• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

RS Antenna

Status
Not open for further replies.

aar9sm

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
107
I have recently bought the RS 20-176 108-1300 for $25.00 dllars and was wondering if anyone has both the RS Discone and 20-176 and if there were any drastic changes or improvements using the RS Discone. Iwill monitor mainly Vhf hi band and the Mil-air bands with some 800mhz

Mike
 

hsdtech

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
165
Location
S.E. LA
Stick with the "sputnik". The R.S. Discone just plain sucks in my opinion. The elements always end up falling off, and performance just isn't worth it for the price.
I switched to the Scantenna and have never looked back. I still have my little sputnik (20-176) though, great little antenna.
 

LarrySC

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2001
Messages
2,091
Location
Greenville, SC
The main issue with the 176 is the SO-239 female connector for a PL-259 plug. They are not rated above 600 mHz. Rather than use coax that requires a PL-259, insert a PL to "F" adp'r and use RG-6 with "F" connectors which is rated to 900 mHz. This will help the 800 coverage. Add an "F" to BNC adp'r to your scanner.
 

mike_s104

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
4,668
Location
Berkeley Co. WV/ Loudoun Co. VA
LarrySC said:
The main issue with the 176 is the SO-239 female connector for a PL-259 plug. They are not rated above 600 mHz. Rather than use coax that requires a PL-259, insert a PL to "F" adp'r and use RG-6 with "F" connectors which is rated to 900 mHz. This will help the 800 coverage. Add an "F" to BNC adp'r to your scanner.

I'm going to try this first. I kinda wish I would have gotten the Scantenna or a Diamond Dipole. there is another thread on here with using a cell phone antenna and a diplexer. you can get the diplexer here:

http://tinlee.com/
 

hsdtech

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
165
Location
S.E. LA
mike_s104 said:
I'm going to try this first. I kinda wish I would have gotten the Scantenna or a Diamond Dipole. there is another thread on here with using a cell phone antenna and a diplexer. you can get the diplexer here:

http://tinlee.com/

What antenna do you have now? The 20-176?
 

mike_s104

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
4,668
Location
Berkeley Co. WV/ Loudoun Co. VA
I bought the PL-239 to F connector adapter tonight and I had an F to BNC. I installed them with a short piece of RG6 good up to 2.25GHz. the antenna seems to be working better. there is an 800MHz trunked system that I was unable to receive with the other cable I was using with the PL-259 connectors, now I can receive it. thanks LarrySC. :)
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
7,832
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Any improvement will be due to the coax you changed to, not eliminating the PL-259. A PL-259 to F adaptor is still a PL-259 at one end. Where did the 600MHz rating on a PL/SO-239 come from? An SO-239 that terminates directly into antenna elements as in the Sputnik becomes part of the antenna and losses would be negligible. There are high quality versions of SO-239s and Motorola has used them up to 860MHz in the past. Where did the 900MHz rating on F connectors come from? Most that I see and use are rated to beyond 2GHz with a very good match.
prcguy
LarrySC said:
The main issue with the 176 is the SO-239 female connector for a PL-259 plug. They are not rated above 600 mHz. Rather than use coax that requires a PL-259, insert a PL to "F" adp'r and use RG-6 with "F" connectors which is rated to 900 mHz. This will help the 800 coverage. Add an "F" to BNC adp'r to your scanner.
 

mike_s104

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
4,668
Location
Berkeley Co. WV/ Loudoun Co. VA
prcguy said:
Any improvement will be due to the coax you changed to, not eliminating the PL-259. A PL-259 to F adaptor is still a PL-259 at one end. Where did the 600MHz rating on a PL/SO-239 come from? An SO-239 that terminates directly into antenna elements as in the Sputnik becomes part of the antenna and losses would be negligible. There are high quality versions of SO-239s and Motorola has used them up to 860MHz in the past. Where did the 900MHz rating on F connectors come from? Most that I see and use are rated to beyond 2GHz with a very good match.
prcguy
I figured it was the coax more then the connectors. I went with the F connectors since I have a lot of them at home. regardless of which was to blame, it's been some what fixed. I still may try the Scantenna also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top