Wireless Whip VHF antenna?

GKMonkey

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
1
So my question is, is it possible to have a normal Mag Mounted Whip antenna that can wirelessly send the signal back to a system? For example if I wanted to put this antenna up somewhere higher for better LOS but want to avoid wires and have this antenna send the signals it receives back to my computer and display it on SDR Sharp? I have been trying to find one online and have turned up empty handed so I was debating building one myself but want to make sure my idea in theory is even possible. The idea would probably use a form of BlueTooth or WiFi connection to send the information. If anyone has any thoughts, ideas, or has done this themselves please let me know.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,531
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
If I'm understanding you correctly, the answer is no.

You cannot take big sections of radio spectrum and compress it down into a data stream that would fit over Bluetooth or WiFi. Way too much data. It can be done on smaller scale over dedicated fiber optic links, but it's not cheap, and none of the systems I've seen would work for hobby type use.

What you can do is set up your SDR at a high site with a small computer to run the software and control it remotely.
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
9,447
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
It is physically impossible to remove the transmission line (coax) between an antenna and a radio and replace it with something else.
 

WB9YBM

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
1,300
Location
Niles, IL
So my question is, is it possible to have a normal Mag Mounted Whip antenna that can wirelessly send the signal back to a system? For example if I wanted to put this antenna up somewhere higher for better LOS but want to avoid wires and have this antenna send the signals it receives back to my computer and display it on SDR Sharp? I have been trying to find one online and have turned up empty handed so I was debating building one myself but want to make sure my idea in theory is even possible. The idea would probably use a form of BlueTooth or WiFi connection to send the information. If anyone has any thoughts, ideas, or has done this themselves please let me know.
It reminds me of a situation many years ago in California: they couldn't get television and AM/FM broadcast signals over some of the mountains to cities located in valleys (i.e. the area wanting to receive said signals was blocked from the transmitters by some high terrain). A type of repeater called a "translator" was used on top of the high terrain that had a broad-spectrum receiver on the TV frequencies (and/or the AM/FM broadcast band) and re-transmit these signals on different frequencies (i.e. "translate" the signals from one frequency to another) which were then sent to the receivers on the other side of the mountain.

It sounds similar to what you want to do (just that you're doing it on a smaller scale, if I understand it correctly). So, yes, it's not only possible but it's been done. But it ain't cheap!
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,531
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Translators used in those applications are not broadbanded. They are frequency specific. Often they are pulling signal off the air and rebroadcasting it on a different frequency, or they use a microwave link.
Receiving broadband signals and rebroadcasting them on the same frequencies would not work without a lot of physical separation.
 

WB9YBM

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
1,300
Location
Niles, IL
Translators used in those applications are not broadbanded. They are frequency specific. Often they are pulling signal off the air and rebroadcasting it on a different frequency, or they use a microwave link.
Receiving broadband signals and rebroadcasting them on the same frequencies would not work without a lot of physical separation.
thanks for the clarification! :)
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,531
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
thanks for the clarification! :)
You may have been thinking of a linear translator. Not a good choice in this application since there would be licensing issues involved.


I've got a remote receiver (40KHz - 3GHz+) at a high site at work that is remotely controlled over the internet. It's a fun tool to play with. Many modern spectrum analyzers have Ethernet connections that will allow this.
But a simple SDR with a small computer installed at a good location and with good antennas would be a good option. Cheaper than any other alternative. If the OP has access to a suitable site and it has an IP connection, that would be the way to go.
 

WB9YBM

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
1,300
Location
Niles, IL
I've got a remote receiver (40KHz - 3GHz+) at a high site at work that is remotely controlled over the internet. It's a fun tool to play with. Many modern spectrum analyzers have Ethernet connections that will allow this.
But a simple SDR with a small computer installed at a good location and with good antennas would be a good option. Cheaper than any other alternative. If the OP has access to a suitable site and it has an IP connection, that would be the way to go.
In some of the electronic part supplier catalogs (I think it was either Digi-Key or Jameco) I think they were advertising blue-tooth modules. I guess that can be seen as a lower-range, lower-tech version of what we're talking about--that approach might prove an interesting path for experimenting with this at least on a smaller scale...any thoughts?
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,531
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Bluetooth has less than 1mb of useable bandwidth, something in the 700Kb range. Would be fine for remote control of a SDR, but the range is usually really short. Bluetooth is usually said to have about 30 feet of range.
 

WB9YBM

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
1,300
Location
Niles, IL
Bluetooth has less than 1mb of useable bandwidth, something in the 700Kb range. Would be fine for remote control of a SDR, but the range is usually really short. Bluetooth is usually said to have about 30 feet of range.
I think there's a second type of bluetooth out there; I don't remember if I saw it in the FCC regs or in a parts catalog, but type two was rated at something like 300 foot range. (I wonder what cordless 'phones are rated at, range-wise and if they'd fall under the same rules as bluetooth or vice-versa?)
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,531
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
I think there's a second type of bluetooth out there; I don't remember if I saw it in the FCC regs or in a parts catalog, but type two was rated at something like 300 foot range. (I wonder what cordless 'phones are rated at, range-wise and if they'd fall under the same rules as bluetooth or vice-versa?)
Not sure, but if it was cordless phones and 300 feet, it may have been DECT.
 

Mike_G_D

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,136
Location
Vista, CA
Having worked on Bluetooth designs in the early days of the standard I can say that there are indeed multiple versions with some denoting higher power for longer range uses. Take a look at the Wikipedia Bluetooth info and you will see a table showing various range "Classes".

Class 3 is typical for low power very short range uses like wireless keyboards and mice, printers, etc. Range for this is about 1 meter or about 3 feet.

Class 1 has higher power and can potentially go for approx. 100 meters or so or about 330 feet.

Having said that, I kind of wonder if the OP is one of those "modern digital tech affeciandos" who believe that "wireless" is something completely separate and distinct from "radio" with "wireless" being a magical modern digital way of avoiding wires while "radio" was that old scratchy noisy method grandpa used to talk about using back when they were running around chasing mammoths for the tribal dinner. You know, pretty much anything before 1995 is prehistory.

And including "radios" in cars is just an ancient tradition of paying respect to our distant ancestors.

Sorry but I really have encountered that kind of mindset! Non-technically proficient folks, and even some IT folks seem to not understand that "wireless", for all practical purposes, is usually "radio" unless it's optical, induction, or ultrasonic.

Outside of high value research labs (maybe "neutrino" or quantum entanglement?), for practical you can buy it on Amazon or at Best Buy "wireless" methods they involve those common three methodologies: radio, optical, or ultrasonic and sometimes induction like near field devices.

I always found it funny - back in the early days of radio development back in the late 19th and early 20th century it was common to call it "Wireless" until later when "radio" was the more "fashionable" and modern term for the technology. Then, after 802.11 WiFi started to take off followed by Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc., "radio" just sounded too "analog" and old fashioned so the term "wireless" was "re-discovered" and became the modern "digital" "In" phraseology for what is really just good old "radio" wrapped up in a cozy more digitally aesthetically pleasing package!

So, maybe not, but it might have been the case that the OP thought that it would be cool and simple to "wirelessly" connect an old fashioned analog "radio antenna" to a modern computer with an SDR.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

p1879

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
195
Amen Mike, the vocabulary evolution is just as you say, and many lack any appreciation for the revered past of radio. Finessing free OTA TV for people is a little hobby of mine, a free gift I can give someone that keeps giving. I know a lot of people 40 and below that just can't understand it--"not satellite or cable?"-- they exclaim, "free tv?". And they have a fear or disdain of any efficient antenna system; they worship the false tech god of the compromise flat panel and then denounce OTA TV as poor, if you can get them to try at all. In there world, small and sleek is the only thing; decor over performance.

Maybe someone here can give me some guidance: where on RR to discuss the compact yagi and other designs for OTA TV? Would "Off Topic Wireless" be the place?

great day to all,
p1879
 

WB9YBM

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
1,300
Location
Niles, IL
Having worked on Bluetooth designs in the early days of the standard I can say that there are indeed multiple versions with some denoting higher power for longer range uses. Take a look at the Wikipedia Bluetooth info and you will see a table showing various range "Classes".
Yeah, I think that's where I got my info from...
 
Top