Talk:BNC connector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] SMA connector

What about the SMA connector, doesn't it deserve a page? For the TNC it is stated impednace and typical bandwidth range. isn't that practical also for the BNC? 50 and 75 ohms or does it exist even more varieties? In the link it says use up to 2.4GHz but I have seen specifications up to 4 GHz (http://www.amphenolrf.com/products/bnc.asp) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.79.64 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2005

[edit] Merging pages

I would like to suggest merging the pages

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)

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)
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)

[edit] For what it's worth...

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)

[edit] Video

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)

[edit] Uses

"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)

[edit] Uses continued

CCTV equiptment uses BNC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ambiguous picture

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)

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)
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)