Passive repeater antenna??
Dave Shaffer
"Passive repeater" antenna to use in vehicles with handheld cell
phones. There are no wires that attach the phone to the antenna...
it just mounts on the window and serves as a "connection" to the
outside of the car.
Has anybody had any real experience with one of these either with
a cell phone or with a scanner? Are they supposed to boost
reception as well as transmission? (If so, they might increase
reception on a scanner in the same frequency range...see what
I'm thinking?)
On the surface, the concept sounds pretty iffy to me...and there is
a cost incolved as well. Just curious if anyone has tried it!
- Dave
Robert I Sinclair
writes:
systems in the new comvention center to no avail. Apparently they have
little to no effect.?
Jay
writes:
:>
:>I've seen cellular phone dealers promoting the use of a so-called
:>"Passive repeater" antenna to use in vehicles with handheld cell
:>phones. There are no wires that attach the phone to the antenna...
:>it just mounts on the window and serves as a "connection" to the
:>outside of the car.
:>
:>Has anybody had any real experience with one of these either with
:>a cell phone or with a scanner? Are they supposed to boost
:>reception as well as transmission? (If so, they might increase
A friend of mine has one and says it makes a big difference with his cell
phone. I believe it works mostly for transmit, but that makes sense since
you're sending from this little handheld device putting out just a few watts
of power. The signal you're receiving is coming from a large transmit tower
that I assume is sending at more than a couple watts. I doubt this antenna
would be of much help with a scanner.
-- Jay
Jeff Franklin
technical support, the passive repeater antennas do not work very well.
You are probably better off saving your money for hooking up a "real"
antenna. 73 de Jeff
REM121
gonzales) writes:
>Subject: Re: Passive repeater antenna??
>From: wa6...@ix.netcom.com (gary gonzales)
>Date: 13 Nov 1995 06:26:49 GMT
>
>In <485jsr$f...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> robe...@ix.netcom.com (Robert I
>Sinclair ) writes:
>>
>>In <95316.12...@psuvm.psu.edu> Dave Shaffer <DC...@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>writes:
>>>
>>>I've seen cellular phone dealers promoting the use of a so-called
>>>"Passive repeater" antenna to use in vehicles with handheld cell
>>>phones. There are no wires that attach the phone to the antenna...
>>>it just mounts on the window and serves as a "connection" to the
>>>outside of the car.
>>>
>>>Has anybody had any real experience with one of these either with
>>>a cell phone or with a scanner? Are they supposed to boost
>>>reception as well as transmission? (If so, they might increase
>>>reception on a scanner in the same frequency range...see what
>>>I'm thinking?)
>>>
>>>On the surface, the concept sounds pretty iffy to me...and there is
>>>a cost incolved as well. Just curious if anyone has tried it!
>>
>
>Think about it. The passive antenna is intercepting what tiny fraction
>of the total radiation emitted? The equivalent of a point on a circle.
>To have this tiny fraction of the total power re-radiated......
>come-on, if it sounds too good to be true, then.....
>
>
The railroad companies have been using "passive repeaters" for years.
They place an antenna in the tunnel and connect it via coax to an antenna
outside the tunnel. It has worked well for them. However, 800mhz is a much
higher band. If you were in a steel van that had no windows, there might
be a noticable improvement. But in a car that has lots of windows, you
would need test equiptment to tell the difference. Buy a magnetic mount or
glass mount and just run the coax to your seat. Connect the phone when you
are in the car. Otherwise save your money.
73 de,
Ron
Curtis Wheeler
>
> In article <486of9$a...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, wa6...@ix.netcom.com (gary
> gonzales) writes:
> >In <485jsr$f...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> robe...@ix.netcom.com (Robert I
> >Sinclair ) writes:
> >>In <95316.12...@psuvm.psu.edu> Dave Shaffer <DC...@psuvm.psu.edu>
> >>writes:
> >>>Has anybody had any real experience with one of these either with
> >>>a cell phone or with a scanner? Are they supposed to boost
> >>>reception as well as transmission? (If so, they might increase
> >>>reception on a scanner in the same frequency range...see what
> >>>I'm thinking?)
> >>>
> >>>On the surface, the concept sounds pretty iffy to me...and there is
> >>>a cost incolved as well. Just curious if anyone has tried it!
> >>
> >
> >Think about it. The passive antenna is intercepting what tiny fraction
> >of the total radiation emitted? The equivalent of a point on a circle.
> >To have this tiny fraction of the total power re-radiated......
> >come-on, if it sounds too good to be true, then.....
> The railroad companies have been using "passive repeaters" for years.
> They place an antenna in the tunnel and connect it via coax to an antenna
> outside the tunnel. It has worked well for them. However, 800mhz is a much
> higher band. If you were in a steel van that had no windows, there might
> be a noticable improvement. But in a car that has lots of windows, you
> would need test equiptment to tell the difference. Buy a magnetic mount or
> glass mount and just run the coax to your seat. Connect the phone when you
> are in the car. Otherwise save your money.
The cellular carriers themselves use passive repeaters in very
unique situations. They are sometimes used to provide some
coverage in areas that might be slightly shadowed from a cell site.
They are usually set up with a pair of a pair of good directional
antennas connected back to back with a "tuned" cable harness. But
they don't provide the type of coverage that a real repeater or
cell extender would.
A passive repeater that uses omnidirectional antennas, such as
those sold for cars, is not going to provide much, if any,
increased signal strength. You can't effectively repeat a signal that
weak without some significant gain in the antennas. Don't waste
your money on a passive repeater for your car to help your scanner
or your cell phone.
--
Curtis Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA