need a small, inexpensive urban TV antenna
OhioGuy
but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of the
channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks from
Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is particularly
annoying for my kids, because the PBS station they want to watch has
trouble about one day a week.
Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I can
try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
Thanks!
Shaun Eli
in place of the bowtie antenna.
Rod Speed
Dont bother, digital TV will fix that without changing the antenna.
Jim Prescott
A Silver Sensor is usually better than a bowtie but costs ~$25.
You might try using a longer cable so that you can locate your bowtie
higher up and/or closer to a window that faces the transmitters.
You can use www.tvfool.com to see which direction your stations come
from. It can also tell you whether any will be moving to VHF; your bowtie
isn't going to work well for VHF stations (though rabbit ears might).
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group j...@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY
John A. Weeks III
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
My experience so far is that it is harder to get the digital signals
than the analog signals, at least here in the Twin Cities.
The antenna I recommend for city usage is the Winegard HD-1080.
It can be used indoors, in your attic, in your garage, or outdoors.
You can find it at Amazon for under $30. There are similar units
available from Antennas Direct.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
albu...@mailinator.com
What you seem to need is an antenna booster, which is an amplified
antenna. They run about $30. If you have not switched to digital yet,
you will need this based on what you report. Digital is all or
nothing. If the signal is not sufficient, you get nothing. If it's
sufficient, the picture looks perfect.
Your signal depends on the pattern of radiated power from each
station. These patterns are changing with the digital too. You will
not go wrong by spending a few bucks on an amplifier.
PS. PBS stations often have faulty equipment due to finances. They may
be getting ready to drop the analog signal and scrap the equipment
that needs maintenance. So far, about 25% of stations have chosen to
ignore Obama's wishes and drop analog on the 17th as originally
schedules.
Rod Speed
>>> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV antennas,
>>> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
>>> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>>> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks
>>> from Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is
>>> particularly annoying for my kids, because the PBS station
>>> they want to watch has trouble about one day a week.
>>> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
>>> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
>> Dont bother, digital TV will fix that without changing the antenna.
> My experience so far is that it is harder to get the digital signals
> than the analog signals, at least here in the Twin Cities.
Dont believe it, particularly when the original analog transmitters are reused for digital TV.
His problem of a particular station being variable time wise goes away with digital.
> The antenna I recommend for city usage is the Winegard HD-1080.
> It can be used indoors, in your attic, in your garage, or outdoors.
> You can find it at Amazon for under $30. There are similar units
> available from Antennas Direct.
Bet his current one will be fine with digital TV.
Rod Speed
> OhioGuy wrote:
>> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV antennas,
>> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
>> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>>
>> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks from
>> Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is particularly
>> annoying for my kids, because the PBS station they want to watch has
>> trouble about one day a week.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
>> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
> What you seem to need is an antenna booster, which is an
> amplified antenna. They run about $30. If you have not switched
> to digital yet, you will need this based on what you report.
Nope, hordes have found that their less than perfect results
with analog TV are fixed with the change to digital TV.
> Digital is all or nothing. If the signal is not sufficient, you get nothing.
Thats just plain wrong. You can still get a result that isnt perfect with digital,
its just that the imperfections are different, dropouts instead of snow and ghosts.
> If it's sufficient, the picture looks perfect.
And if its less that sufficient, you get a perfect result most of the time with a few
dropouts, usually at times of maximum loss of signal like in an intense thunderstorm etc.
> Your signal depends on the pattern of radiated power from each
> station. These patterns are changing with the digital too. You will
> not go wrong by spending a few bucks on an amplifier.
You can actually, you can see a situation where with digital you get interference effects in the amp.
> PS. PBS stations often have faulty equipment due to finances.
No faulty so much as they tend to use lower power transmitters due to finances.
James
I always have problems with reception. Some rooms are better than
others. The converter box I got has an antenna strength feature. I
was able to finally find a position for the rabbit ears that gets
acceptable pictures. When I first hooked up the box the picture was
so bad that I disconnected it. I thought I had to buy a new TV but
after much experimenting I discovered that the antenna was OK as long
as it's in the right place pointing the right direction.
Gordon
You still have to turn the antenna to point toward the TV station.
Go to www.antennaweb.org to find the locations of the transmitters.
You will also get the direction to point the antenna for each
station.
One big problem with DTV is multipath. Fred Myers (in my part of
the world) sells a small Log-periodic antenna with good directional
properties. A friend of mine is using one to good affect where
he prieviously had multipath problems.
I have an antenna that is made from two of those Radio Shack bowties.
I mounted them 7 inches apart on a wooden dowel. The twinlaeds
were attached to a manching trasformer, with one set of leads having
a half twist. The dowel is stuck into a jar of rocks to
hold it up. Let the twinleads hang loose. For some reason, if you
try to be neat and tie everything up, it doesn't work.
Rod Speed
> OhioGuy <no...@none.net> wrote
>> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV antennas,
>> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
>> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks from
>> Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is particularly
>> annoying for my kids, because the PBS station they want to
>> watch has trouble about one day a week.
>> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
>> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
> You still have to turn the antenna to point toward the TV station.
> Go to www.antennaweb.org to find the locations of the transmitters.
> You will also get the direction to point the antenna for each station.
> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
Nope, that isnt a problem with DTV.
> Fred Myers (in my part of the world) sells a small Log-periodic antenna
> with good directional properties. A friend of mine is using one to good
> affect where he prieviously had multipath problems.
Not with DTV he doesnt.
Gordon
@mid.individual.net:
>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>
> Nope, that isnt a problem with DTV.
Yes, it is. but no body want's to talk about it.
Digital is supposed to solve all the world's problems.
When you have multipath problems with analoge, you
get ghosting, with digital, the picture breaks up.
Having just had to work through three insatallations with
severe multipath issues, I can definitly say: It's a problem.
Gordon
>> Fred Myers (in my part of the world) sells a small Log-periodic antenna
>> with good directional properties. A friend of mine is using one to good
>> affect where he prieviously had multipath problems.
>
> Not with DTV he doesnt.
Don't be a prick, Rod. I know that's like telling the sun
not to shine, but try.
My friend and I are engineers. You are an uneducated welfare boy.
We were out at his home with a directional antenna and a
professional RF signal strength meter. We stood there and
swung the antenna around and could identify all the multi
path sources. Then, with a cheap dipole antenna, we erected
grounded metal screens to block the multi paths (just for
experimental purposes. I'm not suggesting this as a perminent
solution) The effect was quite noticable. When we installed the
log-periodic antenna, we could choose the signal path and
reception was much better. So don't tell me that DTV isn't
suseptable multipath. I have first hand experience that it
is.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Gordon wrote
>>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>> Nope, that isnt a problem with DTV.
> Yes, it is.
Nope.
> but no body want's to talk about it.
They dont talk about it because it isnt a problem with DTV.
> Digital is supposed to solve all the world's problems.
Wrong again, its just better than analog.
> When you have multipath problems with analoge, you get ghosting,
Yes.
> with digital, the picture breaks up.
Nope.
> Having just had to work through three insatallations with
> severe multipath issues, I can definitly say: It's a problem.
You dont have a clue about what you are doing.
Too_Many_Tools
Or 75% of the stations are smart enough not to be the first ones that
the public will scream to the FCC about screwing up television. ;<)
DTV is a national train wreck about to happen.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
More people are having problems with digital than with their current
analog.
Bad voodoo coming.
TMT
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Fred Myers (in my part of the world) sells a small Log-periodic
>>> antenna with good directional properties. A friend of mine is using
>>> one to good affect where he prieviously had multipath problems.
>> Not with DTV he doesnt.
> Don't be a prick, Rod. I know that's like telling the sun not to shine, but try.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> My friend and I are engineers.
So am I.
> You are an uneducated welfare boy.
You're so stupid that you cant even manage to grasp that I have never ever
got a cent in welfare in my entire life, no matter how often you are told that.
> We were out at his home with a directional antenna and a professional
> RF signal strength meter. We stood there and swung the antenna
> around and could identify all the multi path sources.
Doesnt mean that multipath is a problem with DTV.
> Then, with a cheap dipole antenna, we erected grounded
> metal screens to block the multi paths (just for experimental
> purposes. I'm not suggesting this as a perminent solution)
> The effect was quite noticable. When we installed the
> log-periodic antenna, we could choose the signal path and
> reception was much better. So don't tell me that DTV isn't
> suseptable multipath. I have first hand experience that it is.
And everyone else has the evidence that with a particular
antenna that shows ghosts with analog TV, the DTV is perfect.
You get to like that or lump it or desperately attempt to bullshit your way out of your
predicament with ad hominem and fool absolutely no one at all who knows anything about it.
John A. Weeks III
Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.
John A. Weeks III
<14af3782-ce33-4e6c...@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DTV is a national train wreck about to happen.
Glory to the luddites. I suppose you said the same thing
when horse & buggies became obsolete, indoor plumbing was
invented, and when people started putting ice cubes in
their drinks. It is the end of the world as we know it.
Gordon
C3029B.230...@news-1.octanews.net:
> In article <Xns9BB09223CCAF...@85.214.105.209>,
> Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>
> No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
> no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.
>
> -john-
>
Yes and no.
As I was explaining to Rod, multipath is a problem
with DTV. And althought there are no ghosting or
the usual artifacts of analoge TV, the bit error
rate of the recieved digital signal goes up. That
causes pixelation and artifacts. To a large extent,
DTV can shrug off a certian amount of this. But in
situations where there is bad multipath issues, even
the best DTV has problems. How do I know?
First hand experience. I spent a day up at my friend's
house fighting multipath issues with his DTV setup.
Rod Speed
Nope, I've had plenty that change to DTV instead of replacing a poor antenna
and get a perfect result with the DTV. Some of them find that ordinary internal
rabbit ears that dont give an acceptible result with analog are fine with DTV too.
Rod Speed
Wrong, as always.
> Bad voodoo coming.
Nope, significant improvements in their TV are coming instead.
Rod Speed
>>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>> No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
>> no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.
> Yes and no.
Yes and yes, actually.
> As I was explaining to Rod, multipath is a problem with DTV.
No it aint. And thats why those who find that internal rabbit ears
that dont give an acceptible result with analog work fine with DTV.
> And althought there are no ghosting or the
> usual artifacts of analoge TV, the bit error
> rate of the recieved digital signal goes up.
Wrong again. You only get that with a very weak signal, not multipath.
> That causes pixelation and artifacts.
You dont necessarily even get that, you may get dropouts with weak signals.
> To a large extent, DTV can shrug off a certian amount of this.
That doesnt even make any logical sense.
> But in situations where there is bad multipath
> issues, even the best DTV has problems.
Wrong, as always.
> How do I know? First hand experience. I spent a day up at
> my friend's house fighting multipath issues with his DTV setup.
You dont have a clue about what you are doing.
Gordon
> Gordon wrote
>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>> Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote
>
>>>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>
>>> No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
>>> no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.
>
>> Yes and no.
>
> Yes and yes, actually.
>
>> As I was explaining to Rod, multipath is a problem with DTV.
And, of course, Rod doesn't believe that DTV can be less than
perfect. So here he is chiming in to tell me that I was
just seeing things. It must have been all a bad dream. He
can't believe that my rabbit ears only gave a signal strength
of 45 at best. That I had to switch to a dual dipole to get
readings in the 80s. That we used a directional antenna and
a profesional field strength meter (does Rod even know what that
is?) to identify 2 sources of multipath. That blocking
the multipath improved the reception. Nope, I just imagined
all that. Yup, Rod is the expert in all things. He wasn't
even here, but he feels qualified to pass judgement on what
I saw and did.
>
> No it aint. And thats why those who find that internal rabbit ears
> that dont give an acceptible result with analog work fine with DTV.
>
>> And althought there are no ghosting or the
>> usual artifacts of analoge TV, the bit error
>> rate of the recieved digital signal goes up.
>
> Wrong again. You only get that with a very weak signal, not multipath.
>
>> That causes pixelation and artifacts.
>
> You dont necessarily even get that, you may get dropouts with weak
> signals.
>
>> To a large extent, DTV can shrug off a certian amount of this.
>
> That doesnt even make any logical sense.
>
>> But in situations where there is bad multipath
>> issues, even the best DTV has problems.
>
> Wrong, as always.
You just proved to me that you are clueless about RF propagation.
You have obviously never worked in an RF lab. Don't know about
the effects of RF propagation on digital signals. You are an idiot.
I'm wasting my time here. This conversation is ended.
Rod Speed
>>> John A. Weeks III <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>>> Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote
>>>>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>>>> No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
>>>> no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.
>>> Yes and no.
>> Yes and yes, actually.
>>> As I was explaining to Rod, multipath is a problem with DTV.
> And, of course, Rod doesn't believe that DTV can be less than perfect.
You're lying, as always. I never ever said it was anything like perfect.
If you dont get a strong enough signal, you'll get dropouts, as I said.
> So here he is chiming in to tell me that I was just seeing things.
> It must have been all a bad dream. He can't believe that my
> rabbit ears only gave a signal strength of 45 at best.
Irrelevant to whether many who didnt get an acceptible picture
with rabbit ears with analog find that DTV is fine with rabbit ears.
> That I had to switch to a dual dipole to get readings in the 80s.
What matters is what produces an acceptable DTV result, no dropouts or pixelation.
> That we used a directional antenna and a profesional
> field strength meter (does Rod even know what that is?)
Wrong, as always. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to see
me recommending the use of one using groups.google if someone was
actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
>> No it aint. And thats why those who find that internal rabbit ears
>> that dont give an acceptible result with analog work fine with DTV.
>>> And althought there are no ghosting or the
>>> usual artifacts of analoge TV, the bit error
>>> rate of the recieved digital signal goes up.
>> Wrong again. You only get that with a very weak signal, not multipath.
>>> That causes pixelation and artifacts.
>> You dont necessarily even get that, you may get dropouts with weak signals.
>>> To a large extent, DTV can shrug off a certian amount of this.
>> That doesnt even make any logical sense.
>>> But in situations where there is bad multipath
>>> issues, even the best DTV has problems.
>> Wrong, as always.
> You just proved to me that you are clueless about RF propagation.
> You have obviously never worked in an RF lab.
Guess which pathetic little prat has just got egg all over its pathetic little face, as always ?
> Don't know about the effects of RF propagation on digital signals.
> You are an idiot. I'm wasting my time here. This conversation is ended.
Wrong, as always.
OhioGuy
signal strength, which an analog tuner usually doesn't report)
I bought a TR-40 CRA (DTV Pal, essentially) receiver that has a Dish
Network remote. It works pretty well, and I noticed immediately that it
could bring in a couple of digital stations that two other digital
receivers had not been able to get. Best deal out there at $10 after
coupon, in my opinion.
However, on certain days I've noticed that some of the channels seem
weak, even though we are only about 4 miles from the transmitters, and
there are no obstructions between us and them. (we can actually see the
transmitter towers if we use binoculars)
OhioGuy
No, the switchover does not solve everything. For some folks, it
actually CAUSES problems.
For example, my grandfather has an antenna rotor, and is able to pull
in about 15 analog channels acceptably, perhaps 10 without moving the
rotor. When he hooked up a digital set top box, suddenly he could only
pull in half as many channels, and some of these occasionally pixellated
out. This was very frustrating to him, and he assumed something was
wrong with the unit. He is approx 60 miles from the nearest
transmitter, but the ground is very flat, and he has a good antenna up
about 50 feet. He is an example of one of the folks that will likely
lose, not gain, when the switchover to digital TV is complete. No
matter what he does with installing preamps and such, I doubt that he'll
ever be able to get as many channels as he got previously.
I had a lot of trouble myself at first, until I found that my
placement of the antenna made a huge difference. I slowly moved the
antenna around until I found a spot where the majority of digital
channels seemed to come in best. It happened to be right against our
window, so I ended up using duct tape to hold it right in that spot,
behind the curtains.
I've noticed that some of the digital receiver set top boxes are
sorely lacking. I've tried 3 different ones before I found one that
satisfied me - the TR-40 CRA, which is about $10 cheaper than the 100%
same thing - DTV Pal, from Dish Network. What I liked about it:
A) pulled in some weaker stations the others did not get
B) it has a REAL program guide. While I can only see about 8 to 12
hours into the future with it right now, the menu says that if the local
channels provide the info, it can show something like 4 days worth of
upcoming info.
C) it has a timer, so you can set up a timed recording, and it will tune
to that channel at that time, & you can use your VCR to record the show.
Just like a VCR, you can set up a one time, daily, weekly, etc.
Rod Speed
> Hmm. It seems like there is really some antagonism over digital TV.
There's always some fools that dont understand the basics.
> No, the switchover does not solve everything.
No one ever said it did.
> For some folks, it actually CAUSES problems.
Corse it does, most obviously with those who can only receive analog.
> For example, my grandfather has an antenna rotor, and is able to pull in about 15 analog channels acceptably, perhaps
> 10 without moving the rotor. When he hooked up a digital set top box, suddenly he could only pull in half as many
> channels, and some of these occasionally pixellated out.
Thats usually due to a different effect, the masthead amp.
It can also just be due to there not being the same DTV transmitters as there are analog.
> This was very frustrating to him, and he assumed something was wrong with the unit. He is approx 60 miles from the
> nearest transmitter, but the ground is very flat, and he has
> a good antenna up about 50 feet. He is an example of one of the folks that will likely lose, not gain, when the
> switchover to digital TV is complete.
Nope, plenty of those have found they get a much better result with DTV.
> No matter what he does with installing preamps and such, I doubt that he'll ever be able to get as many channels as he
> got previously.
More fool you. I bet that someone who knows what they are
doing would be able to deliver a better result with DTV as long
as the area he is getting the signals from has just as good DTV
transmitters as analog transmitters.
> I had a lot of trouble myself at first, until I found that my placement of the antenna made a huge difference.
And you may well find that the placement that
works best for analog isnt the best for DTV too.
> I slowly moved the antenna around until I found a spot where the majority of digital channels seemed to come in best.
> It happened to be right against our window, so I ended up using duct tape to hold it right in that spot, behind the
> curtains.
And it isnt necessarily that critical with a decent external antenna.
> I've noticed that some of the digital receiver set top boxes are
> sorely lacking. I've tried 3 different ones before I found one that
> satisfied me - the TR-40 CRA, which is about $10 cheaper than the 100% same thing - DTV Pal, from Dish Network. What
> I liked about it:
> A) pulled in some weaker stations the others did not get
> B) it has a REAL program guide. While I can only see about 8 to 12 hours into the future with it right now, the menu
> says that if the local channels provide the info, it can show something like 4 days worth of upcoming info.
> C) it has a timer, so you can set up a timed recording, and it will
> tune to that channel at that time, & you can use your VCR to record
> the show. Just like a VCR, you can set up a one time, daily, weekly, etc.
Anyone with a clue has given up on VCRs and uses
something a tad more modern, like a PC with DTV cards.
John A. Weeks III
wrote:
> Hmm. It seems like there is really some antagonism over digital TV.
You will nearly always be disappointed if you assume that the
typical person ever bothers to use their head to think.
> No, the switchover does not solve everything. For some folks, it
> actually CAUSES problems.
Only for people who depend on an over-the-air signal. That is such
a small slice of the population. You need to consider the greater
good in this case. There will always be people who have problems.
Some people are afraid of indoor plumbing, and some farmers near
where I live still use horses because they are afraid of internal
combustion engines.
> For example, my grandfather has an antenna rotor, and is able to pull
> in about 15 analog channels acceptably, perhaps 10 without moving the
> rotor. When he hooked up a digital set top box, suddenly he could only
> pull in half as many channels, and some of these occasionally pixellated
> out. This was very frustrating to him, and he assumed something was
> wrong with the unit. He is approx 60 miles from the nearest
> transmitter, but the ground is very flat, and he has a good antenna up
> about 50 feet.
How old is his antenna? A lot of existing antennas are designed
for lower TV channel numbers. Feed line that is older has high
loss rates on higher channels. Amplifiers and splitters can
further harm a higher frequency signal. The dynamic that is at
work here is that many of the new DTV channels are much higher
in frequency, and it requires a modern antenna. Your grandfather
needs to ensure that his antenna is optimized for channels 14 to
50. He also needs to make sure that the feed line and any other
components are rated for 1200 megahertz. If his connectors are
not gold plated, they probably are not up to snuff.
> He is an example of one of the folks that will likely
> lose, not gain, when the switchover to digital TV is complete.
So, after making no attempt to understand the technology and
taking no remedial steps, you are ready to call your grandfather
a loser and write off the entire TV industry. Good thing you
weren't around during the early days of cars, or we would still
be talking about buggy whip factories and horse poop cleanup.
> No
> matter what he does with installing preamps and such, I doubt that he'll
> ever be able to get as many channels as he got previously.
Since each DTV channel has at least 2 and sometimes as many as
5 distinct channels, just getting half as many stations will
mean that he has more channels than before.
Too_Many_Tools
> In article
> <14af3782-ce33-4e6c-aa34-93d3bcf19...@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > DTV is a national train wreck about to happen.
>
> Glory to the luddites. I suppose you said the same thing
> when horse & buggies became obsolete, indoor plumbing was
> invented, and when people started putting ice cubes in
> their drinks. It is the end of the world as we know it.
>
> -john-
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================
Toot...toot....here comes the train wreck.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope...many televisions receiving digital signals are prosessed with
evil spirits that cause the pictures to pixelate, freeze and break up.
And the audio is out of sync with the lips of the little people in the
glowing box.
Meanwhile analog receptions works perfectly with no demons.
Is an exocist in the house?
TMT
TKM
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-9B8E1A.1...@news-3.octanews.net...
After some experimentation with an amplified roof antenna with a relatively
long run of RG-6 as well as rabbit ears on the set, I'm thinking that a home
brew antenna right near the TV would be worth trying since all of the
stations that I want come from the same direction. Fortunately, the
receptive area of the antenna can be as large as needed especially if it's
two dimensional. So, who knows of some make-it-yourself designs on the web
that work in both the VHF and UHF bands.
TKM
Gordon
> After some experimentation with an amplified roof antenna with a
> relatively long run of RG-6 as well as rabbit ears on the set, I'm
> thinking that a home brew antenna right near the TV would be worth
> trying since all of the stations that I want come from the same
> direction. Fortunately, the receptive area of the antenna can be as
> large as needed especially if it's two dimensional. So, who knows of
> some make-it-yourself designs on the web that work in both the VHF and
> UHF bands.
>
> TKM
>
>
>
There are several. Unfortunatly if you Google "DTV antenna"
you will get links to sites selling antennas. I have had
good luck googleing "DIY DTV antenna" and "Homemade DTV antenna".
There are several simple designs out there.
As I have mentioned before, I am having good luck with a
pair of Bowties mounted on a dowel. My total cost was
less than $15.00, including the matching transformer.
John A. Weeks III
Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
> As I have mentioned before, I am having good luck with a
> pair of Bowties mounted on a dowel. My total cost was
> less than $15.00, including the matching transformer.
That will work. You can make it work even better by putting
a chunk of metal screen about 6 inches behind the bowties.
That will make it much more directional, so it will reach
out much further in the direction 90 degrees from the plane
of the bowties.
hal...@aol.com
The DTV conversion will from FCC numbers raise the number of unserved
homes nationwide by 2.
2.1 million analog unserved, 5.7 million digital unserved
many areas will lose a station or two fcc numbers
the digital conversion was sold to americans foir free low speed
internet access........ not happening
the digital coinversion was supposed to give channels for emergency
services....... not happening.......
the bandwidth nearly all got bought for cell service.
multipath is definetely a issue, i can watch signal strength screen go
up and down, from multipatth. airplane flutter means not ghosts it
means blank screen.
the dirty secret of digital is the stations will soon porovide one
free SD feed, or a high def pay feed along with pay multifeeds....
$$$$$$$$ just give it a little time.
UHF doesnt propgate nearly as well as VHF, which goes thru buildings
and walls much better.
most digitaL CHANNELS WILL BE uhf.
the broadcasters dont care, satellite and cable pays them for
retransmission. they would prefer most use those services that pay
them for carriage.
look for some areras citys to sue the feds over the analog shut off,
since tv is essential during emergencies both naturaL And man made
John A. Weeks III
<e480474d-d870-47c2...@s14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
"hal...@aol.com" <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well lets see:)
...said the blind man. All kinds of misinformation here.
> The DTV conversion will from FCC numbers raise the number of unserved
> homes nationwide by 2.
Since most people get their TV from cable or satellite or internet,
the number of people who depend on over-the-air is small.
> 2.1 million analog unserved, 5.7 million digital unserved
Foo foo numbers.
> many areas will lose a station or two fcc numbers
No areas are losing stations.
> the digital conversion was sold to americans foir free low speed
> internet access........ not happening
Internet has nothing to do with TV. TV is a 1-way service,
while Internet needs a 2-way connection.
> the digital coinversion was supposed to give channels for emergency
> services....... not happening.......
Additional spectrum is being made available for land mobile radio.
> the bandwidth nearly all got bought for cell service.
A number of vendors bid on purchase and rental of the spectrum
that is being made available. More auctions are to come.
> multipath is definetely a issue, i can watch signal strength screen go
> up and down, from multipatth. airplane flutter means not ghosts it
> means blank screen.
But it doesn't affect the quality of the picture because it is
digital.
> the dirty secret of digital is the stations will soon porovide one
> free SD feed, or a high def pay feed along with pay multifeeds....
Pure bull. No DTV that I have seen has a coin slot, nor is there
provisions for pay services.
> $$$$$$$$ just give it a little time.
We have given it nearly 10 years, go get on the bus or get left
behind.
> UHF doesnt propgate nearly as well as VHF, which goes thru buildings
> and walls much better.
The background noise level at UHF is far lower than VHF, so the
tuners can be made more sensitive. That is why things like
cellular work so well with only milliwatts of transmit power.
> most digitaL CHANNELS WILL BE uhf.
Many stations will be UHF, many will be VHF.
> the broadcasters dont care, satellite and cable pays them for
> retransmission. they would prefer most use those services that pay
> them for carriage.
Of course the broadcasters care. They prove that by investing
tons of money in electrical power required to operate these stations.
> look for some areras citys to sue the feds over the analog shut off,
> since tv is essential during emergencies both naturaL And man made
There will be no lawsuits.
Quit making stuff up, and quit trying to scare people.
The Real Bev
> "hal...@aol.com" <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Well lets see:)
>
> ...said the blind man. All kinds of misinformation here.
>
>> The DTV conversion will from FCC numbers raise the number of unserved
>> homes nationwide by 2.
>
> Since most people get their TV from cable or satellite or internet,
> the number of people who depend on over-the-air is small.
I'm willing to wager that more than the usual number of only-over-the-air
viewers read mcfl. Us, for instance.
--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
--Gene Spafford (1992)
Gordon
210994.182...@news-1.octanews.net:
> In article <Xns9BB49C3789E5...@85.214.105.209>,
> Gordon <go...@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>> As I have mentioned before, I am having good luck with a
>> pair of Bowties mounted on a dowel. My total cost was
>> less than $15.00, including the matching transformer.
>
> That will work. You can make it work even better by putting
> a chunk of metal screen about 6 inches behind the bowties.
> That will make it much more directional, so it will reach
> out much further in the direction 90 degrees from the plane
> of the bowties.
>
> -john-
>
Trying to get a good mounting for the screen would be
a problem with this particualar setup. I would have had
to take the reflector into account right from the start.
So, I am aware of the advantages of the reflector, but
I'm not going to mess with it. Someone else may find
a reflector screen useful, tho.
Another option would be to add more bowties. Channel
Master makes an antenna with 4 dipoles and a reflector.
I understand that it is very popular. Certianly a DIY
could create a reasonable copy with four bowties and a
screen.
In my case, I went from Rabbit Ears, to loop, to bowtie
to dual Bowties, with better results at each step. When
I got to the dual bowties, I was pleased enough with the
results that I decided I didn't need to proceed any further
(to quad bowties, then reflector). If bowties didn't work
out, I was going to proceed with Yagi's and Log-periodic
antennas.