New KAT500 pics from the Visalia DX convention

[Craig Smith]

I installed the Oak Hills BNC connectors in my K3 during the initial build 5 years ago.  Great decision.   Much more convenient and allows for rapid cable changes.  Everything in my shack and antenna runs has been standardized with BNCs.

73  Craig  AC0DS


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Gary K9GS]

Hello Craig,

Not singling you out or anything but I've been wondering while reading
this thread....

WHY you would want to change to a non-standard connector series?  The
UHF connector is the standard for HF radios, watt-meters, antenna
switches, etc.

You mention rapid cable changes.....just how many times in an average
week do you "change cables"?



On 4/24/2012 9:37 PM, Craig Smith wrote:

> I installed the Oak Hills BNC connectors in my K3 during the initial build 5 years ago.  Great decision.   Much more convenient and allows for rapid cable changes.  Everything in my shack and antenna runs has been standardized with BNCs.
>
> 73  Craig  AC0DS
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

--


73,

Gary K9GS

Greater Milwaukee DX Association: http://www.gmdxa.org
Society of Midwest Contesters: http://www.w9smc.com
CW Ops #1032   http://www.cwops.org

************************************************

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Don Wilhelm-4]

Craig,

I do not want to "push the envelope", but I have found that UHF
connectors are more reliable than BNC. The BNC connectors are smaller,
but are more susceptible to the connection being distorted because
either the center conductor has been pulled back into the housing or the
shield connection has failed.  In other words, a BNC connector is no
panacea - it can have failure points unknown to the UHF connector
world.  Below 100 MHz, the UHF connector is perfectly adequate.

The only caution I can offer on the use of UHF connectors is that they
must be tightened - finger tight is not enough, it requires a slight
extra tightening with pliers.  The continuity of the shield connection
depends on the tightness of the connector - BNC and Type N do not have
that dependency - if those connectors are engaged (whether tightened or
not), there is a good connection for bother the center conductor and the
shield.

I do use BNC connectors at my workbench every day just because they are
convenient and easy to change from one connection to another.  If I an
servicing a KPA100, I will screw a PL-259 to BNC adapter onto the RF
output jack so I can use my workbench BNC cables for quick
connect/disconnect.  I do keep a constant check on the BNC connectors -
if the shield escapes the clamp, or the center conductor is pulled back,
I discard the cable, or simply cut off the offending cable end so I know
to repair it later.

For those with more permanent stations, I would highly recommend
sticking with theUHF connectors or using UHF to BNC adapters rather than
modifying your equipment. Just my humble opinion.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 4/24/2012 10:37 PM, Craig Smith wrote:

> I installed the Oak Hills BNC connectors in my K3 during the initial build 5 years ago.  Great decision.   Much more convenient and allows for rapid cable changes.  Everything in my shack and antenna runs has been standardized with BNCs.
>
> 73  Craig  AC0DS
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Jim Brown-10]

On 4/24/2012 8:07 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> Below 100 MHz, the UHF connector is perfectly adequate.

The notion that PL-259 and mating SO239 connectors are not good at VHF
(and even low UHF) because their impedance isn't close enough to 50
ohms  is one of those myths that is not based on fact.  A few years ago,
I spliced together 1,300 ft of Commscope 3227 (like LMR400, but with a
solid #10 copper center) that cut into 100 ft lengths for a DX trip.
There were a total of about 24 PL-259s and about half that number of
barrels, all Amphenols. The loss at 500 MHz measured by substitution
using HP test gear, was a dB or so less than the published spec for the
cable.

What folks seem to miss is that 1) while there may be a SMALL difference
in the Zo, the length of the connector is also small as a fraction of a
wavelength, and 2) the tendency of loss in ANY transmission line to
bring the VSWR back to unity.  Both of these factors tend to render any
small discontinuity meaningless below 1 GHz or so.

What matters FAR more is the QUALITY of the connectors used.  Most of
the deficiencies blamed on UHF connectors (and on BNC connectors) are
the result of the use of no-name JUNK connectors.  I use nothing but
Amphenols. They cost a bit more, but I've been bitten far too often (and
badly) when I've used anything else. Nothing like having a connector
fall apart, or melt because it's made of thin metal, or because wide
tolerance parts don't mate securely, or a dielectric that melts when you
try to solder the connector.  And a junk connector that fails 80 ft up
in the air can be both difficult to diagnose and VERY costly to replace!

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Craig Smith]

It boils down to personal preference, and I like BNCs.  UHF seem really large and clunky to me, and I don't like having to unscrew them rather than just a small twist.  One factor that other folks might not have is that I run strictly low power and the largest coax I have anywhere in my station is LMR-240 size.  So using a large connector seems like overkill to me.   I also invested in a good crimp tool and make all my own BNC cables and have yet to have a failure.   So to me, there is zero downside to using BNCs.  But I appreciate that others may have a different opinion.

73   Craig   AC0DS


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[mike]

Getting back to the original post.. which was the KAT500...great looking product as expected. Does it look like an announcement as to price and availablity is coming by the end of May?

..mike  AI6II

[alorona]

I believe that the accepted figure for the loss of one PL-259 connector is about
0.01 dB at 50 MHz, and this is a very conservative (pessimistic) estimate. You
will find measurements on the web that vary from 0 dB to 1 dB for a single
PL-259. The (female) SO-239 is a bit worse, but if you use 0.01 dB for each
connector regardless of type, you will have a pretty good, conservative estimate
of the connector loss in your system at HF.

The typical ham has about 20 coaxial connectors in the path between transmitter
and antenna, representing a total loss of about 0.2 dB (conservative)
representing about 4.5 W loss for every 100 W of transmitter power. To me this
seems like it's in the (very conservative) ballpark.

The loss increases at higher frequencies, as you can imagine, but it's also even
lower at lower frequencies.

Al  W6LX
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[M0XDF]

Thanks everyone for the discussion and thanks Jim for the part number.
Now considering the options, but leaning towards just sticking with what I've got, which is mostly  'UHF' on HF and 'N' type on V/UHF. The only BNC are on the 6M preamp and will be on the XV144. Note that legal limit here is 400W and not many of us run that since neighbors are only a few feet away in a lot of cases ;-(

- 73 de M0XDF

On 25 Apr 2012, at 03:49, "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's a simple homebrew - a square of aluminum (or whatever - even scrap PCB)
> with a hole for the BNC in the center and two or four holes in the SO239
> pattern for mounting. But I don't know that there's a significant loss in
> using a *quality* SO239-BNC adapter. That's what I do.
>
> It's very nice having only ONE type of coaxial connector - a simple
> twist-lock BNC - especially because I have to tear the setup apart
> constantly.
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[gm3sek]

Dick Dievendorff wrote:
>I have that same "too busy" ACC connector problem with antenna &
>bandpass filter switching, amp, PR-6, and PTT/FSK connection to a
>microHAM device. I'm using a couple of layers of Y connector, dislike
>the solution, and I have ideas to resolve that problem somehow.
>

One solution is to build a "breakout box" to move all of these
interconnection problems away from the K3 itself. Since I also wanted to
make a shallow base to raise the K3 about 1.5 inches above the table,
both of these functions have been combined to make a "breakout base" on
which the K3 stands.

A short 15-way cable connects to the ACC socket of the K3, and all of
those 15 lines are fanned out to a stripboard patch panel inside the
base unit.  Another short cable connects the switched 12V output from
the K3.

All of the input and output signals that would otherwise go to the ACC
connector are now routed to individual connectors on the 10in wide rear
panel of the "breakout base". These currently include FSK input from the
PC, PA inhibit from the SteppIR, additional band data outputs and three
12V outputs switched by the K3.

This will perpetually be a work in progress, modified to meet current
needs. For example, when an SSPA came on the scene, it was very easy to
tap into all the necessary control and band data lines, and gather them
into a custom umbilical cable.

One day I shall complete the front panel of this unit, which currently
stands empty. But, like Dick...

>Unfortunately I have more ideas than time to implement them.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[ke9uw]

I too use all BNC and LMR-240 cables. Great shield on this cable and low loss.

Chuck, KE9UW
aka Jack, BMW Motorcycles

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Craig Smith [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:10 PM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] New KAT500 pics from the Visalia DX convention

It boils down to personal preference, and I like BNCs.  UHF seem really large and clunky to me, and I don't like having to unscrew them rather than just a small twist.  One factor that other folks might not have is that I run strictly low power and the largest coax I have anywhere in my station is LMR-240 size.  So using a large connector seems like overkill to me.   I also invested in a good crimp tool and make all my own BNC cables and have yet to have a failure.   So to me, there is zero downside to using BNCs.  But I appreciate that others may have a different opinion.

73   Craig   AC0DS


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[ke9uw]

I once bought a non Ampenol right angle UHF adapter which became intermittant. I found a spring inside it making the corner instead of the Amphenol method of two silver plated rods, one screwed into the other at right angles.

Chuck, KE9UW
aka Jack, BMW Motorcycles

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Jim Brown [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:53 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] New KAT500 pics from the Visalia DX convention

On 4/24/2012 8:07 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> Below 100 MHz, the UHF connector is perfectly adequate.

The notion that PL-259 and mating SO239 connectors are not good at VHF
(and even low UHF) because their impedance isn't close enough to 50
ohms  is one of those myths that is not based on fact.  A few years ago,
I spliced together 1,300 ft of Commscope 3227 (like LMR400, but with a
solid #10 copper center) that cut into 100 ft lengths for a DX trip.
There were a total of about 24 PL-259s and about half that number of
barrels, all Amphenols. The loss at 500 MHz measured by substitution
using HP test gear, was a dB or so less than the published spec for the
cable.

What folks seem to miss is that 1) while there may be a SMALL difference
in the Zo, the length of the connector is also small as a fraction of a
wavelength, and 2) the tendency of loss in ANY transmission line to
bring the VSWR back to unity.  Both of these factors tend to render any
small discontinuity meaningless below 1 GHz or so.

What matters FAR more is the QUALITY of the connectors used.  Most of
the deficiencies blamed on UHF connectors (and on BNC connectors) are
the result of the use of no-name JUNK connectors.  I use nothing but
Amphenols. They cost a bit more, but I've been bitten far too often (and
badly) when I've used anything else. Nothing like having a connector
fall apart, or melt because it's made of thin metal, or because wide
tolerance parts don't mate securely, or a dielectric that melts when you
try to solder the connector.  And a junk connector that fails 80 ft up
in the air can be both difficult to diagnose and VERY costly to replace!

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Keith Heimbold]

I ran into this issue and if there is a commercial solution available I would love to hear about it.

Keith
AG6AZ

> Dick Dievendorff wrote:
>> I have that same "too busy" ACC connector problem with antenna &
>> bandpass filter switching, amp, PR-6, and PTT/FSK connection to a
>> microHAM device. I'm using a couple of layers of Y connector, dislike
>> the solution, and I have ideas to resolve that problem somehow.
>>

If anyone has found a commercial solution to this that would be great. I run a Yaesu Quadra with the K3 and the integration with the PR6 and the Quadra is clunky at best into a single ACC port.

Keith
AG6AZ


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Tony]

Hi all sorry for the mail iam looking for a used K3 or K2 only need 10watt
as it will be used to drive transverters.
Thanks
Tony    (G0GMS)
Please reply [hidden email]


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html