toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I'd like to understand why some commercial radio vendors ship their
new radios to EU countries with N-connectors but their US versions
ship with UHF connectors? Why?!
The only thing I've heard good about UHF connectors in the past is
their power handling capabilities. Though not needed from a leakage
or loss perspective, how does say an N or TNC connector do at 1500
watts @ HF frequencies with say a 2:1 match?
On 11/17/2017 05:46 PM, doug wrote:
BNC is rated to 400 MHz. I have used TNC up to 1 GHZ on some
MIL-STD hardware I designed. I don't remember its specified
I think the RF construction (as against the physical construction)
of the two types (N or BNC) is not very different, at least when
connecting either one to a coax like
LMR 240. For LMR 400, I would not like a conversion to BNC. If you
need LMR 400, for most purposes you should stay with type N. BTW:
BNC connectors definitely
leak RF at higher VHF frequencies. If you are concerned about RF
leakage from a smaller coax coax connector, you might consider
TNC. It's not very popular, it seems,
but it is a screw-type version of BNC, and is more RF-tight. If
you have sensitive receivers and need to keep rf out, don't use
BNC. This is a job for TNC or SMA.
(I used to use TNC and coax for medium voltage DC connections in
my ham shack using 50 Ohm coax, back when stations were
As a working RF engineer, in some 1 GHz RF designs, I have used
TNC at around a KW peak rf power, with semi-rigid coax. Proved out
and tested in Mil-Spec test routines.
Join my crusade against UHF connectors! Let's get them out of ham
radio! They're over 75 years old, designed when the best RF
engineers were just trying to get
their arms around COAX CABLE. I don't think the MIT papers were
even out yet.