Jones plugs, or similar sorts of plugs
ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Sun May 24 13:09:39 CDT 2009
>Subject: Re: Jones plugs, or similar sorts of plugs
> From: "bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca" <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
> Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 10:58:20 -0600
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>Dave McGuire wrote:
>> They go by the same designation over here. They're one of the worst
>> connector designs I've ever seen. Not even suitable for VHF use, why on
>> earth someone named them "UHF" is quite beyond me. Have you ever put
>> one on a network analyzer? Bumps and reflections all over the place.
>If that is the connector I am thinking of ... UHF was 10MHZ+ ... it is that old.
>>> The BNC connecotr is a lot nicer.
>> Twisting two pieces of wire together is a lot nicer than a PL259/SO239!
>No comment about RCA jacks ....
Ok, I've measured correctly installed UHF (PL259 and So239) and the impedence bump
is insignificant to low UHF. Their biggest weakness it they are not watertight.
Believe it or not RCA is good to UHF (500mhz tested) and it's weakness is
no built in retainer. It is good for chassis level interconnect to to 10-20W
level (at uhf).
Type BNC is very good to high uhf and beyond but power limited. Also you must use
the 50 or 75 ohm parts in the correct place. It is a constant impedence connector.
Type N is better at water tight and also higher power than BNC and handles
For UHF and higher SMA, SMC and relatives are prefered for lower power
More information about the cctalk