Effect of Nearby Cell Tower?

[mmckenna]

Someone out to inform Uniden they’re putting out miss leading information

Maybe.
But spec'ing coaxial cable isn't as easy as a single sentence in a manual. They are likely making some assumptions that most users are using Radio Shack grade RG-58. RG-8 -would- be an upgrade compared to that, but by no means an ideal cable for all applications.

In reality the type of cable someone needs depends on the specific application, length and frequencies of interest. That could be an entire book.

 

[iMONITOR]

Maybe.
But spec'ing coaxial cable isn't as easy as a single sentence in a manual. They are likely making some assumptions that most users are using Radio Shack grade RG-58. RG-8 -would- be an upgrade compared to that, but by no means an ideal cable for all applications.

In reality the type of cable someone needs depends on the specific application, length and frequencies of interest. That could be an entire book.

Common availability would be another factor for the average hobbyist.

 

[WeldGuy]

You're good with RG-6, that's not your issue.

I know. I was just agreeing with the use of RG-6.

 

[rgchristy]

Are there any filters that you can recommend?

Thanks.

And you may need a filter to reduce cell tower RF over loading your poor scanner.

 

[Arkmood]

inform Uniden they’re putting out miss leading information

Not really, and here's why:
Posters in this thread are confusing RG8x with RG8 - These are two very different types of coax cable, and have seen this confusion before on RR.
RG8x is a small diameter cable, which is flexible, at its best when used for jumpers, and high loss @ higher freqs.
RG8 is a large diameter cable, stiff/non flexible, and can be used for long runs with minimum loss @ high freqs.

 

[mmckenna]

RG8 is a large diameter cable, stiff/non flexible, and can be used for long runs with minimum loss @ high freqs.

No, we're not confusing it.

RG-8 is decent cable for lower frequency uses, but no professional in their right mind is going to recommend it for long runs at UHF or 700/800MHz uses.
A 50 foot run of RG-8 at 800MHz is going to result in a bit over 1/2 of your signal lost -just- in the feed line.
The same run using LMR-400 only results in a bit over 1/3 of the signal loss in the feed line.

Sure, RG-8 will get some of the signal to your radio, and it will work. But when comparing the costs, there's no real savings or benefit when there are higher grade cables at similar costs that will easily outperform RG-8.

RG-8 was popular because retailers like Radio Shack sold it. Amateurs liked it since it's losses were acceptable and HF frequencies, and they were comfortable installing connectors on it.

 

[KO4IPV]

No, we're not confusing it.

RG-8 is decent cable for lower frequency uses, but no professional in their right mind is going to recommend it for long runs at UHF or 700/800MHz uses.
A 50 foot run of RG-8 at 800MHz is going to result in a bit over 1/2 of your signal lost -just- in the feed line.
The same run using LMR-400 only results in a bit over 1/3 of the signal loss in the feed line.

Sure, RG-8 will get some of the signal to your radio, and it will work. But when comparing the costs, there's no real savings or benefit when there are higher grade cables at similar costs that will easily outperform RG-8.

RG-8 was popular because retailers like Radio Shack sold it. Amateurs liked it since it's losses were acceptable and HF frequencies, and they were comfortable installing connectors on it.

I just purchased LMR-400 using 50 feet length , thanks for recommending

 

[mmckenna]

I just purchased LMR-400 using 50 feet length , thanks for recommending

It's always a good idea to invest in good coaxial cable.

 

[Arkmood]

No, we're not confusing it.

RG-8 is decent cable for lower frequency uses, but no professional in their right mind is going to recommend it for long runs at UHF or 700/800MHz uses.
A 50 foot run of RG-8 at 800MHz is going to result in a bit over 1/2 of your signal lost -just- in the feed line.
The same run using LMR-400 only results in a bit over 1/3 of the signal loss in the feed line.

Not a Professional just a hobbyist and as such my logic may be flawed - however,
When someone says: (paraphrasing) "Look at the loss for RG8 in the chart" and the referenced chart reads *RG8x* with no mention of RG8 in my view - and I do not flatter myself that all my opinions will meet with universal agreement, it qualifies as confusion.

Never said anything about LMR-400, don't know where that came from... however, it makes for a good strawman argument.
Interested parties can look at the many charts available about which cable to use, and come to their own informed decisions.

 

[mmckenna]

Not a Professional just a hobbyist and as such my logic may be flawed - however,
When someone says: (paraphrasing) "Look at the loss for RG8 in the chart" and the referenced chart reads *RG8x* with no mention of RG8 in my view - and I do not flatter myself that all my opinions will meet with universal agreement, it qualifies as confusion.

Never said anything about LMR-400, don't know where that came from... however, it makes for a good strawman argument.
Interested parties can look at the many charts available about which cable to use, and come to their own informed decisions.

I understand. Yeah, people often don't realize that there is a difference between RG-8 and RG-8X.

The discussion has veered off in several directions. One question was about why Uniden was recommending RG-8. Seems kind of odd for them to make a very generalized recommendation like that with very little in the way of qualifiers. I guess aiming things at the average consumer and what they'd likely be able to access locally was their aim. But, yeah, it does induce some level of confusion. Generally speaking, RG-8 is about the limit of what one will find in the "RG" specifications. Beyond that, it comes down to more brand specific recommendations. I can imagine that Uniden wouldn't want to recommend one specific brand, like Times-Microwave or Andrews Heliax.

And then there's the random posts about what works well for someone else with zero qualifiers about cable length. There are so many variables when it comes to comparing what types of coax works in random installations. Like the Uniden recommendation, there isn't one coaxial cable that will work in every situation. Luckily there's resources like this site where scanner owners can get input on which cable to use and often get accurate and usable answers.

 

[mmckenna]

It's also important to acknowledge the budget factor when recommending coaxial cable.
Not everyone has a bottomless pit of money to throw at the hobby. When looking at cable in the $1.00 per foot range, it gets to be an issue for some trying to keep the budget happy.

It's often easy for people to recommend a coax as a "must have" when we don't have to foot the bill. When I started off a long time ago, getting 50 feet of RG-58 was a big accomplishment. Finally getting an antenna outside and hooking it up to my scanner made a big difference. Of course now if we were to even suggest RG-58 as a solution, it'd get shot down quickly. But keeping in mind that this is a hobby and budgets are a real thing, we have to acknowledge that sometimes people have to do what they can with what they have available.

 

[cmdrwill]

But. remember there is a lot of poorly made knock off coax cable out there.

Get a name brand cable from a reputable dealer.

 

[mmckenna]

But. remember there is a lot of poorly made knock off coax cable out there.

Get a name brand cable from a reputable dealer.

C.C.C.
Cheap Chinese Coax

 

[kb5udf]

Back to OP's original question. My office is located a similar distance between two cell towers clearly visible from my 3rd story /top floor office window. 700/800 trunking reception is dead from my office with 436. If I go into the interior of my office suite, I can receive. Conclusion, cell tower desense on public safety 700 band.

 

[Arkmood]

I understand.
One question was about why Uniden was recommending RG-8. Seems kind of odd for them to make a very generalized recommendation like that with very little in the way of qualifiers.

He understands - excellent... moving along, please consider the following:
In this particular discussion the qualifier would be because it's not RG8x, the main point of my contention.

 

[WeldGuy]

I'm going to try a directional antenna to see if there is enough gain and rejection to help cut through the cell tower rf.
For those familiar with the MARCS system in Central Ohio:
I know the Groves Road site is an option for Fairfield County SO, but there is also a Noe-Bixby site that's closer, however I never see it mentioned for Fairfield County SO. I'll need to determine which site to aim the yagi toward.

 

[Arkmood]

Always found antenna placement to be important in a situation as you describe... years ago posted this, perhaps it will help:
Jun 9, 2013
Antenna reception problems can be extremely complex, with many variables involved. Signals get knocked around in different ways from point A to point B. Your particular situation is compounded by the multiple systems/frequencies targeted. Move your rooftop antenna to a different location on your chimney/roof, sometimes as much as a few inches can make a great deal of difference. Usually in any given area there are certain sections which yield higher rf receive/compensate for interference. While on the roof use your handheld as a signal finder to aid in the placement on your antenna.