From: scanont@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 17:00:13 EST
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/ELTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Looking for trunked radio information?
Try http://www.trunkedradio.net.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. nrps
From: "101" <vecomm@hotmail.com>
2. LPD / UPD
From: "Ian Howes" <ian_howes@hotmail.com>
3. Re: LPD / UPD
From: Chris Fortner <forts@rogers.com>
4. RE: PL Tone for TTC?
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
5. RE: PL Tone for TTC?
From: ironside <ironside30@rogers.com>
6. scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "glen282001" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>
7. RE: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca>
8. Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "David Reeves" <david.reeves@sympatico.ca>
9. RE: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca>
10. Re: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "Len G. Carpenter" <Len.C@sympatico.ca>
11. RE: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca>
12. Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: Doug Smith <ve3iyb2000@yahoo.ca>
13. Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem
From: "David Reeves" <david.reeves@sympatico.ca>
14. Re: Again: scanners+antenna matching problem
From: "glen282001" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>
15. RE: Re: Again: scanners+antenna matching problem
From: "Greg Kulin" <gkulin@everreddy.com>
16. Re: Again: scanners+antenna matching problem
From: "glen282001" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:56:45 -0500
From: "101" <vecomm@hotmail.com>
Subject: nrps
> From: "Len G. Carpenter" <Len.C@sympatico.ca>
>Subject: Re: Niagara Regional Freqs
>I see that you have CH5 as 142.230 so I assume you >say that is a welland
>police freq, yes it was and still is but is now digital so you >ain't gonna
>here nada but noise.
I was in Welland three weeks ago and heard the NRP as clear as a bell. All you need is the new digital scanner with the card.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 22:56:30 -0500
From: "Ian Howes" <ian_howes@hotmail.com>
Subject: LPD / UPD
For all London listeners there is an interesting call going on on UPD (463.8625).
Peeping tom on Huron st. both UPD units and multiple LPD on scene including K-9. The UPD asked for a patch to LPD but were denied by the LPD dispatcher because "they would lose their encryption". Rather the dispatchers chat and repeat the details to the units.
This situation begs the question as to why have a patch if you don't use it? Obviously the LPD enjoys their privacy over their coordination.
Ian Howes
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:06:22 -0500
From: Chris Fortner <forts@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: LPD / UPD
At 10:56 PM 4/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Peeping tom on Huron st. both UPD units and multiple LPD on scene
>including K-9. The UPD asked for a patch to LPD but were denied by the LPD
>dispatcher because "they would lose their encryption". Rather the
>dispatchers chat and repeat the details to the units.
And you have to wonder.... were they actually talking about encryption? Or
the fact that they would be on UPD's analog talkgroup. Needless to say, we
have all seen on here how often digital and encryption get confused!
Chris Fortner
London, Ontario Canada
forts@rogers.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 22:16:14 -0500
From: "Mike Iszak" <mike@warpzone.ca>
Subject: RE: PL Tone for TTC?
Well, it depends.
Any of the 5 voice channels for the supervisors, it's 136.5.
The VHF frequency is 110.9.
The SRT is 146.2
No idea why they are all over the place, but hey..
M
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 07:08:26 -0800
From: ironside <ironside30@rogers.com>
Subject: RE: PL Tone for TTC?
well Mike u have me lost when u are talking about the TTC as far as I know
the UHF are all 136.5 and as far as VHF the only thing I can think of if
the Maintenance vehicles 151.925 and they are also on 136.5 and I am at a
lost Re: SRT I gather you are talking about Scarborough Rapit transit if
this is the case then they are UHF and I do believe they are 136.5 I may me
wrong on that
>Well, it depends.
>
>Any of the 5 voice channels for the supervisors, it's 136.5.
>
>The VHF frequency is 110.9.
>
>The SRT is 146.2
>
>No idea why they are all over the place, but hey..
>
>
>M
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1705063108:HM/A=1513704/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_02F/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>2f5a8b.jpg
>
>2f5b63.jpg
>
>Looking for trunked radio information?
>Try <http://www.trunkedradio.net.>http://www.trunkedradio.net.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 03/25/2003
----------
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 03/25/2003 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 13:07:20 -0000 From: "glen282001" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com> Subject: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem I am having a problem with a PRO-2026 scanner (similar to BC 760xlt). I am hoping that someone has run into this one before. 800Mhz and higher frequencies come in O.k. with the back of set antenna, but when connected to a base scanner antenna (ST-2 from Dur. Radio), or the Wilson mini mag mount antenna, the signal goes to hell in a handbasket!! The same antennas were then tried with a pro-34, a pro-43, a pro- 2005,and a BC895xlt, and in all cases the 800/900 signals dramatically improved, along with all others. I tried to align the tuning coils and caps, but still the same problem,when connecting to external antennas. It seems as though there is some sort of impedance mismatch. Can anyone recommend a solution, ie; component replacement,or another sort of solution. I do not have a schematic for this radio, although I have searched the net for one. Thanks, Glen H. Oshawa ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:23:50 -0500 From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca> Subject: RE: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem Glen, Are the signals dramatically weaker with the 2026/ST-2 combination, or by chance is the 2026 getting clobbered with intermod and overload making the signals dirtier rather than weaker? Bob ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 15:13:17 -0000 From: "David Reeves" <david.reeves@sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem Glen; There should be no problem with antennae when receiving. Matching is only required for transmitters. Your problem could be as Lyle stated in his reply "overload" from nearby transmitters. I hope that you do not mean that that you have opened the radio case and twiddled with the r.f./i.f. coils and variable caps inside the radio. If you have, kiss the radio good-bye or be prepared to take it to a qualified radio shop for re-alignment. Only qualified technicians with the proper alignment equipment should touch those components. Good Luck > I tried to align the tuning coils and caps, but still the same > problem,when connecting to external antennas. > > It seems as though there is some sort of impedance mismatch. > Can anyone recommend a solution, ie; component replacement,or > another sort of solution. > I do not have a schematic for this radio, although I have searched > the net for one. > > Thanks, > Glen H. > Oshawa ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:27:24 -0500 From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca> Subject: RE: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem David. Matching is every bit as important to receivers as it is to transmitters. It's all about efficient energy transfer, although it likely has nothing to do with Glen's situation. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: David Reeves [mailto:david.reeves@sympatico.ca] > Sent: April 2, 2003 10:13 AM > To: scanont@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Scanont] Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem > > > Glen; > > There should be no problem with antennae when receiving. Matching is > only required for transmitters. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:40:19 -0500 From: "Len G. Carpenter" <Len.C@sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem I tend to disagree with that, unless it is a single band receiver. Since it is not you will never get the receiver to match the antenna or the feedline. As the frequency changes so the the impedance of the antenna so as you go up or down in frequency so does the impedance. Bob Lyle wrote: > David. > > Matching is every bit as important to receivers as it is to transmitters. > It's all about efficient energy transfer, although it likely has nothing to > do with Glen's situation. > > Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Reeves [mailto:david.reeves@sympatico.ca] > > Sent: April 2, 2003 10:13 AM > > To: scanont@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [Scanont] Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem > > > > > > Glen; > > > > There should be no problem with antennae when receiving. Matching is > > only required for transmitters. > > > Looking for trunked radio information? > Try http://www.trunkedradio.net. > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:45:24 -0500 From: "Bob Lyle" <bob_lyle@sympatico.ca> Subject: RE: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem I didn't put any conditions on it Len, it's a fact that does apply for proper performance. Wide band coverage is always a problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Len G. Carpenter [mailto:Len.C@sympatico.ca] > Sent: April 2, 2003 10:40 AM > To: scanont@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Scanont] Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem > > > I tend to disagree with that, unless it is a single band receiver. > Since it is not you will never get the receiver to match the > antenna or the feedline. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 12 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:17:10 -0500 (EST) From: Doug Smith <ve3iyb2000@yahoo.ca> Subject: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem Glen; Good Luck! Take the scanner to a Radio Shack Authorized Service Center and have them re-align the scanner with the proper equiptment. A Service Manual or copy thereof "may" still be available through the National Parts Center and is no doubt pricey. Without the proper equiptment to align it though... Doug VE3IYB --- glen282001 <unicorn1717@hotmail.com> wrote: --------------------------------- I am having a problem with a PRO-2026 scanner (similar to BC 760xlt). I am hoping that someone has run into this one before. 800Mhz and higher frequencies come in O.k. with the back of set antenna, but when connected to a base scanner antenna (ST-2 from Dur. Radio), or the Wilson mini mag mount antenna, the signal goes to hell in a handbasket!! The same antennas were then tried with a pro-34, a pro-43, a pro- 2005,and a BC895xlt, and in all cases the 800/900 signals dramatically improved, along with all others. I tried to align the tuning coils and caps, but still the same problem,when connecting to external antennas. It seems as though there is some sort of impedance mismatch. Can anyone recommend a solution, ie; component replacement,or another sort of solution. I do not have a schematic for this radio, although I have searched the net for one. Thanks, Glen H. Oshawa ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 13 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:35:14 -0000 From: "David Reeves" <david.reeves@sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: scanners+antenna/cable matching problem Usually we can assume that one using a scanner is using an antenna meant to receive VHF/UHF & upward. Going from a back-of-a-set antenna to an outdoor antenna should only improve reception. If one were to use, say a long wire antenna meant for SWL then there might be a problem. The same would be true if one used twin lead instead of coaxial cable. But generally, as long as one is using coaxial cable and a VHF/UHF antenna there should be no problems, just a slight degradation in the 800mhz area, unless the antenna is equipped for that frequency. What we are trying to say is that antenna matching is not that critical to receiving as it would be to a transmitter. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 14 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:42:33 -0000 From: "glen282001" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Again: scanners+antenna matching problem Thank you for all of your responses. My question is though, what component/ circuit within the radio would cause such a conundrum???? ie: 800Mhz O.K. with back of set, but not O.K. with external antenna? I have picked a test freq. from each band (esp. those xmiting a continuous signal, like trunked data channels and WXradio Canada) in the radio, and have found that with the back of set antenna, all are at the expected reasonable levels on the PRO-2026 as compared to other receivers I have set to the same frequencies to test. Has anyone seen or heard of such a situation??? What would cause this?? The radio is definitely not showing signs of intermod due to overloading the front end of the receiver, when the external antenna is connected. Quite the opposite is true, it is more like turning on an attenuation switch!! Please note however, that this only seems to affect 800Mhz and higher f's. Taking it to Rat shack and having someone look at it for more than it is worth is also not likely, especially since the alignment seems consistent on all of the test frequencies. I just wanted some guesses as to what might cause this sort of thing. Thanks again, Glen Oshawa ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 15 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:13:03 -0500 From: "Greg Kulin" <gkulin@everreddy.com> Subject: RE: Re: Again: scanners+antenna matching problem Glen, What type of cable are you using? The length of run? Connector? You will incur losses throughout your antenna system, especially as the frequency you wish to receive increases. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 16 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:54:52 -0000 From: "glen282001" <unicorn1717@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Again: scanners+antenna matching problem --- In scanont@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Kulin" <gkulin@e...> wrote: > Glen, > > What type of cable are you using? The length of run? Connector? You will > incur losses throughout your antenna system, especially as the frequency you > wish to receive increases. The point is that the other radios that I have tested besides the pro2026 with these external antennas show a marked improvement at 800Mhz and above. The same signals received with this setup on my BC895, and PRO-2005 are absolutely booming in. But he 2026 acts like I've connected a signal attenuator to it! However, with that said, the ST-2 base antenna has 50 feet of RG6/U terminated in a BNC connector. Connections at the antenna are a 300ohm to 75 ohm line xfmr connected to an "F" connector at the beginning of the cable run. The mobile antenna I tested with is a wilson mini magmount, with a 10' of Rg-174 cable into a BNC. Thanks, Glen, Oshawa ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 12:28:42 EDT