Talk:RF connector

Electronics High‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

synonym = aerial connector ?[edit]

Would it be right to say "aerial connector" is commonly used to describe the RF Connector when used on a TV ?

It would be "antenna connector" in the U.S. --agr 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although the word 'Antenna' is in common use in the UK it has connotations more of insects or spaceships or a person who is sensing the vibes in a situation - my antennae are telling me - , a TV definitely gets its signal from an 'Aerial'. The connector might also be referred to a a 'coax connector' and plugs into an 'aerial socket' Another Geoff (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that non-technical users would just call it an "aerial plug", unlikely to use the word "connector". --jmb (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted BNC image[edit]

There are three doubtfull things about that image: The center pin appears to be pushed in, often a sign of inaccurate assembly. There is no white diaelectric visible, maybe it is an unusual 75 Ohm type, or maybe it is just missing. The crimp. It could be there is some crimp tool that makes such a crimp, but it looks like it was done with toothed pliers, a technique known as Gronching. It is just a connector, we must be able to find an image of a better example. Meggar 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown RF connectors[edit]

Can anyone identify these RF connectors? Found in a ISA kit. --jmb 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are Inter-Series adapters, probably made by Greenpar Engineering for the UK Military. RCL4 is the "Ministry of Supply Pattern 4 connector" used on a lot of radio and RF test equipment from the 1950s to the 1970s ("Larkspur" range of combat net radio, etc.) The SHF Major and Minor are Royal Navy types, almost certainly for RADAR equipment (3 - 30 GHz use) and from a similar period. White insulation denotes 50 Ohm (or default) impedance, Red insulation denotes 75 Ohm impedance. 89.242.48.141 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Car Radio Aerial Connector[edit]

Does anyone know anything about the history of the connector used on car radios? I was reading the page on the Belling Lee connector and realised I have never seen anything on the history of these connectors. --jmb 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to see Motorola connector.

Atlant 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature Belling Lee[edit]

I have put a picture of a "Miniature Belling Lee" connector on the Belling Lee page. I suspect that it is a distinct connector in its own right but have never heard it called by any other name. They appear to date from around the 1960s so probably were used for internal linking connections before the appearance of the SMA, SMB and SMC type of connector. I wondered whether it is worth moving to its own page even though little is known about them? --jmb 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Oppose -- I don't think it's a good idea to merge articles describing specific connectors into here. The proposer says the other articles such as BNC connector, N connector, SMA connector are stubs. They are short, but they don't seem to be stubs to me. Including all specs into RF connector would make a huge article. However, RF connector might be extended a bit to briefly discuss the advantages/disadvantages in various applications of the connectors. Han-Kwang 10:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Over time, the other articles will grow, and there's plenty to be said on the topic of each individual connector (as well as on the topic of RF connectors in general). -- Atlant 11:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE -- There are still plenty of RF connectors that have not been mentioned yet, better to keep an overall picture and links to individual types of connectotrs. --jmb 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I think it would be a good idea since all the other articles are stubs and it didn't seem like there was too much to talk about in each article. I thought good wikipedia articles were supposed to be longer and more inclusive, which is what i thought the merger would do. --Swsnow 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I don't see how we could merge articles on a lot of different connectors other than just concatenating them all onto one long page, or what the advantage would be to that. Certainly this RF connector page should be longer and more inclusive. Do you have suggestions about the kind of information that you would like to see on this page? Meggar 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE -- A single article on all RF connectors would be too long or not inclusive enough. Fl295 19:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- It gives a much better possibility for explaining what the different connectors are, with them having their own article, rather than having them all in one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.83.165 (talk)

Oppose -- The idea that short articles are bad and long ones good confuses quantity with quality and is stupid. --Harumphy 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned connectors?[edit]

jmb states above that "There are still plenty of RF connectors that have not been mentioned yet". If this is so, would people please expand the encylopedia (including this article!) as needed? The "millimeter" series of extreme-performance RF connectors is the only obvious oversight that I see right now, and we may well have articles lurking about on those; articles that just need some cross-linking.

Atlant 13:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the Miniature Belling Lee under Belling Lee, mainly because I was hoping to find out more about them but could put on its own page perhaps. Off the top of my head I can think of Dezifix, LC(?), SC, 7/16" (probably got another proper name). Then there are all the flange connectors - I probably have various pictures of some of these if I can find them. "Jones"(?) or "Pye"(?) plug - I know I have some of these I can photograph. I think I have a picture of a multipole "back-connector" of a plug-in module that has non-standard RF connectors (some use variants of standard ones but not sure if I have any pictures). I know that I have encountered other types as well. --jmb 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More unknown connectors[edit]

Can these be used somewhere but not sure where? They were a combined RF and DC connector used on the rear of plug-in modules designed by the BBC in the 1960s. --jmb 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of connector shells that have coax "inserts" like that. MIL standard circular connectors have this, and some old workstation video monitors (Sun, for example) used coax inserts in DB-25 shells. Paul Koning 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIN 7/16[edit]

There's mention of the DIN audio plugs as not being RF connectors, but there is a DIN coax connector standard, commonly referred to as "DIN 7/16" (interesting... German standard, size in inches?!) Is that what the missing link "Spinner" is meant to refer to, or is that something else? I don't know the official name of the DIN 7/16 connector or I would add it. Paul Koning 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look around next week to see if I can find any part numbers, might be that there are two similar connectors. One problem is people very rarely use full part number and connectors tend to have a popular name which might not be standardised. --jmb 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amphenol catalog has a bunch of info, including detailed drawings. It also explains that "7/16" isn't a size in inches but refers to two sizes in millimeters: 7 mm outer diameter inner contact, 16 mm inner diameter for the shield contact. But it doesn't give a reference to the DIN standard. Googling... Fancy that. The German version of this page ([1] says that DIN 7/16 was originally designed by Spinner, so so that answers the other question. And from there ([2]) I have the formal reference: IEC 60169-4 (1975-01). Paul Koning 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

"(→Types - SC is not screw version of C (N is).)"

The 50 ohm SC has a large inner pin similar to that of the C connector. I was told that it was often used because of this - it is more robust and better power handling than a N connector. --jmb 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, as I wrote above the inner pin of the SC is similar dimensions to that of a C but it is a screw fit which is why I described as a screw version of C. I always heard "SC" interpreted as "Screw C", I would be interested to hear if anyone else has a different derivation. --jmb 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I was working from memory, and I remembered incorrectly. I've reverted my mistaken edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Paul Koning 16:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJ connectors[edit]

Should RJ connectors belong to this article? For example Ethernet transmissions are in the RF range.

True. But the subject of this article really seems to be coaxial cable connectors only, in spite of its title. Paul Koning (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all RF connectors are coaxial[edit]

Not all RF connectors are coaxial, in case anyone feels inclined to move the page again. There are various balanced types, both screened (e.g. twinax) and unscreened (e.g. 300-ohm antenna connectors). --Harumphy (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly correct, and "coaxial" should not be in the article title. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo choice[edit]

The lead photo in this article shows an N connector with hexagonal flats. Since that is not typical, I wonder if a photo of a more typical N connector without the hex would be more appropriate. jhawkinson (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dab link[edit]

@Spinningspark: wrote in an es "→‎top: The only other dab entry that is relevant to is the power connector. Better to disambiguate it here directly" and removed the link to Coaxial, but I think that's not a true statement. I see 4 things in that page that are relevant here (in addition to this page, of course):

The general definition, which is not clearly articulated at the top of this article, which perhaps doesn't count:

 Coaxial, co-axial, co-ax or coax describes a physical arrangement wherein two or more structures share a common axis.

And then:

 Electronics
   Coaxial cable or simply "coax," a shielded electrical cable widely used for transmission of radio-frequency signals and in computer networking cables
   Coaxial antenna, a half-wave dipole antenna configuration
 Connectors
   Coaxial connector, any one of various common types of RF connector
   Coaxial power connector, low-current connectors commonly used on consumer electronics

Absent a better justification for the edit, I'll probably revert. jhawkinson (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the term being disambiguated is coaxial connector, not coaxial. None of the other entries at coaxial (disambiguation) are coaxial connectors. Nor are they RF connectors. Coaxial connector redirects to RF connector and coaxial power connector is disambiguated with a hatnote. That is exactly as laid out in the guideline WP:ONEOTHER. SpinningSpark 16:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox inconsistency[edit]

I noticed that a lot of articles in tnis category are very inconsistent with infoboxes, some have detailed specifications, while others lack basic technical information, such as physical specifications. I will look into this further. I will fix the IBs but main articles might need some attention. CpX41 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]