Best video for testing PL & N type connectors! You have a beautiful HP8753 vna❤❤❤❤❤ i work for many years with this instruments! Best regards from Francesco Italy👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you! Unfortunately my old HP VNA kinda died. 😞😢It became more and more feeble until it was virtually unusable. I replaced it with a Tektronix TTR503A USB based VNA. In many ways, I like the old HP better. 🙂
Another great video Ralph. Type N and BNC are the definitely preferred. Too bad manufacturers don't use them. The slightly increased cost would be well worth it. With a little practice they are easy to install on coax.
Thanks for another great video, I am currently stripping out my single screened coax runs and replacing with double screened at the same time as changing all connectors for Ntype. As well as Ntypes performing better electrically, They are much more resistant to moisture ingress. Plus they are much better engineered physically. I see no logical reason when a higher quality connector is available to resort to using a lower quality one. Thanks again. Mark GØUSL
You are welcome! And N-types connectors are WAY easier to install! I left my UHF on the lower frequency antennas such as 40 and 80 meters. The VHF/UHF? All N where I was allowed (rig has UHF!). I took out all the antenna switches and SWR meters because they are all lossy and have their own SWR. The ONLY thing in line is the lightning arrester, but its loss is near zero and its self-SWR is like 1.02:1 even at UHF frequencies (ruclips.net/video/1fpoViuxn3c/видео.html). When I am not using the antenna, I install a shorting connector (SHORT #12 wire soldered into a connector).
I concour. N or hi/po N are the way to go depending on the application. I suppose manufacturers use them because they are allowed to by unsuspecting consumer, and the profit margin goes up per unit. I usually like to work CW DX mode for its simplicity. I want my antenna to sink every micro volt of RF it can when the DX station is transmitting from the far field. I Really enjoy the videos sir! 73 es gud DX ar
I don't understand why this country wants to hang on to the old PL259/SO239 type connectors. Even UHF radios such as GMRS mobiles are still produced with SO 239 out the back of them. Is there a service company that can convert transceivers to n type out the back? Someone could make a killing doing quick turn around swaps.
Well...they are popular because they are cheap (inferior and cheap). N type are FAR superior, but they are also quite pricey. So, I suppose, because the hams are comfortably familiar with the UHF connectors, the manufacturers keep providing equipment with UHF connectors instead of N. Somehow a lot of guys seem to think that N connectors are "hard to put on." Me? I actually find N connectors a LOT easier to install than UHF connectors. If we could only convince the general ham population that N is the way to go, then things would begin to change. 🙂
Note: This isn't me trying to bash the creator of this video as experience will tell me some people will take this as, I am simply trying to quantify the changes he is measuring in essentially a lab environment to real world effects. That is all. I know you are just trying to show a comparison between UHF and N connectors. This is fine if you are only trying to quantify that one type of connector is better than the other. However. Your numbers do not translate to the difference of these connectors in the real world. Also, by your own words, you are using a worse case scenario situation to get these numbers. Most real world installations are not even close to your worse case scenario effects, and even if they were... So do you have any information quantifying this data to a real world installation? I'll give it a try. Starting with your losses (as this is by far the easiest to translate), you have a worse case of near 0.8 dB losses at or near the 70 cm ham band. So what are the losses per UHF connection? All you have to do to calculate this is divide your loss measurement by the number of connections, so 0.2 dB per connection. I can confirm this measurement from past testing I have done myself (both using a VNA, and a spectrum analyzer), so as far as that goes, thanks for confirming my numbers to withing a reasonable margin of error with an independent test. :) Its true that with 100 watts of drive, one of these connectors will loose about 5 watts. However that is insignificant and irrelevant, and far less than you will have from the coax in most real world installations at said frequencies where you would typically have 25 to 50 watts of loss, and potentially even more... It takes a change of around 50% in power level, or 3 dB, before people start noticing a difference in your output, so the 5% really doesn't make that much of a difference. Further, if there is a second connector on the antennas side, it will loose less than said 5 watts, as there are losses before it, namely the coax and whatever connector was used to connect said coax to the radio so instead of 5% of 100 watts you may have 5% of 75 watts or 5% of 50 watts. But never the less, with 100 watts of drive, you will never even notice the difference from a 5 or even 10 watt drop in power, especially when you already have other losses in the system to factor in. Moving on to SWR. This is where it starts getting complicated. The second connection will not have the same effect on overall SWR as the first, and the third and fourth connections (ect if you have more than four) will have still different effects on overall SWR. Take that 1.7 SWR and divide it by 4 and you get a resulting SWR of less than 1, which is impossible. To get an SWR measurement we can translate into the real world we need a single connection. And finally, reflected power. Here we get even more complicated. So say you have 100 watts going into the first connection, some power is reflected because there is SWR present. So we get to the second connection and we have less than 100 watts to start with, so each additional connection will have add slightly less reflected power? But is this actually true? The thing about SWR and reflections in a feed line and connectors such as this, its not a one way street. The reflections from the second connection will head towards the first connection, which as we have already mentioned, has an SWR of its own, so some of those reflections will be re-reflected back towards the second connection. This has two effects. One, there is less power adding to the initial connections reflected power, and two, because of the re-reflected power going back towards the second connection, the amount of power going into the second connection will go up, which will in turn increase the amount of power it reflects... And I'm not even getting into the half of it, it really does get very complicated very fast. So, trying to quantify the data presented into a real world effects, we are able to use one of the three data sets presented, and that one suggests you won't notice the difference. The other two are inconclusive, and for me to even speculate further I need more information. What do you do with this data? Well, that depends on the person. There are people out their that will use something that is better even if the difference is well below the level of insignificant, and there are others that make decisions based on the context of the overall system. The person in the video is the former, I am the latter. Is the setup with connectors that have slightly less losses "better"? Yes. Will it make enough of a difference that you will ever notice? Not that I have seen. Feel free to take the route that is best for you and your shack.
Yes, I was trying to show the comparison between UHF and N connectors. But, I was also evaluating the two for use in VHF and UHF systems. If we think about it, how many connectors do we have in an average *simple* system? Most radios use a UHF connector, so we have one pair (one male and one female) there. On the other end of the feedline leading to the antenna, we have another pair there connecting to the lightning arrestor. Then we have another pair on the antenna side of the lightning arrestor. Finally, we have the last pair at the other end of the feedline leading to the antenna. This amounts to 4 connector pairs in the simplest system. Each time we arrive at one of these pairs they insert their own SWR because they are not impedance matched and insertion loss by the nature of their design. Each one throws away power I'd rather be using to communicate. Furthermore, adding reflected power to the system because of inferior connectors is also not the most healthy thing we can do for our radio; in some cases, the radio will start rolling back its output power to protect itself. On the other hand, we also have to remember that what affects the transmit signal also affects the receive signal. Weak signals are attenuated by the insertion loss and a percentage is reflected back at the antenna by the impedance mismatches. If our goal is to be able to hear weak signals, then we must work to eliminate as many losses in the system as possible, including using high quality, low-loss feedline. My point is, if our purpose is to communicate using an RF signal, then it makes sense to try to make sure that I take advantage of every bit of the RF I have available both in receive and transmit. Several small losses sprinkled throughout my system can add up to a significant big loss; it can make the difference between communicating and not communicating. I will acknowledge that not all hams need this sort of optimization because their use model (local communication via a local repeater or other strong signal-type communications) does not require it. I present this here for those who want to get the most out of their systems so as to maximize the distances through which they can communicate.
@@eie_for_you I waited for the weekend so I had some time to test this. I just threw up an Arrow clone dual band so called "open sleeve" j-pole that has an so-239 plug on it. I used this antenna more for the convenience of adding two of each male to male and female to female connectors for testing purposes later. Why did I choose four connections (or pairs of connectors)? That is the number you put out. This let me add the four connections (or in your words four pairs of connectors) to compare having them and not. To measure the difference in radiated power, I used a spectrum analyzer that has a dB reading for the output. The only difference in the equipment between the two measurements is, again, adding in the 4 adapters (again 2 male to male and 2 female to female). Just to be clear, I directly measured the difference in radiated power, this includes losses, reflected power (the part of it that is in fact lost) ect. When it comes to the measurements, there is less than 1 dB of difference between the two at the same frequency on the 440 MHz ham band. Less than 1 dB. Also, as you mentioned reciprocity is a thing. However, in modern radios, the increase in receiver sensitivity in recent years has far outpaced any advancement that has come to the transmission side, which if you want to increase you have to either get a better antenna or add more power, so forgive me as I laugh at you push receive as a key part of your argument. In my experience, it takes a far more than a 1 dB change in power to notice any difference in the signal, transmit or receive, and here I didn't even see that. And to make things worse, this is not a change from four UHF pairs to four N pairs, but four UHF pairs to not having any connections what so ever. So if I were to replace said connectors with N connectors instead, I would have seen even less of a difference. Sure, a half a dB here, and a quarter of a dB there. The thing is, if your antenna system is properly set up, you won't have enough of these minor improvements to add up to anything relevant, and certainly not nearly enough to add up to anything noticeable. Like I said above, you did a good job at showing that there is a difference between said UHF and N connector pairs. Unfortunately your testing tells us nothing of the real world. I'm not saying not to use better connectors if you want to use better connectors. Its not like they are super expensive. And if you want to "optimize" your setup to whatever extreme, by all means, it is your setup. What I am saying is, be it to a local repeater, or working a distant station, you won't notice the difference on either transmit or receive with even double this change in losses that you would get from using four UHF connector pairs, and honestly even a few more.
SO239 is quite OK at HF frequencies. It is on the VHF and above where it has real issues. But, the SO239 was made popular because of all of the military surplus that was available after WWII. Like a bad nick-name, they stuck as the de-facto standard for all amateur radio equipment.
Best video for testing PL & N type connectors! You have a beautiful HP8753 vna❤❤❤❤❤ i work for many years with this instruments! Best regards from Francesco Italy👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you!
Unfortunately my old HP VNA kinda died. 😞😢It became more and more feeble until it was virtually unusable. I replaced it with a Tektronix TTR503A USB based VNA. In many ways, I like the old HP better. 🙂
Another great video Ralph. Type N and BNC are the definitely preferred. Too bad manufacturers don't use them. The slightly increased cost would be well worth it. With a little practice they are easy to install on coax.
In fact, they are easier to install than the PL259s!
Thanks for another great video, I am currently stripping out my single screened coax runs and replacing with double screened at the same time as changing all connectors for Ntype. As well as Ntypes performing better electrically, They are much more resistant to moisture ingress. Plus they are much better engineered physically. I see no logical reason when a higher quality connector is available to resort to using a lower quality one. Thanks again. Mark GØUSL
You are welcome! And N-types connectors are WAY easier to install!
I left my UHF on the lower frequency antennas such as 40 and 80 meters. The VHF/UHF? All N where I was allowed (rig has UHF!). I took out all the antenna switches and SWR meters because they are all lossy and have their own SWR. The ONLY thing in line is the lightning arrester, but its loss is near zero and its self-SWR is like 1.02:1 even at UHF frequencies (ruclips.net/video/1fpoViuxn3c/видео.html). When I am not using the antenna, I install a shorting connector (SHORT #12 wire soldered into a connector).
I concour. N or hi/po N are the way to go depending on the application. I suppose manufacturers use them because they are allowed to by unsuspecting consumer, and the profit margin goes up per unit.
I usually like to work CW DX mode for its simplicity. I want my antenna to sink every micro volt of RF it can when the DX station is transmitting from the far field.
I Really enjoy the videos sir!
73 es gud DX ar
Thank you! More are in the works. :-)
I don't understand why this country wants to hang on to the old PL259/SO239 type connectors. Even UHF radios such as GMRS mobiles are still produced with SO 239 out the back of them. Is there a service company that can convert transceivers to n type out the back? Someone could make a killing doing quick turn around swaps.
Well...they are popular because they are cheap (inferior and cheap). N type are FAR superior, but they are also quite pricey. So, I suppose, because the hams are comfortably familiar with the UHF connectors, the manufacturers keep providing equipment with UHF connectors instead of N.
Somehow a lot of guys seem to think that N connectors are "hard to put on." Me? I actually find N connectors a LOT easier to install than UHF connectors. If we could only convince the general ham population that N is the way to go, then things would begin to change. 🙂
Note: This isn't me trying to bash the creator of this video as experience will tell me some people will take this as, I am simply trying to quantify the changes he is measuring in essentially a lab environment to real world effects. That is all.
I know you are just trying to show a comparison between UHF and N connectors. This is fine if you are only trying to quantify that one type of connector is better than the other. However. Your numbers do not translate to the difference of these connectors in the real world. Also, by your own words, you are using a worse case scenario situation to get these numbers. Most real world installations are not even close to your worse case scenario effects, and even if they were... So do you have any information quantifying this data to a real world installation?
I'll give it a try.
Starting with your losses (as this is by far the easiest to translate), you have a worse case of near 0.8 dB losses at or near the 70 cm ham band. So what are the losses per UHF connection? All you have to do to calculate this is divide your loss measurement by the number of connections, so 0.2 dB per connection. I can confirm this measurement from past testing I have done myself (both using a VNA, and a spectrum analyzer), so as far as that goes, thanks for confirming my numbers to withing a reasonable margin of error with an independent test. :)
Its true that with 100 watts of drive, one of these connectors will loose about 5 watts. However that is insignificant and irrelevant, and far less than you will have from the coax in most real world installations at said frequencies where you would typically have 25 to 50 watts of loss, and potentially even more... It takes a change of around 50% in power level, or 3 dB, before people start noticing a difference in your output, so the 5% really doesn't make that much of a difference. Further, if there is a second connector on the antennas side, it will loose less than said 5 watts, as there are losses before it, namely the coax and whatever connector was used to connect said coax to the radio so instead of 5% of 100 watts you may have 5% of 75 watts or 5% of 50 watts. But never the less, with 100 watts of drive, you will never even notice the difference from a 5 or even 10 watt drop in power, especially when you already have other losses in the system to factor in.
Moving on to SWR. This is where it starts getting complicated. The second connection will not have the same effect on overall SWR as the first, and the third and fourth connections (ect if you have more than four) will have still different effects on overall SWR. Take that 1.7 SWR and divide it by 4 and you get a resulting SWR of less than 1, which is impossible. To get an SWR measurement we can translate into the real world we need a single connection.
And finally, reflected power. Here we get even more complicated. So say you have 100 watts going into the first connection, some power is reflected because there is SWR present. So we get to the second connection and we have less than 100 watts to start with, so each additional connection will have add slightly less reflected power? But is this actually true?
The thing about SWR and reflections in a feed line and connectors such as this, its not a one way street. The reflections from the second connection will head towards the first connection, which as we have already mentioned, has an SWR of its own, so some of those reflections will be re-reflected back towards the second connection. This has two effects. One, there is less power adding to the initial connections reflected power, and two, because of the re-reflected power going back towards the second connection, the amount of power going into the second connection will go up, which will in turn increase the amount of power it reflects... And I'm not even getting into the half of it, it really does get very complicated very fast.
So, trying to quantify the data presented into a real world effects, we are able to use one of the three data sets presented, and that one suggests you won't notice the difference. The other two are inconclusive, and for me to even speculate further I need more information.
What do you do with this data? Well, that depends on the person. There are people out their that will use something that is better even if the difference is well below the level of insignificant, and there are others that make decisions based on the context of the overall system. The person in the video is the former, I am the latter. Is the setup with connectors that have slightly less losses "better"? Yes. Will it make enough of a difference that you will ever notice? Not that I have seen. Feel free to take the route that is best for you and your shack.
Yes, I was trying to show the comparison between UHF and N connectors. But, I was also evaluating the two for use in VHF and UHF systems.
If we think about it, how many connectors do we have in an average *simple* system?
Most radios use a UHF connector, so we have one pair (one male and one female) there. On the other end of the feedline leading to the antenna, we have another pair there connecting to the lightning arrestor. Then we have another pair on the antenna side of the lightning arrestor. Finally, we have the last pair at the other end of the feedline leading to the antenna. This amounts to 4 connector pairs in the simplest system. Each time we arrive at one of these pairs they insert their own SWR because they are not impedance matched and insertion loss by the nature of their design. Each one throws away power I'd rather be using to communicate. Furthermore, adding reflected power to the system because of inferior connectors is also not the most healthy thing we can do for our radio; in some cases, the radio will start rolling back its output power to protect itself.
On the other hand, we also have to remember that what affects the transmit signal also affects the receive signal. Weak signals are attenuated by the insertion loss and a percentage is reflected back at the antenna by the impedance mismatches. If our goal is to be able to hear weak signals, then we must work to eliminate as many losses in the system as possible, including using high quality, low-loss feedline.
My point is, if our purpose is to communicate using an RF signal, then it makes sense to try to make sure that I take advantage of every bit of the RF I have available both in receive and transmit. Several small losses sprinkled throughout my system can add up to a significant big loss; it can make the difference between communicating and not communicating.
I will acknowledge that not all hams need this sort of optimization because their use model (local communication via a local repeater or other strong signal-type communications) does not require it. I present this here for those who want to get the most out of their systems so as to maximize the distances through which they can communicate.
@@eie_for_you I waited for the weekend so I had some time to test this. I just threw up an Arrow clone dual band so called "open sleeve" j-pole that has an so-239 plug on it. I used this antenna more for the convenience of adding two of each male to male and female to female connectors for testing purposes later. Why did I choose four connections (or pairs of connectors)? That is the number you put out. This let me add the four connections (or in your words four pairs of connectors) to compare having them and not. To measure the difference in radiated power, I used a spectrum analyzer that has a dB reading for the output. The only difference in the equipment between the two measurements is, again, adding in the 4 adapters (again 2 male to male and 2 female to female). Just to be clear, I directly measured the difference in radiated power, this includes losses, reflected power (the part of it that is in fact lost) ect.
When it comes to the measurements, there is less than 1 dB of difference between the two at the same frequency on the 440 MHz ham band. Less than 1 dB.
Also, as you mentioned reciprocity is a thing. However, in modern radios, the increase in receiver sensitivity in recent years has far outpaced any advancement that has come to the transmission side, which if you want to increase you have to either get a better antenna or add more power, so forgive me as I laugh at you push receive as a key part of your argument.
In my experience, it takes a far more than a 1 dB change in power to notice any difference in the signal, transmit or receive, and here I didn't even see that. And to make things worse, this is not a change from four UHF pairs to four N pairs, but four UHF pairs to not having any connections what so ever. So if I were to replace said connectors with N connectors instead, I would have seen even less of a difference.
Sure, a half a dB here, and a quarter of a dB there. The thing is, if your antenna system is properly set up, you won't have enough of these minor improvements to add up to anything relevant, and certainly not nearly enough to add up to anything noticeable.
Like I said above, you did a good job at showing that there is a difference between said UHF and N connector pairs. Unfortunately your testing tells us nothing of the real world.
I'm not saying not to use better connectors if you want to use better connectors. Its not like they are super expensive. And if you want to "optimize" your setup to whatever extreme, by all means, it is your setup. What I am saying is, be it to a local repeater, or working a distant station, you won't notice the difference on either transmit or receive with even double this change in losses that you would get from using four UHF connector pairs, and honestly even a few more.
remove so239 from transmitters istall n female
SO239 is quite OK at HF frequencies. It is on the VHF and above where it has real issues. But, the SO239 was made popular because of all of the military surplus that was available after WWII. Like a bad nick-name, they stuck as the de-facto standard for all amateur radio equipment.