One of those (the cheaper Amphenol-Connex) has gold over brass for the center
pin, nickel over brass for the barrel, and teflon for the dielectric. The
other one is nickel over brass for the barrel, polystyrene for the dielectric,
and silver over brass for the center contact.
Hard to say which is better or worse - teflon is usually better than
polystyrene (higher MP), and gold doesn’t oxidize.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:24:28 -0800, Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com> wrote:
FWIW, here is a comparison of two UHF bullet adapters (F-F). Both are
sold by "Amphenol-RF":
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/182109?qs=pUp6IBEmRweq5dreR9OqEw%3D%3D
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/083-1J?qs=py4qCovljJ%252BPkeGph3iz4w%3D%3D
The first one (the 182109) is $8.14 each and the second one (the 083-1J)
is $18.93 each. If you look at the datasheets (they are actually
drawings), the first one appears to be the Amphenol-Connex brand,
whereas the 2nd more expensive one may be the original "Amphenol".
I would probably take my chances with the cheaper one, especially if I
was using them inside the shack or on the ground where they are readily
accessible. If you are putting it somewhere where failure would require
a crane or a lot of climbing to repair, it might be worth investing in
the more expensive part. Hard to say. Personally what has given me the
most trouble over the years are UHF right angle adapters (the M-F type).
The retaining clip that holds the threaded outer cylinder of the male
side in place can slip out of the groove it rides in. This allows the
male side of the adapter to separate from the female jack it is mated
with (not good!).
I suspect avoiding connectors with no established pedigree or track
record probably takes you from the realm of likely junk to "good enough"
(especially if the price of the no-name seems too good to be true).
Beyond that it may be the difference between "good enough" and "better
than good enough".
73, Mike W4EF..........................
On 11/24/2023 1:30 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Unfortunately, if I search "Manufacturers" on the DigiKey site, there
> are dozens of listings that start with the word "Amphenol" followed
> by the name of some non-Amphenol entity that has been acquired by
> Amphenol. Obviously, Amphenol is now simply a holding company
> and the name no longer necessarily means anything. Jim, with
> a background in audio, will identify with the destruction of JBL
> after its acquisition by Harmon-Kardon.
>
> Specifically, at D/K, they show:
>
> Amphenol
> Amphenol Connex (Amphenol RF)
> Amphenol RF
> Amphenol Times Microwave
>
> The latter name had a decent reputation at least before being acquired.
>
> Can you give us any additional guidance as to how to identify
> the "REAL" Amphenol connectors?
>
> 73
> Rick N6RK
>
> On 11/24/2023 11:53 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On 11/24/2023 10:59 AM, Scott Townley wrote:
>>> How do I separate the wheat from the chaff? I have a fully equipped
>>> bench...I would think the go-to would be a TDR measurement. Any
>>> better/additional suggestions?
>>
>> Look at them carefully. If they aren't labeled Amphenol or stamped
>> with MIL-spec numbers, they're junk. It's all about mechanical
>> construction. Measurements won't show it.
>>
>> I've bought surplus MIL-spec adapters at ham flea-markets. Amphenol
>> parts are sold by legacy electronics vendors like Allied, Newark,
>> Arrow, etc. There are a few ham vendors who sell them, but many also
>> sell junk connectors. The real thing is 2-3x more expensive. Here's
>> one quality vendor that sells both the real thing and the junk. They
>> don't offer quantity discounts, while the traditional electronics
>> vendors do.
>>
>> https://www.rfparts.com/sitemap
>>
>> We sometimes need to study the Amphenol parts listing to know which
>> connector to buy. For example, they manufacture the solder-type PL259
>> with at least 4 different part numbers, all of which start with
>> 83-1SP. The one we want is the one with no suffix, because the body
>> is silver plated, and thus easier to solder to.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|