discone or scantenna?
 

Which is better?

is scantenna really omnidirectional? is it built for a better reception on
the most used frequencies or is really multiband?

who sells the better implementation of discone?

my needs on scanning are 25Mhz to 1.3 Ghz.

I own a uniden bc-796d and a bc-246t

Thanks for any help.

Greetings from Chile!

redrum wrote:
Which is better?

is scantenna really omnidirectional? is it built for a better reception on
the most used frequencies or is really multiband?

who sells the better implementation of discone?

I have three scantennas and they work much much better than any discone
I've yet to own. In the last 5 years I have thrown away 2 discones
(even the Diamond $100+) because they didn't come close to what the
AntennaWarehouse ScanTennas could do.

Most of my listening is 225-400 MHz however have compaired them on many
other freqs as well.

I got my ScanTennas from
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/Scanner/Scantenna.htm
(AntennaWarehouse). Free shipping and speedy delivery.

George - Daytona Beach, FL
http://www.MilAirComms.com

"GeorgeF" wrote in message
ink.net...
redrum wrote:
Which is better?

is scantenna really omnidirectional? is it built for a better reception
on
the most used frequencies or is really multiband?

who sells the better implementation of discone?

I have three scantennas and they work much much better than any discone
I've yet to own. In the last 5 years I have thrown away 2 discones (even
the Diamond $100+) because they didn't come close to what the
AntennaWarehouse ScanTennas could do.

Most of my listening is 225-400 MHz however have compaired them on many
other freqs as well.

I got my ScanTennas from
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/Scanner/Scantenna.htm (AntennaWarehouse).
Free shipping and speedy delivery.

George - Daytona Beach, FL
http://www.MilAirComms.com

Interesting, I've never seen one of these antennas until now (followed your
link). It looks to me like an abbreviated Discone? Does someone know
electrically what this device is?

GeorgeF wrote in
ink.net:

redrum wrote:
Which is better?

is scantenna really omnidirectional? is it built for a better reception
on the most used frequencies or is really multiband?

who sells the better implementation of discone?

I have three scantennas and they work much much better than any discone
I've yet to own. In the last 5 years I have thrown away 2 discones
(even the Diamond $100+) because they didn't come close to what the
AntennaWarehouse ScanTennas could do.

Most of my listening is 225-400 MHz however have compaired them on many
other freqs as well.

I got my ScanTennas from
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/Scanner/Scantenna.htm
(AntennaWarehouse). Free shipping and speedy delivery.

George - Daytona Beach, FL
http://www.MilAirComms.com

I got one of those and am not overly impressed with it.
My discone consistantly pulls in stronger signals than the scantenna in
just about every range. The only variables are
1) Discone is about 5 ft higher up
2) Discone uses a better feed belden 9913
3) Discone uses an N connecter vs. BNC for scantenna.

Perhaps those three combined are enough to give the discone an edge in an
of itself, but I doubt much of one. Not much UHF mil around my area
unfortunatly, but I can pull in a wx station at an AFB about 40 miles away
with the discone, and the scantenna doesn't.

Just my observations.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:42:00 GMT, "T-bone" wrote:

I got one of those and am not overly impressed with it.
My discone consistantly pulls in stronger signals than the scantenna in
just about every range. The only variables are
1) Discone is about 5 ft higher up
2) Discone uses a better feed belden 9913
3) Discone uses an N connecter vs. BNC for scantenna.

Perhaps those three combined are enough to give the discone an edge in an
of itself, but I doubt much of one. Not much UHF mil around my area
unfortunatly, but I can pull in a wx station at an AFB about 40 miles away
with the discone, and the scantenna doesn't.

Just my observations.

I cannot speak to the relative performance of a discone vs. the
Scantenna because I've never used a Scantenna. I can, however, attest
to the fact that a quality feedline is *extremely* important at UHF
frequencies. Look at a list of specifications for different types of
coaxial cable, paying particular attention to the specified signal
loss (in decibels) per hundred feet of cable. At HF the loss even in
plain old RG-58U is negligible, at UHF, it's astronomical by
comparison. RG-8U is better, but still falls on its face at UHF.

The extra five feet of height, well, most people would be surprised
how much of a difference just five feet of elevation can make in your
reception, especially at higher frequencies.

While I've never used a Scantenna, I used a discone for some time for
monitoring UHF milcomms here in the area near Niagara Falls, New York.
In addition to a USAFR airlift wing and an ANG air refueling wing
based at Niagara Falls, I also sit between a couple of air refueling
tracks and am kind of on the flight path followed by aircraft based in
the eastern US on CORONET EAST missions. The discone allowed me to log
plenty of good catches, outperforming by far one of RadioShack's
multi-band ground planes in that respect.

One thing I did notice, though - the RS ground plane flat-out smoked
the discone on the 30-50 MHz low VHF band, as demonstrated to me by
years of monitoring fire department DX down there.

John Kasupski, Tonawanda, New York
Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS)
Member of ARES/RACES, ARATS, WUN, ARRL
http://www.qsl.net/kc2fng
E-Mails Ignored, Please Post Replies In This Newsgroup

John Kasupski wrote in
:

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:42:00 GMT, "T-bone" wrote:

I got one of those and am not overly impressed with it.
My discone consistantly pulls in stronger signals than the scantenna in
just about every range. The only variables are
1) Discone is about 5 ft higher up
2) Discone uses a better feed belden 9913
3) Discone uses an N connecter vs. BNC for scantenna.

Perhaps those three combined are enough to give the discone an edge in an
of itself, but I doubt much of one. Not much UHF mil around my area
unfortunatly, but I can pull in a wx station at an AFB about 40 miles away
with the discone, and the scantenna doesn't.

Just my observations.

I cannot speak to the relative performance of a discone vs. the
Scantenna because I've never used a Scantenna. I can, however, attest
to the fact that a quality feedline is *extremely* important at UHF
frequencies. Look at a list of specifications for different types of
coaxial cable, paying particular attention to the specified signal
loss (in decibels) per hundred feet of cable. At HF the loss even in
plain old RG-58U is negligible, at UHF, it's astronomical by
comparison. RG-8U is better, but still falls on its face at UHF.

The extra five feet of height, well, most people would be surprised
how much of a difference just five feet of elevation can make in your
reception, especially at higher frequencies.

While I've never used a Scantenna, I used a discone for some time for
monitoring UHF milcomms here in the area near Niagara Falls, New York.
In addition to a USAFR airlift wing and an ANG air refueling wing
based at Niagara Falls, I also sit between a couple of air refueling
tracks and am kind of on the flight path followed by aircraft based in
the eastern US on CORONET EAST missions. The discone allowed me to log
plenty of good catches, outperforming by far one of RadioShack's
multi-band ground planes in that respect.

Granted, they are all factors, which is why I listed them, but I doubt if its
enough to make a difference other than in sensitive test equipment.
The coax used on the scantenna is the highest grade RS sells, isonly about a
30 ft run, and has in fact been exposed to the elements a couple years less
than my 9913.
If the scantenna was really the superior signal gatherer, it should more than
make up for these variables.
Which isn't to say that the scantenna might not be superior for someone else.
Obviously, they get the job done for George, and I'm sure hes a more
sophisticated monitor than myself, as you likely are too.


One thing I did notice, though - the RS ground plane flat-out smoked
the discone on the 30-50 MHz low VHF band, as demonstrated to me by
years of monitoring fire department DX down there.

Do you have a vertical element on your discone ?
This tends to improve discone low band reception sometimes dramatically.
I know the RS discone I use didn't come with one, but a little rubber cap on
top came off, and lo and behold theres a threaded stud in there, juat waiting
for an old CB antenna or some such to be screwed on.
Why this element doesn't come with the package, and why they don't even
mention it in the literature I don't know.

T-bone wrote:

GeorgeF wrote in
ink.net:


redrum wrote:

Which is better?

is scantenna really omnidirectional? is it built for a better reception
on the most used frequencies or is really multiband?

who sells the better implementation of discone?


I have three scantennas and they work much much better than any discone
I've yet to own. In the last 5 years I have thrown away 2 discones
(even the Diamond $100+) because they didn't come close to what the
AntennaWarehouse ScanTennas could do.

Most of my listening is 225-400 MHz however have compaired them on many
other freqs as well.

I got my ScanTennas from
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/Scanner/Scantenna.htm
(AntennaWarehouse). Free shipping and speedy delivery.

George - Daytona Beach, FL
http://www.MilAirComms.com


I got one of those and am not overly impressed with it.
My discone consistantly pulls in stronger signals than the scantenna in
just about every range. The only variables are
1) Discone is about 5 ft higher up
2) Discone uses a better feed belden 9913
3) Discone uses an N connecter vs. BNC for scantenna.


You are compairing apples and oranges here. First your 5' higher on
the discone is going to be a little improvement.

But the HUGH HUGH HUGH difference is the coax! 9913 is much better than
the RG6 which comes with the ScanTenna. I don't use the RG6 that comes,
I replace it with either 9913 or LMR-400. But that alone your going to
see a major improvement on your ScanTenna in the UHF range.

N .vs. BNC, not much there.....

George - Daytona Beach, FL
http://www.MilAirComms.com

"GeorgeF" wrote in message
nk.net...


You are compairing apples and oranges here. First your 5' higher on
the discone is going to be a little improvement.

But the HUGH HUGH HUGH difference is the coax! 9913 is much better than
the RG6 which comes with the ScanTenna. I don't use the RG6 that comes,
I replace it with either 9913 or LMR-400. But that alone your going to
see a major improvement on your ScanTenna in the UHF range.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont think he's comparing apples to oranges at all. First off when it
comes to VHF or UHF, 5' more height is nothing. Second of all there is no
HUGE,, HUGE difference in db's of attenuation between RG 6 and 9913.
The "average" db of attenuation for 9913 per 100' from 1mhz to 1ghz is 2.17
db. The "average" atenuation for RG 6 per 100' from 1mhz. to 1ghz is 3.2 db.
The average difference between the 2 is 1.03 db, wouldnt even be noticeable.
And those specs. are for a 100' run. I believe he said his run was more like
30'. I use quad shielded RG 6 all the time and it works great, not to mention
its much easier to work with than the thick, stiff 9913, or LMR 400.


Jeff

"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message
...
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Jeff" on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
01:27:21 GMT spoke:

Second of all there is no HUGE,, HUGE difference in db's
of attenuation between RG 6 and 9913.

Horsefeathers.

The "average" db of attenuation for 9913 per 100' from 1mhz to 1ghz is 2.17
db. The "average" atenuation for RG 6 per 100' from 1mhz. to 1ghz is 3.2 db.

MUCH more horsefeathers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My I am ever so impressed with someone that has nothing intelligent
to say and says it in such a quaint way. No I dont speak horsefeathers and yes
the truth is out there. Try http://www.radio-ware.com/products/t...o/coaxloss.htm
and do the math yourself, providing you know how to figure averages. The
difference IS insignificant, for runs under 100',, if you choose to not believe
it, thats your problem.

Jeff

GeorgeF wrote in
nk.net:

T-bone wrote:

GeorgeF wrote in
ink.net:


redrum wrote:

Which is better?

is scantenna really omnidirectional? is it built for a better reception
on the most used frequencies or is really multiband?

who sells the better implementation of discone?


I have three scantennas and they work much much better than any discone
I've yet to own. In the last 5 years I have thrown away 2 discones
(even the Diamond $100+) because they didn't come close to what the
AntennaWarehouse ScanTennas could do.

Most of my listening is 225-400 MHz however have compaired them on many
other freqs as well.

I got my ScanTennas from
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/Scanner/Scantenna.htm
(AntennaWarehouse). Free shipping and speedy delivery.

George - Daytona Beach, FL
http://www.MilAirComms.com


I got one of those and am not overly impressed with it.
My discone consistantly pulls in stronger signals than the scantenna in
just about every range. The only variables are
1) Discone is about 5 ft higher up
2) Discone uses a better feed belden 9913
3) Discone uses an N connecter vs. BNC for scantenna.


You are compairing apples and oranges here. First your 5' higher on
the discone is going to be a little improvement.

Very little, granted.
I've already pointed out that fact twice already.


But the HUGH HUGH HUGH difference is the coax! 9913 is much better than
the RG6 which comes with the ScanTenna. I don't use the RG6 that comes,
I replace it with either 9913 or LMR-400. But that alone your going to
see a major improvement on your ScanTenna in the UHF range.

Never said I used RG6.
RG8x is what I use for the scantenna feed.
I have no problem deferring to your judgement, more or less.
You are obviously more up to date than me on both equipment and methods.
I think its generally accepted that the discone is a great all around
monitoring antenna, but is really a jack of all trades, and master of none.
Ideally, one would want to have a discone, along with one or more other
antennas optimized for specific bands.
Thats what I had in mind with my setup, and so far it hasn't worked out,
but I must admit I haven't put a whole lot of effort into examining this
apparent problem.
I just don't think that discones should be dismissed as pure junk.
Within their limits, I've found them to be fine general all around signal
recievers, which is what their purpose is.