HF at the back of their FT-991A transceivers.
Thanks for the video Jim! Always informative.
The title of the video was about HF. I have N connectors that are in no way waterproof at all. Some N connectors are water resistant but not waterproof from what I have experience in almost 60 years of ham radio. 73, Jim
@@ham-radio like I said… weatherproof.
Have fun.
There is NO 'N' connector on the back of my FT-991A.
@@richardlmontel I live in the UK and there is one at the back of mine… all UK 991A’s here have it.
Wow guess we are not suppose to know the difference here, pitiful.
Jim w6lg I like your utube videos
Jim w6lg your utube videos are interesting
Many of the old HF tube rigs had just screw terminals to attach striped back coax or a UHF connector with inches of bare wire going to the tank circuit. Even if you clip two pigtails together, you won't see much loss or vswr. The mismatch is just a very small fraction of a wave. Also, if you have a tuner, it all gets taken out anyway.
Being in the trade I accumulated offcuts of cable. I am not sure I should admit that a "temporary" feeder for one of my HF antennas has a taped up join just outside the shack, it has only been like it for 6 years...
Two screw terminals on phenolic; I still have some of those in my junk. 73, Jim
Might sound like heresy, but I learned to
really fray the shield and solder it to the
OUTSIDE then cover it with a quality tape, or even heat-shrink tubing. Cheers and 73. WW5MB
The "N" connector withstands weather far better than the Pl connector!
Nice informative video, as usual. Is it possible to show us how the Nano VNA is connected to the series of connectors, in order to make the measurement?
Sure. I will do that in a follow up video soon. 73, Jim
i only use compression fit connectors, so SO239/PL259 on HF are perfectly acceptable. shell out a bit more for N on 2M/70cm.
Thankyou Sir
Quick question, not related to this video
I see a graphics behind your seat, and I believe it is the display of a SDR
Would you mind sharing the hardware & software you use sir ?
Very good. Now why would Yaesu put a pl connector output on the VHF/UHF side of the 991A?
The answer is simple. It is a good consumer connector. Okay, I made that up just now. Most guys can put on a PL259 or have cables on hand with that connector. Most do not know how to install an N connector or BNC. Yaesu would be responding to calls and complaints. By the way, Yaesu never answer email from 2 weeks ago. Really poor or nonexistent customer service at Yaesu from what I can tell. 73, Jim
OK, see you said HF in the title. Still, I would have liked to see you do the same test at 150 MHz and 450 MHz.
I have several 50 and 100 feet lengths of coax, mostly RG-8x or similar and RG-58. Some looks like it may have been used but in great shape and other looks brand new. Can the Nano VNA test that and tell me if the coax is good or should be thrown away?
Yes it can. Above HF, you should use a good suitable connector that is designed for VHF or UHF. At HF, for most of us, the PL259 is good enough and it can handle the power with that large pin. 73, Jim
Jim, have you done a review on the Nano VNA? Where can it be purchased?
I bought some recently on Amazon. They were listed at $18 each! There were 3 left and I bought them. It may have been a mistake by the seller. I have seen some at $50 each for the older version; that works fine. I have seen some recently that looked really good at $120 on Amazon. 73, Jim
I only ever worried about them on the radios.. I used NMO mounts because they were low profile when antenna was not on vehicle but I figure my biggest loss is for ball mount with spring, yet I only run HF mobile using all mount and spring..except when in a truck where i mount dipole style off the mirrors and usually phase them as well..lol
but N connectors against the pl259 or the bnc??? Small gear I use BNC for weight.. but prefer PL259 as N is heaviest connector and even on 2 meters and commercial gear, I found no loss problems between it and N- many commercial VHF radios use to have PL259 connectors
All good information to those who don't seem to understand about connectors. Thanks for the help. 73, Jim
Jim , with the huge adoption lately of efhw antennas, could you make a video about them , comparing to a dipole? Loss/efficiency etc.
I have some components to build one. The concept is brilliant and the darn things work pretty good. Thanks AJ. 73 Jim
Do you think the brand, material and number of times assembled makes a difference?
Yes Mike. Cheap connectors and adapters are crap. In the long run, stick with the best silver plated and Teflon insulation. Same goes for the most important thing, the coax. 73, Jim
Thanks "professor." Always enjoy your videos ... DE K5AVJ
My pleasure and thanks for the new title! 73. Jim
I like the N-Type sets reading at 20m. 0 loss, but a VSWR of 133421:1.......I doubt my tuner will bring a pre-built stick, let alone a wire to
The end of the adapters was shorted on purpose. Hence the infinite SWR. You might want to read about how to measure losses. Jim
@@ham-radio It was meant to be a joke.....😯
Hi Jim- thanks for the video. I agree with you regarding VHF and HF frequencies.
When did we start calling "adapters" "connectors"? To me, a connector is directly attached to a cable, and an adapter goes between the connector and the equipment (or another adapter).
The PL-259 was termed a "UHF connector", because back when it was developed, VHF was "ultra high frequency". But for 400mhz up, I believe the N connector is the way to go. For HF and VHF, I use a PL259 SO239... they are cheaper and work fine.
And for the "experts" who question your measurement methods....this is a relative comparison, and this video was not intended as part of an engineering syllabus....it was a nice demonstration.
Let me just add one more thing: I believe that if you added a well-used (not brand new) cheap 90-degree adaptor into the mix, your losses would be greater, especially if you actually measured power dissipation and not just low-level signals from a VNA....I have removed ALL of the cheap (amazon, not amphenol) right angle adapters from my gear. 73
David, I agree with you 100%. So, I will move your comment to the Description section of the video as a correction and further explanation late today. I have someone coming by the house to buy several Yagis and rotators that I had at the old QTH. I do and did know the difference. I did misspeak. I had no other way to do that "test". My thoughts were that N adapters would have about the same relative loss to the so called, misnamed UHF connectors and adapters. For convenience I did use what I had. I believe the one N right angle is ancient. I have had it for 50 years or more. It would be interesting to string about 20 (which I have) right angle UHF and see what that does. Thanks David, 73, Jim
@@ham-radio Hi Jim. My intention was not to be critical of you, but rather highlight that terminology is frequently misused (often not by you), and I think part of communicating ideas and concepts (which has made amateur radio great for so many years) is to speak the same technical language. For example, is it a balun, an unun, or a transformer? Or an autotransformer? Is it a longwire, random wire, or resonant end fed halfwave? A counterpoise or radial? Do they all mean the same thing? No, not exactly...and I think reinforcing the meaning of words and technical concepts (as you did with "dot dash" vs "dit dah") is important to illustrate the true technical and service nature of amateur radio, and avoid the hobby from being transformed into a bunch of "appliance operators".
@@daveN2MXX I know. I did not take your comments the wrong way. I just said to myself, crap, I did not intend to make that mistake. I even thought about it before recording. We need to get the terminology correct. If I could bleep the words I would. I do have a sense of humor and I do listen when someone makes a correction. I have a Phd friend who often is very critical of my non-engineering skills. 73, Jim ...packing stuff for my friends to buy. Lots of stuff including a box of right angle connector......adapters!
Thanks Jim
73 AB7RR Bob God Bless America Let's GO Brandon
Thanks Bob. 73, Jim
It was my understanding that the biggest difference between N and UHF connectors was that the N, if assembled properly, were waterproof, where the PL-259's are not.
I don't agree with waterproof. Water resistant might be possible with some N connectors. Thanks Scotty, 73, Jim
For best stand-alone protection against water/humidity, you can always use the Messi & Paoloni connectors (N or PL259).
Jim w6lg me and my cousin are going to a Swap meet in September 11 Sunday morning at 8 am in Milwaukee
Was hoping you'd try 440 for a bit. I have a dual band vertical with an N and N's all the way down on LMR600. Always kind of wondered if I wasted my money there.
N connectors are superior at that frequency compared to "UHF connectors". 73, Jim
@@ham-radio Ya, I figured they would be. Was just hoping to see if it was a huge difference or slight. You can just make it up on TX with more power, but I always wondered if I'm literally hearing more because I spent an extra $100 in that area. The setup I ended up with is modest but it seems to have a really good coverage area.
Thanks.
I have a dual band vertical, and also run LMR 600, but PL 259's on each end from a previous use. With a Kenwood TM V71A, its main job is dual band repeat so I can speak to the "local" repeater 65 miles away, from almost anywhere in my county. I have yet to see a lack of actual real world performance from my use of PL 259's, and run the Kenwood at half power without any issues. Today I should test if I can't hack it at 5 watts on low power!
Sometimes ERP and gain are everything. Sometimes you have a big enough sledgehammer anyway.
@@kingduckford Understood. At VHF and UHF, there are good connectors and adapters that are used in commercial applications for many reasons. PL259, et al, have huge losses at UHF. But, as you point out, in a pinch you can overcome those losses. 73, Jim
What am I missing, please? I was told that for every connector I added in series in my coax to expect half a dB loss. I expected that with 6 connectors in series there would be 3dB loss. Thank you.
Almost zero loss at HF. Watch my video where I string about 30 connectors together and have no measurable loss. 73, Jim W6LG
@@ham-radio Wow ! that was a very qick reply. I watched that other video before getting this reply.
One of the comments below that video mentioned that ypur test results blows out of the water the theory about each connector adding much higher loss than we've been told.
I see that to get low signal loss we should spend on high quality coax instead of on connectors. Thank you very much. 73 Nk5I
can you try VHF 150Mhz?
I am sure your connectors are of high quality, Amphenol if I had to guess. How much loss would lower quality connectors have? Especially when the dielectric tends to melt when soldering?
I had do that. It looked like Teflon. It was white and dull; but it was crap. Low cost connectors can be lossy or not. But they are a mistake. Always buy the best connector that you can afford. For many, money is tight. But do the best you can with the connector. Even if that means a used connector. 73, Jim
For HF there isn't a lot of difference. The higher in frequency you go the more of a difference it can make. I was hoping you would have shown the VHF and UHF frequencies.
Should you not look at S21 … the loss *through* the device under test?
Yes, sure. The results would have been the same. If you divide the results in half because of the round trip. Then divide by 20 connectors and adapters, the answer is still zero at HF. Thanks for asking and maybe I should have done it that way for the demo. 73, Jim
So high VF cable better than lower VF ie .81 vs. .66
Let me think....yes, I think so. So as dielectric losses decrease so does the VF. That makes sense to me Jay. 73, Jim
Did you have a load on the end of the 259 chain, a little disappointed with this test.
Jim w6lg I was born 1963 iam 59 years old
YES, BUT YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE, SO DIVIDE by the number?
He wasn’t trying to determine the loss per connector, just the difference between them.
But sure and then the answer is still zero at HF. 73, Jim
Jim w6lg my hobbys are painting pictures and lisining to shortwave and ssb iam thinking about getting my ham license I have 4 shortwave receivers
More than a few Brandon gaffs in that
Jim w6lg I need help in passing my ham license I have a learning disabilty in math
Given that you have a choice, why do people settle for the inferior one?
Which one is inferior? Thanks, Jim
@@ham-radio PL259/SO239 is inferior in every aspect apart from power handling.
Probably been a while since you sat for a FCC exam, Jim, therefore what should be noted for those interested, differentiating the frequency ranges of SMA, Type-M, and Type-N is necessary.
My FT-991A uses a type M connection for UHF but if one holds true to the exam, type N should be used. Question T9B06: Which of the following connectors is most suitable for frequencies above 400 MHz? 73 from Florida, KO4CES
He knows that. Being a ham for as long as he has, involves lots, and lots, of continued education, as well as lots, and lots, of discussion with fellow hams. He has this other video at (time stamp) 7:03 minutes, that talks about the impedance of the UHF connector (PL-259) that varies, especially at UHF frequencies. Here is a link to that video. th-cam.com/video/_65CnalheRk/w-d-xo.html
The major advantage for me is that the "N" connector is relatively weatherproof.
Sure, they have a rubber washer at the end of the connector, but nothing stops water from getting under the ferrule and into the braid of the cable (or between the outer jacket and the outer conductor in heliax). I'd still seal them up properly - a few layers of electrical tape at minimum, and better yet to use a couple layers of self amalgamating tape first, and electrical tape after, as he showed in a recent video.
Yep, that is good advice. Yes, relatively water resistant and not water proof. All in all, N connectors are excellent. But for some of us, not the best choice at HF for other reasons. 73, Jim W6LG
I wouldnt bother with an N connector at HF, but i WOULDNT USE A PL259 AT 23CM