I know the UHF elements are the smaller ones and the VHF are the
larger ones. But which end goes toward the station? Here is a crude
drawing (below).
\\\\\\
->>>>>>>>>-
//////
You'd think there would be a diagram on the web, but I sure can not
find one. They should mark it right on the antenna but they dont.
Jimw
Get yourself a "low noise amplifier" for the mast of the antenna.
It will really improve your reception. Radio Shack has some.
The longest elements are always the back side of the antenna.
The more elements it has the more 'pointy' or directional the antenna
will be!
In other words, using a multi element antenna, if the antenna is
pointed directly at one station, another station, off say 30 degrees
to one side in direction, may not be received at all
If signals are weak an antenna with more elements generally has more
'gain' (From the ONE desired direction!).
Forget theory. Which direction gets the best reception?
in the illustration provided by the OP, the station should be to the
left of the antenna.
Definitely also true.
But you may get someone who has no technical background putting up an
antenna which does not work for the several stations (in different
directions from their particular location) that they wish to receive.
And then gets into a song and dance about how it is the same antenna
that works OK for his brother in law (who lives in a different
location of course!).
OR "The salesman 'said' this was the best one for this
area ................." and so on ....... !
All without reference to any understanding about basic technical
facts.
Also there will always be the people who achieve perfectly
satisfactory TV reception with a broken off coat hanger jammed in top
of the set in place of the uni-pole antenna that broke off ten years
off when they were moving house. Provided that is the cat does not
perch on top of the sofa; just 'there'.
"Hon: Shoo the cat off the sofa will you? I want to watch this guy
pitch .....! "
We ran into a situation once, long before the advent of cable TV here,
whereby the owner used to pour hot water over his antenna connections
to wash off the sea salt spray. It worked!
Another guy in same community got best signal if he pointed his
antenna off line, it is still my opinion that by doing so with his
particular antenna he was avoiding a strong second signal (in favour
of the direct signal) reflected from the metal cladding of the local
fish processing plant!
Ah yes; but reflected FM and TV signals was how the British discovered
radar before WWII! Ever notice how a TV picture sometimes goes 'all-
wavery' if/when a plane flies over?
As previous posters have said indicated it IS a combination of
technology and local conditions. But starting with 'pointy' end
towards the TV station is best way to start.
>> not recall which end points toward the tv station transmitter.
> Forget theory. Which direction gets the best reception?
LOL! Ya beat me to it! Until I saw folks taking this seriously I was kinda
thinking it was a joke post. Must be a 'man thing' there ;-)
Real method, put up antenna but don't bolt tight yet. Turn antenna bit bit
by bit until the best location is determined. Tighten bolts so it stays
there.
Yes and a cheap set of walkie talkies works best to determine where
the best reception is. Partner watches TV while other one turns mast.
Harry K
>Hi,
>Yeah! And add to it, height matters too. The higher the better is not
>really the case. You gotta hit the sweet spot height wise.
Huh? Height gain is real and exist for all frequencies. The only
time excess height will work against you is when your feed line losses
outweigh you height gain. You'll have to go very high for this to
happen on TV frequencies. There is no sweet spot unless you
are somehow physically obstructed.
--
aem sends...
not necessarily true. radio waves (tv waves) are like waves on a pond,
in places they add to make larger waves......... in other places they
cancel one another.
So you can go higher and get worse results
Real method? Hardly. Get an antenna rotator, a small motor that mounts on
the mast. The control is near the TV so you can move the antenna from
inside.
It's called a Yagi antenna, very common in ham radio. The narrow end points
toward the TV station's antenna; the wide end is the "back" of the antenna,
the reflector.
I just did exactly this for one of my clients a couple days ago: I
climbed on roof, grabbed antenna and moved it while she went inside and
checked TV, came out and said "Better!" or "Worse!" until it was
optimal. (Fortunately, she only watches one TV station for the most
part, making it easy to adjust.)
I hate climbing on roofs, by the way.
--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself
- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
>> Real method, put up antenna but don't bolt tight yet. Turn antenna bit
>> bit
>> by bit until the best location is determined. Tighten bolts so it stays
>> there.
> Yes and a cheap set of walkie talkies works best to determine where
> the best reception is. Partner watches TV while other one turns mast.
I've actually done that! Charlottesville VA, 105 Deerwood Drive.
Most of the times though we just opened a window and hollard out it.
>>>> not recall which end points toward the tv station transmitter.
>>
>>> Forget theory. Which direction gets the best reception?
>>
>> LOL! Ya beat me to it! Until I saw folks taking this seriously I was
>> kinda thinking it was a joke post. Must be a 'man thing' there ;-)
>>
>> Real method, put up antenna but don't bolt tight yet. Turn antenna bit
>> bit by bit until the best location is determined. Tighten bolts so it
>> stays there.
> Real method? Hardly. Get an antenna rotator, a small motor that mounts on
> the mast. The control is near the TV so you can move the antenna from
> inside.
Um, Bob, if he had that sort of fancy setup, he wouldnt be asking with
direction to point it in ;-)
Height is not the case with satellite TV. Lower is better.
Up/down has no effect on reception, but having the dish at shoulder height
makes aiming easier and removal of snow, leaves, and bird nests a cinch. For
these reasons, lower is better.
> "Bob M." wrote
>> Real method? Hardly. Get an antenna rotator, a small motor that mounts
>> on the mast. The control is near the TV so you can move the antenna from
>> inside.
>> "cshenk" wrote>
> Um, Bob, if he had that sort of fancy setup, he wouldnt be asking with
> direction to point it in ;-)
Um, cshenk, Bob didn't say he had that sort of fancy setup. He said "*get*
an antenna rotator".
--
aem sends...
Then you must be misinterpreting what is going on. Height is never
detrimental to an antenna unless line losses come into play.
>On May 2, 12:46?pm, t...@mucks.net wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >Yeah! And add to it, height matters too. The higher the better is not
>> >really the case. You gotta hit the sweet spot height wise.
>>
>> Huh? Height gain is real and exist for all frequencies. The only
>> time excess height will work against you is when your feed line losses
>> outweigh you height gain. You'll ?have to go very high for this to
>> happen on TV frequencies. There is no sweet spot unless you
>> are somehow physically obstructed.
>
>not necessarily true. radio waves (tv waves) are like waves on a pond,
>in places they add to make larger waves......... in other places they
>cancel one another.
>
>So you can go higher and get worse results
This in ONLy true when the antenna is only a few wavelength from the
ground. At best with a perfectly reflecting ground plane, that doesn't
exist, you may expect a 6db maximum gain at these additive reflection
distances, however this perfect ground planer does not exist and
height can easily give greater gains than 6db.
Standard TV coax is on subject. It does have losses that should be
considered.
>Explain then why signal disappears when
>height is lowered.
In theory (doesn't exist in this case) e fields can cancel or be
additive at different heights.
>Noise level is more important than signal level when dealing with
>terrestrial signal.(-90db range)
Maybe you forgot that the subject is a TV antenna. No nitrogen
charged wave guide. No hard coax. This is a TV antenna. A TV
antenna is a multiple frequency antenna unlike the ones you seem to
be referring to. A TV antenna does not have radial ground wires buried
in the ground like broadcast antennas to enhance signal gain.
No sweet spot exist for multiple frequency antennas like TV
antennas over normal ground. A TV antenna can not take advantage
of ground reflections because there are no buried radials, and even if
it had buried radials how can you find a sweet spot for the entire
frequency range of the antenna? Raise and lower it when
you change channels?
I have the same type antenna. a bunch of horizontal "V" s (looks like the
'feathers end; of an arrow with a smaller Vertical "V" at the "arrow" end.
I put in one of the "new" Antenna adapters and it gave me good reception on
14 "locals" with the "pointy end" aimed at the mountain where 3-4
transmitters are. There was one "local" I couldn't get (CBS) facing that
way so I turned it around, with the smaller vertical "V" pointing that way.
I got the missing "local" and the signal strength went up on 5 of the
channels but I lost 3 other less desirable locals (WB CW etc)..
>> "Bob M." wrote
>>> Real method? Hardly. Get an antenna rotator, a small motor that mounts
>>> on the mast. The control is near the TV so you can move the antenna from
>>> inside.
>
>>> "cshenk" wrote>
>> Um, Bob, if he had that sort of fancy setup, he wouldnt be asking with
>> direction to point it in ;-)
>
> Um, cshenk, Bob didn't say he had that sort of fancy setup. He said "*get*
> an antenna rotator".
LOL, ok, ya got me. Should have read better. I wonder what such run now in
cost? Not relevant me but curiousity. We never had one as a kid.
>tn...@mucks.net wrote:
>>>> Then you must be misinterpreting what is going on. Height is never
>>>> detrimental to an antenna unless line losses come into play.
>>> Hi,
>>> Line loss on what? Hard coax, nitrogen charged waveguide have very low
>>> loss and SWR is near 1 to 1.
>>
>> No sweet spot exist for multiple frequency antennas like TV
>> antennas over normal ground. A TV antenna can not take advantage
>> of ground reflections because there are no buried radials, and even if
>> it had buried radials how can you find a sweet spot for the entire
>> frequency range of the antenna? Raise and lower it when
>> you change channels?
>Hi,
>One more and I am out. Is there a theory for TV antenna and another for
>microwave? On theory we use isopole or dipole in free space usinf
>reference dbi or dbd.
Theory and reality are very different. In reality microwaves compared
to vhf/uhf waves behave differently when hitting earth ground.
In reality microwaves react differently when it comes to traveling
around the curvature of the earth. In reality microwaves dissipate
differently in air. In reality microwaves use different feed lines. In
reality microwaves are a single frequency. In reality attributing
theory or microwaves to explain a TV antennas behavior is not reality.
> LOL, ok, ya got me. Should have read better. I wonder what such run now
> in cost? Not relevant me but curiousity. We never had one as a kid.
I haven't looked into a rotator yet; not even sure if they're even available
anymore. I just built this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joearnold/3399193845/
from instructions in a youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw
It does work quite well, but seems very directional. I made a second one and
paralleled them; facing 45� apart. Much better, but I think I now need to
mess with different heights. I'm in a remote area, with transmitters
averaging 40 miles away. Getting 13 digital channels, but still need to get
a consistent PBS feed.
walkie talkies?
With all the cell phones these days...
And most landline cordlesses come with multiple phones.
Living in a trailer, my TV is right next to the antenna
mast. I turn the TV around so it faces the window. then I
can rotate the antenna and watch the screen at the same
time.
If I wasn't Mormon, I could also drink a beer, fart, smoke a
cigarette, and pee on the skirting at the same time. Redneck
heaven!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Red Green" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9C0462AB...@216.168.3.70...
Mormon's can't fart? That alone is a good reason not to be a
Mormon ;-)
I thought the Jews had it bad with circumcision, but not farting --
that's beyond the pale. That's got to cause you some pain. I bet you
don't eat chili, either.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
> "Red Green" <postmas...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>
> If I wasn't Mormon, I could also drink a beer, fart, smoke a
> cigarette, and pee on the skirting at the same time. Redneck
> heaven!
>
> --
>
You poor bastard. You should gets a chek for dat. Ask anyone around where I
am.
use the end that brings in the most channels.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Red Green" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9C0580FCC...@216.168.3.70...
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:bd088dd5-15c7-46f9...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...