From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 04:41:13 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (jeboyd) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:41:13 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) Message-ID: <001201c2141e$82819520$adc4fea9@computer> Dear Group, I'm new to this group and was wondering, if a person wanted to go "big time" and put up a big antenna for scanning, what would it be? And where could I get it? Thanks Jim From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 04:47:14 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (scanner@mailman.qth.net) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:47:14 EDT Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) Message-ID: <19d.3c5ce8a.2a3c12c2@aol.com> In a message dated 6/14/2002 9:41:45 PM Mountain Daylight Time, jeboyd@ussonet.net writes: > I'm new to this group and was wondering, if a person wanted to go "big time" > and put up a big antenna for scanning, what would it be? And where could I > get it? > I believe Grove's Scanner Beam is considered a very good one for outdoor use. Ken ---------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Wyatt Nature Photography Woodland Park, Colorado www.wyattphoto.com <>< Wise men still seek Him. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. Please post in Plain-Text only.--- From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 14:58:11 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:58:11 -0500 Subject: Fw: [Scanner] (no subject) Message-ID: > From: "jeboyd" > > > Dear Group, > > I'm new to this group and was wondering, if a person wanted to go "big > time" > > and put up a big antenna for scanning, what would it be? And where could > I > > get it? > > > Mike wrote > > It is my opinion that probably one of the best antennas you can use for a > scanner is just about any dual band V/UHF amateur radio antenna. I use my > Comet GP-9 on my scanner occasionally with more than excellent results. Now > if you are wanting to include the VHF-Lo frequencies 30-50 mHz I would use > the Comet GP-15 which is for the 6/2/.7 meter ham bands. For all around > good coverage the discone antenna's are quite good too, they just don't > offer any gain. My personal opinion on any type of Yagi/Quad/LPDA for > scanners is pretty much a waste of money unless there is something specific > you need to monitor that is outside the reach of an omni or you need the F/B > ratio that a beam will provide. > > The internet is loaded with sites to spend your money however I'd use either > AES, HRO. > > Links on my web-site http://www.ka5cvh.com/dealers.htm > > Mike Urich, KA5CVH > www.ka5cvh.com > LaPorte TX EL-29 > > Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! > From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 16:09:18 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (scanner@mailman.qth.net) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:09:18 EDT Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) Message-ID: <175.9c79e3a.2a3cb29e@aol.com> > eboyd@ussonet.net writes: > I'm new to this group and was wondering, if a person wanted to go "big > time" and put up a big antenna for scanning, what would it be? And where could > I get it? > Wa6tty@aol.com helpfully replied: > I believe Grove's Scanner Beam is considered a very good one for outdoor use. > To which I add: Not a bad choice, but the Beam is of course directional. A better choice might be the Scantenna. It is wide-band, omnidirectional, throws a lot of metal at the signal (almost 7 feet long), and sturdy. Grove sells it, and Radio Shack sells a look-alike. AL STERN Satellite Beach FL From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 19:31:57 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:31:57 -0500 Subject: Fw: [Scanner] (no subject) Message-ID: From: > A better choice > might be the Scantenna. It is wide-band, omnidirectional, throws a lot of > metal at the signal (almost 7 feet long), and sturdy. Grove sells it, and > Radio Shack sells a look-alike. Mike wrote I'm sorry but I must disagree, "throws a lot of metal at the signal" doesn't mean a thing if its not properly designed & tuned. The original post was specifically referring to investing in a good antenna, go "big time", is how I believe it was phrased. The Scantenna, IMHO, (in my humble opinion) is a very low quality, entry level antenna. This does not mean that its a "BAD" antenna per se. It is however, nothing more than a few vertical dipoles with a common feed point. And if they haven't improved on it, to me is seems like nothing more that a cheap TV antenna. For a few bucks more you can, not just buy, but "INVEST" in a Comet, Diamond, Hy-Gain, Cushcraft or even MFJ for that matter that will not only be an excellent scanner antenna but can be used to transmit on the V/UHF ham bands as well. And if you ever desire to sell it, has a much better return on your investment. Prior to becoming a ham I always used and advised others to use ham V/UHF antennas for my/their scanners and I have learned over the past 25-30 years that was always a good decision. The reason I feel so strongly about using ham radio antennas is simply this. Look at the band allocation for V/UHF ham radio. http://www.ka5cvh.com/scan/bandplan2.htm Look at where most of the public service agencies are on the same bands. They are almost right next to one another and the less expensive ham antennas are broadband enough to be more than adequate on the public service bands. Here's a few that I would consider for a good scanner antenna. Also read my article on line of sight http://www.ka5cvh.com/scan/linesite.htm http://www.cometantenna.com/ Look at the GP-3 ~ $100 http://www.cushcraft.com/amateur/thumbs.asp Look at the AR270 ~ $100 http://www.rfparts.com/diamond/ Look at the X50A ~ $110 http://www.hy-gain.com/hy-gain/products.php?catid=7 Look at V42R a little more pricey ~ $150 http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?catid=3 Look at the MFJ 1524 ~ $90 Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! * * * * My original post It is my opinion that probably one of the best antennas you can use for a scanner is just about any dual band V/UHF amateur radio antenna. I use my Comet GP-9 on my scanner occasionally with more than excellent results. Now if you are wanting to include the VHF-Lo frequencies 30-50 mHz I would use the Comet GP-15 which is for the 6/2/.7 meter ham bands. For all around good coverage the discone antenna's are quite good too, they just don't offer any gain. My personal opinion on any type of Yagi/Quad/LPDA for scanners is pretty much a waste of money unless there is something specific you need to monitor that is outside the reach of an omni or you need the F/B ratio that a beam will provide. The internet is loaded with sites to spend your money however I'd use either AES, HRO. Links on my web-site http://www.ka5cvh.com/dealers.htm From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 22:05:16 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (John Jensen) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:05:16 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) References: Message-ID: <014a01c214b0$596b5080$9c00a8c0@john> Mike but do these VHF/UHF antenna's cover a 800 mhz sysytem the VHF/UHF for ham bands cover 146 and 440 so tell me how that is gonna give good coverage for 800 mhz. Just a good question in my mind. ******************************************************* John Jensen KB9KQN Woodstock,IL WXWARN1 - Get your free 5 day trial today. http://www.wxwarn1.com Proud Member Of: ILCHASE: http://www.ilchase.org INCHASE: http://www.inchase.org WICHASE: http://www.wichase.com WEATHERFUN: http://www.weatherfun.net ******************************************************* From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 22:36:13 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (anthony costa) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Scanner] advice on a good ht antenna Message-ID: <007101c214b4$ac8bb120$1a337841@default> I have a radio shack pro 91.I listen mainly around the 800-900 mhz = freq,I now use a telescopic antenna in the retracted position.6" in = height.the signal's are in and out.Now on the vhf freq's it has great = sensitivity,But i listen mainly on 800 mhz.any good ht antenna's for = this band?? anthony k2vi --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. Please post in Plain-Text only.--- From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 23:41:39 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:41:39 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) References: <014a01c214b0$596b5080$9c00a8c0@john> Message-ID: From: "John Jensen" > Mike but do these VHF/UHF antenna's cover a 800 mhz sysytem the VHF/UHF for > ham bands cover 146 and 440 so tell me how that is gonna give good coverage > for 800 mhz. Just a good question in my mind. Mike wrote This is way too easy ... ever use a 40 meter dipole on 15 meters? Harmonic's ... radio 101 made real simple ... Q) What's the second harmonic of 420-450 mHz? A) 840-900 mHz. Q)What's the third harmonic? A) 1.26-1.35 gHz. Q) Do these look familiar? (tongue in cheek not sarcastic) Granted you will get a little mismatch at the second harmonic but not enough to be concerned about for a scanner. Besides most of what is monitored on 800-956 is going to be repeater outputs ... very little low power or simplex work. If you need high gain on 800-900 then I'd go with the Antenna Specialists repeater antennas. A little pricey for a 800 mHz mono band antenna but worth it if you're looking for high gain and great quality. Something I was hoping some would ask but hasn't ... feedline anyone? What are you going to hook it up with? Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sat Jun 15 23:46:18 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:46:18 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] advice on a good ht antenna References: <007101c214b4$ac8bb120$1a337841@default> Message-ID: From: "anthony costa" I have a radio shack pro 91.I listen mainly around the 800-900 mhz freq,I now use a telescopic antenna in the retracted position.6" in height.the signal's are in and out.Now on the vhf freq's it has great sensitivity,But i listen mainly on 800 mhz.any good ht antenna's for this band?? Mike wrote I only monitor VHF-hi on my handheld scanner and I use a Larson mono-band 2 meter duckie. I'm assuming that a BNC connector on the duckie ... if so see if Motorola or someone makes a gain type duckie for their 2 way's with a BNC for 800 mHz. Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 00:54:57 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (scanner@mailman.qth.net) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:54:57 EDT Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) Message-ID: <12.20bc2ce3.2a3d2dd1@aol.com> In a message dated 6/15/2002 9:11:04 AM Mountain Daylight Time, AllanStern@aol.com writes: > A better choice > might be the Scantenna. That's nactually the one I had in mind! Thanks, Ken ---------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Wyatt Nature Photography Woodland Park, Colorado www.wyattphoto.com <>< Wise men still seek Him. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. Please post in Plain-Text only.--- From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 01:12:12 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Andrew Weyant) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:12:12 -0400 Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) References: <014a01c214b0$596b5080$9c00a8c0@john> Message-ID: <3D0BD7DA.D5CB9FE7@warwick.net> Hello Guys. I listen to a lot of 800 mhz with my scanner. By far the best antenna that I have purchased and now use for this band is the Max 800 antenna. It is cut specifically for the 800 - 900mhz band. It has 3 ground radials that just suck the signals in. And a bnc connector is attached via a short piece of 3/8 in hard line. This is the best investment I've made since I started scanning. The antenna can be had from these two places, that I know of. Good luck. Andy Weyant http://www.shomertec.com/item.cfm?variable=189 http://www.grove-ent.com/ Mike Urich wrote: > From: "John Jensen" > > > Mike but do these VHF/UHF antenna's cover a 800 mhz sysytem the VHF/UHF > for > > ham bands cover 146 and 440 so tell me how that is gonna give good > coverage > > for 800 mhz. Just a good question in my mind. > > Mike wrote > > This is way too easy ... ever use a 40 meter dipole on 15 meters? > Harmonic's ... radio 101 made real simple ... > > Q) What's the second harmonic of 420-450 mHz? > A) 840-900 mHz. > > Q)What's the third harmonic? > A) 1.26-1.35 gHz. > > Q) Do these look familiar? (tongue in cheek not sarcastic) > > Granted you will get a little mismatch at the second harmonic but not enough > to be concerned about for a scanner. Besides most of what is monitored on > 800-956 is going to be repeater outputs ... very little low power or simplex > work. If you need high gain on 800-900 then I'd go with the Antenna > Specialists repeater antennas. A little pricey for a 800 mHz mono band > antenna but worth it if you're looking for high gain and great quality. > > Something I was hoping some would ask but hasn't ... feedline anyone? What > are you going to hook it up with? > > Mike Urich, KA5CVH > www.ka5cvh.com > LaPorte TX EL-29 > > Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! > _______________________________________________ > Scanner mailing list > Scanner@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 01:46:52 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Edmund F Leavitt) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:46:52 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas Message-ID: <20020615.174806.1872.1.ed.leavitt@juno.com> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:46:18 -0500 "Mike Urich" writes: > From: "anthony costa" > > I have a radio shack pro 91.I listen mainly around the 800-900 mhz > freq,I > now use a telescopic antenna in the retracted position.6" in > height.the > signal's are in and out.Now on the vhf freq's it has great > sensitivity,But i > listen mainly on 800 mhz.any good ht antenna's for this band?? > > **************************************************************** Regarding "rubber duck" antennas: Based on those I've seen, the antenna supplied with most scanners are resonant at approximately 153 Megahertz. Considering how devoted the owners who show up here are to using their devices predominately for UHF, I am forced to wonder what the decision process was to market them with a VHF antenna. Regarding selecting a better flexible antenna, the following are some generalities about "rubber duckie antennas" and a simple performance test worth trying. 1. The lower the desired frequency, the harder it is to make a "rubber duck antenna" appear resonant, and the bigger the compromise such an antenna constitutes. Conversely, the higher you go in frequency (within reason) the easier it is to manufacture a credible antenna and then cover it with rubber. A mentor of mine told me decades ago that "A rubber duck antenna is 3 dB better than a dead short." Another used to say "A rubber duck is a radiating dummy load." I certainly would not quibble with either until you get up to around 800 megahertz. The point is that for VHF the difference in performance between a rubber duck and a real antenna can be quite substantial. However, in the lower and mid-UHF part of the band, a rubber duck may actually be a real antenna disguised by a coat or rubber. 2. Several generalizations worth considering when choosing an antenna: a. Performance of any quarter wave antenna is dependant upon the groundplane to which it is referenced or attached. The chassis of a hand held radio, is generally too small to make a good ground plane. b. A vertical 5/8 wavelength antenna exhibits gain (relative to a quarter wave antenna, and TOWARD THE HORIZON) when used with a proper ground plane. Without a good ground plane, a 5/8 wave antenna should be suspect. c. A half wave antenna is generally able to perform well, independent of a ground plane, making it desirable for use on hand held devices. (Another place this comes in handy is for mounting on fiberglass roofs of travel trailers and the like.) Typical designs include end fed coil matched "whips", and at higher frequencies, center fed "coaxial" or "sleeve" antennas. [As an aside: If you've ever wonder how long is a half wave antenna, the math is simple...divide 150 by the frequency in MHz and you have the approximate length of a half wavelength IN METERS. If you are more comfortable with inches, you can approximate by multiplying meters times 39. eg. 150/900 MHz = 0.16 meters or about 6 1/2 inches. That says that if you are looking for a half wave antenna, expect it to be about one meter long for 150 MHz, 0.3 meters or 30 centimeters long at 450 MHz, around 18 centimeters for Cellular/Trunked freqs, and around 16 centimeters for 900 MHz.] 3. "Coaxial" design antennas are quite common for UHF 800 and 900 systems, and perform well. They are generally easy to recognize because they reduce diameter above the midpoint of the antenna body. (Some VHF flex antennas combine a helical wound base with a slimmer top element, and look similar. Usually the transition from thick to thin occurs in the bottom third of the antenna. If you find an 800 MHz antenna with the diameter change, it is almost certainly a coaxial or "sleeve" design, and should be a decent performer.) Recommendations: a. If you are receiving the stations in your area well with whatever you presently use, be happy...invest your money in the stock market. If you need better, buy better. b. If you use the factory rubber duck a lot, recognize that it is designed to work fairly well in the 153 MHz range. Consider buying one(s) designed specifically for the frequency ranges you like. Same comment applies for mobile antennas. With either, it's probably reasonable to ignore the difference between a cellular (824-896 MHz) antenna, an "800" (806-866 MHz) antenna, and a "900" (865-965 MHz) antenna. The profusion of cellphones probably makes mobile cell antennas the easiest to find and the cheapest to afford. c. Want to play around to see just how foul that fowl antenna is? Find a weak station in the 860 part of the band using your factory rubber duck antenna. Listen with the squelch open or just barely closed. Cut a paper clip to 3 3/4 inches in length (approximating a 1/4 wavelength antenna at 860 MHz). Make sure there are no jagged ends on the paper clip that could damage the radio's BNC contacts. While monitoring a weak conversation, carefully replace the duck with the paper clip, by inserting the end of the clip into the center contacts of the BNC connector. Let go of the paper clip. Also, be certain not to change the radio's position when you switch back and forth. If the duck works consistently as well or better, keep it. If the 1/4 wavelength paper clip works consistently better, I would consider shopping for a UHF antenna. Splurge on a half wave 800 MHz rubber duck. It will probably be worth the bucks. Does this procedure sound too simple and too crude to be meaningful? It is not. I'd be interested to hear from a few users how their factory ducks stand up against the 1/4 clip. *************************************************************** Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 Ham/MARS/SHARES: KA7UKN / AFA5AH / KPS654 Lakewood, WA N 47� 09' W122� 31' From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 02:09:39 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:09:39 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas References: <20020615.174806.1872.1.ed.leavitt@juno.com> Message-ID: From: "Edmund F Leavitt" > Recommendations: > If the 1/4 wavelength paper clip works consistently better, I would > consider shopping for a UHF antenna. Splurge on a half wave 800 MHz > rubber duck. It will probably be worth the bucks. Does this procedure > sound too simple and too crude to be meaningful? It is not. I'd be > interested to hear from a few users how their factory ducks stand up > against the 1/4 clip. Mike wrote Good advise Edmund. Like you I want the best bang for the buck. I have made a few antennas for specific freq's by taking BNC connectors for cable, getting a piece of piano wire, .020" I believe, (measure the center pin on yours if you wish to try this), cutting it to proper length using shrink wrap as an insulator and assembling the connector over the rod. Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 02:16:20 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (anthony costa) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Scanner] advice on a good ht antenna References: <007101c214b4$ac8bb120$1a337841@default> Message-ID: <026b01c214d3$6cdbe300$1a337841@default> why didn't i think of that...?thank's mike that seem's like the best way to go.motorola. anthony c ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Urich" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [Scanner] advice on a good ht antenna > From: "anthony costa" > > I have a radio shack pro 91.I listen mainly around the 800-900 mhz freq,I > now use a telescopic antenna in the retracted position.6" in height.the > signal's are in and out.Now on the vhf freq's it has great sensitivity,But i > listen mainly on 800 mhz.any good ht antenna's for this band?? > > > > Mike wrote > > I only monitor VHF-hi on my handheld scanner and I use a Larson mono-band 2 > meter duckie. I'm assuming that a BNC connector on the duckie ... if so see > if Motorola or someone makes a gain type duckie for their 2 way's with a BNC > for 800 mHz. > > Mike Urich, KA5CVH > www.ka5cvh.com > LaPorte TX EL-29 > > Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! > _______________________________________________ > Scanner mailing list > Scanner@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner > From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 02:20:26 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Harry Marnell) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:20:26 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas References: <20020615.174806.1872.1.ed.leavitt@juno.com> Message-ID: <015901c214d3$ff088a80$ba7ba8c0@sd.cox.net> For folks more inclined to take the simplest route with most-familiar = units of measurement, another "formula" for determining the length of a = half-wave is to divide 5616 by the frequency in MHz, which gives you the = approximate halfwave length in inches... e.g. for 150 Mhz: 5616 / 150 =3D 37.44" for 42 Mhz: 5616 / 42 =3D 133.71" (a definite problem with a = handheld!) for 460 Mhz 5616 / 460 =3D 12.21" for 850 Mhz 5616 / 850 =3D 6.61" for 900 Mhz 5616 / 900 =3D 6.24" =20 Quarter-wavelength antennas would be exactly half those lengths, of = course [or 2808/MHz - F (in)] Harry Marnell http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/kma367.htm <~~ LAPD Communications = History ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Edmund F Leavitt" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 17:46 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas >=20 > On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:46:18 -0500 "Mike Urich" = writes: > > From: "anthony costa" > >=20 > > I have a radio shack pro 91.I listen mainly around the 800-900 mhz=20 > > freq,I > > now use a telescopic antenna in the retracted position.6" in=20 > > height.the > > signal's are in and out.Now on the vhf freq's it has great=20 > > sensitivity,But i > > listen mainly on 800 mhz.any good ht antenna's for this band?? > >=20 > >=20 > **************************************************************** > c. A half wave antenna is generally able to perform well, > independent of a ground plane, making it desirable for use on hand = held > devices. (Another place this comes in handy is for mounting on > fiberglass roofs of travel trailers and the like.) Typical designs > include end fed coil matched "whips", and at higher frequencies, = center > fed "coaxial" or "sleeve" antennas. =20 >=20 > [As an aside: If you've ever wonder how long is a half wave antenna, = the > math is simple...divide 150 by the frequency in MHz and you have the > approximate length of a half wavelength IN METERS. If you are more > comfortable with inches, you can approximate by multiplying meters = times > 39. eg. 150/900 MHz =3D 0.16 meters or about 6 1/2 inches. >=20 > That says that if you are looking for a half wave antenna, expect it = to > be about one meter long for 150 MHz, 0.3 meters or 30 centimeters = long > at 450 MHz, around 18 centimeters for Cellular/Trunked freqs, and = around > 16 centimeters for 900 MHz.] > Recommendations:=20 > a. If you are receiving the stations in your area well with > whatever you presently use, be happy...invest your money in the stock > market. If you need better, buy better.=20 > b. If you use the factory rubber duck a lot, recognize that = it > is designed to work fairly well in the 153 MHz range. Consider = buying > one(s) designed specifically for the frequency ranges you like. Same > comment applies for mobile antennas. With either, it's probably > reasonable to ignore the difference between a cellular (824-896 MHz) > antenna, an "800" (806-866 MHz) antenna, and a "900" (865-965 MHz) > antenna. The profusion of cellphones probably makes mobile cell = antennas > the easiest to find and the cheapest to afford.=20 > c. Want to play around to see just how foul that fowl = antenna > is? Find a weak station in the 860 part of the band using your = factory > rubber duck antenna. Listen with the squelch open or just barely = closed. > Cut a paper clip to 3 3/4 inches in length (approximating a 1/4 > wavelength antenna at 860 MHz). Make sure there are no jagged ends on > the paper clip that could damage the radio's BNC contacts. While > monitoring a weak conversation, carefully replace the duck with the = paper > clip, by inserting the end of the clip into the center contacts of the > BNC connector. Let go of the paper clip. Also, be certain not to = change > the radio's position when you switch back and forth. If the duck = works > consistently as well or better, keep it.=20 >=20 > If the 1/4 wavelength paper clip works consistently better, I would > consider shopping for a UHF antenna. Splurge on a half wave 800 MHz > rubber duck. It will probably be worth the bucks. Does this = procedure > sound too simple and too crude to be meaningful? It is not. I'd be > interested to hear from a few users how their factory ducks stand up > against the 1/4 clip.=20 > *************************************************************** > Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 = =20 > =20 > Ham/MARS/SHARES: KA7UKN / AFA5AH / KPS654 =20 > Lakewood, WA N 47=BA 09' W122=BA 31' > _______________________________________________ > Scanner mailing list > Scanner@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner >=20 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. Please post in Plain-Text only.--- From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 02:34:44 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Edmund F Leavitt) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:34:44 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] metric Message-ID: <20020615.183445.1872.2.ed.leavitt@juno.com> Weren't we supposed to be converting to metric about 20 years ago (520 fortnights for those who prefer more traditional measurements) ;-} ??? On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:20:26 -0700 "Harry Marnell" writes: > For folks more inclined to take the simplest route with most-familiar > units of measurement, another "formula" for determining the length > of a half-wave is to divide 5616 by the frequency in MHz, which > gives you the approximate halfwave length in inches... e.g. > > for 150 Mhz: 5616 / 150 = 37.44" > for 42 Mhz: 5616 / 42 = 133.71" (a definite problem with a > handheld!) > for 460 Mhz 5616 / 460 = 12.21" > for 850 Mhz 5616 / 850 = 6.61" > for 900 Mhz 5616 / 900 = 6.24" > > Quarter-wavelength antennas would be exactly half those lengths, of > course [or 2808/MHz - F (in)] > **************************************************************** Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 Ham/MARS/SHARES: KA7UKN / AFA5AH / KPS654 Lakewood, WA N 47� 09' W122� 31' From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 02:58:29 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Kevin Gallagher) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:58:29 -0400 Subject: [Scanner] metric References: <20020615.183445.1872.2.ed.leavitt@juno.com> Message-ID: <3D0BC695.C1145C2F@ix.netcom.com> Yes, the US will be converted to the metric system by 1975. That's what I was taught when I was in 8th grade. The only thing that converted was liters of soda. Kevin San Jose, CA Edmund F Leavitt wrote: > Weren't we supposed to be converting to metric about 20 years ago (520 > fortnights for those who prefer more traditional measurements) ;-} > ??? > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:20:26 -0700 "Harry Marnell" > writes: > > For folks more inclined to take the simplest route with most-familiar > > units of measurement, another "formula" for determining the length > > of a half-wave is to divide 5616 by the frequency in MHz, which > > gives you the approximate halfwave length in inches... e.g. > > > > for 150 Mhz: 5616 / 150 = 37.44" > > for 42 Mhz: 5616 / 42 = 133.71" (a definite problem with a > > handheld!) > > for 460 Mhz 5616 / 460 = 12.21" > > for 850 Mhz 5616 / 850 = 6.61" > > for 900 Mhz 5616 / 900 = 6.24" > > > > Quarter-wavelength antennas would be exactly half those lengths, of > > course [or 2808/MHz - F (in)] > > > **************************************************************** > Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 > > Ham/MARS/SHARES: KA7UKN / AFA5AH / KPS654 > Lakewood, WA N 47� 09' W122� 31' > _______________________________________________ > Scanner mailing list > Scanner@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 03:25:44 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:25:44 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] advice on a good ht antenna References: <007101c214b4$ac8bb120$1a337841@default> <026b01c214d3$6cdbe300$1a337841@default> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- > why didn't i think of that...?thank's mike that seem's like the best way to > go.motorola. Mike wrote Maybe not the best ... certainly not the least expensive ... but an alternative way. Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 04:07:37 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (John Jensen) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) References: <014a01c214b0$596b5080$9c00a8c0@john> Message-ID: <007901c214e2$f7e464e0$9c00a8c0@john> Mike thanks for the explaination. I was not trying to be calius but definalty had a brain fart on that one (John says with smile :) ******************************************************* John Jensen KB9KQN Woodstock,IL WXWARN1 - Get your free 5 day trial today. http://www.wxwarn1.com Proud Member Of: ILCHASE: http://www.ilchase.org INCHASE: http://www.inchase.org WICHASE: http://www.wichase.com WEATHERFUN: http://www.weatherfun.net ******************************************************* From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 04:51:56 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:51:56 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] (no subject) References: <014a01c214b0$596b5080$9c00a8c0@john> <007901c214e2$f7e464e0$9c00a8c0@john> Message-ID: From: "John Jensen" > Mike thanks for the explaination. I was not trying to be calius but > definalty had a brain fart on that one (John says with smile :) Mike wrote, Sometimes the most obvious is the easiest to overlook. Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 05:02:25 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (John Jensen) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:02:25 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] metric References: <20020615.183445.1872.2.ed.leavitt@juno.com> <3D0BC695.C1145C2F@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <013501c214ea$9fba88a0$9c00a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Gallagher" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Scanner] metric > Yes, the US will be converted to the metric system by 1975. > > That's what I was taught when I was in 8th grade. > > The only thing that converted was liters of soda. > > Kevin > San Jose, CA > > Edmund F Leavitt wrote: Great now I am thirsty LOL. I was just e-mailing the list to say happy fathers day to our scanning fathers may your day be filled with scanning toys. ******************************************************* John Jensen KB9KQN Woodstock,IL WXWARN1 - Get your free 5 day trial today. http://www.wxwarn1.com Proud Member Of: ILCHASE: http://www.ilchase.org INCHASE: http://www.inchase.org WICHASE: http://www.wichase.com WEATHERFUN: http://www.weatherfun.net ******************************************************* From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 06:58:47 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (DW White) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:58:47 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] metric Message-ID: Technically, we did...sort of. Here in the non-committal US of A, both metric and "English 'ft & inches'" measure are legal and acceptable--simultaneously. Some industries, primarily automotive, converted to metric over time. When I worked at a Chevrolet dealership in the early 80's, bolts painted powder blue were metric. They were painted so the technicians knew what bloody wrenches to grab. I have seen cars where the left front shock mount bolts were 3/8", and the right front 10mm. Now they're all metric. The town that I grew up in started posting speed limits in both mph and kph. problem was, somebody boo-boo'd the conversions, so you dould do , say 37 mph in a 35 zone. If ticketec, you just claimed that you were under the kph limit posted. If the officer was there, you could nail him/her by asking the metric conversions to various speeds, which they couldn't normally answer. Personally, I wish we wouldn't be so bloody arrogant in the US. Teach both systems in school for twenty years, while doing a gradual phase in, they just go metric. It's a lot easier. The soapbox is open. Asbestos underwear is on. 73, DW, KE6WYB, Shasta County California, CM80 <>< PS for Harry M--Is there a scanner list anywhere in the US that you're not on?? ----Original Message Follows---- From: Edmund F Leavitt Reply-To: scanner@mailman.qth.net To: scanner@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Scanner] metric Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:34:44 -0700 Weren't we supposed to be converting to metric about 20 years ago (520 fortnights for those who prefer more traditional measurements) ;-} ??? On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:20:26 -0700 "Harry Marnell" writes: > For folks more inclined to take the simplest route with most-familiar > units of measurement, another "formula" for determining the length > of a half-wave is to divide 5616 by the frequency in MHz, which > gives you the approximate halfwave length in inches... e.g. > > for 150 Mhz: 5616 / 150 = 37.44" > for 42 Mhz: 5616 / 42 = 133.71" (a definite problem with a > handheld!) > for 460 Mhz 5616 / 460 = 12.21" > for 850 Mhz 5616 / 850 = 6.61" > for 900 Mhz 5616 / 900 = 6.24" > > Quarter-wavelength antennas would be exactly half those lengths, of > course [or 2808/MHz - F (in)] > **************************************************************** Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 Ham/MARS/SHARES: KA7UKN / AFA5AH / KPS654 Lakewood, WA N 47� 09' W122� 31' _______________________________________________ Scanner mailing list Scanner@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 07:39:31 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (DW White) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:39:31 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas Message-ID: Just a few comments. Read "between the lines". 73, DW, KE6WYB, Shasta County California, CM80 <>< ----Original Message Follows---- From: Edmund F Leavitt Reply-To: scanner@mailman.qth.net To: scanner@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:46:52 -0700 On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:46:18 -0500 "Mike Urich" writes: > From: "anthony costa" > > I have a radio shack pro 91.I listen mainly around the 800-900 mhz > freq,I > now use a telescopic antenna in the retracted position.6" in > height.the > signal's are in and out.Now on the vhf freq's it has great > sensitivity,But i > listen mainly on 800 mhz.any good ht antenna's for this band?? > > **************************************************************** Regarding "rubber duck" antennas: Based on those I've seen, the antenna supplied with most scanners are resonant at approximately 153 Megahertz. Considering how devoted the owners who show up here are to using their devices predominately for UHF, I am forced to wonder what the decision process was to market them with a VHF antenna. Two reasons. 1. Cost. Why pay to re-engineer something that's "always worked" if it's not costing sales?? 2. In my experience, there is still a lot of public service on VHF-Hi. Also NOAA weather and Aircraft. It's an acceptable performer for most people who listen here. Personally, I use a homebrew wire ant 39.5" long. Yes, it's a bit unwieldy at times. Regarding selecting a better flexible antenna, the following are some generalities about "rubber duckie antennas" and a simple performance test worth trying. 1. The lower the desired frequency, the harder it is to make a "rubber duck antenna" appear resonant, and the bigger the compromise such an antenna constitutes. Conversely, the higher you go in frequency (within reason) the easier it is to manufacture a credible antenna and then cover it with rubber. A mentor of mine told me decades ago that "A rubber duck antenna is 3 dB better than a dead short." Another used to say "A rubber duck is a radiating dummy load." I certainly would not quibble with either until you get up to around 800 megahertz. The point is that for VHF the difference in performance between a rubber duck and a real antenna can be quite substantial. However, in the lower and mid-UHF part of the band, a rubber duck may actually be a real antenna disguised by a coat or rubber. 2. Several generalizations worth considering when choosing an antenna: a. Performance of any quarter wave antenna is dependant upon the groundplane to which it is referenced or attached. The chassis of a hand held radio, is generally too small to make a good ground plane. I have had some success improving the duck's performance by squeezing a thin wire (28 ga.) 40" long wrapped once or twice around the connector between the duck and the case, making a jury-rigged dipole. b. A vertical 5/8 wavelength antenna exhibits gain (relative to a quarter wave antenna, and TOWARD THE HORIZON) when used with a proper ground plane. Without a good ground plane, a 5/8 wave antenna should be suspect. c. A half wave antenna is generally able to perform well, independent of a ground plane, making it desirable for use on hand held devices. (Another place this comes in handy is for mounting on fiberglass roofs of travel trailers and the like.) Typical designs include end fed coil matched "whips", and at higher frequencies, center fed "coaxial" or "sleeve" antennas. [As an aside: If you've ever wonder how long is a half wave antenna, the math is simple...divide 150 by the frequency in MHz and you have the approximate length of a half wavelength IN METERS. If you are more comfortable with inches, you can approximate by multiplying meters times 39. eg. 150/900 MHz = 0.16 meters or about 6 1/2 inches. That says that if you are looking for a half wave antenna, expect it to be about one meter long for 150 MHz, 0.3 meters or 30 centimeters long at 450 MHz, around 18 centimeters for Cellular/Trunked freqs, and around 16 centimeters for 900 MHz.] 3. "Coaxial" design antennas are quite common for UHF 800 and 900 systems, and perform well. They are generally easy to recognize because they reduce diameter above the midpoint of the antenna body. (Some VHF flex antennas combine a helical wound base with a slimmer top element, and look similar. Usually the transition from thick to thin occurs in the bottom third of the antenna. If you find an 800 MHz antenna with the diameter change, it is almost certainly a coaxial or "sleeve" design, and should be a decent performer.) Recommendations: a. If you are receiving the stations in your area well with whatever you presently use, be happy...invest your money in the stock market. If you need better, buy better. b. If you use the factory rubber duck a lot, recognize that it is designed to work fairly well in the 153 MHz range. Consider buying one(s) designed specifically for the frequency ranges you like. Same comment applies for mobile antennas. With either, it's probably reasonable to ignore the difference between a cellular (824-896 MHz) antenna, an "800" (806-866 MHz) antenna, and a "900" (865-965 MHz) antenna. The profusion of cellphones probably makes mobile cell antennas the easiest to find and the cheapest to afford. c. Want to play around to see just how foul that fowl antenna is? Find a weak station in the 860 part of the band using your factory rubber duck antenna. Listen with the squelch open or just barely closed. Cut a paper clip to 3 3/4 inches in length (approximating a 1/4 wavelength antenna at 860 MHz). Make sure there are no jagged ends on the paper clip that could damage the radio's BNC contacts. While monitoring a weak conversation, carefully replace the duck with the paper clip, by inserting the end of the clip into the center contacts of the BNC connector. Let go of the paper clip. Also, be certain not to change the radio's position when you switch back and forth. If the duck works consistently as well or better, keep it If the 1/4 wavelength paper clip works consistently better, I would consider shopping for a UHF antenna. Splurge on a half wave 800 MHz rubber duck. It will probably be worth the bucks. Does this procedure sound too simple and too crude to be meaningful? It is not. I'd be interested to hear from a few users how their factory ducks stand up against the 1/4 clip. True fact. And usually the paper clip wins *************************************************************** Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 Ham/MARS/SHARES: KA7UKN / AFA5AH / KPS654 Lakewood, WA N 47� 09' W122� 31' _______________________________________________ Scanner mailing list Scanner@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 13:18:11 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Mike Urich) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:18:11 -0500 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas References: Message-ID: From: "DW White" > Based on those I've seen, the antenna supplied with most scanners are > resonant at approximately 153 Megahertz. > > Two reasons. > 1. Cost. Why pay to re-engineer something that's "always worked" if it's > not costing sales?? > > 2. In my experience, there is still a lot of public service on VHF-Hi. > Also NOAA weather and Aircraft. Mike wrote All true plus let me add a P.S. ... if you take the third harmonic of 153mHz you have 459mhz making this antenna fairly resonant in both the VHF-hi and UHF bands. Kinda like using a 40 meter dipole on 15 meters. Unfortunately the 5th harmonic is 765 mHz and the 7th is 1071 mHz giving it a null across the 800-900 mHz portion. Now a second harmonic from a 440 mHz antenna is still somewhat usable for 800-900... the 6th from a 153 (918 mHz) I would have my doubts. Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 14:03:24 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Harry Marnell) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 06:03:24 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] metric References: Message-ID: <00ae01c21536$335019e0$ba7ba8c0@sd.cox.net> Nope, I'm on all 7,642 of them, but half are set to "no mail" so I check them over www a couple times a day. hm ----- Original Message ----- From: "DW White" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 22:58 Subject: Re: [Scanner] metric > just go metric. It's a lot easier. > > The soapbox is open. > > Asbestos underwear is on. > > 73, DW, KE6WYB, Shasta County California, CM80 <>< > > PS for Harry M--Is there a scanner list anywhere in the US that you're not > on?? From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 19:51:32 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (DW White) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:51:32 -0700 Subject: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas Message-ID: No argument there Mike. Personally, I tend to be addicted to 1/2 wave antennas, due to there being no need for a ground plane. Only problem there is 6M Ham/VHF-Lo public service. A bit unwieldy for an HT, hi hi. My first experience with 800 has been only the past few months, as Redding, CA PD is 800 trunked. Also, has caused agency co-operation problems, as everyone else in the area is VHF-Hi, except CHP, who are VHF-lo. Nice to get into an intelligent discussion. 73, DW, KE6WYB, Shasta County California, CM80 <>< ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Mike Urich" Reply-To: scanner@mailman.qth.net To: Subject: Re: [Scanner] "Waterfowl" antennas Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:18:11 -0500 From: "DW White" > Based on those I've seen, the antenna supplied with most scanners are > resonant at approximately 153 Megahertz. > > Two reasons. > 1. Cost. Why pay to re-engineer something that's "always worked" if it's > not costing sales?? > > 2. In my experience, there is still a lot of public service on VHF-Hi. > Also NOAA weather and Aircraft. Mike wrote All true plus let me add a P.S. ... if you take the third harmonic of 153mHz you have 459mhz making this antenna fairly resonant in both the VHF-hi and UHF bands. Kinda like using a 40 meter dipole on 15 meters. Unfortunately the 5th harmonic is 765 mHz and the 7th is 1071 mHz giving it a null across the 800-900 mHz portion. Now a second harmonic from a 440 mHz antenna is still somewhat usable for 800-900... the 6th from a 153 (918 mHz) I would have my doubts. Mike Urich, KA5CVH www.ka5cvh.com LaPorte TX EL-29 Amateur Radio *IS* a contact sport! _______________________________________________ Scanner mailing list Scanner@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scanner _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 16 20:05:28 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (Bill Smith) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:05:28 -0400 Subject: [Scanner] metric In-Reply-To: <3D0BC695.C1145C2F@ix.netcom.com> References: <20020615.183445.1872.2.ed.leavitt@juno.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020616150508.00a7bde0@opcenter.thecia.net> At 09:58 PM 6/15/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Yes, the US will be converted to the metric system by 1975. > >That's what I was taught when I was in 8th grade. > >The only thing that converted was liters of soda. That and lots of parts in my car...... From scanner@mailman.qth.net Sun Jun 30 02:35:41 2002 From: scanner@mailman.qth.net (scanner@mailman.qth.net) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:35:41 EDT Subject: [Scanner] Scanner Battery Pack for older Radio Shack scanners Message-ID: Radio Shack sells a "Scanner Battery Pack with Charging Stand" (Item 23-288). The Battery Pack fits into the following scanners: Pro-30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 50, 60, and 62. The Charging Stand accepts the battery pack (outside of the scanner), and uses the normal wall wart for power. I have several of the above types of scanners. So I keep at least one battery pack in the charging stand at any time. The unit costs under $20, so it is about the same cost as decent nicads, but offers the convenience of allowing you to be charging a pack as you are using another pack in the radio. When on sale they are $14.99. The packs are rated at 600 mAh. The unit appears on p. 104 of Radio Shack's 2002 catalog. AL STERN Satellite Beach FL