On 19/03/2019 19:47, Terry Casey wrote:
In article
,
says...

On 18/03/2019 23:27, Steve Walker wrote:
On 18/03/2019 14:09, Terry Casey wrote:
In article , steve@walker-
family.me.uk says...


I've only needed F-connectors at home and have preferred to use these
(inside and out):

https://www.screwfix.com/p/outdoor-c...ck-of-10/46242


The internals certainly do need to match the cable, as the inside edge
slides between the dialectric and the screen when you insert the cable.


As do all F connectors which makes me wonder how John managed
to get such a thin cable into a normal size connector!

Whereas the crimp on ones have a flat, internal endstop, with a central
cylinder sticking up from that endstop and forcing its way up, inside
the cable itself, the screw-on type (or at least the ones that I have
seen) don't. They simply have a flat, internal endstop, with a hole
through.

Yup, all the twist on ones I have seen have been like that - basically
like a pipe connector, with an internal flange to stop you inserting the
pipe too far.

The clearance hole just needs to be small enough to stop the outer
jacket going through, while being large enough to allow the the foil,
dielectric and inner to pass through.

I must admit that I've never used a screw on F connector or
even handled one - and I don't ever intend to!

In light of that statement, this discussion seems to have taken on a
rather ironic twist. Do I sense a little back tracking?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/03/2019 09:21, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/03/2019 19:57, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's pretty much how I've been doing it since f plugs came on the UK
scene.

I don't know how far back you are going, Bill, but the first
time I saw them was when they were used for the internet
connection on the early IBM PCs in the early 80s.

I don't recall any networking standard that used F connectors?

Early thin ethernet with BNC connectors on 50 ohm coax certainly


Yup. BNC was THE professional RF plug in the 70s.

F types I dont recall seeing before sattelite..but we had screw on coax
- big ones - for radar and microwaves


--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

In article 5_-
,
says...

On 18/03/2019 18:18, Terry Casey wrote:

I'd love to know how you would get either of those connectors
to fit over the sheath of RG11 (10.3mm nominal).

You wouldn't - its insulating tape, not a TARDIS!

I was responding to your earlier statement "the screen is now
being provided by the threaded part of the plug - the size of
which is the same for all sizes of connector." which is
obviously untrue - you won't get WF100 into a shotgun type
connector any more than you will get RG11 into any smaller
connector. The size of the threaded part of the plug is NOT
the same for all sizes of connector, as you have now stated.


You can make a plug fit the "correct" size of cable or one a bit
smaller, you can't as easily make it fit one that is too large to enter
even enter to cable grip section at all.

But that is not what you previously stated!

I am assuming that the characteristics of the coax are controlled by the
spacing of iiii from the foil, and what material dddd is made from.

Correct.

So altering the arrangement to:

==== knurled barrel of plug
---- braid folded back
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
pppp outer plastic jacket
---- braid
ffff foil
dddd dielectric
iiii inner copper conductor
dddd dielectric
ffff foil
---- braid
pppp outer plastic jacket
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
---- braid folded back
==== knurled barrel of plug

Will not alter the critical defining characteristics of the coax at all.

OK so long as the foil screen is not removed. However, after
the problem I descrihed previously, I wouldn't take a chance.


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article -
september.org, lid says...

In article ,
says...

That's pretty much how I've been doing it since f plugs came on the UK
scene.

I don't know how far back you are going, Bill, but the first
time I saw them was when they were used for the internet
connection on the early IBM PCs in the early 80s.

I've just been going back over this thread on Google groups
and noticed some replies to this post that haven't been picked
up by my newsreader, for some peculiar reason so I've copied
the quotes here to reply to them.

John said:

I don't recall any networking standard that used F connectors?

Early thin ethernet with BNC connectors on 50 ohm coax
certainly

and TNP said:

Yup. BNC was THE professional RF plug in the 70s.

F types I dont recall seeing before sattelite..but we had
screw on coax - big ones - for radar and microwaves

***
My reply:

I only had knowledge of one network, albeit a fairly large
one, so I wonder if it was vendor dependent?

Nobody, including me, had ever seen F connectors before, which
caused a bit of a problem because equally, nobody had ever
seen any instructions for using them!


The 'correct' method is to do up the connector finger tight
then, with a spanner, tighten one flat - ie: one sixth of a
turn. In practice, you can appply a lot more force than that
without causing problems, but not when the female is a right
angled printed circuit board mounting type!

The whole connector start to rotate, snapping of the PCB
fixings and rendering the network card useless

I saw a anumber of these so there is no doubt in my mind
whatsoever that they were F connectors!



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article -
september.org, lid says...

I must admit that I've never used a screw on F connector or
even handled one - and I don't ever intend to!

Another missing reply from John:

In light of that statement, this discussion seems to have
taken on a rather ironic twist. Do I sense a little back
tracking?

***

None at all. Assuming that, aside from the screwed thread, the
plug's construction was otherwise normal, I couldn't see how
it would be possible for the cable to straddle the central
tube so that the screening braid and sheath were outside it!

Now that you've explained that there is no tube to obstruct
the cable, I can see how you did it.
--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/03/2019 09:21, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/03/2019 19:57, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's pretty much how I've been doing it since f plugs came on the UK
scene.

I don't know how far back you are going, Bill, but the first
time I saw them was when they were used for the internet
connection on the early IBM PCs in the early 80s.

I don't recall any networking standard that used F connectors?

Early thin ethernet with BNC connectors on 50 ohm coax certainly


Yup. BNC was THE professional RF plug in the 70s.

When we first met them in the '60s, they were known as a "B***** Nasty
Connector"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 20/03/2019 13:27, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/03/2019 09:21, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/03/2019 19:57, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's pretty much how I've been doing it since f plugs came on the UK
scene.

I don't know how far back you are going, Bill, but the first
time I saw them was when they were used for the internet
connection on the early IBM PCs in the early 80s.

I don't recall any networking standard that used F connectors?

Early thin ethernet with BNC connectors on 50 ohm coax certainly


Yup. BNC was THE professional RF plug in the 70s.

When we first met them in the '60s, they were known as a "B***** Nasty
Connector"

As a prentice in '68, one of our learning tasks was how to put them on
seriously braided cable...



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/03/2019 09:21, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/03/2019 19:57, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's pretty much how I've been doing it since f plugs came on the UK
scene.

I don't know how far back you are going, Bill, but the first
time I saw them was when they were used for the internet
connection on the early IBM PCs in the early 80s.

I don't recall any networking standard that used F connectors?

Early thin ethernet with BNC connectors on 50 ohm coax certainly


Yup. BNC was THE professional RF plug in the 70s.

When we first met them in the '60s, they were known as a "B***** Nasty
Connector"


Bayonet Neill-Concelman is its correct name!..

Just use them for Two-way radio installs these days. "N" type for
anything more powerful up to say 500 odd watts

and 7/16 DIN after that 500 watts and above and higher UHF frequencies

PL259 or UHF are ****e plugs

And TNC quite good for some instrumentation stuff and applications..

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/03/2019 09:21, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/03/2019 19:57, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

That's pretty much how I've been doing it since f plugs came on the UK
scene.

I don't know how far back you are going, Bill, but the first
time I saw them was when they were used for the internet
connection on the early IBM PCs in the early 80s.

I don't recall any networking standard that used F connectors?

Early thin ethernet with BNC connectors on 50 ohm coax certainly


Yup. BNC was THE professional RF plug in the 70s.

When we first met them in the '60s, they were known as a "B***** Nasty
Connector"


Bayonet Neill-Concelman is its correct name!..

Just use them for Two-way radio installs these days. "N" type for
anything more powerful up to say 500 odd watts

There is/was a a large version of the BNC (simply C, ISTR) which is about
the size of an N, but bayonet rather than screw.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 20/03/2019 12:10, Terry Casey wrote:
In article 5_-
,
says...

On 18/03/2019 18:18, Terry Casey wrote:

I'd love to know how you would get either of those connectors
to fit over the sheath of RG11 (10.3mm nominal).

You wouldn't - its insulating tape, not a TARDIS!

I was responding to your earlier statement "the screen is now
being provided by the threaded part of the plug - the size of
which is the same for all sizes of connector." which is
obviously untrue

I think you are confusing which thread - I am talking about the thread
whose size is dictated by the barrel of the female F connector, and
which matches the thread on the inside of the captive nut. These are the
only threaded parts that *might* be acting as a screen - and then only
when using "low loss" coax without a foil under the braided screen.

The thread designed to attach the plug to the cable is *always* outside
of the screen - even on non foiled cables.

- you won't get WF100 into a shotgun type
connector any more than you will get RG11 into any smaller
connector. The size of the threaded part of the plug is NOT
the same for all sizes of connector, as you have now stated.

The bit I am talking about is the same for all F connectors. Its part of
the standard. The other variable bit has no particular RF related
function - its there to provide mechanical attachment only.

You can make a plug fit the "correct" size of cable or one a bit
smaller, you can't as easily make it fit one that is too large to enter
even enter to cable grip section at all.

But that is not what you previously stated!

Its what I stated, but it might not be what you understood from what I
stated! :-))

I am assuming that the characteristics of the coax are controlled by the
spacing of iiii from the foil, and what material dddd is made from.

Correct.

So altering the arrangement to:

==== knurled barrel of plug
---- braid folded back
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
pppp outer plastic jacket
---- braid
ffff foil
dddd dielectric
iiii inner copper conductor
dddd dielectric
ffff foil
---- braid
pppp outer plastic jacket
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
pppp outer plastic jacket - paddding
---- braid folded back
==== knurled barrel of plug

Will not alter the critical defining characteristics of the coax at all.

OK so long as the foil screen is not removed. However, after
the problem I descrihed previously, I wouldn't take a chance.

Even if the foil screen is removed on the stripped bit of the cable, the
padding on top of the PVC sheath is still outside the *unstripped* part
of the cable where is still has full screen integrity.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/03/2019 12:46, Terry Casey wrote:
In article -
september.org, lid says...

I must admit that I've never used a screw on F connector or
even handled one - and I don't ever intend to!

Another missing reply from John:

In light of that statement, this discussion seems to have
taken on a rather ironic twist. Do I sense a little back
tracking?

***

None at all. Assuming that, aside from the screwed thread, the
plug's construction was otherwise normal, I couldn't see how
it would be possible for the cable to straddle the central
tube so that the screening braid and sheath were outside it!

Now that you've explained that there is no tube to obstruct
the cable, I can see how you did it.

I did attempt in my very first post, make it clear I was talking about
the twist on style of plug. To be fair I had assumed that you were
familiar with this type of plug, which subsequently appears may have
been an assumption too far. Hence why I was having difficulty seeing
exactly what point you were getting at.

Hopefully now familiar with the twist on plug design, you understand
that the bodge I described will not in any way impact the RF performance
of the connection. Its just more time consuming and less convenient way
of fitting a plug to a thin cable.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Terry Casey wrote:

I saw a anumber of these so there is no doubt in my mind
whatsoever that they were F connectors!

Back in the 80's I used thinwire ethernet, arcnet (plus various twisted
pair rather than coax cabling) none of them had F connectors all BNC,
the PC cards that *did* have screw on rather than bayonet were IBM
AS/400 and 5250 twinax connectors ...

In article
,
says...

On 20/03/2019 12:10, Terry Casey wrote:

I am assuming that the characteristics of the coax are controlled by the
spacing of iiii from the foil, and what material dddd is made from.

Correct.

Actually, this is not correct - it is the ratio of the
diameter of the centre conductor and the inside diameter of
the foil screen which determines the impedance, as we have
previously discussed. Different dielectic materials can vary
the velocity of propagation of the cable but this is only
important if you are using a TDR to trace the location of a
fault.

OK so long as the foil screen is not removed. However, after
the problem I descrihed previously, I wouldn't take a chance.

Even if the foil screen is removed on the stripped bit of the cable, the
padding on top of the PVC sheath is still outside the *unstripped* part
of the cable where is still has full screen integrity.

Yes, but the hole in the connector is now determining the
impedance of that section of the cable. Because the foil is
very thin, this won't make much difference if the correct
connector is used but if the wrong connextor is used there
will quite a jump in the impedance over that section.

The padding, as you say, plays no part in this.

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article
,
says...

I did attempt in my very first post, make it clear I was talking about
the twist on style of plug. To be fair I had assumed that you were
familiar with this type of plug, which subsequently appears may have
been an assumption too far. Hence why I was having difficulty seeing
exactly what point you were getting at

Yes, I appreciate that..

Hopefully now familiar with the twist on plug design, you understand
that the bodge I described will not in any way impact the RF performance
of the connection. Its just more time consuming and less convenient way
of fitting a plug to a thin cable.

But it is very important not to remove the foil screen from
the exposed dielectric as I explained in my previous post.

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 20/03/2019 19:28, Andy Burns wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:

I saw a anumber of these so there is no doubt in my mind
whatsoever that they were F connectors!

Back in the 80's I used thinwire ethernet, arcnet (plus various twisted
pair rather than coax cabling) none of them had F connectors all BNC,
the PC cards that *did* have screw on rather than bayonet were IBM
AS/400 and 5250 twinax connectors ...

TWINAX. NOW I remember what those screw things were.

Also token ring cards...remember those?

Type 1 connectors..

And 'bee sting' thick coax adapters that went to a huge D type connector
on the card.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

TWINAX. NOW I remember what those screw things were.
Also token ring cards...remember those?

Yes, but we used more Proteon cards (cheaper and 10Mb rather than 4Mb)

Type 1 connectors..

I think I know a server room where there's still one lonely type 1
connector on the wall ...

And 'bee sting' thick coax adapters that went to a huge D type connector
on the card.

Only worked on a couple of sites that had thick wire ethernet still in place

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 20/03/2019 19:28, Andy Burns wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:

I saw a anumber of these so there is no doubt in my mind
whatsoever that they were F connectors!

Back in the 80's I used thinwire ethernet, arcnet (plus various twisted
pair rather than coax cabling) none of them had F connectors all BNC, the
PC cards that *did* have screw on rather than bayonet were IBM AS/400 and
5250 twinax connectors ...

TWINAX. NOW I remember what those screw things were.

Also token ring cards...remember those?

Type 1 connectors..

And 'bee sting' thick coax adapters that went to a huge D type connector
on the card.

None of those used F connectors or anything like those.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:31:39 +1100, Jac Brown, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

TWINAX. NOW I remember what those screw things were.

Also token ring cards...remember those?

Type 1 connectors..

And 'bee sting' thick coax adapters that went to a huge D type connector
on the card.

None

In auto-contradicting mode again, senile auto-contradictor?

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: