Talk:TNC connector

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moving to TNC connector

I like to move this to TNC connector to match BNC connector. Those are the terms in common use. --agr 04:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. KMS 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll ask an admin for help because TNC has an edit history that doesn't allow regular users to do the move. Han-Kwang (t) 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page, per the above request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75 ohm versions

Need to reflect the FACT that 75 ohm variation exists, even though it is less common in use today. I still sell them to the military for repairs on older equipment still in use...

Can you get a photo of one? Meggar 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different specs for TNC vs BNC

Why does the TNC outperform BNC ? Looking at the mechanics, inner conductor, die electric and the fingering (all of which make up the electrical path) appear to be identical. Surely the mechanical attachment (threaded TNC, bayonet BNC) should have very little to do with performance.

http://www.amphenolconnex.com/products/bnc.asp -- 11GHz

http://www.amphenolconnex.com/products/tnc.asp -- 11GHz

Thought, comments, observations please. I have been pondering this one for a while now. Markaren1 09:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you mention 11 GHz for both of them. According to the specs pages you mention it's "0-4 GHz with low reflection" for BNC, and "0-11 GHz" for TNC. But the picture looks like the electrical connection is exactly the same. I've never had a TNC in my hands, but I could imagine that a TNC allows less "wiggle" after mating, which means that the quality of the connection is more reliable. Han-Kwang (t) 10:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leakage. Those Amphenol pages rate RF Leakage as -60 dB minimum @ 3 GHz for TNC, but -55dB for BNC. The threaded coupling leaks less. Meggar 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, although either 55 or 60 dB seem to be negligible amounts of power to me. It's strange that all manufacturers mention 4 and 11 GHz and none actually give numbers for the performance at those cutoff frequencies. Amphenol mentions somewhere else on the page that BNC is usable up to 11 GHz, but up to 4 GHz with low reflection. That actually doesn't imply that TNC does have low reflection up to 11 GHz. Han-Kwang (t) 21:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonets are good for quick mating but lousy for getting a tight joint. I just plugged a BNC lead into my scope and it can move about a millimeter in and out in that position. That ability to move would mean you can't depend on the interfaces performance at high frequencies. Screw fittings are slower to mate but will hold a mating much tighter (for really high frequency stuff torque wrenches are often used but even a finger tight screw will be much better than a bayonet). 18:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the same as "Type N"?

My internet router has a TNC connector on it. I purchased an antenna to boost it's range, and it's called a "type N". When I look at the N connector article, I find a connector that looks the same, does the same thing, and was invented by the same person at the same time. Soooo, is there any difference or are these the same thing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are the same thing these pages should be merged.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. N-type thread is much larger; it's a completely different connector. (Though the electrical interface might fit, at a push). Thomasonline (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Uses

I suggest removing the retail uses section. This list only covers a fraction of 1% of the companies that use or have used TNC connectors, and adds nothing to the body of knowledge. Fancy listing companies that have used an IEC power connector, or an M3 screw "Dell once used them to hold a PC case closed, Ford uses them in their engines, Coca-cola uses them in their machines to wash bottles..." really.

Comments? Thomasonline (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Retail Uses section. Thomasonline (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]