Colin,
While I'm not a big fan of SMA connectors, I think we're stuck with them
because there isn't room in the modern HT for anything else. All that said,
I don't understand why the "big three" ham manufacturers took the reverse
approach of the commercial handhelds. Seems as if they shot themselves in
the foot by doing what they did.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 00:54
Subject: Re: HT suggestions please
>I tend to agree with Danny on this one.
> I haven't broken an SMA connecter yet, but I've known of many instances
> where this has happened. Far fewer instances of BNC connecters breaking
> off
> the radio or snapping.
> Also, BNC connecters are far more ruggedly constructed and due to their
> larger size, are far easier for blind ops to repare than an SMA.
> Also, a female BNC, IE the connecter on the radio itself, has far less
> friction on it when taking antennas on or off...an SMA style set up
> requires
> you to screw the antenna on or off the radio, and the center pin of the
> antenna, or at any rate, the male part of the SMA connecter drills into
> the
> female part of the plug until the connection is tight. This causes metal
> fatigue. With a BNC connecter, you just press the two halves together,
> and
> give a quarter turn and it's done.
> far far less stress on the electrical connection point.
> Perhaps the BNC might endure more strain or stress because it sticks out
> further from the chassis of the radio, but this is compensated for by the
> fact that the mounting is far more rugged compared to a female SMA
> connecter.
> commercial radios, and some of the newer commercial/ham radios from china
> use a male SMA on the radio, and this reduces allot of the above mentioned
> problems inherent with an SMA connecter.
> If the antenna snaps off, you can easily replace the antenna instead of
> having to send the radioin for repares.
> Whereas the tradditional radio female connecter will snap off with the
> antenna in most cases and requires costly repares.
>
> All that said, personal experience is what you have and if your satisfied
> with your own observations, then that is good.
>
> but just try to remember this the next time someone posts to the list
> about
> another sma snapping off the radio when it is dropped or impacted.
> In 6 years of being on this particular hams list, I've never heard of that
> happening to a BNC connecter on an HT.
>
> 73
> Colin, V A6BKX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Thurman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: HT suggestions please
>
>
>> well i can tell you having had radios with both there is nothign wrong =
>> with sma in fact I have found sma connectors to e more rugged than bnc =
>> :) and they feel more solid ont he ht thanthe old bnc antennas that =
>> tended to wobble and wiggle around
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Dan B Dyer Jr,/Danny wrote:
>>
>>> Is there even any multiband HT that's made today that has BNC rather =
>> than=20
>>> SMA? Singlebanders, yes, but multibanders? I don't know of any. =
>> Danny.
>>> ----- Original Message -----=20
>>> From: "Jeff Kenyon" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 4:05 PM
>>> Subject: HT suggestions please
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> --=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-331B0580=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>>> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>>=20
>>>> Hi everyone, I am thinking of purchasing a new HT. I think that my =
>> F6A =3D
>>>> has just about had it, and If I do decide to go a head and get a new =
>> one =3D
>>>> I want one with a BNC connector since all of my other radios have the =
>> =3D
>>>> BNC connector, and the F6A is the only one with SMA. Any suggestions =
>> =3D
>>>> would be helpful, and thanks in advance.
>>>> --=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-331B0580=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=3Dcert; charset=3Dus-ascii
>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>>> Content-Description: "AVG certification"
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3542 - Release Date: =
>> 03/31/11=20
>>>> 06:=3D
>>>> 34:00
>>>> --=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DAVGMAIL-331B0580=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D--=20
>>
>
|
