Hi Tom.

31-May-04 09:08:28, Tom Walker wrote to Jasen Betts


  ->  PW> Most designs I have seen so far suggest an "N"
connector and
  a few ->  PW> use BNC. "N" fittings are not available
locally except
  by special ->  PW> order, and I judged BNC to be too prone to
  deterioration from the ->  PW> pervasive moisture through much of the
  year,

 TW> -> AFAIK BNC connectors are designed for indoor use only.

 TW> That is correct. But of course then can be sealed with "Coax Tape"
 TW> fairly well.

 TW> ->  PW> (is this a "P" type connector?) as is used
on CB and VHF
 TW> ->  PW> radios.

 TW> -> "UHF" ?

 TW> While it is called a "UHF" connector as noted i nmy message to PW
 TW> it is only designed for Frequencies up to 200 Mhz. A little short
 TW> of the definition of the UHF band. And is Somewhat Unsuitable for
 TW> anything higher then 500 Mhz as PW found out..

 TW> -> AFAIIK F connecctors are designed for 75 ohm TV antennas and
 TW> don't work -> well in 50 ohn setups.

 TW> They produce a Higher SWR reading(signal Loss) then the 50 ohm
 TW> fittings but if you use a Gain Anttenna one can still come out
 TW> better then the little rubber duckies supplitd with 902.11
 TW> equipment. Of course using a TNC or SMR fitting is better.

 TW> ->  PW> Will BNC connections be any better?

 TW> ->  if you use the RG58 version (designed for 50 ohms) is could
 TW> make a ->  difference...

 TW> BAD idea. RG-58 is totaly UN-suitable. As I recall he was talking
 TW> maybe a 50 Foot cable run! Look up the Cable loss you have to live
 TW> with at those frequencies.

What cable is suitable?

I thought maybe there was some verion of low loss RG58 like the low-loss
RG6 they use for digital television and satellite antennas.

 -=> Bye <=-

---