Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where?... I read the usefulness of this type of connector is limited to 30 or so MHz ....
https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&sour...FjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1j361vte-olKSIHE2RR6InWhere?
All good at 434MHz. Just curious, what power levels?
Anyway, see this list...
What's your plan?
So, not usefull on a 434MHz antenna?The PL 259 and SO 239 connectors go back a long way. Here is what Amphenol says about their PL 259:
"Originally intended for use as a video connector in radar applications, UHF coaxial connectors are general purpose units developed for use in low frequency systems from 0.6 - 300 MHz. Invented for use in the radio industry in the 1930’s, UHF is an acronym for Ultra High Frequency because at the time 300 MHz was considered high frequency.
UHF connectors feature a threaded coupling. UHF connectors are popularly used because of its ease of assembly. The UHF solderable screw-on termination feature requires no specialized crimping tools".
Amphenol UHF Connectors.
My read on several specifications sheets is about the same in that 300 MHz is the upper frequency limit.
The Wiki shows a pass band of 100 MHz as I read it. The design is from an era when anything over 30 MHz was considered UHF. The design runs back to the 1930s.
Ron
As to power no, the HC-12 a small 100 milli-watt transmitter. During my early days it was not unusual for guys to run 1 KW using the old PL 259 in ham radio. The PL 259 would not really be useful because of not only its upper frequency limit and the loss but it is also a rather large and bulky connector. With the HC 12 there are likely much better options and much smaller options. Similar to what you see used on wireless routers. Here are some examples of what I am getting at.So, not usefull on a 434MHz antenna?
Would it matter at low powerlevels as for the HC-12?
Thanks for that info; conclusion: ditch that antenna.What 434MHz antenna are you using? The one recommended by AAC (to mate to the on-board IPEX20279-001E-03 antenna socket), or something else?
Anyway, upon further investigation, I'm thinking signal losses will be excessive (especially from the cabling) and awkward with your current plan.
And ditto to ron.
Top article, many thanks!!
What is a barrel adaptor?yeah that's the one i was looking at. follow the curves for PL/SO, and they perform a bit better than most people think, but they are still not in the "very good-excellent" category, but in the "usable" category. interesting how the first one has peaks and dips in it on the return loss chart. they also have peaks and dips in the forward loss chart, but still below 0.5db. just don't use any UHF barrel adaptors, those are worse than just using the PL/SO connectors.