TV Antenna Puzzle
Helge Moulding
for cable, so I'm constantly fighting with my antenna.
Here's the skinny. I've got it set up under my garage roof, which is no
doubt part of the problem. It'd probably work a lot better if the antenna
were attached, say, to my chimney. But under the garage roof is where it
is. I've played with it to the point where it gets optimum reception on
all channels, VHF as well as UHF.
Sometimes, however, reception on one or another channel (typically a VHF
channel) still goes to hell. Could be someone parking a car where they
normally don't, or maybe a solar storm. Who knows. But last night channel
5 lost most signal. I decided to try playing with the co-ax cable that
connects the antenna to the receiver (a Panasonic DVD/VCR unit that sits
under my off-brand Olympia TV). I found that if I removed the antenna
cable so that only the inner wire connected, but the outer sleeve did
not, then channel 5 worked again. So I wound a bit of scotch tape around
the plug on the receiver to insulate the outside part, and when I plugged
the antenna cable in, channel 5 worked fine.
I was so proud of myself, but later when I tried to switch to channel 13,
which is UHF, the reception was lousy, when it's normally just fine. I
removed the scotch tape, and then it was fine.
So why would a VHF channel prefer the outer part of the co-ax insulated,
while a UHF channel wants it connected? Could this sort of thing be built
into the receiver? Why isn't it?
I did notice, years ago in college physics, that microwave transmissions
sometimes work better when the receiver is slightly detuned. Is this a
related phenomenon?
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Al Yellon
Helge Moulding <hmou...@excite.com> typed:
> Reception in my area truly sucks, and I'm not about to shell out any
> money for cable, so I'm constantly fighting with my antenna.
>
> Here's the skinny. I've got it set up under my garage roof, which is
> no doubt part of the problem. It'd probably work a lot better if the
> antenna were attached, say, to my chimney. But under the garage roof
> is where it is. I've played with it to the point where it gets
> optimum reception on all channels, VHF as well as UHF.
>
> Sometimes, however, reception on one or another channel (typically a
> VHF channel) still goes to hell. Could be someone parking a car where
> they normally don't, or maybe a solar storm. Who knows. But last
> night channel 5 lost most signal. I decided to try playing with the
> co-ax cable that connects the antenna to the receiver (a Panasonic
> DVD/VCR unit that sits under my off-brand Olympia TV). I found that
> if I removed the antenna cable so that only the inner wire connected,
> but the outer sleeve did not, then channel 5 worked again. So I wound
> a bit of scotch tape around the plug on the receiver to insulate the
> outside part, and when I plugged the antenna cable in, channel 5
> worked fine.
>
> I was so proud of myself, but later when I tried to switch to channel
> 13, which is UHF, the reception was lousy, when it's normally just
> fine. I removed the scotch tape, and then it was fine.
Here's your problem. Channel 13 is not UHF. The UHF band begins with channel
14.
You've gone to a whole lot of trouble. If you're going to go to this much
trouble, move the damn thing to the roof.
--
"The only thing that would jinx an animated feature film nomination for
'Finding Nemo' is the unexpected interference of a Chicago Cubs fan."
-- Michael Mallory, Daily Variety, December 10, 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || itghtfr02 (at) sneakemail (dot) com
Huey Callison
> Helge Moulding <hmou...@excite.com> typed:
>> Reception in my area truly sucks, and I'm not about to shell out any
> You've gone to a whole lot of trouble. If you're going to go to this much
> trouble, move the damn thing to the roof.
I put one of these on a mast that extends about five feet above and on
the upwind side of the chimney cap:
http://www.spectravox.com/3010stealth.html
I don't have a rotator, but pointed at around 44 degrees, kind of
splitting the difference between DC and Baltimore, I get pretty decent
reception on most of the DC stations and all of the powerful Baltimore
ones. Adding a line amp doesn't make much difference - the upstairs TV
has one, and gets about the same reception as the downstairs TV
despite about fifty feet of extra coax, and two extra splices.
Making sure the thing is pointed in the right direction is the easiest
fix. Go to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx and enter your
address into the locator, and it'll give you a listing of the stations
in your area, the size of antenna you will need to pull them, and
azimuths and distances to the transmitter towers.
--
Huey
Blinky the Shark
> I was so proud of myself, but later when I tried to switch to channel 13,
> which is UHF, the reception was lousy, when it's normally just fine. I
No, it's not UHF.
--
Blinky Registered Linux User #297263
Austkin
> I'm not about to shell out any money
>for cable,
Just out of curiousity, why? You get ALOT more choice.
Helge Moulding
> Helge Moulding wrote:
> > I was so proud of myself, but later when I tried to switch to channel 13,
> > which is UHF, the reception was lousy, when it's normally just fine. I
> No, it's not UHF.
You guys all work for Microsoft, right?
OK, so it's not UHF. My mistake. The rest of the story is what matters, not
the VHF/UHF part, which I supposed explained the strange behavior of the
co-ax cable. And, no, moving the antenna to the chimney is more work than
wrapping a bit of tape around the plug. As far as aiming is concerned, I've
already indicated that I'm done aiming. My question was why the tape on the
co-ax works for channel 5, but not for channel 13, and why a nifty "fix"
like that wouldn't be part of the receiver, say, as a toggle switch.
danny burstein
>already indicated that I'm done aiming. My question was why the tape on the
>co-ax works for channel 5, but not for channel 13, and why a nifty "fix"
>like that wouldn't be part of the receiver, say, as a toggle switch.
very significant frequency difference between ch 5 and ch 13, and the
characteristics of RF change...
ch 2: 55 mhz
...
ch 5: 77 mhz
ch 6: 83 mhz
[ big skipover to next channel ]
ch 7: 175 mhz
...
ch 13: 211 mhz
[ big, big, skip. next channels are UHF ]
ch 14: 471 mhz (note: this and the next few channels
have been moved from tv usage to radio)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Blinky the Shark
> Just out of curiousity, why? You get ALOT more choice.
"Alot". Look it up.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <pan.2004.01.10....@blinkynet.net>):
> Austkin wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiousity, why? You get ALOT more choice.
>
> "Alot". Look it up.
>
>
It's alot like alittle, which is alittle less than belittle. C?
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark, and others, wrote,
>> Helge Moulding wrote:
>> > I was so proud of myself, but later when I tried to switch to channel 13,
>> > which is UHF, the reception was lousy, when it's normally just fine. I
>> No, it's not UHF.
>
> You guys all work for Microsoft, right?
I dunno about anyone else, but that's just something I learned whe UHF
TV band was assigned back in...I guess the 60s or so. 50s?
Anyway, if we worked for MS, we'd make up our own name for it, and change
the frequencies so that nobody could use them without MS televisions.
Lalbert1
<use...@bauerstar.com> writes:
It's an acronym; A Load Of Trash.
Les
Jim Ellwanger
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> ch 14: 471 mhz (note: this and the next few channels
> have been moved from tv usage to radio)
I think you're either thinking of Channels 70 through 83, or you're
thinking of what'll happen after we all switch to digital
television...there are still analog TV stations broadcasting on every
UHF channel from 14 to 69 (except 37, which is reserved for
radioastronomy uses).
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
SoCalMike
"Helge Moulding" <hmou...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:480345e.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Reception in my area truly sucks, and I'm not about to shell out any money
> for cable, so I'm constantly fighting with my antenna.
do you have a cable going into your home? if so, try hooking it up... you
might get something.
Jim Ellwanger
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> I dunno about anyone else, but that's just something I learned whe UHF
> TV band was assigned back in...I guess the 60s or so. 50s?
It's not obvious what's VHF and what's UHF on modern TVs, but even
though I'm a few years younger than Blinky, I grew up with a TV that
had two channel selector dials: the top dial had 2 through 13, plus a
position labeled "UHF" which activated the bottom dial, and the bottom
dial tuned channels 14 through 83.
UHF channels were first assigned in the early 1950s, but most early TVs
didn't have UHF tuning built in...receiving UHF required a separate
converter box.
The FCC tried to encourage UHF development through the '50s, doing
things like allowing companies to own up to seven TV stations
nationwide if two of them were UHF, instead of just five. The only
thing the FCC did that really promoted UHF viewing, though, was
allocating only UHF channels to certain local areas, including South
Bend, Indiana, and Bakersfield and Fresno, California. In many other
areas of the country, UHF stations that went on the air in the 1950s
ended up going off the air within a few years due to low viewership.
Finally, in the early 1960s, legislation required that all TVs sold in
the U.S. after April 30, 1964, be able to tune both VHF and UHF, and
from there, UHF began to gain a foothold.
danny burstein
>In article <btnppa$8j3$1...@reader2.panix.com>, danny burstein
><dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> ch 14: 471 mhz (note: this and the next few channels
>> have been moved from tv usage to radio)
>I think you're either thinking of Channels 70 through 83, or you're
>thinking of what'll happen after we all switch to digital
>television...there are still analog TV stations broadcasting on every
>UHF channel from 14 to 69
It's my NY centric viewpoint, I'm afarid... In Major Metropolitan Areas
(there's some official FCC designation) the lowest umptity UHF channels
were switched over to land mobile radio use way, way, back. The NYC Police
Department (as well as lots of commercial folk), has used 476 through 481
mhz since at least the mid 1970s, maybe earlier. That would be channels 14
and 15.
About two years ago the FCC handed over UHF channel 16 as well, making
over 100 voice radio channels available.
>(except 37, which is reserved for radioastronomy uses).
hmm, didn't know that.
StarChaser Tyger
I think the point was the joke about the helicopter pilot lost in the
fog asking someone in an office building where he was and being told he
was in a helicopter.
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvenience of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Blinky the Shark
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:02:46 -0800, Blinky the Shark wrote
>> Austkin wrote:
>>> Just out of curiousity, why? You get ALOT more choice.
>> "Alot". Look it up.
> It's alot like alittle, which is alittle less than belittle. C?
Atsa right, Boss.
Blinky the Shark
> In <090120042241165879%trai...@mindspring.com> Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>In article <btnppa$8j3$1...@reader2.panix.com>, danny burstein
>><dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> About two years ago the FCC handed over UHF channel 16 as well, making
> over 100 voice radio channels available.
>>(except 37, which is reserved for radioastronomy uses).
> hmm, didn't know that.
It was a prime candidate for giving away.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Helge Moulding wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark, and others, wrote,
>>>> Helge Moulding wrote:
>>>> > I was so proud of myself, but later when I tried to switch to channel 13,
>>>> > which is UHF, the reception was lousy, when it's normally just fine. I
>>
>>>> No, it's not UHF.
>>>
>>> You guys all work for Microsoft, right?
>>
>>I dunno about anyone else, but that's just something I learned whe UHF
>>TV band was assigned back in...I guess the 60s or so. 50s?
>>
>>Anyway, if we worked for MS, we'd make up our own name for it, and change
>>the frequencies so that nobody could use them without MS televisions.
>
> I think the point was the joke about the helicopter pilot lost in the
> fog asking someone in an office building where he was and being told he
> was in a helicopter.
I feel compelled to toss in the joke (as it did not really happen)
that ends: "This is a light house. Your call."
tooloud
We'd also be successful in getting nearly everyone to use them and wonder
why many of them complained about it even though they made the decision on
their own.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Jim Ellwanger
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> It's my NY centric viewpoint, I'm afarid... In Major Metropolitan Areas
> (there's some official FCC designation) the lowest umptity UHF channels
> were switched over to land mobile radio use way, way, back. The NYC Police
> Department (as well as lots of commercial folk), has used 476 through 481
> mhz since at least the mid 1970s, maybe earlier. That would be channels 14
> and 15.
>
> About two years ago the FCC handed over UHF channel 16 as well, making
> over 100 voice radio channels available.
Easy enough to check to see where the FCC has assigned things...the
largest market with a Channel 14, 15, or 16 is San Francisco, market
#5, which has a Channel 14 (Univision affiliate KDFY).
The lowest UHF channel in the four larger markets: New York, Channel
21 (WLIW, PBS); Los Angeles, Channel 18 (KSCI, independent); Chicago,
Channel 20 (WYCC, PBS); Philadelphia, Channel 17 (WPHL, WB).
Joseph Nebus
>In <090120042241165879%trai...@mindspring.com> Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>(except 37, which is reserved for radioastronomy uses).
>hmm, didn't know that.
That channel's also allocated to some wireless medical devices,
with the note that users have to coordinate their use with astronomy
facilities.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Shaffer, Jr.
wrote:
>In article <btnppa$8j3$1...@reader2.panix.com>, danny burstein
><dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> ch 14: 471 mhz (note: this and the next few channels
>> have been moved from tv usage to radio)
>
>I think you're either thinking of Channels 70 through 83, or you're
>thinking of what'll happen after we all switch to digital
>television...there are still analog TV stations broadcasting on every
>UHF channel from 14 to 69 (except 37, which is reserved for
>radioastronomy uses).
14 through 16 (I think it's 16) were re-allocated as a public service band in
certain metropolitan areas only. I imagine this must have been before the
advent of 800-MHz systems.
Erich
TV channels 14 to 20 use frequencies shared with the Fixed and Land
Mobile services. The high numbered UHF channels are also shared.
See the chart at <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html> for
details.
... Erich
Al Yellon
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> typed:
> In article <bto7jm$cck$1...@reader2.panix.com>, danny burstein
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> It's my NY centric viewpoint, I'm afarid... In Major Metropolitan
>> Areas (there's some official FCC designation) the lowest umptity UHF
>> channels were switched over to land mobile radio use way, way, back.
>> The NYC Police Department (as well as lots of commercial folk), has
>> used 476 through 481 mhz since at least the mid 1970s, maybe
>> earlier. That would be channels 14 and 15.
>>
>> About two years ago the FCC handed over UHF channel 16 as well,
>> making over 100 voice radio channels available.
>
> Easy enough to check to see where the FCC has assigned things...the
> largest market with a Channel 14, 15, or 16 is San Francisco, market
> #5, which has a Channel 14 (Univision affiliate KDFY).
>
> The lowest UHF channel in the four larger markets: New York, Channel
> 21 (WLIW, PBS); Los Angeles, Channel 18 (KSCI, independent); Chicago,
> Channel 20 (WYCC, PBS); Philadelphia, Channel 17 (WPHL, WB).
IIRC, these low channels were grandfathered at the time that the lower
channels were "handed over" to radio use. It was presumed that eventually
they would, along with all other terrestrial broadcasting, become digital in
the next few years, at which time all the conventional TV VHF and UHF bands
would be turned over to radio use.
Al Yellon
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> typed:
> In article <pan.2004.01.10...@blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
> Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I dunno about anyone else, but that's just something I learned whe
>> UHF TV band was assigned back in...I guess the 60s or so. 50s?
>
> It's not obvious what's VHF and what's UHF on modern TVs, but even
> though I'm a few years younger than Blinky, I grew up with a TV that
> had two channel selector dials: the top dial had 2 through 13, plus a
> position labeled "UHF" which activated the bottom dial, and the bottom
> dial tuned channels 14 through 83.
>
> UHF channels were first assigned in the early 1950s, but most early
> TVs didn't have UHF tuning built in...receiving UHF required a
> separate converter box.
>
> The FCC tried to encourage UHF development through the '50s, doing
> things like allowing companies to own up to seven TV stations
> nationwide if two of them were UHF, instead of just five. The only
> thing the FCC did that really promoted UHF viewing, though, was
> allocating only UHF channels to certain local areas, including South
> Bend, Indiana, and Bakersfield and Fresno, California. In many other
> areas of the country, UHF stations that went on the air in the 1950s
> ended up going off the air within a few years due to low viewership.
>
> Finally, in the early 1960s, legislation required that all TVs sold in
> the U.S. after April 30, 1964, be able to tune both VHF and UHF, and
> from there, UHF began to gain a foothold.
All this is correct, and I had some TV's that had dual dials like that into
the 1980's.
Chicago did not have a UHF channel until 1964, when WCIU, channel 26, went
on the air.
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Chicago did not have a UHF channel until 1964, when WCIU, channel 26, went
> on the air.
And then you had situations like Tampa, where the first channel to go
on the air, in 1954, was WSUN, Channel 38.
But then two VHF stations went on the air in 1955 and snapped up the
affiliations of the two stronger networks, NBC and CBS, so from then
on, that UHF station and its ABC affiliation ran a distant third.
Then, in the mid-1960s, a third (commercial) VHF station went on the
air in the area, and even though their signal was weaker for many
people in the area than the existing Channel 38, ABC chose to switch
its affiliation to the new VHF station.
Channel 38 struggled along as an independent station for a while, but
finally went dark in the early 1970s. It wasn't until the early 1990s
that a new station went on the air on that same channel (and by that
time, all the other UHF allocations in the area were in use).
Helge Moulding
> > Helge Moulding wrote:
> > I'm not about to shell out any money for cable,
> Just out of curiousity, why? You get ALOT more choice.
Hmm, what'll I have? A pile of cow dung? No, not in the mood for that
right now. Horseshit? Sounds good, but I'm trying to watch my figure.
Catbox siftings? Tempting! Dog doo? Nope, I'm diabetic. All these
choices! Good thing I paid extra, but it's sure difficult to make up
my mind.
Helge Moulding
> I think the point was the joke about the helicopter pilot lost in the
> fog asking someone in an office building where he was and being told he
> was in a helicopter.
I think the idea on AFCA is to ask a question in such an oblique way that
the people who give these non-answers just accidentally give the right
answers. Perhaps if I'd asked which channels are VHF, so that insulating
the antenna ground gives better reception? (Of course, now people will
probably explain that the outside part of the antenna cable isn't really
the ground.)
At least up til now a lot of verbiage has been spent on the precise
frequencies of various broadcast bands, but no one has yet answered my
question. Which, of course, may be because no one actually knows. This
would be a serious blow to AFCA's motto: as a group we know everything.
StarChaser Tyger
>StarChaser Tyger wrote,
>> I think the point was the joke about the helicopter pilot lost in the
>> fog asking someone in an office building where he was and being told he
>> was in a helicopter.
>
>I think the idea on AFCA is to ask a question in such an oblique way that
>the people who give these non-answers just accidentally give the right
>answers. Perhaps if I'd asked which channels are VHF, so that insulating
>the antenna ground gives better reception? (Of course, now people will
>probably explain that the outside part of the antenna cable isn't really
>the ground.)
>
>At least up til now a lot of verbiage has been spent on the precise
>frequencies of various broadcast bands, but no one has yet answered my
>question. Which, of course, may be because no one actually knows. This
>would be a serious blow to AFCA's motto: as a group we know everything.
I don't know, which is why I haven't answered...but the overly pedantic
thing of some people is -really- starting to get on my nerves. When it's
obvious what was being asked, whether or not it was precise to the last
decimal point, and you get not only a stupid but useless answer
anyway...
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Austkin wrote,
>> > Helge Moulding wrote:
>> > I'm not about to shell out any money for cable,
>> Just out of curiousity, why? You get ALOT more choice.
>
>Hmm, what'll I have? A pile of cow dung? No, not in the mood for that
>right now. Horseshit? Sounds good, but I'm trying to watch my figure.
>Catbox siftings? Tempting! Dog doo? Nope, I'm diabetic. All these
>choices! Good thing I paid extra, but it's sure difficult to make up
>my mind.
It has a lot to do with your expectations. If you're looking for
shit, you certainly won't be disappointed. Howver, I find (or have
TiVo find for me) a lot of stuff you won't get over the air -
Discovery, History, A&E, Food channels, car channels, Tech TV, DIY,
lots more.
It's easy to make up your mind when it's already closed, isn't it?
James Gifford
> At least up til now a lot of verbiage has been spent on the precise
> frequencies of various broadcast bands, but no one has yet answered my
> question. Which, of course, may be because no one actually knows.
Actually, your question was answered correctly and completely, if a
little obfuscatedly. TV broadcasting covers a *huge* range of
frequencies, with some very large gaps in between chunks of it. (The
*entire* FM band fits into a small part of the gap between Channels 6 and
7, for example.)
Here's a very good chart of TV channel frequencies:
http://www.nobarc.org/hounds/tvbroad.html
Note that it goes from 54 MHz to 806 MHz - and that's with channels 70-83
lopped off, as they were about 20 years ago.
For efficient reception, antennas must be tuned (usually by the length of
the elements) to the band they are receiving. If you only wanted to
receive one TV channel, you could use a simple "dipole" (two elements 180
degrees apart) of the exact length needed to optimally receive that
frequency. The reason a TV "yagi" antenna looks the way it does is
because it has a dipole for each range of frequencies.
What confuses this for most people is that local TV channels are often
strong enough to be received well even with crummy antennas - rabbit
ears, half-broken yagis, completely shot downlead wires, etc. So the
"tuned" nature of reception and the obstacles to receiving all the
channels well may not be readily apparent.
Now, to answer your question very specifically: you are using a tuned
element to receive a wide range of frequencies under extremely poor
conditions. Besides not having the antenna high enough for an
unobstructed line of site to the transmitter tower (and TV broadcasting
is largely line-of-sight), you have the roof structure in the way. So
it's not at all surprising that if you tweak the antenna to receive the
lower band of channels well, it's fuzzy on the higher band (which is
three to four times the frequency), and vice versa.
Exactly why your bit of tape is the controlling factor, I can't say, but
anyone with RF experience knows that weak signal reception can be
extremely fussy and idiosyncratic.
Did that fail to answer any part of your original question?
--
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
Al Yellon
news:567a2776abd899b9...@news.teranews.com:
> hmou...@excite.com (Helge Moulding) wrote:
>> At least up til now a lot of verbiage has been spent on the precise
>> frequencies of various broadcast bands, but no one has yet answered
>> my question. Which, of course, may be because no one actually knows.
>
> Actually, your question was answered correctly and completely, if a
> little obfuscatedly. TV broadcasting covers a *huge* range of
> frequencies, with some very large gaps in between chunks of it. (The
> *entire* FM band fits into a small part of the gap between Channels 6
> and 7, for example.)
>
> Here's a very good chart of TV channel frequencies:
>
> http://www.nobarc.org/hounds/tvbroad.html
>
> Note that it goes from 54 MHz to 806 MHz - and that's with channels
> 70-83 lopped off, as they were about 20 years ago.
>
> For efficient reception, antennas must be tuned (usually by the length
> of the elements) to the band they are receiving. If you only wanted to
> receive one TV channel, you could use a simple "dipole" (two elements
> 180 degrees apart) of the exact length needed to optimally receive
> that frequency. The reason a TV "yagi" antenna looks the way it does
> is because it has a dipole for each range of frequencies.
There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned here. IIRC in Helge's
original post, he mentioned good reception on channel 5, but bad on channel
13.
Not knowing which market this is, is it possible that these stations
transmit from different locations? That is true for many markets, including
Chicago, which can make over-the-air reception of different channels very
different.
An antenna rotator might solve the problem.
Stephen Fels
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KcNLb.11273$na.10483@attbi_s04...
I've lived in two apartments and rented one house, where there was basic
cable left over (not disconnected) from previous tenants.
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
Al Yellon
news:2tEMb.20622$I05.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KcNLb.11273$na.10483@attbi_s04...
>>
>> "Helge Moulding" <hmou...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:480345e.04010...@posting.google.com...
>> > Reception in my area truly sucks, and I'm not about to shell out
>> > any
> money
>> > for cable, so I'm constantly fighting with my antenna.
>>
>> do you have a cable going into your home? if so, try hooking it up...
>> you might get something.
>
> I've lived in two apartments and rented one house, where there was
> basic cable left over (not disconnected) from previous tenants.
Here's a guy who was going to sue his cable company because, as he put it,
they refused to cut off his cable service after he stopped the billing for
it, and he became "addicted":
http://www.wisinfo.com/thereporter/news/archive/local_14086913.shtml
Looks like he came to his senses and isn't going to sue. Sheesh. This is a
new low in claiming to be a victim.
Helge Moulding
> There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned here. IIRC in Helge's
> original post, he mentioned good reception on channel 5, but bad on channel
> 13.
Nope. I mentioned that I got crappy reception on 5, but when I insulated
the outside part of the antenna's co-ax, the reception became passable.
But then the reception on 13 wasn't so good, anymore, until I removed
the insulation from the plug again.
Al Yellon
news:480345e.04011...@posting.google.com:
> Al Yellon wrote,
>> There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned here. IIRC in
>> Helge's original post, he mentioned good reception on channel 5, but
>> bad on channel 13.
>
> Nope. I mentioned that I got crappy reception on 5, but when I
> insulated the outside part of the antenna's co-ax, the reception
> became passable. But then the reception on 13 wasn't so good, anymore,
> until I removed the insulation from the plug again.
Still doesn't answer the question I raised: are these two channels
transmitting from the same location?
James Gifford
> Nope. I mentioned that I got crappy reception on 5, but when I
> insulated the outside part of the antenna's co-ax, the reception
> became passable. But then the reception on 13 wasn't so good, anymore,
> until I removed the insulation from the plug again.
It sounds like something in your action was tuning the whole antenna/feed
assembly one way, and then the other. Not uncommon unless you have powerful
local stations and/or a big antenna mounted high. As well, if the station
towers aren't within a pretty narrow beamwidth (something like 15 degrees),
you'll either have to compromise on your reception or use a rotator.
SoCalMike
"Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote in message
news:2tEMb.20622$I05.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KcNLb.11273$na.10483@attbi_s04...
> >
> > "Helge Moulding" <hmou...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:480345e.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > Reception in my area truly sucks, and I'm not about to shell out any
> money
> > > for cable, so I'm constantly fighting with my antenna.
> >
> > do you have a cable going into your home? if so, try hooking it up...
you
> > might get something.
>
> I've lived in two apartments and rented one house, where there was basic
> cable left over (not disconnected) from previous tenants.
you can often get some kind of signal just from the cable. comcast
apparently doesnt scramble *everything*, and they still do analog.
Greg Goss
>I think the idea on AFCA is to ask a question in such an oblique way that
>the people who give these non-answers just accidentally give the right
>answers. Perhaps if I'd asked which channels are VHF, so that insulating
>the antenna ground gives better reception? (Of course, now people will
>probably explain that the outside part of the antenna cable isn't really
>the ground.)
Actually, that's probably the answer. If the ground isn't grounded,
perhaps the whole lead-in wire is an antenna. And by coincidence, it
may be tuned better than the precisely tuned antenna you were trying
to use.
Greg Goss
>"Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote in
>> I've lived in two apartments and rented one house, where there was
>> basic cable left over (not disconnected) from previous tenants.
>
>Here's a guy who was going to sue his cable company because, as he put it,
>they refused to cut off his cable service after he stopped the billing for
>it, and he became "addicted":
>
>http://www.wisinfo.com/thereporter/news/archive/local_14086913.shtml
>
>Looks like he came to his senses and isn't going to sue. Sheesh. This is a
>new low in claiming to be a victim.
They always leave it in place for several months when someone moves
out. Then when they actually do disconnect it, the guy needs it back
right away.
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Not knowing which market this is, is it possible that these stations
> transmit from different locations? That is true for many markets, including
> Chicago, which can make over-the-air reception of different channels very
> different.
Doesn't every TV station in Chicago transmit from either the top of the
Sears Tower or the John Hancock building? Those seem like they're
close enough together that it wouldn't be too much of a problem for
most viewers in the area to aim their antennas at, since they're in the
same general direction. (Although a friend of mine who lived in the
south suburbs when he was growing up never got a good picture from the
John Hancock building stations...the signals were being blocked by the
Amoco building.)
groo
>
> hmou...@excite.com (Helge Moulding) wrote:
>
> >I think the idea on AFCA is to ask a question in such an oblique way that
> >the people who give these non-answers just accidentally give the right
> >answers. Perhaps if I'd asked which channels are VHF, so that insulating
> >the antenna ground gives better reception? (Of course, now people will
> >probably explain that the outside part of the antenna cable isn't really
> >the ground.)
>
> Actually, that's probably the answer. If the ground isn't grounded,
> perhaps the whole lead-in wire is an antenna. And by coincidence, it
> may be tuned better than the precisely tuned antenna you were trying
> to use.
That was my first thought, but upon re-reading Helge's posting, it
wasn't clear to me which is going on. Helge, are you stripping away the
insulation over the outer conductor, or disconnecting the outer
conductor from the circuit? If it's the latter, then Greg's guess is my
best guess...you've put another antenna in series with the "real" one,
and changed the tuning of the circuit as a result. That is going to give
different results, depending on the frequency of the signal you are
trying to receive.
If it's the former, I have no idea. Removing antenna connection
insulation should have no effect on reception. Well, I do have one idea.
In my experience with electronics, when your intended action has a
totally bizzare effect, it usually turns out that you were also doing
something unintended at the same time, such as fixing/breaking a wonky
connection.
--
"This is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased. Not with
idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a medium-sized hammer
and some free time." - JB on afca
Al Yellon
news:120120042238482120%trai...@mindspring.com:
> In article <Xns946E8DA9ADB...@130.133.1.4>, Al Yellon
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Not knowing which market this is, is it possible that these stations
>> transmit from different locations? That is true for many markets,
>> including Chicago, which can make over-the-air reception of different
>> channels very different.
>
> Doesn't every TV station in Chicago transmit from either the top of
> the Sears Tower or the John Hancock building? Those seem like they're
> close enough together that it wouldn't be too much of a problem for
> most viewers in the area to aim their antennas at, since they're in
> the same general direction. (Although a friend of mine who lived in
> the south suburbs when he was growing up never got a good picture from
> the John Hancock building stations...the signals were being blocked by
> the Amoco building.)
See -- you've answered your own question. Yes, all the Chicago stations are
on top of one of those two buildings. But depending on where you live, you
*might* get ghosting or signal degradation because of the locations of
*other* tall buildings.
This is particularly true for me; I live about four miles from the Hancock
and about six from Sears, and I can't get a decent broadcast picture on
just about any local channel. For any reasonable local signal I have to
have cable.
Helge Moulding
> It has a lot to do with your expectations. If you're looking for
> shit, you certainly won't be disappointed.
90% of everything. Right.
> Discovery, History, A&E, Food channels, car channels, Tech TV, DIY,
> lots more.
That's a different question. I was saying that I'm not about to go
for cable just to get better reception on the stations I receive at
this time. Now you're telling me that there are other reasons to go
for cable, which is true, but besides the point.
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> This is particularly true for me; I live about four miles from the Hancock
> and about six from Sears, and I can't get a decent broadcast picture on
> just about any local channel. For any reasonable local signal I have to
> have cable.
My friends in Uptown who I always stay with when I'm in Chicago get a
horrible signal on WBBM through the cable, or at least they have when
I've been at their place in the past...I hear Comcast moved WBBM's
cable dial position from 3 to 22 to try to eliminate those kinds of
problems.
Al Yellon
> In article <Xns946F8390BFC...@130.133.1.4>, Al Yellon
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> This is particularly true for me; I live about four miles from the
>> Hancock and about six from Sears, and I can't get a decent broadcast
>> picture on just about any local channel. For any reasonable local
>> signal I have to have cable.
>
> My friends in Uptown who I always stay with when I'm in Chicago get a
> horrible signal on WBBM through the cable, or at least they have when
> I've been at their place in the past...I hear Comcast moved WBBM's
> cable dial position from 3 to 22 to try to eliminate those kinds of
> problems.
True, in some areas. In fact, WBBM had to be moved off its broadcast
channel # (2) to 3 when the area was originally wired back in the '80s,
because channel 2 has horrid interference problems. Comcast puts the
channel guide on 2, and yes, WBBM (CBS in Chicago) is on 22. The other VHF
broadcast stations in Chicago keep their channel numbers on cable in the
Comcast areas (5, NBC, 7, ABC, 9, WGN, and 11, WTTW), but the other
broadcast stations are all over the map:
WFLD (FOX), 32 broadcast, 12 cable
WPWR (UPN), 50 broadcast, 8 cable
WCIU (IND), 26 broadcast, 13 cable
WSNS (Telemundo), 44 broadcast, 4 cable
WGBO (Univision), 66 broadcast, 6 cable
WXXW (PBS), 20 broadcast and cable
WCPX (Pax), 38 broadcast and cable
WXFT (Ind. Spanish), 50 broadcast and cable
WYIN (PBS Indiana), 56 broadcast, 48 cable
WJYS (PBS. Yes, we have a lot of PBS stations.), 62 broadcast, 47 cable
No wonder people have TiVO.
Helge Moulding
> it wasn't clear to me which is going on. Helge, are you stripping away
> the insulation over the outer conductor, or disconnecting the outer
> conductor from the circuit?
The latter. I wrapped a piece of Scotch tape around the plug on the VCR/
DVD unit, the one where the antenna co-ax gets hooked up. The consequence
is that the outer conductor is then no longer connected to the VCR/DVD.
I'm assuming that's the ground connection.
What you're telling me makes sense. It's like wrapping aluminum foil
around rabbit ears, or sticking a wire coat hanger into the broken end
of a telescoping antenna.
I've been suspecting for some time now that the amount of power that's
used for analog broadcasts has been decreased, to be switched over to
digital broadcasts. Am I being paranoid?
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> The other VHF broadcast stations in Chicago keep their channel
> numbers on cable in the Comcast areas (5, NBC, 7, ABC, 9, WGN, and
> 11, WTTW), but the other broadcast stations are all over the map...
Back when Tampa was first wired for cable in the early '80s, the
channel lineup had all the over-the-air stations, VHF and UHF, on their
same channel numbers on cable.
Then the original cable operator went bankrupt, and a different cable
company took over and brought the UHF channels down lower in order to
group the various service tiers together (so all the "broadcast basic"
channels were in one group, then came all the premium channels, and so
on).
Then that cable company was bought by another one, which operated most
of the cable systems in the suburbs, and so that their channel lineups
would be essentially similar throughout the area, three of the four VHF
channels were moved off their over-the-air dial position (where they
were in the suburbs because of interference problems in some parts of
the area). So now only one channel, CBS affiliate WTSP, Channel 10, is
on the same channel on cable as it is over the air, and that's because
it has the weakest signal, which is because they're the only station in
the Tampa area that's on the same frequency as a station in Miami.
Tampa's now on its fourth cable company in 20 years, but so far, the
new one hasn't switched the channel lineup around. However, I just
sold my father my old TiVo, so he'll be all set if they do.
Al Yellon
> Then that cable company was bought by another one, which operated most
> of the cable systems in the suburbs, and so that their channel lineups
> would be essentially similar throughout the area, three of the four VHF
> channels were moved off their over-the-air dial position (where they
> were in the suburbs because of interference problems in some parts of
> the area). So now only one channel, CBS affiliate WTSP, Channel 10, is
> on the same channel on cable as it is over the air, and that's because
> it has the weakest signal, which is because they're the only station in
> the Tampa area that's on the same frequency as a station in Miami.
That surprises me. How far is Tampa from Miami? I'd think they'd be far
enough that it wouldn't matter.
FWIW, Chicago should have the same VHF channels as NY and LA - 2,4,5,7,9,11
and 13.
Channel 4 is taken in Milwaukee, and for some reason, the small market of
Grand Rapids, Mich. and the even smaller market of Rockford, IL each got
channel 13, so Chicago got locked out of having both of these channels. At
the very least we should have one or the other.
What this did is prevent a strong independent channel competition to WGN,
since channel 11 is PBS, and there were no UHF channels in Chicago until
1964. That allowed WGN-TV, channel 9, to become a very strong local
presence, since the other broadcast channels were network affiliates,
unlike NY and LA, where there were three independent stations on VHF.
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> That surprises me. How far is Tampa from Miami? I'd think they'd be far
> enough that it wouldn't matter.
I think it's about 250 miles as the TV signal travels, although the
Tampa TV antenna farm is southeast of the city, and the Miami TV
antenna farm is north of the city, so they're closer together than
that. So the transmitter for Channel 10 in Tampa is instead northwest
of Tampa, instead of being at the antenna farm with all the others.
> FWIW, Chicago should have the same VHF channels as NY and LA -
> 2,4,5,7,9,11 and 13.
>
> Channel 4 is taken in Milwaukee, and for some reason, the small
> market of Grand Rapids, Mich. and the even smaller market of
> Rockford, IL each got channel 13, so Chicago got locked out of having
> both of these channels. At the very least we should have one or the
> other.
I think Chicago was a victim of not having a full complement of VHF TV
stations on the air already when the FCC reconfigured the TV
assignments in the early 1950s...there were only four stations on the
air in Chicago when the FCC instituted its TV license freeze to allow
them to get things sorted out, but both New York and L.A. had 2, 4, 5,
7, 9, 11, and 13 operating already, so they ended up keeping all of
those plum VHF assignments.
In Chicago, WBBM-TV was originally on Channel 4, but moved to Channel
2 as a result of the reconfiguration, which mainly affected assignments
for stations that weren't on the air yet. In addition to Milwaukee,
the Quad Cities and Indianapolis also ended up with a Channel 4. Why
didn't the FCC just keep Channel 4 in Chicago and give Channel 2 to
those cities? Well, there's a Channel 2 in Terre Haute and Cedar
Rapids...I'm sure it all made sense to someone, back when they were
drawing circles on a map of the U.S. to figure all this out.
Al Yellon
> In article <Xns94709660F9C...@130.133.1.4>, Al Yellon
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> That surprises me. How far is Tampa from Miami? I'd think they'd be far
>> enough that it wouldn't matter.
>
> I think it's about 250 miles as the TV signal travels, although the
> Tampa TV antenna farm is southeast of the city, and the Miami TV
> antenna farm is north of the city, so they're closer together than
> that. So the transmitter for Channel 10 in Tampa is instead northwest
> of Tampa, instead of being at the antenna farm with all the others.
This makes sense, given the geography of both areas; otherwise half the
signals would be wasted on the fish.
> I think Chicago was a victim of not having a full complement of VHF TV
> stations on the air already when the FCC reconfigured the TV
> assignments in the early 1950s...there were only four stations on the
> air in Chicago when the FCC instituted its TV license freeze to allow
> them to get things sorted out, but both New York and L.A. had 2, 4, 5,
> 7, 9, 11, and 13 operating already, so they ended up keeping all of
> those plum VHF assignments.
Now that I think about it, you are right, because of the freeze in TV
licenses that was made in 1948, and Chicago had only 4 (not 2, as you
correctly point out), 5, 7, 9 and 11 on air at the time.
>
> In Chicago, WBBM-TV was originally on Channel 4, but moved to Channel
> 2 as a result of the reconfiguration, which mainly affected assignments
> for stations that weren't on the air yet.
This was only partly because of an FCC "reconfiguration". It was also
because of the Paramount/ABC merger; Paramount had owned channel 4, which
was WBKB, and ABC owned WENR, channel 7. 4 was sold to CBS (it had been an
affiliate), and then moved to 2; the Paramount call letters WBKB (Balaban-
Katz Theaters, part of Paramount) were reassigned to channel 7.
Channel 7 became WLS-TV in 1968.
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Now that I think about it, you are right, because of the freeze in TV
> licenses that was made in 1948, and Chicago had only 4 (not 2, as you
> correctly point out), 5, 7, 9 and 11 on air at the time.
I have a Chicago edition of TV Guide from June 1953. It's very thin.
Estron
> Comcast puts the
> channel guide on 2, and yes, WBBM (CBS in Chicago) is on 22. The other VHF
> broadcast stations in Chicago keep their channel numbers on cable in the
> Comcast areas (5, NBC, 7, ABC, 9, WGN, and 11, WTTW), but the other
> broadcast stations are all over the map:
One station in Kansas City, KSHB, is Channel 41 over the air, but Time-
Warner puts it on at channel 13 and Comcast has it at channel 8. As a
result, KSHB does not even use its own channel number in any of its promos,
calling itself "Your NBC Action News Station." For legal station IDS, the
words "KSHB-TV Kansas City" are shown on the screen in very small print.
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Sugar Creek (really close to Kansas City), Missouri
Jim Ellwanger
<est...@tfs.net> wrote:
> One station in Kansas City, KSHB, is Channel 41 over the air, but Time-
> Warner puts it on at channel 13 and Comcast has it at channel 8. As a
> result, KSHB does not even use its own channel number in any of its promos,
> calling itself "Your NBC Action News Station." For legal station IDS, the
> words "KSHB-TV Kansas City" are shown on the screen in very small print.
Some stations in some places, where they've gotten all the cable
systems to put them on the same channel number, will use both channel
numbers or only the cable channel number. Examples I've seen include
NBC affiliate KNSD in San Diego ("Channel 7/39"), NBC affiliate WCNC in
Charlotte ("Channel 6," actually 36), and ABC affiliate WZVN in Fort
Myers ("Channel 7," actually 26...and note the call letters).
Al Yellon
> In article <MPG.1a6fea1b4...@news.birch.net>, Estron
> <est...@tfs.net> wrote:
>
>> One station in Kansas City, KSHB, is Channel 41 over the air, but
>> Time- Warner puts it on at channel 13 and Comcast has it at channel
>> 8. As a result, KSHB does not even use its own channel number in any
>> of its promos, calling itself "Your NBC Action News Station." For
>> legal station IDS, the words "KSHB-TV Kansas City" are shown on the
>> screen in very small print.
>
> Some stations in some places, where they've gotten all the cable
> systems to put them on the same channel number, will use both channel
> numbers or only the cable channel number. Examples I've seen include
> NBC affiliate KNSD in San Diego ("Channel 7/39"), NBC affiliate WCNC
> in Charlotte ("Channel 6," actually 36), and ABC affiliate WZVN in
> Fort Myers ("Channel 7," actually 26...and note the call letters).
This makes a lot of sense for marketing purposes, especially in a place
like San Diego, one example you give, where one network affiliate (NBC,
there) is a UHF station and the other networks are VHF. It gives them
"number parity".
Al Yellon
> In article <Xns9470C9525DD...@130.133.1.4>, Al Yellon
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Now that I think about it, you are right, because of the freeze in TV
>> licenses that was made in 1948, and Chicago had only 4 (not 2, as you
>> correctly point out), 5, 7, 9 and 11 on air at the time.
>
> I have a Chicago edition of TV Guide from June 1953. It's very thin.
>
I would imagine most TV Guides from that era, outside of NY and LA, are
equally thin.
Charles Bishop
various channels off the air and then pipe them into cable? Or, is do they
receive the signal some other way that helps eliminate bad broadcast
signals?
Do sattelite companies-those that beam a signal up to a sattelite and then
down to recivers-have better signal, with less interference?
charles
Rick B.
news:ctbishop-150...@user-38ldvcd.dialup.mindspring.com:
> A related question. Do cable companies still grab the signals
> for the various channels off the air and then pipe them into
> cable? Or, is do they receive the signal some other way that
> helps eliminate bad broadcast signals?
Some have microwave relays to the cable headends (all of the NYC
stations were still viewable on cable after the sudden loss of their
transmitter site a couple years back); others don't (the underpowered
Atlantic City station that I mentioned in the HDTV thread used to,
under certain atmospheric conditions, get overrun by a station from
Connecticut on the same channel, and the area cable system faithfully
relayed the ungodly mix of ValueVision and PBS that resulted).
--
"Smile they said, it can't get any worse. And it did. B*****ds"
--Chris Greville
I am not in Antarctica
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:150120040750113934%trai...@mindspring.com:
>
> > Some stations in some places, where they've gotten all the cable
> > systems to put them on the same channel number, will use both channel
> > numbers or only the cable channel number. Examples I've seen include
> > NBC affiliate KNSD in San Diego ("Channel 7/39"), NBC affiliate WCNC
> > in Charlotte ("Channel 6," actually 36), and ABC affiliate WZVN in
> > Fort Myers ("Channel 7," actually 26...and note the call letters).
>
> This makes a lot of sense for marketing purposes, especially in a place
> like San Diego, one example you give, where one network affiliate (NBC,
> there) is a UHF station and the other networks are VHF. It gives them
> "number parity".
And it was a bit too early in the morning when I was typing the
above...those stations, as you might expect, refer to themselves as
"NBC 7/39," "NBC 6," and "ABC 7."
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:140120042220573290%trai...@mindspring.com:
>
> > I have a Chicago edition of TV Guide from June 1953. It's very thin.
> >
>
> I would imagine most TV Guides from that era, outside of NY and LA, are
> equally thin.
As it happens, I do have New York and L.A. editions from that era, and
they're only slightly thicker...in addition to the "home" stations, the
L.A. edition also listed the one station in Santa Barbara and the three
stations in San Diego/Tijuana; the New York edition listed the two
stations in Connecticut. (50 years later, the L.A. edition lists only
L.A.-area channels, but the New York edition still lists the channels
in Connecticut.)
Al Yellon
news:Xns9471B0D0A...@207.69.154.203:
> ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote in
> news:ctbishop-150...@user-38ldvcd.dialup.mindspring.com:
>
>> A related question. Do cable companies still grab the signals
>> for the various channels off the air and then pipe them into
>> cable? Or, is do they receive the signal some other way that
>> helps eliminate bad broadcast signals?
>
> Some have microwave relays to the cable headends (all of the NYC
> stations were still viewable on cable after the sudden loss of their
> transmitter site a couple years back); others don't (the underpowered
> Atlantic City station that I mentioned in the HDTV thread used to,
> under certain atmospheric conditions, get overrun by a station from
> Connecticut on the same channel, and the area cable system faithfully
> relayed the ungodly mix of ValueVision and PBS that resulted).
At least in the Chicago area, local signals are either microwaved or fiber-
optic'd to the cable headends.
Al Yellon
> In article <Xns947164C74E8...@130.133.1.4>, Al Yellon
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:150120040750113934%trai...@mindspring.com:
>>
>> > Some stations in some places, where they've gotten all the cable
>> > systems to put them on the same channel number, will use both channel
>> > numbers or only the cable channel number. Examples I've seen include
>> > NBC affiliate KNSD in San Diego ("Channel 7/39"), NBC affiliate WCNC
>> > in Charlotte ("Channel 6," actually 36), and ABC affiliate WZVN in
>> > Fort Myers ("Channel 7," actually 26...and note the call letters).
>>
>> This makes a lot of sense for marketing purposes, especially in a place
>> like San Diego, one example you give, where one network affiliate (NBC,
>> there) is a UHF station and the other networks are VHF. It gives them
>> "number parity".
>
> And it was a bit too early in the morning when I was typing the
> above...those stations, as you might expect, refer to themselves as
> "NBC 7/39," "NBC 6," and "ABC 7."
Interesting that the San Diego station still mentions its channel number. I
happen to know the general manager of that station (she used to be news
director at the station at which I work), and I'm surprised she wouldn't go
for the "NBC7" designation.
Al Yellon
> In article <Xns947164D85D5...@130.133.1.4>, Al Yellon
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:140120042220573290%trai...@mindspring.com:
>>
>> > I have a Chicago edition of TV Guide from June 1953. It's very thin.
>> >
>>
>> I would imagine most TV Guides from that era, outside of NY and LA, are
>> equally thin.
>
> As it happens, I do have New York and L.A. editions from that era, and
> they're only slightly thicker...in addition to the "home" stations, the
> L.A. edition also listed the one station in Santa Barbara and the three
> stations in San Diego/Tijuana; the New York edition listed the two
> stations in Connecticut. (50 years later, the L.A. edition lists only
> L.A.-area channels, but the New York edition still lists the channels
> in Connecticut.)
The LA edition doesn't list the Santa Barbara and Palm Springs stations any
more? Too bad.
Do the LA and NY areas have sub-regional editions?
Jim Ellwanger
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> The LA edition doesn't list the Santa Barbara and Palm Springs stations any
> more? Too bad.
Yeah, it's been a few years since the Palm Springs channels were listed
in L.A., and even longer than that for Santa Barbara. There's a
separate Ventura-Santa Barbara edition that lists both the Santa
Barbara/Santa Maria/San Luis Obispo channels and the L.A. channels, and
then there's a Coachella Valley edition that lists L.A. and Palm
Springs channels.
The edition I get as my subscription is the Adelphia-Southern
California Digital edition, which does list the ABC affiliate in Santa
Barbara
> Do the LA and NY areas have sub-regional editions?
See above for L.A. In New York, there are various cable system-tied
editions, including Brooklyn-Queens, Staten Island Cable, and Long
Island. Other than that, the nearest "regional" editions are
Hartford-New Haven (distributed over most of Connecticut) and
Philadelphia (distributed in south New Jersey and the Philadelphia
area).
groo
>
> groo wrote,
> > it wasn't clear to me which is going on. Helge, are you stripping away
> > the insulation over the outer conductor, or disconnecting the outer
> > conductor from the circuit?
>
> The latter. I wrapped a piece of Scotch tape around the plug on the VCR/
> DVD unit, the one where the antenna co-ax gets hooked up. The consequence
> is that the outer conductor is then no longer connected to the VCR/DVD.
> I'm assuming that's the ground connection.
>
Yes. More properly, it is the shielding. The cable isn't supposed to be
an antenna, it is just to transport the signal from point A to point B.
If you disconnect the shielding from ground, it isn't as good a shield.
That is, it acts as a crummy antenna. Two antennas in series act
differently than either by itself.
> What you're telling me makes sense. It's like wrapping aluminum foil
> around rabbit ears, or sticking a wire coat hanger into the broken end
> of a telescoping antenna.
>
Not exactly the same, but kinda. Wrapping Al foil on rabbit ears will
change their resonant frequency, which will affect reception. You are
basically just adding more antenna. If an antenna is just a straight
piece of metal, the resonant frequencies are determined by the length.
Changes in the length change the resonance, thus the reception of
different frequencies.
> I've been suspecting for some time now that the amount of power that's
> used for analog broadcasts has been decreased, to be switched over to
> digital broadcasts. Am I being paranoid?
I don't know. For one, I don't think there are that many digital
broadcasts. For another, it seems like this would not be very much in
the broadcast station's best interest. I think you are probably being
paranoid, but I don't know for sure. Have you seen any black helicopters
lately?
--
"I've got a plan...Alright then, we get the lovely Wendy here to sing
her irresistable siren song and lure unwitting mariners into the closet.
Then we shanghai 'em, and make THEM think of a plan!" - Captain Hank
Murphy, Sealab 2021