Talk:UHF connector

Removed editorial

"A more appropriate name would be "HF" connectors." This is opinion, not fact. Also updated last sentence in that paragraph with data showing that the < 0.1dB impact due to impedance mismatch is, for most non-EME work, irrelevant. -- N0ZGO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.113.137 (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree on your first point. Reworded your test result addition to ensure readers understand the various tests merely confirm the lack of uniformity of various offerings that is no surprise for a connector with a long extinct governing standard.crcwiki (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

75 Ohm Version

Believe it or not, there is (or was) a 75 Ohm version of the UHF Connector which was widely used for Video. It has a different thread so it will not mate with the 50 Ohm version. They definitely do exist. I still have some equipment with them fitted.Gutta Percha (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cite it and write it!.--Wtshymanski (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No there was not. There isn't a 50 ohm version either. The PL259 connector is a type known as a non constant impedance connector. That means that it's characteristic impedance changes with frequency. For the applications for which it was generally used, the mismatch was regarded as unimportant. The connectors used for video purposes were standard PL259 connectors.

Contrast the BNC connector which is a constant impedance connector and did exist in both 50 and 75 ohm versions. Although the should not be intermated, there was nothing to prevent anyone from actually doing so. The insulators were specified as being coloured red in the 75 ohm version, but this was rarely followed. 85.255.235.17 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect -- BNC 75 and 50 ohm versions non-destructively mate, since the center pin is the same size, but you'd better have a good reason for doing so. Source is https://www.commscope.com/Docs/Design_Fundamentals_for_High_Bandwidth_BNC_Connectors_WP-111203-EN.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.113.137 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

I removed an incorrect note that stated that the U in UHF stood for Union rather then Ultra. All current (and historical) texts on radio science state that the U stand for Ultra. (e.g. The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications 2006, page 1.18)

UHF history

"from an era when UHF referred to frequencies over 30 MHz" = I'm curious as to the source for this - IEEE always had 30-300 as VHF.Bridesmill 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some US Navy radios from the late 1930s and early 1940s, such as the TBS (60-80 MHz), are tagged as UHF on the nameplates, as well as in the technical manuals.Wdonzelli 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Crcwiki (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A few references now exist to emphasize that once upon a time UHF meant above 30 MHz... not 300 MHz as it is now. Even Amphenol doesn't seem to understand this on their page about the UHF connector.

Not JETDS

I changed the minor point about the military nomenclature. PL- and SO- numbers predate JETDS. The earliest PL- and SO- numbers appear on World War 1 equipment, but JETDS came about during World War 2. Wdonzelli (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Who calls this a "UHF connector"?

In almost 40 years of playing around with radio gear I have never heard anyone actually use the term "UHF connector" for the PL-259 and/or SO-239 connector assembly.

"PL-259" gets almost 84 million Google hits. "SO-239" gets 154 million hits.

"UHF connector"? 127,000 measly hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.187.149 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Crcwiki (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Amphenol calls it a UHF Connector.

As explained in the article, "PL259" is American terminology for a generic "UHF connector". The term was was unknown in Europe/Australia until relatively recently. Gutta Percha (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A few remarks

Near the end of the article, many of the items needing citation need no citation as they are common knowledge by looking at the connector (as far as weatherproofing goes and mechanical durability.) As I worked with closed circuit TV equipment in 1980s, many of the older units had this style of connector, which was supplanted by the BNC connector for newer units.

Crcwiki (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"many of the items needing citation need no citation as they are common knowledge" - All statements of fact on Wikipedia need citation to back them up. There simply cannot be any assumption of common knowledge here. What may be obvious to some, likely isn't for many others. Don't assume any level of experience in the reader. Crcwiki (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As for it being called a UHF connector, it is very often called that in Amaateur Radio circles and among CCTV technicians, even though, as pointed out, it is not used in commercial applications for UHF. See this commercial web site: http://www.therfc.com/uhf.htm

Crcwiki (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The UHF moniker came at a time when 30+ MHz meant Ultra-High-Frequency. Plus Amphenol refers to this connector as "UHF Connector." Crcwiki (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is still used at UHF in amateur radio applications where it is used as a combination connector with VHF signals (2 meters, 70 cm.) Generally in stand alone UHF applications, or in repeater operaton where every bit of signal couints, an N connector would be prefered.

It might be possible to find more data by searching on the Amphenol web site, as they make this line of connectors still as 83-1(R, AP, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.61.89 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Creation of fact from subjective personal opinion.

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing as such I'm hesitant to edit the main article, but will do so if no one else corrects the inaccurate statements and issues contained in this article. This article is so bad that to me it reads as though it was written by a bunch of PL259 fan boys defending their favorite coax terminator and adapters. Quite a few of the statements are nothing more than subjective personal opinion passed off as fact and have no place in Wikipedia as their presence degrades the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia.

For example

"In many applications, UHF connectors were replaced by designs that have a more uniform impedance over the length of the connector, such as the N connector and the BNC connector,[8] but they are still widely used in amateur radio, citizens' band radio, and marine VHF radio where mechanical robustness and ease of use are more important than a small mismatch.[citation needed] The "classic" PL-259 connector is resistant to damage even if stepped on accidentally" 

Specifically

"where mechanical robustness and ease of use are more important than a small mismatch"

There are many more issues with this 1930's technology other than a small mismatch for example unlike modern replacements the PL259 relies entirely on the tightness of the outer barrel for creating a reliable electrical connection and that's just one of the more common issues, there is a reason this 1930's technology was abandoned commercially

"The "classic" PL-259 connector is resistant to damage even if stepped on accidentally" 

That may have been true 30 years ago when nickle plated brass PL259's were common. Good luck finding those in the average ham shack today as most hams don't have the soldering skill to solder nickel plate. The vast majority of PL259's on the market today are cheap thin shelled Chinese silver Teflon connectors which have their own problems. for example the galvanic corrosion potential between silver and lead solder is very high as compared to Lead solder and nickel plate. Not to mention that these new connectors are so thin you can bend them by hand.. Furthermore, the new cheap Chinese silver plated pl259's lack the high voltage ridges in the dielectric thereby further decreasing their dielectric withstanding voltage

The same person then attempts to mislead the reader regarding the power handling capability by blatantly suggesting that PL259's are more suited to amateur radio use because the original Nickel plated Brass PL259's have a greater power handling spec as compared to an N connector. What he doesn't tell the reader is that the peak power handling of an Amphenol N connector is 10kw which far exceeded the 1.5kw maximum FCC authorized power limit for amateur radio use. He also fails to mention that more important then peak power rating is the Dielectric Withstanding Voltage of the connector which is the rating that tells us how well the connector will handle high VSWR for example if it is being used in a non resonant antenna installation.

The PL259 Dielectric Withstanding Voltage rating is only 500 VRMS while the N connector has a Dielectric Withstanding Voltage rating of 2500 VRMS making it much more suited for installations where high VWSR will be present. Since Non-resonant antennas are very common within amateur radio, hams are much more likely to encounter dielectric voltage breakdown issues of a pl259 rather than exceed the 10kw power limitations of N connectors, Therefore comparing the power limitations for ham radio use while ignoring Dielectric Withstanding Voltage rating is rather disingenuous if not outright misleading. http://www.amphenolrf.com/connectors/n-type.html http://www.amphenolrf.com/connectors/uhf.html once again the new cheap Chinese silver plated pl259's lack the high voltage ridges in the dielectric thereby further decreasing their dielectric voltage.

"ease of use"

"ease of use" is purely a subjective personal opinion. I hold both a commercial FCC licence as well as an extra class amateur radio licence. As such I've literally installed 1000s of coax terminations in ham, maritime, aviation as well as public service installations. Like anyone else who does this professionally I can assure you "Ease off use" is a purely a subjective term.

For example soldering a PL259 properly requires quite a bit of skill, Judging from the number of failed PL259s I replace for hams it seems to be a skill that the vast majority of hams apparently don't posses. Furthermore in my professional experience more often than not the vast majority of failures and intermittent problems I've seen both in amateur radio and in maritime installations have been due to improperly installed PL259's this seems to suggest that ease of use is not an attribute to be associated with a PL259 connector. Of course this is all my own personal subjective opinion based on my professional experience which I figure is fair to include since this whole article seems to be based on nothing more than subjective personal opinion..

Of course if you need fact to discredited the "ease of use claim" simply consider that the industry standard clamp style N connector unlike the PL259 requires no special skills to install such as soldering of the braid. The soldering of the braid being the most problematic area of PL259 installation. Soldering of coax braid also violates the installation specs of almost all coax using a foam based dialectic.

There are many more issues with this article that I will attempt to address after the ones mention are corrected. Be warned I'm tempted to flag this article but as I stated I'm new to Wikipedia editing and am not sure exactly how to flag an article.

Kodiak-Joe (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comments sound very plausible, reasonably constructive, and specific. Rather than just flagging the article as problematic, you are welcome to try improving it. To decide differences of opinion and fact, Wikipedia relies on published WP:RS. If you can find articles published in say, the ARRL Handbook or periodicals, or manufacturer's technical literature, this would be an improvement over the lack of citations already flagged and noted. Thank you for specific criticisms and suggestions for improvement, rather than the incoherent "this entire article sux" complaints sometimes seen, which offer little help in actually improving the article. Reify-tech (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Crcwiki (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your fanboy observations and with Kodiak-Joe's comment. I will continue to flag unreferenced facts and at some point start removing them entirely if no one can back them up with facts. Your observations about the relative voltage limits and resulting power handling appear to be correct as well. It's likely time to simply remove comments with no references.

SO238 vs SO239

I just undid a revision that changed all mentions of SO239 to SO238 for the socket part. It seems pretty clear from industry the 238 in an erroneous term for what seems to be universally accepted SO239.

If someone can prove otherwise, let's discuss it. Otherwise please don't just do a replace all in the editor and expect it to not be reversed. Crcwiki (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Images (request)

Could anyone with access to this type of cable/connector please take a high-resolution photo of it and update the page? Both pictures of the physical connector are fairly low resolution or blurry, and it is difficult to make out some of the physical features of the connector — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.149.131 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Are new pictures still needed? I have some connectors I could photograph. Gah4 (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)