Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:36:56 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<13.19.03291.F9B16DE4@louvi-msg> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Tom,
Never used these particular connectors, but there are other types of
clamp on - gasketed UHF connectors. There are mil spec ones out there
that use a compression type clamp to secure the braid and solder the
pin. You can probably find them on e-bay for a lot less than 10 bucks.
While there is no real discription on the web site, the RF connection
has one listed under their "UHF series" page that says it assembles like
a type n connector, which I think also uses the compression scheme.
Maybe not, but an e-mail or call might give an answer.
http://www.therfc.com/index.html
I did get a crimper and connectors there a few years ago and have had no
problems. Nice people to deal with.
73, Steve KW3A
On 11/30/2011 7:04 AM, Tom Behler wrote:
> Kevin:
>
> No apologies needed, at least on my account.
>
> I certainly can use the connectors for situations where a quick fix is
> needed, and higher power is not required.
>
> It's always good to have other options in your toolbox, if you know what I
> mean.
>
> I am now pursuing the purchase of a good coax crimper, and crimp-on
> connectors for higher-power applications, and will keep the list posted.
> I'm just trying to figure out ways to avoid soldering here if at all
> possible.
>
> 73 from Tom Behler: KB8TYJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Nathan"<[log in to unmask]>
> To:<[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: A little more info on Shakespeare solderless PL259 connectors
>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I am truly sorry about that. I guess you will need to return those and
>> try
>> the crimp on types. I hadn't thought about the power handling
>> capabilities
>> honestly since I only have them on a cable I use for portable operation.
>>
>> Again, my apologies to you and the list and very 73.
>>
>
>
>
|
|
|