• 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

antenna question

Status
Not open for further replies.

adkad

Member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
103
Hi: I have a dedicated airband antenna up thirty feet attached to a pole attached to an arboreteum. I get most frequencies within 50 miles but not all. I could attach the pole to a tree and get between 10-20 feet higher but would have to run the coax over the roof and add another 20 feet of cable. Would I gain more with the height or loose more with in increased coax? Thanks for any comments. Adkad
 

richrowl

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
260
Location
Chesterfield Co Virginia
Antenna height

Seems like years ago I read that it would be necessary to double the height of the antenna
in order to have a noticeable difference.
 

cnmsales

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
429
Location
Waynesville, MO
I would say it probably depends on the type of cable you are currently using and if not sufficient for the added height would you be willing to upgrade you cabling. Im sure someone with better knowledge will be able to give you a better answer.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
richrowl said:
Seems like years ago I read that it would be necessary to double the height of the antenna
in order to have a noticeable difference.
Rule of thumb, doubling the height (HAAT) will give you approximately 6 dB, which is 4 time the signal and IS a barely noticeable difference on most signals.
 

cnmsales

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
429
Location
Waynesville, MO
Right but on top of that he would also be doubling the cable length which would cut the 6bd back some. So on top of the fact that he would only be gaining 6db and that isnt very much he would loose even more with the extra cable.
 

LarrySC

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2001
Messages
2,091
Location
Greenville, SC
Signals from overhead, like aircraft, dont need an antenna very high. If its tower signals you need more of, I dont think you could measure any increase with 20' more. I'd go with 30'. Good Luck.
 

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,126
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Yup, there comes the point of diminishing returns. Then again unless it's some pretty crappy cable another 20' makes a negligible difference. Might I suggest the proper way to go would be to raise the antenna and change the coax to one with "the best bang for the buck" in one uninterrupted length? If you do your homework and find the least loss within your price affordability range you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, pardon the pun.

Never mind the nit pickers, let them have thier way. Remember, picking nits keeps you free from lice.
 

adkad

Member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
103
Thanks all. I think I will see about the possibity of increasing by 30ft and go with the best cable. It is a question of picking up more of the ground stations. Interesting though, the antenna though airband does great general scanning as well. I get more on it than anything I've used before. Thanks again, Adkad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top