Talk:BNC connector

message: I would like to suggest merging the pages
* RF connector
* BNC connector
* SMA connector
* Belling-Lee connector
* F connector
* N connector
* C connector
* TNC connector
* ...
into just a single page, similar to the German page. The new page could be called
radio-frequency connectors. There are a lot of commonalities between the many standardized plugs, and the minor differences and their historic relatinship are much easier to explain if they are all on a common page. I also believe, it is easier for reader to get an good overview if the material is not spread across numerous tiny stub articles, as it the case now. A single page would also help people who want to identify a connector. Most of these connectors are even defined in the same IEC and MIL standards. Opinions? Markus Kuhn 12:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. That German page isn't something to emulate, in fact it is a mess, basicaly a BNC page with a lot of stubs tacked on, about 23 of them all on one page. The RF connector page here does a better job of overview. The best response to stubs is not to merge them all into one megastub as in the German article but to add some content. Meggar 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I can see advantages in expanding the RF connector page to have a short description and perhaps a picture to help identification but there are many more connectors that can be included there so best to link to other pages for full details.   --jmb 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging pages

message: I'd like to put forth that I don't consider the Amphenol page 100.0% unbiased and therefore authoritative; it *was*, after all, their engineer; of *course* they'd say that.  Oddly, the naming is a matter of some dispute, and I think we need a bit more backup on this... especially since Broadcast Engineering is using it as a quiz question this month. --Baylink 17:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For what it's worth... 

message: I believe there was a convention in the BBC that 50 ohm BNC connectors were used on 75 ohm video circuits because the inner pin is more robust.  I certainly only saw 75 ohm BNC connectors used on some older VHF receive antenna connection.  There was also a two pin connector with an outer shell very much like a BNC, this was sometimes used for connecting balanced audio circuits.  I don't know the name of the connector though, always referred to a "two pin BNC" even if not strictly accurate.   --jmb 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: "The BNC connector is used for professional video connections, both for analog and Serial Digital Interface signals, amateur radio antenna connections, aviation electronics (avionics) and on nearly every piece of electronic test equipment manufactured in the last 35 or so years."
:This reads as if it was started referring only to video uses then other uses have been added.  Perhaps a more general summary of uses of the BNC would be better.  Also the statement about electronic test equipment is not correct.  N connectors are more common on much RF test equipment.  --jmb 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied the list up and reworded it slightly to make it more accurate (the test equipment statement having already been toned down). Musiconeologist (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses

message: CCTV equiptment uses BNC  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't added this to the list since it seems to me to be covered by video signals in the first item.Musiconeologist (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Uses continued

message: This article has a picture; the caption of that image reads "Picture to show the similarity between 50 Ω and 75 Ω BNC connectors". Ironically, the caption doesn't tell us which connectors in the picture are 75-ohm connectors, and which are 50-ohm connectors. Can anyone tell, and repair the caption? -- Mikeblas 00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go back to the description currently in the entry for this picture, it claims that all of these are 50 ohm.  A 75 ohm connector has a slightly fatter center pin and a different (or different thickness) center dielectric.  Also, the back of the connector must be different as RG58 (50 ohm) cable is significantly thinner than RG59 (75 ohm) cable. --ssd 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given no remedy, and because of the comments on the page for the picture itself, I've removed that image from this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous picture 

message: Not an exemplary image. This connector probably conforms to the BNC standard, but with this super thin cable, it's not suitable for high frequencies, and might break easily. Robijn (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate image 

message: 75 ohm BNC connectors are primarily used for video and DS3 Telco central office applications is ambiguous. Which of the following is intended?
*Video and DS3 Telco central office applications primarily use 75 ohm BNC connectors.
*The primary use of 75 ohm BNC connectors is for video and DSC3 Telco central office applications.
I think it needs editing into one or other of these versions.
===Telco===
Telco central office applications
* Ambiguous because Telco has a number of meanings
* Whole phrase needs clarifying
* Once it's clear, it should be linked to whichever article is the relevant one.
===BBC===
The past-tense section about the BBC reads rather as though the BBC no longer exists, and could do with amending to say when the convention existed.
Musiconeologist (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types 

message: The past-tense section about the BBC reads rather as though the BBC no longer exists, and could do with amending to say when the convention existed.
Musiconeologist (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC

message: The basis for the development of the BNC connector was largely the work of Octavio M. Salati
:I don't know what this statement is intended to mean:
:*Neill and Conselman's work was based on Salati's patent, and his work preceded theirs?
:*Neill and Conselman invented the BNC connector and then Salati helped develop it?
:Anybody know?
Musiconeologist (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: I marked this section as dubious because:
*currently it reads as though anything in the UK using a bayonet fitting would be described as having a BNC fitting. Clearly this is often not the case: for example I've never heard it used for bayonet-fitting lightbulbs.
*Colloquial use of BNC fitting for other connectors doesn't necessarily mean it's accepted as correct British usage, so clarification is needed as to whether it is or not.
Musiconeologist (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British usage 

message: I've kept the Canford Group reference for the statement about impedance mismatches, but I think a reference to a basic article about the theory of waveguides and tranmission lines, or to the relevant section of a textbook on that subject would be more appropriate---the effects are a matter of basic physics rather than a manufacturer's recommendations. Also the physics won't go out of date.
Musiconeologist (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical compatibility 

message: I haven't managed to track down the text of IEC 169-8 online, but the references I have found suggest that it was explicitly for 50 ohm connectors. Presumably this includes specifying that their impedance should be 50 ohms, in which case a 75 ohm connector can't comply. If that's so, then a wording like whose physical dimensions match those specified in IEC 169-8 is needed, together with a footnote explaining that a 75 ohm connector can't technically comply with the standard.
Ideally a source for the text of IEC 169-8 should be cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiconeologist (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical compatibility; IEC 169-8 

message: I thought BNC stood for British Naval Connector, and have found other references to this including the reputable FOLDOC http://foldoc.org/bnc . Perhaps this should be reflected in the article?
: There's lots of rumors and folklore about connector names - you'll often see "Baby N connector" and similar names made up by authors. Even FOLDOC is not flawless when it comes to minutia such as this.  No-one has ever produced a British naval standard that defines this connector. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article originally included a longish section listing a number of alternative names with their supposed etymologies---as I remember, this was eventually removed because of doubts about its relevance and its accuracy. It was more about how spurious names come into being than about the connector. Personally I think it would be a bad idea to bring it back, beyond maybe adding a sentence to the effect that confusion exists over the name and many spurious versions exist.Musiconeologist (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To completely eliminate the mention of 'British Naval Connector' (in the discussion of etymology or otherwise) truly weakens the article.Opertinicy (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be enlightening to have some sort of explanation of the origin of this etymology, rather than dismissing it as a backronym in a single sentence. --Ef80 (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: <years later> If it was a British name for this connector, surely it would be "Royal Navy Connector"? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was named by Brits I would say you are correct. If it was named for/after them by someone from another country, that is a different matter. (if that ever really was a name for it that is... Granted I remember being told to watch out for people calling them such in the earlier 00s when I was going to school for networking, repair and security stuff. Basically "if they say this, they mean that". So maybe it is worthy of mention?) Food for thought: Just because there is no actual standard from the UK that applies here does not invalidate the name per se. Ethernet was named after something literally proven to not exist (it became a standard later, but still, the name came first). 174.44.171.172 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval connector? 

message: I have worked on airborne radar for various British military aircraft, and the story that has filtered down by engineers from WW2 was that the BNC connector was 'invented' for the first centimetric radar the US ever had, the SCR-720, which was just a British A.I. mk. X set sent over to the States. To improve maintenance and reduce the time to change an aircraft's radar set, the USAF wanted a quick R.F. fit/release connector. Neill & Concelman (how is Concelman pronounced? Conkleman? Conselman?) originally came up with what is now the TNC (Threaded Neill Concelman) connector, arguing that it had a better frequency characteristic. However, they conceded that the bayonet means of fitment allowed for a quicker (dis)connection, so they came up with the BNC. However, they persisted with the TNC, and it is still available to this day.
Taff Hewitt (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  BNC Origin? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Baby Neill Constant. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 05:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baby Neill Constant" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: It seems there are two "Similar connectors" sections (2. and 7. section, presently), one stating that similar connectors exist, the other listing them. This causes not only redundancy, but anchoring mishaps (linking to BNC connector#Similar connectors goes to the 2., BNC connector#Similar connectors_2 goes to the 7.). Is there a reason for it? If not, I propose them to be merged as such: the now 2. paragraph should be removed, its text placed at the top of the 7. paragraph, and BNC connector#Similar connectors linking to this, merged section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bence98 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, merged them. Bence98 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Similar connectors" section twice?