SO-239 Connector Selection
Locked
 
|
Ok figured I'd ask here and see if someone had some input on the
differences here. Hopefully someone has done more design with these than I... My application is that I'm looking for connectors to install on some high end home made band-pass filters. 83-1R; http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-1R-SO-239/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3rrGzC6kucWGwVoNS6TyriIimuNw9A%3d 83-1R-RFX: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-1R-RFX/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3rrGzC6kqBNVAfbUIcAaUNmqqZ3zpA%3d 83-798: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-798/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3rrGzC6kptFUq3vT%252bWoMcHyGEmWyaU%3d The 83-1R is a number I've seen a lot in usage and its the connector I'm leaning toward. It is also the cheapest of the 3. I know they are all going to be good connectors but is there any benefit to going with the other two versions? I believe that the RFX version is a commercial version of the same thing (at only 20 cents more) but I don't know what the difference is. Finally the 83-798 claims to be an SO-239A connector... I tried doing a search for SO-239 vs SO-239A and in a quick gander didn't turn up much... Any input would be appreciated. Thanks ~Brett (N7MG) ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: SO-239 Connector Selection
|
|
The 83-798A has a Teflon insulator - this is what makes it different.
They're all equivalent for low frequency, low power (<200w) work which I presume your bandpass filters will be. "High-End"? What design? -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brett Howard Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:22 AM To: elecraft Subject: [Elecraft] SO-239 Connector Selection Ok figured I'd ask here and see if someone had some input on the differences here. Hopefully someone has done more design with these than I... My application is that I'm looking for connectors to install on some high end home made band-pass filters. 83-1R; http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-1R-SO-239/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMt qi3rrGzC6kucWGwVoNS6TyriIimuNw9A%3d 83-1R-RFX: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-1R-RFX/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3 rrGzC6kqBNVAfbUIcAaUNmqqZ3zpA%3d 83-798: http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-798/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3rrG zC6kptFUq3vT%252bWoMcHyGEmWyaU%3d The 83-1R is a number I've seen a lot in usage and its the connector I'm leaning toward. It is also the cheapest of the 3. I know they are all going to be good connectors but is there any benefit to going with the other two versions? I believe that the RFX version is a commercial version of the same thing (at only 20 cents more) but I don't know what the difference is. Finally the 83-798 claims to be an SO-239A connector... I tried doing a search for SO-239 vs SO-239A and in a quick gander didn't turn up much... Any input would be appreciated. Thanks ~Brett (N7MG) ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Based on W3NQN's filters and rated for 200W.
Makes sense on the teflon insulator... I assume that that only makes the difference when doing higher power? I do think that whenever I'm making an antenna that is to have a connector blow torch soldered to a copper pipe or something I'm going to buy one of those! Now I just wonder what the difference in the small price jump delta between RFX and non RFX is... ~Brett (N7MG) On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Bob Naumann <[hidden email]> wrote: > The 83-798A has a Teflon insulator - this is what makes it different. > > They're all equivalent for low frequency, low power (<200w) work which I > presume your bandpass filters will be. > > "High-End"? What design? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Brett Howard > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:22 AM > To: elecraft > Subject: [Elecraft] SO-239 Connector Selection > > Ok figured I'd ask here and see if someone had some input on the > differences here. Hopefully someone has done more design with these > than I... > > My application is that I'm looking for connectors to install on some > high end home made band-pass filters. > > 83-1R; > http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-1R-SO-239/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMt > qi3rrGzC6kucWGwVoNS6TyriIimuNw9A%3d > 83-1R-RFX: > http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-1R-RFX/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3 > rrGzC6kqBNVAfbUIcAaUNmqqZ3zpA%3d > 83-798: > http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/83-798/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtqi3rrG > zC6kptFUq3vT%252bWoMcHyGEmWyaU%3d > > The 83-1R is a number I've seen a lot in usage and its the connector I'm > leaning toward. It is also the cheapest of the 3. I know they are all > going to be good connectors but is there any benefit to going with the > other two versions? I believe that the RFX version is a commercial > version of the same thing (at only 20 cents more) but I don't know what > the difference is. Finally the 83-798 claims to be an SO-239A > connector... I tried doing a search for SO-239 vs SO-239A and in a > quick gander didn't turn up much... Any input would be appreciated. > > Thanks > > ~Brett (N7MG) > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > 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 |
|
|
A word of caution about SO-239 / PL-259's ... In some connector applications ... particularly power dividers and other applications that are "impedance- conscious" ... SO-239 / PL-259" connectors are not suitable. They're -not- 50-ohm connectors. This is why one usually sees Type-N connectors used in these applications. They -are-, by definition, 50-ohm connectors. I learned this the hard way some years ago when I built and sold VHF and UHF NBS Yagis with multi-port power dividers. This may not be an issue with Brett's filters, but I'd stay with N's or BNC's. They're also, by definition, 50-ohm connectors, BTW. I've specified BNC's for all my ICE filters, and have them on my K3, watt meters, etc. 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP [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 |
|
|
> In some connector applications ... particularly power
> dividers and other applications that are "impedance- > conscious" ... SO-239 / PL-259" connectors are not > suitable. This is NEVER the case at 30 MHz and lower, so long as connection to the connector are properly done. The total impedance bump length in a UHF female to UHF male pair is about the length of the center pin of the female. All of the problems are in the female, and the length of the problem area is confined to the spread area of the female that fits over the male pin. That area is about 35 ohms impedance, not a large mismatch. The effect of that is virtually immeasurable on 30 MHz. If connections to the SO-239 are 50 ohms, the SWR caused by a SO-239 would be 1.006:1. If anyone has a problem using a single SO239 PL259 pair below 50 MHz in anything but the most critical measurement systems, they did something else wrong. This would include filters, combiners, splitters, and loads. 1/2 inch at 35 ohms is nothing below UHF. 73 Tom ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: OT: SO-239 Connector Selection
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken Kopp-3
> SO-239 / PL-259" connectors are not suitable.
WRONG! This is another myth, repeated and repeated until it becomes accepted. This is HF, not UHF. The impedance of the connector only matters when the frequency is high enough that the length of the transmission line that the connector comprises is a significant fraction of a wavelength. Good quality UHF connectors (PL-259 and SO-239) are more than adequate for anything we do on the HF and VHF bands. We need to worry about the impedance of the connector at UHF and above. A brief anecdote. This spring, I made up a lot of RG8 cables for a DXpedition. As part of a final test, I hooked eleven 100 ft lengths in series and measured the loss. It was within measurement error of the specified loss of the cable up to 400 MHz. That was 22 PL-259s, 11 barrels, and two PL-259 to N adapters to get to the HP generator and HP spectrum analyzer that I used to measure it. 73, Jim Brown 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brett Howard
Makes sense on the teflon insulator... I assume that that only makes
the difference when doing higher power? >>> It mostly makes a difference in soldering. The measured voltage breakdown of a standard Amphenol SO-239 is well over 5000 volts peak. The arc point is normally the air gap between the end of the female and the connector shell over the face of the dielectric, provided the pin soldering is smooth and without points or accidental closure of the air gap at the pin area with sloppy wiring or soldering. I normally high-pot my PL259 installations to 5000 volts or higher as a cable test to check for stray shield strands or other problems. SO-239's test just as high or higher, and all of my 1:1 baluns are tested that way before installation and they use UHF females. Other then the fact some plastics in cheap connectors heat a bit at extreme voltage and high frequency, I can't imagine any need for Teflon other than soldering or reduced carbon tracking from lightning or arcs. I mainly use Teflon because I torch solder SO239's and 259's on my homebrew hardline connectors, and it is better with lightning arcs or 1500 watts into open terminated cables when a switch is wrong. For your filter application, you could use anything. 73 Tom ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by W8JI
I agree with Tom. The biggest problem, from my perspective, with the "UHF" connectors is the variability of attachment to the cable. I have no experience with crimp varieties, they may mitigate the issue, but the solder on types are ripe for trouble.
The other problem with them if you are trying to do any precision measurements---an oxymoron I suppose---is that any decent instrumentation will have type N connectors, thus adapters are necessary. Again at HF I would just include the adapter as part of the thing I was testing and not worry about it. Wes N7WS --- On Thu, 7/22/10, Tom W8JI <[hidden email]> wrote: > In some connector applications ... particularly power > dividers and other applications that are "impedance- > conscious" ... SO-239 / PL-259" connectors are not > suitable. This is NEVER the case at 30 MHz and lower, so long as connection to the connector are properly done. The total impedance bump length in a UHF female to UHF male pair is about the length of the center pin of the female. All of the problems are in the female, and the length of the problem area is confined to the spread area of the female that fits over the male pin. That area is about 35 ohms impedance, not a large mismatch. The effect of that is virtually immeasurable on 30 MHz. If connections to the SO-239 are 50 ohms, the SWR caused by a SO-239 would be 1.006:1. If anyone has a problem using a single SO239 PL259 pair below 50 MHz in anything but the most critical measurement systems, they did something else wrong. This would include filters, combiners, splitters, and loads. 1/2 inch at 35 ohms is nothing below UHF. 73 Tom ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: OT: SO-239 Connector Selection
|
|
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:27 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
> The other problem with them if you are trying to do any precision measurements---an oxymoron I suppose---is that any decent instrumentation will have type N connectors, thus adapters are necessary. It's a little-known fact that a male N connector is a perfect fit with a female BNC. Of course, there is no locking mechanism so you wouldn't want to use it for an antenna connection, but it works fine for testing on the bench - no adapter necessary. Al N1AL ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by W8JI
My experience with SO-239' / PL-259's -was- at VHF and UHF, and I said so in my posting. I was made aware of this when the Colorado Springs radio club ordered a 4-port divider to feed their 2M repeater's antennas and they specified / insisted on me building it with SO-239's. I shipped it and within a few days they were complaining of high SWR. Before getting the original one back I built and shipped a second unit, only to get the same report. It was only when I built the 3rd unit with N's did it work correctly. My friends at the NBS labs ... who originated NBS yagi design (W0PW / W0EYE) ... along with the particular power divider design ... explained what was going on. The non-50 ohm SO-239's connected to the 35 ohm transmission line / power divider were influencing the impedance of divider. My years at CU's radio astronomy lab and the NBS cafeteria represent some of the best "learning" in my career. I learned much via napkin tutoring done by some of the nation's best "radio" minds. 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: OT: SO-239 Connector Selection
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Bloom
On 7/22/2010 10:49 AM, Alan Bloom wrote:
> It's a little-known fact that a male N connector is a perfect fit > with a female BNC. Of course, there is no locking mechanism so > you wouldn't want to use it for an antenna connection, but it > works fine for testing on the bench - no adapter necessary. But beware doing it "cross species" - the male pin of an PL-259 connector can be forced into a female N connector by tightening the shell threads, thereby ruining the N-connector. One of our served agencies found that out the hard way when one of their set-up mechanics tried to hook up the wrong end of the antenna cable and they had to buy us a new Dual-Band antenna. (ouch!) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: OT: SO-239 Connector Selection
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Bloom
Another little known fact is BNCs come in both 50 ohm & 75 ohm versions.
I used both 75 ohm (video) & 50 ohm (RF) at work. So verify if it matters to the usage! -------------------------------------------------- It's a little-known fact that a male N connector is a perfect fit with a female BNC. ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: OT: SO-239 Connector Selection
|
|
On 7/22/2010 11:34 AM, George & Jan wrote:
> Another little known fact is BNCs come in both 50 ohm & 75 ohm > versions. I used both 75 ohm (video) & 50 ohm (RF) at work. Ditto for N series. We used to paint a red ring around the 75 ohm types in our off-the-air monitoring facilities for ease of identification. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
«
Return to [HAM]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |