Talk:UHF connector

message: "A more appropriate name would be "HF" connectors." This is opinion, not fact. Also updated last sentence in that paragraph with data showing that the < 0.1dB impact due to impedance mismatch is, for most non-EME work, irrelevant. -- N0ZGO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.113.137 (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on your first point. Reworded your test result addition to ensure readers understand the various tests merely confirm the lack of uniformity of various offerings that is no surprise for a connector with a long extinct governing standard.crcwiki (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed editorial 

message: I removed an incorrect note that stated that the U in UHF stood for Union rather then Ultra. All current (and historical) texts on radio science state that the U stand for Ultra. (e.g. The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications 2006, page 1.18)
===UHF history===
"from an era when UHF referred to frequencies over 30 MHz" =  I'm curious as to the source for this - IEEE always had 30-300 as VHF.Bridesmill 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some US Navy radios from the late 1930s and early 1940s, such as the TBS (60-80 MHz), are tagged as UHF on the nameplates, as well as in the technical manuals.Wdonzelli 03:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A few references now exist to emphasize that once upon a time UHF meant above 30 MHz... not 300 MHz as it is now.  Even Amphenol doesn't seem to understand this on their page about the UHF connector.
===Not JETDS===
I changed the minor point about the military nomenclature. PL- and SO- numbers predate JETDS. The earliest PL- and SO- numbers appear on World War 1 equipment, but JETDS came about during World War 2. Wdonzelli (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I changed the minor point about the military nomenclature. PL- and SO- numbers predate JETDS. The earliest PL- and SO- numbers appear on World War 1 equipment, but JETDS came about during World War 2. Wdonzelli (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not JETDS

message: In almost 40 years of playing around with radio gear I have never heard anyone actually use the term "UHF connector" for the PL-259 and/or SO-239 connector assembly.
"PL-259" gets almost 84 million Google hits.  "SO-239" gets 154 million hits.
"UHF connector"?  127,000 measly hits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.187.149 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Amphenol calls it a UHF Connector.
As explained in the article, "PL259" is American terminology for a generic "UHF connector". The term was was unknown in Europe/Australia until relatively recently. Gutta Percha (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who calls this a "UHF connector"? 

message: Near the end of the article, many of the items needing citation need no citation as they are common knowledge by looking at the connector (as far as weatherproofing goes and mechanical durability.) As I worked with closed circuit TV equipment in 1980s, many of the older units had this style of connector, which was supplanted by the BNC connector for newer units.
:Crcwiki (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "many of the items needing citation need no citation as they are common knowledge" - All statements of fact on Wikipedia need citation to back them up.  There simply cannot be any assumption of common knowledge here.  What may be obvious to some, likely isn't for many others.  Don't assume any level of experience in the reader. Crcwiki (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Crcwiki (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The UHF moniker came at a time when 30+ MHz meant Ultra-High-Frequency.  Plus Amphenol refers to this connector as "UHF Connector." Crcwiki (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few remarks 

message: I just undid a revision that changed all mentions of SO239 to SO238 for the socket part.  It seems pretty clear from industry the 238 in an erroneous term for what seems to be universally accepted SO239.
If someone can prove otherwise, let's discuss it.  Otherwise please don't just do a replace all in the editor and expect it to not be reversed.  Crcwiki (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SO238 vs SO239