Scanner and Antenna Setup - Need Help Deciding

[Mattshoe]

This is my first topic here on Radio Reference.

I have an old Uniden / Bearcat 210, with the original ANT13 antenna and a 26" whip telescoping antenna that fits into the motorola connector on the back. I monitor 10 channels, ranging from my local PD/FD freqs and the Fire Department in which I volunteer for, which is about 10 miles away.

With the two antennas I have on now, along with the repeaters on the frequencies that I monitor, I can hear most of the transmissions; However, I cannot hear the portable radio transmissions from incidents that are about 10 miles away. I was looking into getting a Motorola Male to BNC Female connector, then purchasing a stronger BNC connector Antenna.

Is there any other way to getting better reception (10+ miles) besides upgrading my antennas, or even my scanner? Any feedback would be appreciated. I can provide pictures aswell.

 

[LtDoc]

The two things that will help more than anything are fairly simple, sort of. Using an antenna specifically for the frequencies of interest, and getting that antenna(s) as high as possible, preferably outside. The first one, antennas specifically for the frequencies of inters is the hardest one to do if those frequencies aren't at least in the same band. If they are, then an antenna for that band with some gain will usually 'fix' that as much as it can be fixed. At VHF/UHF, the higher the antenna the better. It will be able to 'see' a signal from further away (just like you on a ladder). There are practical limits to that height, and it's different for everyone. Something on the order of a 1/4 mile should be just great (RIGHT!).
And then you run into the fact that most HT's, the radios used on a fire scene, are very low powered thingys. You just won't hear them from further away. One reason for that is the type of antennas they use, those 'rubberducks' just are not very good antennas, they are only for very short ranges and convenience, not performance.
Hope that helps.
- 'Doc

 

[popnokick]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10A403 Safari/8536.25)

"Is there any other way to getting better reception (10+ miles) besides upgrading my antennas, or even my scanner?"
Not really. It may be old but the Bearcat 210 was a reasonably sensitive receiver. The best thing you can do for it is a better antenna. An outdoor antenna would be best, but here is something simple and inexpensive to try. If this doesn't improve reception enough for you, then you're headed for the roof. But the money and time spent to try are minimal:
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Homebrewed_Off-Center_Fed_Dipole
The 2nd version shown in the article is very simple and inexpensive to try.

 

[W8RMH]

In this case I don't think reception is the issue, but the ability of a 4 or 5 watt portable radio transmitting to a scanner 10 miles away.

 

[NYRHKY94]

Mattshoe:

Like the other guys have posted, this is probably not a reception issue that can be solved via a better antenna. Receiving transmissions from low power handhelds at a Fireground scene that far away (10 miles), is just not likely. I have a Scantenna mounted outside at 35' and I almost never can hear my local FD when they use handhelds at a FG scene, even from just a few miles away.

 

[popnokick]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10A403 Safari/8536.25)

Mattshoe- I do not disagree with the other replies that receiving handhelds at 10 miles is very unlikely (unless you live on a mountainside or high rise building overlooking the area where the handhelds are).
But my point is that ANY antenna is going to do better than the telescoping whips you're using. 1st choice should be an outdoor antenna. 2nd would be something inside...preferably attic, balcony, or window.

 

[kg4ojj]

Want to upgrade your existing or proposed listening station? Check your cables and connectors....

Other than height and on-frequency, tuned antennas, I can add the importance of the feedline to your list. There are numerous websites and signal-loss charts for a variety of cable/antenna wire/feedline. If you run the antenna to your roof and are listening to VHF (148-174 MHz), then you have minimal concern for feedline loss. However, even with UHF in the 400-500 MHz range, you can have a substantial loss of signal over a 25-foot run. Go higher in frequency and the loss is greater.

Two general rules of thumb on feedline: expect to pay $1 (or more) per foot; the thicker the better. Make sure it is 50 Ohms (or you get to match impedance, which is not fun for the general enthusiast). Also, triple-measure the amount you need....order it by the foot to your exact need. Wasted length is just that. Also, extra connectors or short pieces can "leak" RF and cause loss of signal.

I agree with others on the fireground stuff. Tough to pick up weak traffic (firefighter on scene with 5w portable at 6-foot tall and your antenna at home not much taller). One solution MAY be to use a directional antenna (e.g., Yagi made for that band) but you would have to know where the scene is to aim the receiving antenna. Amateur radio operators use roof or tower mounted antennas with rotators to improve their reception and transmission on the HF bands.

 

[ofd8001]

Other considerations for a scanner using an antenna connected directly to the scanner (versus an outside antenna), are these:
1. Is the scanner close to another source of RF, such as a computer, radio or television set? These things can de-sensitize the scanner ("de-sense").
2. If possible, move the scanner to different locations in your residence. Sometimes building construction materials (such as walls, brick, concrete) can soak up radio signals.
3. Also the time of year can play a role, indirectly. When there are leaves on trees, for example, they can soak up the radio signals from the source to your scanner. Meaning that in the winter you might hear things you might not during the summer.
4. Bear in mind that when the FCC re-banding kicks in this coming January, the Bearcat 210 won't receive re-banded signals as well as newer scanners will. Biggest difference will be in volume from what I've read elsewhere.

 

[LtDoc]

And just for grins and it doesn't cost much.
Throw a single conductor wire up on the roof/tree/whatever, run it down to a window to get inside to the scanner, and connect it to the antenna/input. You might be surprised at how it works. And then again, it may be worse than you'd believe. Got an old TV antenna up on that roof? I doubt it, but...
- 'Doc

 

[Mattshoe]

I appreciate all of your input. It would be somewhat difficult for me to run an antenna to my roof, but my attic is ready for anything.

I currently have my scanner next to my window, which is the closest area of my house that it can get to the area of transmissions.

The Frequencies that I am mainly trying to listen to include 154.280 , 470.762 , and MOST importantly, 153.950.


This is what I have to work with, including some cash for Radioshack:

- a 3-Way Cable Splitter, ranging from 5 to 1000mhz.
- About 50 Ft. Of regular Television cable
-The two antennas that are on the scanner itself.

 

[Mattshoe]

After taking a look at Radioshack's website, I thought of this:

Getting a Motorola > BNC adapter, then a 10' BNC > SO239 cable going to the outdoor antenna (shown on the website) which would be in my attic.

Feedback? If there is no hope in getting any better reception, even from Ambulance and Firetruck radios (transmissions to dispatch stating their status, etc.) , I will just go with a new scanner that will assist me in solving another issue (the scanner does not give enough decimal points, as one of my freqs is a four decimal, and the scanner only goes to three :/ ) .

 

[N5TWB]

Other considerations for a scanner using an antenna connected directly to the scanner (versus an outside antenna), are these:
1. Is the scanner close to another source of RF, such as a computer, radio or television set? These things can de-sensitize the scanner ("de-sense").
2. If possible, move the scanner to different locations in your residence. Sometimes building construction materials (such as walls, brick, concrete) can soak up radio signals.
3. Also the time of year can play a role, indirectly. When there are leaves on trees, for example, they can soak up the radio signals from the source to your scanner. Meaning that in the winter you might hear things you might not during the summer.
4. Bear in mind that when the FCC re-banding kicks in this coming January, the Bearcat 210 won't receive re-banded signals as well as newer scanners will. Biggest difference will be in volume from what I've read elsewhere.

@Mattshoe re: #4 above - "Rebanding" is not applicable to your frequencies of interest as that term only applies to the 800 MHz band. However, the term " narrow banding" does apply to your frequencies. The explanation provided is correct for that term. Check the RR Wiki for more detail on this. The first three considerations are right on the mark.

This is what I have to work with, including some cash for Radioshack:
- a 3-Way Cable Splitter, ranging from 5 to 1000mhz.
- About 50 Ft. Of regular Television cable
-The two antennas that are on the scanner itself.

My first suggestion for your Radio Shack purchases: Outdoor VHF-Hi/UHF Scanner Antenna : Scanner Antennas | RadioShack.com This is an outside antenna that can work very well for your frequencies of interest. Of course, you'll need other hardware to the actual mounting but you will have to determine those specifics.

Your cable can work but is not the best choice because it is 75-ohm cable and your receiver wants a 50-ohm cable. For receiving, this is not a major issue. If it has connectors, those will have to be discarded as they will not connect to either the antenna or the radio. I think you'll need a PL-259 for the antenna end (web listing not specific, I'm just making a guess from the photo) and the other end will required a PL-259 along with an adapter to be a Motorola plug for the BC210: UHF-to-Motorola-Type Scanner Adapter : Scanner Adapters | RadioShack.com Also, to make the PL-259 work with the RG59 cable, you'll need another adapter: UG-176 Reducer/Adapter (2-Pack) : Adapters | RadioShack.com With all of these, you then need to solder the connectors to the cable. If that is not in your skill set, seek out an experienced person, probably a ham or other electronics hobbyist.

I don't really have a good suggestion for your splitter as you don't need it right now. Keep it for a later use.

 

[Mattshoe]

My first suggestion for your Radio Shack purchases: Outdoor VHF-Hi/UHF Scanner Antenna : Scanner Antennas | RadioShack.com This is an outside antenna that can work very well for your frequencies of interest. Of course, you'll need other hardware to the actual mounting but you will have to determine those specifics.

Your cable can work but is not the best choice because it is 75-ohm cable and your receiver wants a 50-ohm cable. For receiving, this is not a major issue. If it has connectors, those will have to be discarded as they will not connect to either the antenna or the radio. I think you'll need a PL-259 for the antenna end (web listing not specific, I'm just making a guess from the photo) and the other end will required a PL-259 along with an adapter to be a Motorola plug for the BC210: UHF-to-Motorola-Type Scanner Adapter : Scanner Adapters | RadioShack.com Also, to make the PL-259 work with the RG59 cable, you'll need another adapter: UG-176 Reducer/Adapter (2-Pack) : Adapters | RadioShack.com With all of these, you then need to solder the connectors to the cable. If that is not in your skill set, seek out an experienced person, probably a ham or other electronics hobbyist.

Thank you for the swift response and great advice.
That antenna was the exact one that I was referring to, which will be the one that I'll use. The connector on it is a PL-259 / SO239 socket.
If possible, I'd rather get a motorola-to-BNC connector, then run the RG-59 cable from the window to my roof, where I can mount the antenna onto the trim with a U-Bolt. The cable would be connected to the antenna with a simple BNC-to-UHF scanner adapter.

 

[ofd8001]

Rebanding applies only to 800 frequencies? I thought it was spectrum wide. . .

Mattshoe: You might try adjusting the telescoping part of the antenna. I had one of those kind years ago. I was thinking the instructions showed different configurations for different frequency ranges. Antennas in attics work fine if you can't do outside. Like others say, get the best 50 ohm cable you can afford. Keep the run as short as you can.

I'd avoid splitters. I haven't had much luck with using one antenna for several devices. Every connector and each in-line thing is an opportunity for signal loss.

 

[MeddleMan]

All good suggestions

I have that scanner antenna from RS. Works well on those frequencies. Just adapt it appropriately, and it should do fine, if mounted outside. The others are right. The walkie-talkies are low powered. If your area goes trunked, that's new radios anyway, but it will then be easier to hear everyone anyway on the entire system. It will do all the work for you then and all you will need is a trunk-tracker scanner. I hope that your area doesn't go digital, because then they may encrypt comm's. That's a loss to me, because it's too expensive an investment by then.

 

[N5TWB]

Rebanding applies only to 800 frequencies? I thought it was spectrum wide. . .

Here's your sign:

Rebanding - The RadioReference Wiki

First line of the Wiki article: "Rebanding (also called Reconfiguration) refers to the changes within the 800 MHz band that are taking place nationwide."