Scanner Antenna Question

Scanner Antenna Question

Post by RanHefne » Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:00:00

As you may have read, Radio Shack has a base scanner antenna (20-
042) on sale for $10.  This is a multi-band dipole antenna.
Looks sorta like Charlie Brown's Christmas tree.

The feed point of the antenna is 300-ohms.  It comes with a 300-
75 ohms converter.  The idea is to use 75-ohm coax as a
feedline.  Here is the question:

Could you use 300-ohm twin-lead line to your house and then use
the 300-75-ohm converter just before attaching to your scanner?
Would the 300-ohm have less loss than RG-6?

Randy A. Hefner
http://talk.to/frs
http://go.to/qx3
------------------
Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com

 
 
 

Scanner Antenna Question

Post by Steve B » Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:00:00



snip

Quote:

> Could you use 300-ohm twin-lead line to your house and then use
> the 300-75-ohm converter just before attaching to your scanner?
> Would the 300-ohm have less loss than RG-6?

Yes to the first, and no to the second.  Besides, why would you want to run
the (more than likely) chance of picking up any more noise than necessary?

--
Steve B.
scanfreq at istlaplata.net

By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited adverti***t
to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500 fine,
whichever is greater, for each violation.

 
 
 

Scanner Antenna Question

Post by RanHefne » Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:00:00

Why?  Two-fold.  I thought that 300-ohm twinlead would have less
loss than RG-6 coax and it is cheaper than coax.

Quote:>Yes to the first, and no to the second.  Besides, why would you
want to run
>the (more than likely) chance of picking up any more noise than
necessary?

>--
>Steve B.
>scanfreq at istlaplata.net

>By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
>meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
>By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
adverti***t
>to such equipment.
>By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section
is
>punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500
fine,
>whichever is greater, for each violation.

Randy A. Hefner
http://www.redwaveradio.com/
http://www.redwaveradio.com/
------------------
Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.redwaveradio.com/
 
 
 

Scanner Antenna Question

Post by RanHefne » Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:00:00

My mistake...I did not mean to make it look like Steve was
quoted as saying "Why?  Two-fold.  I thought...."  That was me.



>Why?  Two-fold.  I thought that 300-ohm twinlead would have less
>loss than RG-6 coax and it is cheaper than coax.

>>Yes to the first, and no to the second.  Besides, why would you
>want to run
>>the (more than likely) chance of picking up any more noise than
>necessary?

>>--
>>Steve B.
>>scanfreq at istlaplata.net

>>By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
>>meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
>>By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
>adverti***t
>>to such equipment.
>>By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section
>is
>>punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500
>fine,
>>whichever is greater, for each violation.

>Randy A. Hefner
>http://www.redwaveradio.com/
>http://www.redwaveradio.com/
>------------------
>Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
>Up to 100 minutes free!
>http://www.redwaveradio.com/

Randy A. Hefner
http://www.redwaveradio.com/
http://www.redwaveradio.com/
------------------
Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.redwaveradio.com/