Tv antenna for milcoms

Status
Not open for further replies.

skidplate

Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Arizona
I have and old TV antenna that has adjustments for the elements to be in a swept forward configuration or 180 degrees apart. Being a log periodic design, would it work for picking up aerial milcoms from about 40-50 miles away. I want to point it down towards the Barry M Goldwater practice range to hear the f-16s and others better than I do with a discone. I have it drilled out and braced for vertical mounting. I realize the feed point is 75 ohm but with the relatively hot front ends of handheld scanners would the loss be so much as to make it a waste of time?
Thanks
 

gewecke

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
7,452
Location
Illinois
Give it a shot! the log periodic design tends to be quite wide banded,so you might be surprised,even though it's 75ohms. I would not let the impedance mismatch bother me since you're not going to be transmittting on it. I would however,make sure you use some low loss quality coaxial cable. Your RG6 will work ok,but I would try something like andrews 50ohm or belden. I would not suggest a preamp,unless you're in a rural area. Have fun!
N9ZAS.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,360
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
TV antennas are not continuous in frequency range, the mfrs optimize for cost vs performance. With channel 13 ending below 220MHz and channel 14 starting around 474MHz there will be no specific elements for the mil air band. It will pick up stuff but not as well as a purpose designed antenna. Mil air is also mostly vertical polarity and the TV antenna is horizontal which something else you have to consider.
prcguy
 

gewecke

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
7,452
Location
Illinois
True,the elements are not cut for 225-400mhz.,but he should get some results compared to using his discone. Also he said he did change the polarity to vertical so that will help. I did this with a similiar tv antenna years ago,and it worked surprisingly well.
N9ZAS.
 

skidplate

Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Arizona
I'll give it a try, after the sun goes down and it cools off a bit tonight I will mount it on the tower .
There's not much activity on the practice range on weekends so I wont hear much until monday. I will post back with the results.
 

N1BHH

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
1,845
Location
Jackson Square, East Weymouth, MA.
As long as you got metal up in the air you won't have too many problems hearing anything. It won't be optimal, but it will work. Heck, my 40 meter Extended Double Zepp works pretty good as a scanner antenna, especially during low band openings, despite the polarity difference.
 

zonian149

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
91
Location
Jacksonville, FL
From the Master Bill Cheek on TV antennas!

Copyright (c) 1995-97 By Bill Cheek, COMMtronics Engineering
<All rights reserved>


TV Antennas for Scanners?


There is some controversy over the use of TV directional antennas for
scanners and scanning. This article lays out the facts and the
substance of the issue so folks can see, calculate, and decide for
themselves.


So why would you choose a TV antenna for your scanning post? To hear
all there is to hear, for one thing. The GAIN of the antenna alone
will enable you to hear far beyond your present range with an omni
antenna. But there's more! Big city environments are RF garbage
dumps, right? Noise and interference wreak havoc and consternation on
all but the best scanners, and sometimes even them, too.


Say there is a nearby repeater or pager transmitter that overloads
your scanner's front end. The expensive fix is to buy a notch filter
or a tunable filter and notch out the offending signal. Often it
doesn't work. A TV antenna will work! Sure! Just rotate the antenna
until one of its side or back nulls is pointed at the offender, and
the results can be startling! Oftentimes, the offender will disappear
into the noise, even if you're tuned to the sucker! When the offender
is nulled out, the antenna will still receive signals from the forward
and other directions.


A TV antenna has many peak and null lobes around its 360-degrees of
view. The deepest nulls will be on the back while the highest peaks
of gain will be off the front. Nevertheless, there are a whole slew
of minor peaks and nulls on each side of the antenna between front and
back, and these can be used to great advantage when selecting a
desired signal and rejecting one or more undesired ones. The list
goes on, but time and space force me to move on. You get the idea?


If you choose to use a directional TV antenna for scanning, it will
work wonderfully well between about 30 MHz and 1 GHz and better than a
discone down to 25 MHz and up to 1.3 GHz. The caveat here is HOW to
install it......NOT the same as for TV reception.


A TV directional antenna used for scanners and scanning should be
mounted in the VERTICAL plane....that is, with its elements pointing
into the ground and into the sky with the boom retained in the
horizontal plane as for TV reception. A short mast should be rigged
into the normal mount of the antenna....say 2-ft to 3-ft, max. This
side mast must mechanically join the real mast that rises vertically
from the rotator. Any number of methods of making this a rigid,
lasting mount can be employed and will not be presented here.


A TV matching transformer (300 ::75 ohm balun) should be fitted to the
antenna as is customary for coax feeds. Then use RG-6 satellite cable
from the other end of the matching transformer down to the scanner.
Use gold plated Type F connectors on each end of the coax. Down at
the scanner, use a gold plated Type F-to-BNC adapter to mate the coax
to the scanner. Voila! A low cost, high performance directional beam
antenna for your scanning post. Now here is why the sucker works:


Consider:


TV antennas for the USA are expressly designed as follows:


54 - 88 MHz Ch-2 - Ch-6 (34 MHz Passband)
88 - 108 MHz FM Broadcast (20 MHz Passband)
(Good for about 30 MHz to 158 MHz)
174 - 216 MHz Ch-7 - Ch-13 (42 MHz passband)
(Good for about 130 MHz to 324 MHz)
470 - 890 MHz Ch-14 - Ch-83 (420 MHz Passband)
(Good for about 352 to 1.3 GHz)


In order to get specified performance at the band edges, the
antenna has to be "overdesigned" by the mfgr, meaning that positive
gain and useful F/B ratio will be apparent well outside the bands of
design.....i.e., the TV bands.


Now let's look at the gaps in the above spectrum which include
desired scanner frequencies:

25 - 54 MHz (29 MHz gap)
108 - 174 MHz (66 MHz gap)
216 - 470 MHz (254 MHz gap)
890 - 1300 MHz (410 MHz gap)


Understanding that a wideband antenna will still perform with gain and
other specs within 1-octave of its design passband, it can be seen
that all of the above gaps are well within one octave of the
passbands. For instance....one-half an octave up from 216 MHz places
an edge at 324 MHz. One-half an octave down from 470 MHz places a
cutoff at 352 MHz. (I'm using half-octaves to be conservative even
though full octaves are valid).


Therefore, even in the widest gap of 216-470 MHz, there is ample
overlap coverage from the passbands of 174-216 and 470-890 MHz.
The worst coverage in the spectrum will be between 324-343 MHz,
but even there, it will be superior to that of a discone or any other
omni scanner antenna!


The simple conclusion, which can be empirically demonstrated with
minimal effort, is that a TV antenna will perform well above a discone
at 343 MHz, a point halfway in the gap of 216-470 MHz. It doesn't
matter that performance will be slightly down from the TV band specs,
because GAIN, F/B ratio, and side-lobes will still make the antenna a
superior performer to discones, dipoles, and even narrow band yagis,
and for that matter, log periodics which have low gain for their wide
bandwidth....typically 6-8 dB.


A TV antenna will be competitive with the log periodics even in the
gaps of its performance........and as a PLUS, will cost a LOT LESS.
More of a PLUS is that TV antennas are easier to install and maintain
than the larger, high profile log periodics. Finally, neighbors are
less likely to *****, whine, complain, and turn you in to some nasty
authority when all you have on the roof is an innocuous TV antenna,
even if it is mounted "all wrong". Neighbors will just think you are
stupid and leave you the hell alone.......which is what you want,
right?


(c) 1997 <All rights reserved> Bill Cheek
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,360
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Bill Cheek has been a great contributor to our hobby but I don't agree with this TV antenna write up.

Very few TV antennas have elements that resonate on each channel and typical gains are much less than 6-8dB on the TV channels let alone out of band frequencies.

If you have one of the big 20ft + monsters with lots of elements then it may actually cover all the TV channels with 6dB gain. Mfrs play tricks to save money like working a 1/4 wave element as a 3/4 wave element on a higher TV channel to get by with a less complicated antenna. If you have swept back elements like many of the RS versions more than likely the elements are doing double duty on several channels and the pattern and gain are not going to be very good out of band.

Try it and see, it will pick up something but don't expect any magic.
prcguy
 

skidplate

Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Arizona
Well, after a little listening this morning I have noticed an improvement from some helos on 123.050 even though they were off the side and slightly behind the antenna.
It's going to end up being an apples to oranges comparison. The discone is closer to and slightly higher than the TV antenna with less coax.
Tomorrow will be the big test when the range is active again.
I'll post back what I find.
Linedog.
 

Attachments

  • 004.jpg
    004.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 737

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,100
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
What you have here is a small log with little or no gain but decent directivity for VHF and on the same boom a UHF Yagi with a corner reflector which gives considerable gain and directivity. The down side is the huge gap between VHF High Band (TV) and UHF and your misconception of it being 75 ohm impedance. It is 300 ohms balanced meant for twinlead so for coax such as the proverbial RG6-U you need a balun. OK, it may work after a fashion but you'd do much better with a log designed for scanning and ham use such as this one if ya gotza bux.
Create Log-Periodic 5130-1N
 

gewecke

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
7,452
Location
Illinois
Bill Cheek has been a great contributor to our hobby but I don't agree with this TV antenna write up.

Very few TV antennas have elements that resonate on each channel and typical gains are much less than 6-8dB on the TV channels let alone out of band frequencies.

If you have one of the big 20ft + monsters with lots of elements then it may actually cover all the TV channels with 6dB gain. Mfrs play tricks to save money like working a 1/4 wave element as a 3/4 wave element on a higher TV channel to get by with a less complicated antenna. If you have swept back elements like many of the RS versions more than likely the elements are doing double duty on several channels and the pattern and gain are not going to be very good out of band.

Try it and see, it will pick up something but don't expect any magic.
prcguy

Everyone is entitle to their experiences and opinions,but I have done this modification so I can tell you it works. Now if you're a "purist" then you might not be satisfied with the results,but if you already have the hardware and optimism then you're in business! I tried this and compared it to a Grove scanner beam and the results from 30-470mhz. were satisfying enough for me. I would do the mod again if I found another need. 73's!
N9ZAS.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,360
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
I would highly recommend the KMA 4113 (41-1300MHz) or KMA Rover (88-1300MHz) over the Create logs. The KMA boom length is twice as long as the Create and the gain is 2 to 3dB higher. The KMAs are also very rugged with no plastic element insulators to break and there a lot less expensive. I've had a 4113 and a Rover for 10-12yrs and I'm very happy.
prcguy

What you have here is a small log with little or no gain but decent directivity for VHF and on the same boom a UHF Yagi with a corner reflector which gives considerable gain and directivity. The down side is the huge gap between VHF High Band (TV) and UHF and your misconception of it being 75 ohm impedance. It is 300 ohms balanced meant for twinlead so for coax such as the proverbial RG6-U you need a balun. OK, it may work after a fashion but you'd do much better with a log designed for scanning and ham use such as this one if ya gotza bux.
Create Log-Periodic 5130-1N
 

skidplate

Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Arizona
I have the TV antenna hooked up to the Pro 2006 and the discone to the pcr 1500. The 2006 hears everything that the pcr1500 hears and them some. All in all it seems like a pretty good set up considering I got it for nothing from my ex wife. (hmmm maybe it wasnt free after all) anyway, I'll leave it up for now.

Linedog
 

k9rzz

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
3,162
Location
Milwaukee, WI
With most VHF TV antennas now virtually useless, you could probably get a good number of them for free and cobble up some wicked home brew scanning antennas!
 

IowaBrian

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
225
Location
Michigan
Just for giggles I tried my DB4 I think it is (amazon.c0m) special that I use for OTA HD and it seemed to work not saying it was anything special in my 5 minute test but it did pull in stuff that the duck or the weighted tele couldn't. It isn't really mounted yet where it needs to go but it works for my HD and I hate roof work in the summer too darn hot!
It seemed to help in the 155.??? range for a county that I don't get too well or at all with any duck or tele. Only good thing was I didn't fry a $500.00 scanner doing something I should be testing with a $20.00 scanner :) .
Just my $.02 which in this day is worth nothing!!!!
 

IowaBrian

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
225
Location
Michigan
Tried my DB4 again again last night and it does pull in more from far away. I can get 3 weather 162.??
that I can't get with anything just connected to the scanner, so hanging metal outside does help even if it is a TV antenna. The only thing it is directional so not the best if you want omni coverage but this was a Mr Wizard project and for that it passed.
 

skidplate

Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Arizona
I have noticed a slight amount of rejection of the back side of the TV antenna in the upper UHF range. For the most part the VHF side isn't really directional however, it does pick up pretty well. Fortunately, the milcoms that I'm most interested in are more or less fixed SW of my location and in the UHF range so this set up works pretty well.

Linedog.
 

gewecke

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
7,452
Location
Illinois
I have noticed a slight amount of rejection of the back side of the TV antenna in the upper UHF range. For the most part the VHF side isn't really directional however, it does pick up pretty well. Fortunately, the milcoms that I'm most interested in are more or less fixed SW of my location and in the UHF range so this set up works pretty well.

Linedog.

I'm glad it worked well for you. Did you try a preamp or not? If so,what did you use,and what cable did you go with ? I might try another one of these again in the future,but with some different cable and a rotor.
N9ZAS.
 

Alliance01TX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
371
Location
DFW Texas
TV Antenna for Mil-Air....points to ponder..

One item that was not apparent in the post was if you are looking to 'directionally' grab Mil-Air via a certain azimuth (AF or Navy base) or 360 degrees?

As well stated in prior post, the TV Antenna is a Yagi / small LP per se, thus you will likely see only direction gains in signal vs omni / discone antenna's...But, it's still wire and rods so it will work with some tweaking.

Lot's of passionate debates around 300-to-75 ohms or 50 ohms for scanner receivers....I use both (75 / 50) and it works and yes a 50 ohm (or 52 ohm) is a bit better, but hey that's the fun about the hobby-explore!

If you are looking to "Mil-Air" with a TV Antenna, the first thing you might concider is 'trimming' some of the elements to your prefered Mil-Air Bandwith...Most of the Mil-Air Antenna's are 'centered' around the ~311.000~321.000 Mhz area from an 'Air-to-Ground' plan.

If you are looking for tankers and or transit Mil-Air well that's a wide-range to ponder and you might want to look at what AR Tracks and MOA are in you area to see the most likely freq's to pull in and then concider trimming a few elements of that TV antenna.....I would try both Vertical and Horizontal as a test as well....you might be surprised...

Now for some humor - And despite the rumors, ~175 Mhz is still ~175 Mhz in the Rod-Length (trim) calculation, regardless of analog or HD TV...so that reminds me of the old days, when you 'had' to ditch your old TV antenna cause it would ONLY receive B&W TV and the new Color TV programs 'required' a NEW Color Antenna - same mis-representation-different Century ! So the Antenna is fine if all things (power output, et al.. are same at the TV station)....always get a cluckle out of this and the HD TV Antenna's for just $99..- B.T. Barnum was right then and today in one of his famous quotes...

Hope it goes well....
 

skidplate

Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
107
Location
Arizona
Gwecke, No pre amp used as of now. The pro 2006 seems pretty happy using just about 50' of quad 6, 75 ohm cable.
I did shorten the two smaller vhf elements by 2 inches for the shortest and 4 inches on the next longest.
Most of the MOA I listen to is darn near line of sight so if they're talking I'm gonna hear em'.
I do have a spare Ham IV laying around but, I think I'll save that for when I put my KLM KT-34 back up.
I would encourage anyone with a old TV antenna laying around or still up in the air to give it a shot with your scanner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top