Extending The Range of Cordless Phone
Mogath3
the range of my cordless phone. Just so I can go to the end of the block. My
house is about 5 houses away. I can barely hear anything on the phone when I
take it and I heard there is a way to make it clearer. Any suggestions are
welcome. Thanks alot for any help.
Regards,
Jeff
(Unit 69)
it to the antenna. Get an extension cord and plug the phone into
it. Stretch all cords all the way out.
--
Posts to the newsgroup DO NOT need a copy e-mailed to me. Thanks.
(Unless you're afraid I won't see it!)
Unit SIX-NINE Chesapeake Bay
(Unit 69)
Eddie Robertson
Sin: Eddie Robertson
Box 26 , 207 Webb dr.
Hollywood Al,
35752
http://community.webtv.net/Cb-Shop/Hollywood
Antenna Warehouse
phones with a Discone antenna up about 30'. I get about 1/2 mile range
with this set up. The antenna coax is hooked to the base via a BNC
connector I installed in it. The SO239 / PL259 connector combination is
to lossy at these freqs., as is most coax. I'm using 65' of Times
Microwave LMR cable and I'm still loosing 3db (half the power I'm
putting in it).
I've done the same before with one of the older 46/49 MHz. phones too.
Only that one I ran on a inverted Vee antenna. I had similar range on
that set up as the 900 MHz. does.
If you need more Info let me know.
De Tim
Antenna Warehouse
811 9th Ave.
Camanche, IA. 52730
319-259-4405 12pm-8pm cst Monday-Saturday
319-259-1053 Fax
Email kin...@cis.net
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/
Larry
larry
Mogath3 wrote in message <20000203175732...@ng-fl1.aol.com>...
Qrm2000
>Date: 2/3/2000 5:57 PM Eastern Standard Time
> I need to extend
>the range of my cordless phone. Just so I can go to the end of the block. My
>house is about 5 houses away.
Observations from QRM: A 900 MHz phone, and the newer 2.4 GHz phones, should
give a range of 300 to 500 feet. If your neighborhood's lots are 80 feet
across, 80 X 5 houses = 400 feet.
Follow the other responders' suggestions, especially concerning the telephone's
location. Height does not make much difference, really. However, keeping the
base "in the clear" will improve range. Avoid having it near large masses of
metal--like the refrigerator. The reason height appears to make a difference
is that the second floor (bedrooms) usually don't have large masses of metal to
block the signal.
It also is important to maintain a fully-charged battery. If your telephone is
more than two/three years old, purchase a new battery and let it charge for 17
hours. You will find that it makes a big difference!
When operating the handset at a great distance from the house, a slight change
in position can help. Don't block the signal with your body. Trees can
decrease the range, especially when leaves are present. Move an inch or two to
restore a fading signal.
Most telephones will carry a signal and will ring at distances greater than
they will draw a dial tone. Testing can be deceptive for this reason.
Try different channels.
Spread Spectrum offers better range and a measure of security. (However,
NOTHING is completely secure. Watch what you say).
Hope this helps. Give us some feedback when you find the ideal solution.
A.E. 352
A.E. 352
Antenna Warehouse wrote in message <389A60A3...@cis.net>...
>I am running one of the newer 900 MHz. spread rectum type cordless
>phones with a Discone antenna up about 30'. I get about 1/2 mile range
>with this set up. The antenna coax is hooked to the base via a BNC
>connector I installed in it. The SO239 / PL259 connector combination is
>to lossy at these freqs., as is most coax. I'm using 65' of Times
>Microwave LMR cable and I'm still loosing 3db (half the power I'm
>putting in it).
>
>I've done the same before with one of the older 46/49 MHz. phones too.
>Only that one I ran on a inverted Vee antenna. I had similar range on
>that set up as the 900 MHz. does.
>
>If you need more Info let me know.
>
>De Tim
>
>
>Antenna Warehouse
>811 9th Ave.
>Camanche, IA. 52730
>319-259-4405 12pm-8pm cst Monday-Saturday
>319-259-1053 Fax
>Email kin...@cis.net
>http://www.antennawarehouse.com/
>
>
>
>
>Mogath3 wrote:
>>
>> I didn't know where else to post this, so please no flames. I need to
extend
>> the range of my cordless phone. Just so I can go to the end of the block.
My
Bill Nelson
: I am running one of the newer 900 MHz. spread rectum type cordless
: phones with a Discone antenna up about 30'. I get about 1/2 mile range
: with this set up. The antenna coax is hooked to the base via a BNC
: connector I installed in it. The SO239 / PL259 connector combination is
: to lossy at these freqs., as is most coax. I'm using 65' of Times
: Microwave LMR cable and I'm still loosing 3db (half the power I'm
: putting in it).
Sheesh. What kind of lousy hardline are you running? Even RG-8 foam only
loses a bit over 5 dB for 100 feet at 900 MHz. With 65 feet of RG-8, the
loss would only be about 3 dB. The connector loss should be negligible.
In designs, I allow 0.5 dB loss for each pair of connectors - but it is
actually far below that - except possibly when using SO239 and PL259.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
kf6foz
house on a mount over the roof. Be advised, The more range you get,
the better scanners can hear you and further away. Also, if you have a
removable rubber ducky antenna on the handset, you can get a
telescopic antenna for it and that will also help along with the
outside antenna on the house.
I dont have the specs for this, but I made a 1/4 wave ground plane
antenna for my cordless base set and was able to talk 5 blocks away.
Almost like having a local only cell phone for the neighborhood....
These blocks varied from 1/10th - 1/4 mile in length. At the longest
block, There was alot of white noise but was still able to connect to
the base, dial out and talk with some difficulty.
On 03 Feb 2000 22:57:32 GMT, mog...@aol.com (Mogath3) wrote:
>I didn't know where else to post this, so please no flames. I need to extend
>the range of my cordless phone. Just so I can go to the end of the block. My
>house is about 5 houses away. I can barely hear anything on the phone when I
>take it and I heard there is a way to make it clearer. Any suggestions are
>welcome. Thanks alot for any help.
>
>Regards,
>Jeff
>
The "kf6foz BBS"
Redding, CA.
530-229-0896
http://www.qsl.net/kf6foz/
The BBS is back up... Ignore what the webpage says...
SSBhog
>It also is important to maintain a fully-charged battery. If your telephone
>is
>more than two/three years old, purchase a new battery and let it charge for
>17
>hours. You will find that it makes a big difference!
A word on the care and feeding of cordless phone batteries:
(1) Examine the metal electrical contacts. Clean as necessary using a pencil
eraser, followed by wiping off the eraser dust with a clean paper towel.
(2) Occasionally discharge the battery completely. Best way to do this--unplug
the telephone line cord from the base unit. Then activate the handset and let
it run all day. Recharge for at least 10 hours. Reconnect phone line to base.
This prevents development of a "memory effect" in the cells. Good battery
power is a key element in cordless phone operation.
Hamm4fun
antenna to the 49MHz phones. Can't remember the name but he advertizes in 73
and NUTS & BOLTS selling ham antennas.
Mogath3
>house on a mount over the roof. Be advised, The more range you get,
>the better scanners can hear you and further away. Also, if you have a
>removable rubber ducky antenna on the handset, you can get a
>telescopic antenna for it and that will also help along with the
>outside antenna on the house.
Okay, I can follow this as I was thinking of this anyway, but how? Where do I
connect the antenna to the base? Right where the antenna that comes with it
screws in? Via alligator clip? I don't even know if its one of the old 49mhz or
900mhz. How do you tell? Wow, alot of questions.
>I dont have the specs for this, but I made a 1/4 wave ground plane
>antenna for my cordless base set and was able to talk 5 blocks away.
>Almost like having a local only cell phone for the neighborhood....
>These blocks varied from 1/10th - 1/4 mile in length. At the longest
>block, There was alot of white noise but was still able to connect to
>the base, dial out and talk with some difficulty.
If you find them, I'd like to have them. Only problem with that is I don't know
the operating frequency. It was given to me. (Guy said it didn't work. All it
needed was a battery.) Thanks for all the help everyone is providing.
Regards,
Jeff
kc2elo
mog...@aol.com (Mogath3) wrote:
> >Connect an external antenna to it and put it on the outside of the
> >house on a mount over the roof. Be advised, The more range you get,
> >the better scanners can hear you and further away. Also, if you have a
> >removable rubber ducky antenna on the handset, you can get a
> >telescopic antenna for it and that will also help along with the
> >outside antenna on the house.
>
> Okay, I can follow this as I was thinking of this anyway, but how? Where do I
> connect the antenna to the base? Right where the antenna that comes with it
> screws in? Via alligator clip? I don't even know if its one of the old
that might work but for better results I would modify the case of the base
and install a bnc connector or something of that nature by cutting the base
out to fit the connector and solder the wire on the inside that connects to
the antenna screw. If you don't know how to do that or don't want to take a
chance at destroying your phone then try an aligator clip or screw the new
antenna cable to the mount.
49mhz or
> 900mhz. How do you tell? Wow, alot of questions.
the easiest way to tell is look at the base antenna. If it telescopes then
it is a 49mhz phone if the base set antenna is one piece then it is a 900mhz
or higher phone.
hope it helps
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris
base antenna which features a top loaded radiator and ground plane
radials.
kin...@cis.net
second place I never mention it was Hard line, in the third place the
figures I gave are measured figures, not just something I quote from
some overly optimistic manufacture's spec sheet. Forth and lastly the
cable I am using is .25" in diameter, making that 3 Db in 65' feet@ 900
MHz. very, very good. There did I miss anything?
Antenna Warehouse
remember correctly), plus the way they have you hook it up is bogus.
Clipping a alligator clip that is attached to the feedline center
conductor to the existing antenna is in no way make a proper return path
for the RF. The ground plane just floats not connected to anything. If
they do give an improvement it is probably due to the feedline acting
more as the antenna than the antenna is. Save a bunch of your money,
get one of the CB dipoles I am selling on Ebay right now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250083445
Cut it down to resonate on 47.5 MHZ, (each side about 64") set it up as
a inverted vee or sloper so it is vertically polarized and you will be
pleased with the results.
PS. After all this diatribe , if anyone still wants one of the firestik
things, I've got a new one (unopened package) setting around the shop
that I'd love to sell to someone I don't Know. ;~) After getting it
sometime back and seeing the cheesy way they had you hook it up I didn't
want to sell it to someone local here. If you redid the feed line hook
up it may be all right, although as lossy as their CB antennas are I
can't help but believe that their mega turn small diameter coils aren't
going to to do much more than warm the shrink wrap at 40 some MHz.
Chow Tim
Antenna Warehouse
811 9th Ave.
Camanche, IA. 52730
319-259-4405 12pm-6pm cst Mon.-Fri. 10am-2pm Sat.
Antenna Warehouse
You don't have to install a connector. Just open up the base, remove
the existing antenna, run the coax in the hole created by removing the
antenna. Solder the coax center conductor to the connection point made
by removing the antenna and the coax shield to any ground close by.
Don't just clip it to the existing antenna. You can end up creating
such a impedance bump by doing so the result can be as bad as no
antenna.
De Tim
Antenna Warehouse
811 9th Ave.
Camanche, IA. 52730
319-259-4405 12pm-6pm cst Mon.-Fri. 10am-2pm Sat.
319-259-1053 Fax
Email kingp...@cis.net (Remove XXX to reply)
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/
If the phone was a older one that was given away for free it most likely
is a 46/49 MHz. one
Mogath3 wrote:
>
> >Connect an external antenna to it and put it on the outside of the
> >house on a mount over the roof. Be advised, The more range you get,
> >the better scanners can hear you and further away. Also, if you have a
> >removable rubber ducky antenna on the handset, you can get a
> >telescopic antenna for it and that will also help along with the
> >outside antenna on the house.
>
> Okay, I can follow this as I was thinking of this anyway, but how? Where do I
> connect the antenna to the base? Right where the antenna that comes with it
> screws in? Via alligator clip? I don't even know if its one of the old 49mhz or
> 900mhz. How do you tell? Wow, alot of questions.
>
-=PEAKABOO=-
dipole antenna and really be amazed at how far it will work...
"Mogath3" <mog...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000204105258...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
-=PEAKABOO=-
situation.
"Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:87dq9s$jh9$7...@bashir.peak.org...
-=PEAKABOO=-
product.
<kin...@cis.net> wrote in message news:389B8CE7...@cis.net...
> In the first place I stated the brand and type of feed line, in the
> second place I never mention it was Hard line, in the third place the
> figures I gave are measured figures, not just something I quote from
> some overly optimistic manufacture's spec sheet. Forth and lastly the
> cable I am using is .25" in diameter, making that 3 Db in 65' feet@ 900
> MHz. very, very good. There did I miss anything?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Nelson wrote:
> >
Chris Vogh
which frequency to use if you want to build a dipole. I suggest that you use
a scanner, if you have one or can borrow one from a friend, and check which
frequency your phone works on. Just turn on the handset and scan around until
you hear a dial tone. These frequencies came from a scanner website, but I
don't remember which one. If your phone doesn't use one of the frequencies,
you may want to search the net for Cordless Phone and Frequencies.
Output Input
43.7200 48.7600
43.7400 48.8400
43.8200 48.8600
43.8400 48.9200
43.9200 49.0200
43.9600 49.0800
44.1200 49.1000
44.1600 49.1600
44.1800 49.2000
44.2000 49.2400
44.3200 49.2800
44.3600 49.3600
44.4000 49.4000
44.4600 49.4600
44.4800 49.5000
46.6100 49.6700
46.6300 49.8450
46.6700 49.8600
46.7100 49.7700
46.7300 49.8750
46.7700 49.8300
46.8300 49.8900
46.8700 49.9300
46.9300 49.9900
46.9700 49.9700
Mogath3
feedback from this group. Thanks again.
Regards,
Jeff
Antenna Warehouse
43
Larry
poeple will be able to overhear your conversation.
if you want distance and privacy try the 900 mhz cordless spreadspectrum
phones.
larry
Antenna Warehouse
everything.
-=PEAKABOO=-
the line loss and so forth...
"Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
news:389C5E1B...@cis.net...
-=PEAKABOO=-
difference buy not using a pl259..
"Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
news:389C5ED1...@cis.net...
Antenna Warehouse
transmitter by using a power meter directly terminated into a dummy
load. Then you attach the feedline under test to the transmiter, and at
the other end of the line you attach the watt meter and load. The
difference between the two readings is the line loss. Gee now wasn't
that hard. Now smart Guy I would spend somemore time and teach you how
to change the resultant figure to a Db gradiant But I don't think you
could do the math.
Chow
-=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
>
> Why dont you explain to the group how you did this test, how you calculated
> the line loss and so forth...
>
> "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
Antenna Warehouse
talking about.
-=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
>
> In your situation I doubt very seriously you could see a noticable
> difference buy not using a pl259..
>
> "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
-=PEAKABOO=-
cordless phone, what did you use to transmit at that frequency to get your
results? The phone? We are talking very, very low power. Now if your goal
here is to try and make me believe that you are a super smart guy, give it
up. If I thought you were as smart as you are trying to appear I would give
you the upmost respect, but it just seems to me that you are trying a little
to hard to impress someone. Now I know that line loss a 900Mhz can become a
problem when we are dealing with poorly shielded coax and lossy connectors,
but we are talking about cordless telephone here. The story you are telling
us is probably true. BUT why the hell would you want to go through all of
that trouble to extend the range of a cordless phone, You could have
achieved a good amount of range by simply using 9914, man you got more money
in the coax, and antenna than most cordless phones are worth. What did you
do your measurements with a 100 miliwatt slug?
"Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
news:389DC552...@cis.net...
> Very simple smart Guy. First you measure the power available at the
> transmitter by using a power meter directly terminated into a dummy
> load. Then you attach the feedline under test to the transmiter, and at
> the other end of the line you attach the watt meter and load. The
> difference between the two readings is the line loss. Gee now wasn't
> that hard. Now smart Guy I would spend somemore time and teach you how
> to change the resultant figure to a Db gradiant But I don't think you
> could do the math.
>
> Chow
>
> -=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
> >
> > Why dont you explain to the group how you did this test, how you
calculated
> > the line loss and so forth...
> >
> > "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
-=PEAKABOO=-
you know what you are talking about.
"Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
news:389DC62F...@cis.net...
> What ever smart guy, It's pretty obvious you don't know what you are
> talking about.
>
> -=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
> >
> > In your situation I doubt very seriously you could see a noticable
> > difference buy not using a pl259..
> >
> > "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
Bill Nelson
: In the first place I stated the brand and type of feed line, in the
: second place I never mention it was Hard line, in the third place the
: figures I gave are measured figures, not just something I quote from
: some overly optimistic manufacture's spec sheet. Forth and lastly the
: cable I am using is .25" in diameter, making that 3 Db in 65' feet@ 900
: MHz. very, very good. There did I miss anything?
It is good for 1/4", but why are you using it? It is the wrong material
for anything more than a few feet - when operating on 900 MHz.
My apologies for not being familiar with all the Time Wave cables.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Antenna Warehouse
transmitter to perform the aforementioned cable loss test. Although I
could have used my Marconi 2017 signal generator also. #2 I am not
trying to impress you, I am answering your questions and correcting your
misstatement. I am answering/correcting them in the sarcastic tenor I
am because that's the way you are posing them. #3 Where poor shielding
certainly can and does cause loss, the predominant mode of loss at this
frequency is dialectic loss. #4 The problem with using PL259/SO239
connector combination at these freqs. is due to the fact that they don't
maintain a 50 Ohm impedance. We can get away with them at lower freqs.
because the electrical length of the discontinuity is not significant.
At 900 MHz. the 3" over length of the PL-259/SO-239 combination is a
very significant portion of a wavelength ( over a 1/2 wave) this causes
huge standing waves. The rule of thumb for RF design engineers is that
impedance discontinuities like this can be tolerated as long as they
don't exist for more than 1 degree of electrical length. #4 This whole
project cost me $25.00 for the Discone antenna which I already had. The
LMR cable was free. It was sent to me as a sample a few years back when
it was first being marketed. As a project manager for a antenna
manufacture I was always being sent freebies by manufacture's reps. I
under took the whole project because I like to see how far I can push
technology in other than a brute force manner. It's just the way I am.
Inquisitive type. #5 I used a 5 watt slug.
I am growing weary of this thread, you can have the last word. If our
post should cross paths again, I would be more than happy to maintain a
civil tongue if you will.
-=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
>
> Ok this all make sence, but the setup used here is was for a 900 Mhz
> cordless phone, what did you use to transmit at that frequency to get your
> results? The phone? We are talking very, very low power. Now if your goal
> here is to try and make me believe that you are a super smart guy, give it
> up. If I thought you were as smart as you are trying to appear I would give
> you the upmost respect, but it just seems to me that you are trying a little
> to hard to impress someone. Now I know that line loss a 900Mhz can become a
> problem when we are dealing with poorly shielded coax and lossy connectors,
> but we are talking about cordless telephone here. The story you are telling
> us is probably true. BUT why the hell would you want to go through all of
> that trouble to extend the range of a cordless phone, You could have
> achieved a good amount of range by simply using 9914, man you got more money
> in the coax, and antenna than most cordless phones are worth. What did you
> do your measurements with a 100 miliwatt slug?
>
> "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
> news:389DC552...@cis.net...
> > Very simple smart Guy. First you measure the power available at the
> > transmitter by using a power meter directly terminated into a dummy
> > load. Then you attach the feedline under test to the transmiter, and at
> > the other end of the line you attach the watt meter and load. The
> > difference between the two readings is the line loss. Gee now wasn't
> > that hard. Now smart Guy I would spend somemore time and teach you how
> > to change the resultant figure to a Db gradiant But I don't think you
> > could do the math.
> >
> > Chow
> >
> > -=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
> > >
> > > Why dont you explain to the group how you did this test, how you
> calculated
> > > the line loss and so forth...
> > >
> > > "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
> > > news:389C5E1B...@cis.net...
> > > > Sorry smart guy who knows everything, but the equipment used was a
> Bird
> > > > 43
> > > >
> > > > -=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah you forgot to mention that you most likely measured this with
> an
> > > MFJ
> > > > > product.
> > > > > <kin...@cis.net> wrote in message news:389B8CE7...@cis.net...
> > > > > > In the first place I stated the brand and type of feed line, in
> the
> > > > > > second place I never mention it was Hard line, in the third place
> the
> > > > > > figures I gave are measured figures, not just something I quote
> from
> > > > > > some overly optimistic manufacture's spec sheet. Forth and lastly
> the
> > > > > > cable I am using is .25" in diameter, making that 3 Db in 65'
> feet@
> > > 900
> > > > > > MHz. very, very good. There did I miss anything?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
Antenna Warehouse
sample when this type of cable was first developed a few years back. It
is spec. up to SHF. It's cost/size/loss characteristic were idea for
this "just fooling around to see project". I didn't want to spend any
money on this because I just wanted to see what could be done just for
the sake of doing it. I do a lot of that kind of thing, no real reason
to know I just want to know.
The exact cable is LMR 240. Times has a free handbook on their
products, you can request one by going to:
http://www.timesmicrowave.com/
kingpop
Antenna Warehouse
811 9th Ave.
Camanche, IA. 52730
319-259-4405 12pm-6pm cst Mon.-Fri. 10am-2pm Sat.
319-259-1053 Fax
http://www.antennawarehouse.com/
Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> kin...@cis.net wrote:
> : In the first place I stated the brand and type of feed line, in the
> : second place I never mention it was Hard line, in the third place the
> : figures I gave are measured figures, not just something I quote from
> : some overly optimistic manufacture's spec sheet. Forth and lastly the
> : cable I am using is .25" in diameter, making that 3 Db in 65' feet@ 900
> : MHz. very, very good. There did I miss anything?
>
Stalking Ghost
He hasn't mis-stated a single piece of RF theory.
He obviously does know what he's talking about.
You on the other hand, need to read up on your theory!
PL-259 at 900MHz, Jeez!
In article <hnsn4.1124$Ba4....@news.swbell.net>,
"-=PEAKABOO=-" <peek...@bigradios.com> wrote:
> It is pretty obvious that your goal is to try and make people believe
that
> you know what you are talking about.
>
> "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
> news:389DC62F...@cis.net...
> > What ever smart guy, It's pretty obvious you don't know what you are
> > talking about.
> >
> > -=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
> > >
> > > In your situation I doubt very seriously you could see a noticable
> > > difference buy not using a pl259..
> > >
> > > "Antenna Warehouse" <kingp...@cis.net> wrote in message
> > > news:389C5ED1...@cis.net...
> > > > At 900 MHz!! Boy I can see you really are a smart guy who knows
> > > > everything.
> > > >
> > > > -=PEAKABOO=- wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree on this as well even a pl259 has very little loss in
his
> > > > > situation.
> > > > >
>
>
-=PEAKABOO=-
come on man...
"Stalking Ghost" <pmet...@nbase-xyplex.com> wrote in message
news:87n177$t82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
-=PEAKABOO=-
piece of equipment that is in a cheap plastic case. He was talking about
mounting the connector in the case of this cheap cordless telephone. Why
did'nt he go ahead and inclose the whole damn phone in an aluminum case and
drive a couple of ground rods while he was at it. I do agree he knows his
theory, but he was trying a little to hard to prove this point.
phil
>Thanks to all that helped with this. I should have known I'd get a lot of good
>feedback from this group. Thanks again.
my experiences in this area.
We have not dissimilar cordless phone spec's here in the UK.
I sold un-approved (read that as illegal) 'Long Range' cordless phones
for nearly ten years up until around a year ago.
I was busted twice for offering to supply this equipment, court, fine,
the whole works. It is a criminal, not civil offence now here in this
country so it's on one's record.
We have four cordless bands, 1.6/49Mhz, 47/77Mhz(the best performance
system specs but none have ever been on the market), 900Mhz Spread
Spectrum and quite recently 46/49Mhz, very similar to the US as far as
channels go.
The latter two bands 'approved' equipment are IMO limited in there
ability to be upgraded, this is due to very low power out. The 46/49Mhz
bands are too close together to run separate antennas on the base
without causing de-sensing of the receiver.
I have tried high quality 9db gain marine cellular antennas on the
900Mhz KXT Panasonics, still a poor performer.
There are some wonderful equipment made in Taiwan for 900Mhz. I have a
cellphone lookalike with 25w at the base, 6w at the handset both with
TNC connectors, base and car roof co-linear antennas, but you'll pay!
Don't ask.
And they are illegal both here and in the US
The best band for performance/price just has to be the low band VHF.
45-49Mhz base tx, 67-72Mhz handset tx. I know your LMR equipment can
reach the sky and back, especially under lift conditions. I've heard NY
police in England!
The Jap made Superfone CT505 (48/68Mhz) is probably the best known.
Retails at around 500 USD. 10 channels, 1.2w base, 700mw handset.
The base has a pair of SO239 sockets for separate 1/2 wave dipoles, the
handset comes with a full 1/4 wave telescopic (which always breaks) that
can easily be changed to a BNC for use with a seperate car roof mounted
antenna.
With both base and car roof antennas you can get a reliable 12 miles
from this old fashioned looking system.
With 25w amp's at each end you can triple the mileage if you do a good
installation and optimise all antennas.
A friend's Audi Quattro was up on ramps inside a garage when the phone
rang. He climbed up the ramps to answer the phone but could not connect
with the base. The 25w just could not reach the base.
To check that this was not some spurious signal accessing his mobile he
called home on his cellular. Sure enough the car rang again.
His best to date, 57 miles. Though it was one way only and he had a 100w
LMR base amp at the house!
Phil / UK
Dave Hall
Hmmmm.. 6w on a battery powered handset must drain the batteries fairly
quickly, unless you drag a large gel-cell along with you. I'd also be a
bit wary about having 6w of RF power at 900 Mhz, within inches
(centimeters) of my head. Cancer fears you know.....
>
> And they are illegal both here and in the US
No doubt.
>
> The best band for performance/price just has to be the low band VHF.
> 45-49Mhz base tx, 67-72Mhz handset tx. I know your LMR equipment can
> reach the sky and back, especially under lift conditions. I've heard NY
> police in England!
Those phones are available from an importer here in New York, from what
I've been told.
>
> The Jap made Superfone CT505 (48/68Mhz) is probably the best known.
> Retails at around 500 USD. 10 channels, 1.2w base, 700mw handset.
>
> The base has a pair of SO239 sockets for separate 1/2 wave dipoles, the
> handset comes with a full 1/4 wave telescopic (which always breaks) that
> can easily be changed to a BNC for use with a seperate car roof mounted
> antenna.
>
> With both base and car roof antennas you can get a reliable 12 miles
> from this old fashioned looking system.
That seems a bit optimistic for only 1.2 watts/.7 watts. 5 miles
reliable was what I've been told to expect. Of course your mileage may
vary with differences in surrounding terrian and the gain and height of
the external antennas.
>
> With 25w amp's at each end you can triple the mileage if you do a good
> installation and optimise all antennas.
As transmit power goes up, the likelyhood of receiver desense also goes
up, even with the separation of 20 Mhz. The amp has to be pristinely
clean, with no spurs or other "dirt", plus it would also have to be
continuous duty rated, since a phone is full duplex.
>
> A friend's Audi Quattro was up on ramps inside a garage when the phone
> rang. He climbed up the ramps to answer the phone but could not connect
> with the base. The 25w just could not reach the base.
> To check that this was not some spurious signal accessing his mobile he
> called home on his cellular. Sure enough the car rang again.
>
Back when our phones were limited to 1.7/49 Mhz, and little or no
security codes, I used to "play" with a 49 Mhz phone and my 6 meter ham
rig. Running the phone though the rigs power output, and boosting the
output to 10 watts, on a 9 db gain yagi, I could "bring up" the base
units of phones as far away as 5 miles. It wasn't much use, since the
range of the 1.7 Mhz return was less than stellar. But it was fun as a
prank to simultaneously bring up a few dozen phones and call a 1-900
porn line. That must have caused a few eyebrows to raise at the phone
company...
> His best to date, 57 miles. Though it was one way only and he had a 100w
> LMR base amp at the house!
I would guess that at 100 watts, the densense problem was taking him
beyond the point of diminishing returns. For every extra mile that his
transmitter was gaining, he was killing his receive.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Stalking Ghost
He may have been a little zealous in his rebuttals, but
he definitely knows what he's talking about.
I personally would not bother with the cordless either.
There are quite a few self-proclaimed RF experts on the NG.
Usually when the discussion get hyper-technical, the not-so
informed folks show their ignorance.
Although I work in the comm. business and have been
around many facets of radio and their inherent problems,
I have never claimed to be the expert. Not everybody knows
everything there is to know about radio (RF).
No offense was intended. I hope none was taken.
Cheers!
Phil KKC4849 (Calamity), KA1NHZ, AFA1MY (MARS), Patriot 655 (CAP)
In article <PFKn4.1365$Ba4....@news.swbell.net>,
phil
>> There are some wonderful equipment made in Taiwan for 900Mhz. I have a
>> cellphone lookalike with 25w at the base, 6w at the handset both with
>> TNC connectors, base and car roof co-linear antennas, but you'll pay!
>> Don't ask.
>
>Hmmmm.. 6w on a battery powered handset must drain the batteries fairly
>quickly, unless you drag a large gel-cell along with you. I'd also be a
>bit wary about having 6w of RF power at 900 Mhz, within inches
>(centimeters) of my head. Cancer fears you know.....
antenna but I agree with what you say.
No, not dissimilar to a Motorola GP300 LMR battery pack that clips on
the back. High power LMR HT's run 5w+!
<snip>
>> The best band for performance/price just has to be the low band VHF.
>> 45-49Mhz base tx, 67-72Mhz handset tx. I know your LMR equipment can
>> reach the sky and back, especially under lift conditions. I've heard NY
>> police in England!
>
>Those phones are available from an importer here in New York, from what
>I've been told.
they export only.
>>
>> The Jap made Superfone CT505 (48/68Mhz) is probably the best known.
>> Retails at around 500 USD. 10 channels, 1.2w base, 700mw handset.
>>
>> The base has a pair of SO239 sockets for separate 1/2 wave dipoles, the
>> handset comes with a full 1/4 wave telescopic (which always breaks) that
>> can easily be changed to a BNC for use with a seperate car roof mounted
>> antenna.
>>
>> With both base and car roof antennas you can get a reliable 12 miles
>> from this old fashioned looking system.
>
>That seems a bit optimistic for only 1.2 watts/.7 watts. 5 miles
>reliable was what I've been told to expect.
antennas and the handset on it's own telescopic INE 3 miles max.
By correctly modifying the handset with a 50R BNC and a properly tuned
1/4 wave mounted on a car roof you can see a genuine 12 miles. Naturally
this depends on terrain and height of base antenna's.
<snip>
>As transmit power goes up, the likelyhood of receiver desense also goes
>up, even with the separation of 20 Mhz. The amp has to be pristinely
>clean, with no spurs or other "dirt", plus it would also have to be
>continuous duty rated, since a phone is full duplex.
Correct on all counts.
When running anything other than stock power we suggested antennas
spread apart at each gable end of the house, 20-40ft.
It was fun sorting out the duplexer and other filtering in the full-
duplex mobile amp running up a single whip!
The spectrum analyser does come in handy though it was not me that done
the work.
<snip>
>Back when our phones were limited to 1.7/49 Mhz, and little or no
>security codes, I used to "play" with a 49 Mhz phone and my 6 meter ham
>rig. Running the phone though the rigs power output, and boosting the
>output to 10 watts, on a 9 db gain yagi, I could "bring up" the base
>units of phones as far away as 5 miles. It wasn't much use, since the
>range of the 1.7 Mhz return was less than stellar. But it was fun as a
>prank to simultaneously bring up a few dozen phones and call a 1-900
>porn line. That must have caused a few eyebrows to raise at the phone
>company...
LOL
>> His best to date, 57 miles. Though it was one way only and he had a 100w
>> LMR base amp at the house!
>
>I would guess that at 100 watts, the densense problem was taking him
>beyond the point of diminishing returns. For every extra mile that his
>transmitter was gaining, he was killing his receive.
Yes, we came to that conclusion.
We had a nice unit 280/340Mhz, 40w base, 6w handset. On the air for a
week or so and the Military police from a local Royal Air Force station
tracked my mate down. Told him to discontinue his phone service
immediately as he was interfering with navigational beacons using the
same frwq's.
No further action and he still kept the kit.
Anyhow, just my 2p.
I made plenty of friends, especially the country's farmers and half paid
for the house with profits over my years in that game.
Onto pastures new.
AM broadcast transmitters!
End of post.
Phil / UK
Bill Nelson
: Yeah, And a pretty good job of it too!
: He hasn't mis-stated a single piece of RF theory.
: He obviously does know what he's talking about.
: You on the other hand, need to read up on your theory!
: PL-259 at 900MHz, Jeez!
They are useable. They are not even particularly lossy. The problem,
if I remember correctly - is that they are not constant impedance.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
: When running anything other than stock power we suggested antennas
: spread apart at each gable end of the house, 20-40ft.
Vertical spacing is better than horizontal - especially if you to not
have a few thousand dollars of expensive filters in the receive line.
There are formulas available for calculating the isolation.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
phil
>: When running anything other than stock power we suggested antennas
>: spread apart at each gable end of the house, 20-40ft.
>
>Vertical spacing is better than horizontal - especially if you to not
>have a few thousand dollars of expensive filters in the receive line.
>
>There are formulas available for calculating the isolation.
and receive antennas spaced well apart together with there being a 20Mhz
frequency split!
Phil / UK
Dave Hall
Exactly!
If you look at a BNC/TNC or a type "N" connector, you will see that the
"shield" part is at the same approximate distance from the center pin as
the shield of the coax that the connector was designed for, relative to
the pin diameter. This gives the connector its rated impedence, which is
good well into the UHF frequency ranges.
PL259 connectors do not have this "constant impedence" and will show up
as a reactive component in the higher frequency ranges (We call it an
"impedence bump"), which can alter the feedline loss, or antenna
matching. At lower frequencies, this is not an isue, but it can be a big
problem at 900 Mhz.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
-=PEAKABOO=-
why I thought the guy was trying to hard to prove a point about something as
meaningless as a miliwatt cordless phone.
"Dave Hall" <nojunkma...@worldlynx.net> wrote in message
news:38A15B...@worldlynx.net...
-=PEAKABOO=-
cordless phone) that a pl 259 would of worked just fine, not that it was the
best choice for a RF connector, but neither is the enclosure the phone is
in. It would of worked fine. We are not talking about a 50 watts phone, we
are talking about something that transmits very low power UHF.
"Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:87r242$4rf$8...@bashir.peak.org...
Dave Hall
>
> I agree, I mean what is a PL259 refered to as? it is UHF connector, That is
> why I thought the guy was trying to hard to prove a point about something as
> meaningless as a miliwatt cordless phone.
>
When the term "UHF" was applied to a PL 259, 150 Mhz was considered
"UHF". Alot has changed since then. To call a PL 259 a "UHF" connector
today is just plain silly.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Stalking Ghost
In fact, it is my view that at the low power
output that they are talking about, loss of any
amount is a major factor.
Cheers!
In article <38A15B...@worldlynx.net>,
Dave Hall <nojunkma...@worldlynx.net> wrote:
> Bill Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Stalking Ghost <pmet...@nbase-xyplex.com> wrote:
> > : Yeah, And a pretty good job of it too!
> >
> > : He hasn't mis-stated a single piece of RF theory.
> > : He obviously does know what he's talking about.
> > : You on the other hand, need to read up on your theory!
> >
> > : PL-259 at 900MHz, Jeez!
> >
> > They are useable. They are not even particularly lossy. The
problem,
> > if I remember correctly - is that they are not constant impedance.
> >
> > --
> > Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
> Exactly!
>
> If you look at a BNC/TNC or a type "N" connector, you will see that
the
> "shield" part is at the same approximate distance from the center pin
as
> the shield of the coax that the connector was designed for, relative
to
> the pin diameter. This gives the connector its rated impedence, which
is
> good well into the UHF frequency ranges.
>
> PL259 connectors do not have this "constant impedence" and will show
up
> as a reactive component in the higher frequency ranges (We call it an
> "impedence bump"), which can alter the feedline loss, or antenna
> matching. At lower frequencies, this is not an isue, but it can be a
big
> problem at 900 Mhz.
>
> Dave
> "Sandbagger"
>
>
Ernie Helms
lossy connector, its not about being able to handle excessive power. a "N"
type of connector would be better
"-=PEAKABOO=-" <peek...@bigradios.com> wrote in message
news:cYio4.2350$Ba4....@news.swbell.net...
> All I was saying was that for what he was doing (extending the range of a
> cordless phone) that a pl 259 would of worked just fine, not that it was
the
> best choice for a RF connector, but neither is the enclosure the phone is
> in. It would of worked fine. We are not talking about a 50 watts phone, we
> are talking about something that transmits very low power UHF.
>
> "Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
> news:87r242$4rf$8...@bashir.peak.org...
Ernie Helms
above especially where your poweris low such as the case of the phone who's
output is probably measure in hundredths of milliwatts. there will come a
point of diminishing returns where the amount of coax used to raise antenna
will negate the gain from the added heigth unless a very low loss cable is
used or more power is added to make up for the loss, or a higher gain
antenna is used.
"-=PEAKABOO=-" <peek...@bigradios.com> wrote in message
news:OGSm4.195$nF5....@news.swbell.net...
> I agree on this as well even a pl259 has very little loss in his
> situation.
>
>
> "Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
> news:87dq9s$jh9$7...@bashir.peak.org...
Qrm2000
>above especially where your poweris low
And if you buy them from Radio Shack, they may not be good at ANY frequency.*
Stock up on quality connectors at the next area hamfest. They cost slightly
more, but the work a lot better.
QRM
*Memories of Ralph Nader's book about the Corvair, titled, "Unsafe At Any
Speed."
phil
>then why do they have type "N" connectors? pl-259 are not good for uhf and
>above especially where your poweris low such as the case of the phone who's
>output is probably measure in hundredths of milliwatts. there will come a
>point of diminishing returns where the amount of coax used to raise antenna
>will negate the gain from the added heigth unless a very low loss cable is
>used or more power is added to make up for the loss, or a higher gain
>antenna is used.
I couldn't of expressed it better.
Years back when I ran reasonably big power on the 144Mhz ham band from a
pair of QY4-400's I compared the power handling/loss of both PL259 and
'N' type connectors.
Even at this frequency the 'PL259' connector ran hot as compared to a
stone cold 'N' type.
I've always considered PL's to be 'Audio' connectors.
I convert all my equipment to 'N' type connectors , even down at HF
from the constant impedance angle.
Phil / UK
Bob C.
phil <ph...@invest.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zJ1wgKAd...@invest.fsbusiness.co.uk...
> Hi Ernie,
> --------------snipped--------
> I couldn't of expressed it better.
> Years back when I ran reasonably big power on the 144Mhz ham band
from a
> pair of QY4-400's I compared the power handling/loss of both PL259
and
> 'N' type connectors.
> Even at this frequency the 'PL259' connector ran hot as compared
to a
> stone cold 'N' type.
> I've always considered PL's to be 'Audio' connectors.
> I convert all my equipment to 'N' type connectors , even down at
HF
> from the constant impedance angle.
>
> Phil / UK
Hi Phil,
If you had the silver plated PL259's you wouldn't have needed to
change out the connectors,unless the SO239's were poorly plated.
To change out the uhf connectors(PL259) on an H.F. rig is
largely a waste of time,effort and money. Don't get me wrong, if
it's your bent go for it. I just don't see the need for it even for
the impedance angle. The PL259's impedance is satisfactory at H.F.,
and a good enough connection to support a couple thousand watts on
SSB. This is provided you have decent connectors to start with.
phil
> If you had the silver plated PL259's you wouldn't have needed to
>change out the connectors,unless the SO239's were poorly plated.
> To change out the uhf connectors(PL259) on an H.F. rig is
>largely a waste of time,effort and money. Don't get me wrong, if
>it's your bent go for it. I just don't see the need for it even for
>the impedance angle. The PL259's impedance is satisfactory at H.F.,
>and a good enough connection to support a couple thousand watts on
>SSB. This is provided you have decent connectors to start with.
Everything you say is correct.
I've just become a little paranoid about impedance in my old age:-)
Phil / UK
Dave or Debby
came with it RIGHT INTO the unit itself, no connectors. It worked better
than just touching the center wire to the antenna! I did many 46/49
antenna installs in the past, but this was my 1st 900 freq. antenna, made
for a cordless phone, 40' coax, I think.
Dave
phil wrote in message ...
>Hi Ernie,
>
>>then why do they have type "N" connectors? pl-259 are not good for uhf
and
>>above especially where your poweris low such as the case of the phone
who's
>>output is probably measure in hundredths of milliwatts. there will come a
>>point of diminishing returns where the amount of coax used to raise
antenna
>>will negate the gain from the added heigth unless a very low loss cable is
>>used or more power is added to make up for the loss, or a higher gain
>>antenna is used.
kf6foz
post, I thought I would make a smart remark on this!!!
-Cobra-
The KF6FOZ BBS
Redding, CA.
530-229-0896
Visit my Website for other stuff and more info on
the BBS. Even a good list of Sale and Swap sites
on there.
http://www.qsl.net/kf6foz/main.htm
phil
>I put a 900 mhz base antenna in to a cordless phone, & wired the RG-59 that
>came with it RIGHT INTO the unit itself, no connectors. It worked better
>than just touching the center wire to the antenna! I did many 46/49
>antenna installs in the past, but this was my 1st 900 freq. antenna, made
>for a cordless phone, 40' coax, I think.
I the range increase was?
It's the very low RF output on the handsets which tend to limit out and
out range with most 900Mhz systems.
Phil / UK
Bazza Magoo
> Alot has changed since then.
You say alot has changed, but I never knew the meaning of alot.
Please tell me what alot meant before and what it means now.
>Dave
>"Sandbagger"
Hate you wanker
that people cannot stand your shit. You may have changed your name slightly
but you haven't changed your website and it still has beastiality related
pictures. You haven't changed you silly old cunt
Bazza Magoo <horse_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38c11fce...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
Bazza Magoo
It used 31 and 51 Mhz and put out 4.5 watts from both base and handset.
It also came with a 30 watt amp for both base and mobile use.
I had a lot of fun with it for a while.
Bazza Magoo
>900mhz. How do you tell? Wow, alot of questions.
I don't even know what "alot" means. Nobody will tell me!
Bazza Magoo
>that might work but for better results I would modify the case of the base
>and install a bnc connector or something of that nature by cutting the base
>out to fit the connector and solder the wire on the inside that connects to
>the antenna screw.
I did that, and connected it to a rooftop antenna approximately suitable for
the 30 Mhz that such cordless phones used, and got almost zero range.
BTW, have you ever considered trying upper case?