So I need more than one antenna?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
308
Location
Chicago
I have a Pro97...in order to receive all the frequencies that it can tune to clearly, I need more than one antenna, correct? Does there an exist some multi-purpose 'all-in-one' antenna which can be configured for Marine/CB/Aircraft/Ham etc. operation with a little modification?

...or will I just need 5 scanners, each with a different antenna, and only tuned to the range of interest?
 

Don_Burke

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,184
Location
Southeastern Virginia
wannabescannist said:
I have a Pro97...in order to receive all the frequencies that it can tune to clearly, I need more than one antenna, correct? Does there an exist some multi-purpose 'all-in-one' antenna which can be configured for Marine/CB/Aircraft/Ham etc. operation with a little modification?

...or will I just need 5 scanners, each with a different antenna, and only tuned to the range of interest?
Try the stock antenna first and work from there.
 

k9rzz

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
3,162
Location
Milwaukee, WI
wannabescannist said:
That's what I've been using...only seems to get good reception in the 150s and 450s.

What have to tried to hear but couldn't?

That antenna on the scanner should be decent enough for all the frequencies the radio covers. Better on some than others, but you should hear _something_ everywhere.

John K9RZZ
 

W4KRR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 1, 2001
Messages
3,517
Location
Coconut Creek
wannabescannist said:
I have a Pro97...in order to receive all the frequencies that it can tune to clearly, I need more than one antenna, correct? Does there an exist some multi-purpose 'all-in-one' antenna which can be configured for Marine/CB/Aircraft/Ham etc. operation with a little modification?

...or will I just need 5 scanners, each with a different antenna, and only tuned to the range of interest?

Are you talking about an antenna that attaches directly to the scanner, or a base antenna, or a mobile antenna?

Scanners cover a wide range of frequencies, and it's difficult to find a single antenna that works equally well on all frequencies. The idea for a seperate antenna for each band is good, but it's not practical. It's best to have an antenna that matches the frequency or range of frequencies of interest. The more frequencies or bands, the harder it becomes to find an antenna that does well on all frequencies or bands of interest.

To keep it short:

Base station: Get a good discone, like the one made by Diamond. Or the Scantenna. Feed it with low loss coax cable, like RG-6U or, better still, Times Microwave LMR-400.

Mobile: Larsen 150450800, or Austin Spectra.

Hand Held: Diamond RH77CA, or Radio Shack 800MHz scanner antenna, or Austin Condor, or Radio Shack telescoping BNC antenna.
 

Universaldecoder

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
405
Location
Michigan
If you want an all-in-one antenna....then your best bet would be a telescoping type.
There is a formula that tells you how long the antenna needs to be for the frequency you are trying to receive. Here is the formula for adjusting a telescoping antenna to a 1/4 of a given frequency's wave.....1/4 wave.

2843/Freq in mHz = Antenna Length in inches, so if you wanted to tune your telescoping antenna to listen to let say 155 mhz...then

2843/155 mhz = 18.43 inches, thus you'd need to adjust your telescoping antenna 18.43 inches.

(Hint: To make a longer antenna shorter....you coil sections of it...think pig tail covered in plastic).

Now, some people will state that you need this level of detail only when transmitting, but I will bet my own $1.00 that it does make a difference on receive also. Why do you think they make so many darn rubber ducky antennas! This is my analogy (maybe someone can correct me if I'm way off) - A wave is just that....a wave. Electromagnetic emissions from a transmitter travel through space in a wave pattern.....think ocean wave. It has a peak, and a trough. You want an antenna that can catch this wave (- a 1/4, 1/2, 5/8 or full will work also). Let's take an 800 mhz emission. It's full wave is 14.3" tall.
So you want an antenna that is 14.3" tall to catch this wave. If you take let's say a 73.2" antenna instead, thinking longer/bigger is better.....think again. A 73" antenna will be optimized to catch a 155 mhz wave. So guess what! That 800 mhz signal your trying to catch will be drowned out by any 155 mhz wave (plus any other wave down) or there abouts being transmitted. You say there aren't any??? Think again. The space around you...although it may visual seem empty is loaded with all sorts of emissions awaiting to stick themselves onto some antenna. So there you are....you've got a 73.2" antenna hooked up to your scanner, and you've just dialed in 802 mhz. Now your wondering why what your getting sounds so faint? It's because that 73.2" antenna is catching all the 155 mhz (+ everything else inbetween) transmissions like a fly paper is to your fingers.

It works the other way around too. Let's now take a pare of nippers, and trim off just enough to bring that 73.2" antenna down to 14.3".....and switch the scanner to 155 mhz. Whoa! What happened. I still can't hear s***. That's because you can't catch a 73.2" electromagnetic wave with a 14.3" antenna, silly.

Well, I hope I confused you more.

The cons of the telescoping antenna is durability. They are more prone to breaking. It takes only the weight of your hand held to bend the tip of a $35.00 Comet Telescoping antenna. In addition, after extended use they tend to slip at the sections. Watson, Diamond, Comet, Radio Shack, Antennex...etc...all make one. The more expensive ones have little adjustment guides printed right near the bottom.

You can also try to make your own. All you need is a soldering gun, a BNC/SMA connector that will allow you to solder on a whip. Cut the whip using the formula above, and solder onto the connector. Walla! Now you got the receipe to make hundreds of your own antennas...Each one less then $10 to make (including labor and materials).

As an example, I have the following:

1. Comet HT-55: Wideband received but tuned for 155mhz/450mhz...8.75 inches long and flexible
2. Comet SMA-503: Wideband receive but tuned for 144mhz/420mhz...8.5 inches long and flexible
3. Radio Shack 2000-06 Telescoping: Wideband recieve - adjustable using formula above
4. Radio Shack 800 mhz: For Apco25/Mot/Edacs/Trunking...etc systems
5. 800mhz Cellphone Antenna: Uses N to BNC adapter; Old antenna from 1980's; 5 db; works great, but cheaply made and is held together with
electrical tape. Found it at a now defunct electronics parts store (the real kind....not like Rat Shack).
6. Comet MH-255: For monitoring at events (Sports Games, Race Track, Air Shows, Boat Shows, Expos....etc).
7. SMA-501 and CH32: For VX5r HT
8. RH77CA: For VX5r HT
9. VX5r Stock Antenna: Provides 6m for Vx5r
10. Piece of TV antenna cable with an SMA: Known as a J-pole; VX5r use

I just picked up a Comet/Maldol AL-500 (SMA) that is specifically tuned for Air bands. It's flexible, but somewhat fragile. 20" long, so it's not real portable.

I like antenna's and for me it's one of my primary interests in this hobby. All that stuff above fits into a backpack that I carry with me. I'll post some pics when I get a chance under "Pictures Of Your Shack/Mobile Setup" forum.

Finally, I have two scanners that I use often...BC246T (VHF/UHF monitoring) and a BCD396T (Trunk Tracking Monitoring). I usually have both on at the same time. I have 3 more, but I bought them out of curiosity if anything else. Don't use them much...two are in a state of repair, and the last one needs a pc to run.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
308
Location
Chicago
Would it be pointless to have the 800MHz antenna and a telescoping antenna? Can the 800MHz perform better than the telescoping extended to the right length?

Thanks Universaldecoder for that long block of text, I like reading.

Don_Burke said:
What are you interested in?

Anything I don't already know is there....
 

Don_Burke

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,184
Location
Southeastern Virginia
wannabescannist said:
Would it be pointless to have the 800MHz antenna and a telescoping antenna? Can the 800MHz perform better than the telescoping extended to the right length?
I do not think I can get my telescoping antenna short enough to be resonant at 800, so I have both.

My collection is:
- stock Pro-97
- 800 MHz Radio Shack
- telescoping Radio Shack
- stubby racing Radio Shack

I use them all and sometimes use my ham 6meter/2meter/70cm tribander for better performance on VHF low.

I think my next base antenna project will be a discone cut for CB frequencies so I can use one antenna for CB, ten meters, VHF low, and maybe six and two meters.
 

Universaldecoder

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
405
Location
Michigan
wannabescannist said:
Would it be pointless to have the 800MHz antenna and a telescoping antenna? Can the 800MHz perform better than the telescoping extended to the right length?

1. No - If you intend to carry the scanner about....get the 800 mhz duck...
2. No - It can perform (in regards to reception) just as good, or worse.

With the Radio Shack 2000-06 it's difficult to know what your getting because of the loading coil. There is no published spec on what "value" of length it adds. So in the manual they just provide a table that states extend 1-3 lower sections for reception between 220 to 1296 mhz. The rest is for you to find out by fiddling.
 

orbital

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
192
Location
North Carolina
Universaldecoder,

1. Comet HT-55: Wideband received but tuned for 155mhz/450mhz...8.75 inches long and flexible

I like listen to ( 2 meter ) a lot. So the Comet HT-55 won't do anything below 155?
The 2 meter I listen to is 145.3500 and above.

I have a BC246T and currently using the factory antenna it came with.
Looking for a good replacement though.

Thinking I'll be picking up a RS800
Still looking for a good 2 meter antenna though
 
Last edited:

Universaldecoder

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
405
Location
Michigan
orbital said:
Universaldecoder,

1. Comet HT-55: Wideband received but tuned for 155mhz/450mhz...8.75 inches long and flexible

I like listen to ( 2 meter ) a lot. So the Comet HT-55 won't do anything below 155?
The 2 meter I listen to is 145.3500 and above.

I have a BC246T and currently using the factory antenna it came with.
Looking for a good replacement though.

Thinking I'll be picking up a RS800
Still looking for a good 2 meter antenna though

The 2m/440 version of the HT-55 is the SMA-503...unfortunenately it uses an SMA connector...you'll need an adapter to use it on your 246t. Below are others very much like it with BNC's.

Diamond RH519
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3773

Diamond SRH519 (SMA Version of the above: More reviews on this, but essentially same antenna as above)
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1774

Diamond RH536 (Similar to the above but 15" length)
No reviews. This one will probably give you similar results to the RH77CA, but in a thinner and lighter package.

MFJ 1715
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/6476

There are probably others....check out
http://www.eham.net/reviews/products/37

....for more reviews on 2m antennas of all sorts....go with the ones people use on those tiny 2m HT's. Stay away from CH32's, 501's, RH3's, Small Wonders...etc.....they're made more for transmitting then long distance receiving (Not enough surface area exposed to catch that wave, much if not all of the antenna is nothing more than a thin wire coil).
 
Last edited:

orbital

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
192
Location
North Carolina
Universaldecoder said:
The 2m/440 version of the HT-55 is the SMA-503...unfortunenately it uses an SMA connector...you'll need an adapter to use it on your 246t. Below are others very much like it with BNC's.

Diamond RH519
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3773


....for more reviews on 2m antennas of all sorts....go with the ones people use on those tiny 2m HT's. Stay away from CH32's, 501's, RH3's, Small Wonders...etc.....they're made more for transmitting then long distance receiving (Not enough surface area exposed to catch that wave, much if not all of the antenna is nothing more than a thin wire coil).

The Diamond RH519 looks pretty nice. Is there a difference between the Diamond RH519 and the Diamond RH77CA?
I know there is a height difference, the RH77CA is a lot taller.

rh519ck6.jpg
__________
rh77cain9.jpg
 
Last edited:

Universaldecoder

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
405
Location
Michigan
orbital said:
The Diamond RH519 looks pretty nice. Is there a difference between the Diamond RH519 and the Diamond RH77CA?
I know there is a height difference, the RH77CA is a lot taller.

rh519ck6.jpg
__________
rh77cain9.jpg

Checkout their RH536. It's the near equivalent of the RH77CA. At lengths like this, these thin light antennas get real whippy, so be careful you don't poke yourself in the eye when walking around. Don't know if this one is available where you are, so try contacting the distributor..

http://www.rfparts.com/diamond/contact.html

Here is the manufacturer's website:
http://www.diamond-ant.jp/eng_index.asp

Just an added note that this antenna will have a narrower bandwidth, and so you may not get out of tune frequencies like the RH77CA. For example, 155mhz may not come in as clearly.
 
Last edited:

Universaldecoder

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
405
Location
Michigan
A good cook is hard to come by.......

orbital said:
The Diamond RH519 looks pretty nice. Is there a difference between the Diamond RH519 and the Diamond RH77CA?
I know there is a height difference, the RH77CA is a lot taller.

For this type of an antenna, in my opinion......

1. It should be tuned to the frequency of your interest...this will have an affect on the clarity of what you are trying to receive.
2. You want it as long as possible...however....
2a. the length should be 1/4 or 1/2 or 5/8 or "Full" of the frequency's wave. A "FULL" will out
do a 5/8, a 5/8 will out do a 1/2, a 1/2 will out do a 1/4 in the distance of what you are trying to receive....
3. It's diameter should be based on what you plan on sending and receiving...since diameter determines bandwidth (the range of frequencies surrounding a center frequency).
4. A loading coil is used primarily for physically shortening an antenna and helping it maintain its "tuned" frequency (which results in a good SWR - Standing Wave Ratio for the transmitter) . Coils are used primarily for transmitting. Coils in my opinion can hurt long distance reception - but I admit, I'm not sure about this because at the same time it'll keep you in "tune". I do know from experience that a coil just itself sucks at long distance reception...see Comet CH32.

Above is why the RCH77A is so good. Diamond came the closest to getting the reciepe right for amateurs. Now if they could make it half the weight.....and a two piece design (for storage)...it would be perfect for the newer generation of tiny scanners and ht's (handheld transcievers).

Just a bridge.....

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63156
 
Last edited:

orbital

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
192
Location
North Carolina
I see........ so the reason why a K40 has a coil is to make it emulate a 102" still whip.
The coils give it that tune of not having the true length. that's why it picks up those freqs.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
308
Location
Chicago
Well, I've went and upgraded...grabbed the telescoping and the 800MHz...

Result....big difference! I've actually done some 'scanning' instead of numeric programming! Found some stuff in the Ham ranges (random people talking to one another), heard some guy talking on CB, and heard something in the Aircraft 120s range (though it really sounded like a TV channel and not conversation). Even got some activity as high as 1.2GHz (sounded like a TV channel also). Replaced the antenna with the stock antenna....nothing. So I guess I'm a firm believer in not all antennas are created alike.

800MHz antenna...not that much of a difference. Higher S/N ratio on frequencies there was a lot of static, but those that didn't have that much static, no significant improvement. So it's helped me receive those poor stations better but not much so for the stations where the signal was already ok.

Question: if antenna length should be a multiple of the wavelength, how is it that you can run a long cord from your antenna to the actual connector on your device and that length of cord not be factored into the whole equation (or is it?)?
 

Universaldecoder

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
405
Location
Michigan
Walla!

Wannabe,

Too many people make it sound so complicated....just remember.....ocean waves and a stick. All you need is a stick tall enough to match that incoming wave. The thicker the stick the more wave you'll catch... ;-)

To answer your question, the cable is shielded. The cut of point for reception is at the base of where your antenna butts up against its own connector. From then on it is shielded from receiving anything further, and this goes all the way into where it enters your radio. What you do get is signal loss from the distance....errr length of cable....especially with cheaply made co-ax.

Try connecting a bare wire from your base antenna to your scanner...25 ft, 30ft....etc....how ever long it takes, and see what kinda stuff you get at 800 mhz.

So that's three antennas and counting....hahaha.....
 
Last edited:

sjcscanner

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
511
i got that antenna and it improved my listening distance tremendously
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top