Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TV Freeview picture breaking up, New 4G transmitter and Aeroplanes
645 views
Skip to first unread message
john west
Sep 24, 2015, 1:32:52 PM9/24/15
to
Suddenly in the last month or so our Freeview television picture is
suddenly breaking up.
We got a visit from the 'at800' Engineer who fitted a filter in-line
before our television aerial amplifier. Apparently we have a new phone
4G transmitter installed quite near.
The engineer said his readings were within accepted limits.
We are about 15 miles north east of Heathrow Airport and get a lot of
planes, they are sufficiently high so that we cannot read the markings
on the planes. We are about thirteen miles north west of the crystal
palace transmitter.
Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
that's very often.
Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new Aerial.
Any suggestions please.
suddenly breaking up.
We got a visit from the 'at800' Engineer who fitted a filter in-line
before our television aerial amplifier. Apparently we have a new phone
4G transmitter installed quite near.
The engineer said his readings were within accepted limits.
We are about 15 miles north east of Heathrow Airport and get a lot of
planes, they are sufficiently high so that we cannot read the markings
on the planes. We are about thirteen miles north west of the crystal
palace transmitter.
Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
that's very often.
Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new Aerial.
Any suggestions please.
Java Jive
Sep 24, 2015, 2:10:17 PM9/24/15
to
Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
the first !-)
--
========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
the first !-)
========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Mark Carver
Sep 24, 2015, 3:06:53 PM9/24/15
to
On 24/09/2015 19:10, Java Jive wrote:
> Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
> the first !-)
I can't believe reflections from aircraft (as high as that) could punch
> Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
> the first !-)
out enough of the 8 MHz worth of COFDM 'lump' to cause such a severe and
noticeable effect ?
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Java Jive
Sep 24, 2015, 3:20:00 PM9/24/15
to
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:06:49 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 24/09/2015 19:10, Java Jive wrote:
> > Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
> > the first !-)
>
> I can't believe reflections from aircraft (as high as that) could punch
> out enough of the 8 MHz worth of COFDM 'lump' to cause such a severe and
> noticeable effect ?
'Twas tongue in cheek, didn't you spot the smiley? I don't know
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 24/09/2015 19:10, Java Jive wrote:
> > Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
> > the first !-)
>
> I can't believe reflections from aircraft (as high as that) could punch
> out enough of the 8 MHz worth of COFDM 'lump' to cause such a severe and
> noticeable effect ?
enough to make a serious comment, but I'm sure someone'll be along
shortly ...
Mark Carver
Sep 24, 2015, 3:22:22 PM9/24/15
to
On 24/09/2015 20:19, Java Jive wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:06:49 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/2015 19:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>> Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
>>> the first !-)
>>
>> I can't believe reflections from aircraft (as high as that) could punch
>> out enough of the 8 MHz worth of COFDM 'lump' to cause such a severe and
>> noticeable effect ?
>
> 'Twas tongue in cheek, didn't you spot the smiley? I don't know
> enough to make a serious comment, but I'm sure someone'll be along
> shortly ...
Oh I know that, I was really doubting the OP's belief that reflections
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:06:49 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/09/2015 19:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>> Congratulations, it seems you have invented radar ... Pity you're not
>>> the first !-)
>>
>> I can't believe reflections from aircraft (as high as that) could punch
>> out enough of the 8 MHz worth of COFDM 'lump' to cause such a severe and
>> noticeable effect ?
>
> 'Twas tongue in cheek, didn't you spot the smiley? I don't know
> enough to make a serious comment, but I'm sure someone'll be along
> shortly ...
from aircraft are a likely culprit (in his case).
Dave Liquorice
Sep 24, 2015, 3:28:05 PM9/24/15
to
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:32:59 +0100, john west wrote:
> Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
> that's very often.
>
> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
> carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new
> Aerial.
>
> Any suggestions please.
Has the set "helpfully" retuned itself to a different transmitter.
> Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
> that's very often.
>
> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
> carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new
> Aerial.
>
> Any suggestions please.
You'll need to find the channel numbers each MUX is transmitted on
from near by transmitters and dig through the sets menus to find out
what it is using.
--
Cheers
Dave.
charles
Sep 24, 2015, 3:50:09 PM9/24/15
to
In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@srv1.howhill.co.uk>, Dave
15 miles NE of Heathrow could be in the Alexandra Palace area, if it isn't
Crystal Palace itself.
How many programmes can you get? This will determine whether you are
getting a main station or a relay
--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk
Crystal Palace itself.
How many programmes can you get? This will determine whether you are
getting a main station or a relay
--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk
Bill Wright
Sep 24, 2015, 4:52:32 PM9/24/15
to
honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
planes and the fault. Please don't be offended, but customers often
assign irrelevant 'causes' to their reception faults. It can be anything
from the weather, 'the number of aerials sucking on it', the radio ham
across the road coming home from work, next door's dog barking and the
noise affecting the waves, pretty well owt really.
Planes take a while to pass over when they're high up. How does that fit
in with the picture break up? What about the planes you don't see? Any
break up when you can't see any planes?
But assuming you aren't simply having a laugh it might be interesting to
discuss the scenario you describe.
Planes so high up will probably be in an area of relatively low field
strength, so any reflections (which might have a rapid additive and
subtractive effect on the signal output of your aerial) will be
similarly reduced in strength. Beam tilt at the tx is the reason for
this. Apart from the obvious reasons for beam tilt there's the fact that
such high powered tx's aren't allowed to radiate much above the horizon
because of the possibility of EMI in aeroplanes.
Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days, very rare
under circumstances such as yours for UHF but quite common for VHF. The
main reason for this is that UHF aerials are far more directional than
VHF ones. Indeed some types of VHF aerial had no discrimination
whatsoever against signals from above (anyone like to name two examples,
one of each polarisation?)
Any reflection from a high plane would arrive sufficiently delayed for
the modulation system in use by digital TV to ignore it (it's expressly
designed to do just that), unless it was so strong that it confused the
receiver's AGC. And that's impossible, really, because your aerial will
be discriminating against the reflection by 10 or 20dB (which is a lot.)
It isn't possible that any interference actually generated by the plane
will affect your reception. Think what a fuss there's be near airports
if that was the case!
When you say you've bought a new aerial, well, buying the thing is only
a small part of the process! Is it the right type, pointing the right
way? Any obstructions? And there are other things. Just because you've
had good reception until now doesn't mean thing really. I'm guessing
that the signal from your aerial is marginal, and something is causing
occasional break up.
I must apologise for the length of this reply but it's either skulk in
here or talk to a damnfool friend of my wife who's called round
seemingly to get us to join the Green Party. I just don't want to cause
an upset. . .
Bill
charles
Sep 24, 2015, 5:17:43 PM9/24/15
to
In article <mu1nqb$fjl$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
yes, are you using the old downlead? It might have got damaged.
interesting I responded to a cry of "picture break up" from some neighbours
and found the fault was due to badly fitted plugs on the aerial downlead
behind the set. A drop of solder cure that! Give all the lead behind the
set a good shake. That might show up something.
> Just because you've
> had good reception until now doesn't mean thing really. I'm guessing
> that the signal from your aerial is marginal, and something is causing
> occasional break up.
> I must apologise for the length of this reply but it's either skulk in
> here or talk to a damnfool friend of my wife who's called round
> seemingly to get us to join the Green Party. I just don't want to cause
> an upset. . .
> Bill
interesting I responded to a cry of "picture break up" from some neighbours
and found the fault was due to badly fitted plugs on the aerial downlead
behind the set. A drop of solder cure that! Give all the lead behind the
set a good shake. That might show up something.
> Just because you've
> had good reception until now doesn't mean thing really. I'm guessing
> that the signal from your aerial is marginal, and something is causing
> occasional break up.
> I must apologise for the length of this reply but it's either skulk in
> here or talk to a damnfool friend of my wife who's called round
> seemingly to get us to join the Green Party. I just don't want to cause
> an upset. . .
> Bill
Michael Chare
Sep 24, 2015, 5:57:35 PM9/24/15
to
On 24/09/2015 18:32, john west wrote:
>
> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
> carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new Aerial.
>
> Any suggestions please.
Wait for the wind to change, the planes will then take a different path.
>
> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
> carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new Aerial.
>
> Any suggestions please.
--
Michael Chare
Dave Plowman (News)
Sep 24, 2015, 7:03:52 PM9/24/15
to
In article <mu1c0d$4fr$1...@dont-email.me>,
Is there a signal level indication in the set's menu?
--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Brian-Gaff
Sep 25, 2015, 3:36:01 AM9/25/15
to
Has somebody built a new high rise or put a crane up somewhere quite close?
Normally the direct signal should more than compensate for any weird
reflections from aircraft. the flutter effect on signals is normally a
problem when its a significant part of the signal.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"john west" <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:mu1c0d$4fr$1...@dont-email.me...
Normally the direct signal should more than compensate for any weird
reflections from aircraft. the flutter effect on signals is normally a
problem when its a significant part of the signal.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"john west" <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:mu1c0d$4fr$1...@dont-email.me...
Brian-Gaff
Sep 25, 2015, 3:46:04 AM9/25/15
to
Well, in his area the signal strength normally is very high, which was why I
did wonder about new buildings or cranes, as just down the road from my bit
of west London, a bloody great tower block has meant a lot of people
becoming Virgin customers due to apparently poor signal quality, not
strength.
I suppose if he has not replaced the downlead, it could well be that he is
just using a water filled resistor as an aerial. We really need hard figures
etc to be close to a diagnosis.
The channels in use down here seem pretty well away from the 4g stuff and
thought removing said filter as a test might be a valid thing to do. Most
seem to be attenuators at other frequencies as well.
news:mu1nqb$fjl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
did wonder about new buildings or cranes, as just down the road from my bit
of west London, a bloody great tower block has meant a lot of people
becoming Virgin customers due to apparently poor signal quality, not
strength.
I suppose if he has not replaced the downlead, it could well be that he is
just using a water filled resistor as an aerial. We really need hard figures
etc to be close to a diagnosis.
The channels in use down here seem pretty well away from the 4g stuff and
thought removing said filter as a test might be a valid thing to do. Most
seem to be attenuators at other frequencies as well.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
news:mu1nqb$fjl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Big Les Wade
Sep 25, 2015, 4:23:35 AM9/25/15
to
Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> posted
>
>Planes take a while to pass over when they're high up.
But they aren't, he's only 15 miles from Heathrow. They're probably only
a few thousand feet up.
>How does that fit in with the picture break up? What about the planes
>you don't see? Any break up when you can't see any planes?
>
>But assuming you aren't simply having a laugh it might be interesting
>to discuss the scenario you describe.
>
>Planes so high up
They're not so high up.
>will probably be in an area of relatively low field strength, so any
>reflections (which might have a rapid additive and subtractive effect
>on the signal output of your aerial) will be similarly reduced in
>strength. Beam tilt at the tx is the reason for this. Apart from the
>obvious reasons for beam tilt there's the fact that such high powered
>tx's aren't allowed to radiate much above the horizon because of the
>possibility of EMI in aeroplanes.
>
>Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days, very rare
>under circumstances such as yours for UHF but quite common for VHF. The
>main reason for this is that UHF aerials are far more directional than
>VHF ones. Indeed some types of VHF aerial had no discrimination
>whatsoever against signals from above (anyone like to name two
>examples, one of each polarisation?)
>
>Any reflection from a high plane
They're not high.
>would arrive sufficiently delayed for the modulation system in use by
>digital TV to ignore it (it's expressly designed to do just that),
>unless it was so strong that it confused the receiver's AGC. And that's
>impossible, really, because your aerial will be discriminating against
>the reflection by 10 or 20dB (which is a lot.)
>
>It isn't possible that any interference actually generated by the plane
>will affect your reception. Think what a fuss there's be near airports
>if that was the case!
You seem to be saying here that interference from planes can't happen
because it would cause too much fuss from householders. Yet above, you
say "Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days"? Which
is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
to the analogue signal?
>When you say you've bought a new aerial, well, buying the thing is only
>a small part of the process! Is it the right type, pointing the right
>way?
He said "Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago".
So unless somebody's knocked the aerial it must be pointing the right
way.
>Any obstructions? And there are other things. Just because you've had
>good reception until now doesn't mean thing really. I'm guessing that
>the signal from your aerial is marginal, and something is causing
>occasional break up.
I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing 100%
signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was fine for a
couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine
again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared and we've
changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.
--
Les
>john west wrote:
>> Suddenly in the last month or so our Freeview television picture is
>>suddenly breaking up.
>> We got a visit from the 'at800' Engineer who fitted a filter in-line
>>before our television aerial amplifier. Apparently we have a new phone
>>4G transmitter installed quite near.
>> The engineer said his readings were within accepted limits.
>> We are about 15 miles north east of Heathrow Airport and get a lot
>>of planes, they are sufficiently high so that we cannot read the
>>markings on the planes. We are about thirteen miles north west of the
>>crystal palace transmitter.
>> Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
>>that's very often.
>> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we
>>have carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a
>>new Aerial.
>> Any suggestions please.
>
>This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
>honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
>planes and the fault. Please don't be offended, but customers often
>assign irrelevant 'causes' to their reception faults. It can be
>anything from the weather, 'the number of aerials sucking on it', the
>radio ham across the road coming home from work, next door's dog
>barking and the noise affecting the waves, pretty well owt really.
So it could be the planes then?
>> Suddenly in the last month or so our Freeview television picture is
>>suddenly breaking up.
>> We got a visit from the 'at800' Engineer who fitted a filter in-line
>>before our television aerial amplifier. Apparently we have a new phone
>>4G transmitter installed quite near.
>> The engineer said his readings were within accepted limits.
>> We are about 15 miles north east of Heathrow Airport and get a lot
>>of planes, they are sufficiently high so that we cannot read the
>>markings on the planes. We are about thirteen miles north west of the
>>crystal palace transmitter.
>> Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
>>that's very often.
>> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we
>>have carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a
>>new Aerial.
>> Any suggestions please.
>
>This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
>honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
>planes and the fault. Please don't be offended, but customers often
>assign irrelevant 'causes' to their reception faults. It can be
>anything from the weather, 'the number of aerials sucking on it', the
>radio ham across the road coming home from work, next door's dog
>barking and the noise affecting the waves, pretty well owt really.
>
>Planes take a while to pass over when they're high up.
a few thousand feet up.
>How does that fit in with the picture break up? What about the planes
>you don't see? Any break up when you can't see any planes?
>
>But assuming you aren't simply having a laugh it might be interesting
>to discuss the scenario you describe.
>
>Planes so high up
>will probably be in an area of relatively low field strength, so any
>reflections (which might have a rapid additive and subtractive effect
>on the signal output of your aerial) will be similarly reduced in
>strength. Beam tilt at the tx is the reason for this. Apart from the
>obvious reasons for beam tilt there's the fact that such high powered
>tx's aren't allowed to radiate much above the horizon because of the
>possibility of EMI in aeroplanes.
>
>Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days, very rare
>under circumstances such as yours for UHF but quite common for VHF. The
>main reason for this is that UHF aerials are far more directional than
>VHF ones. Indeed some types of VHF aerial had no discrimination
>whatsoever against signals from above (anyone like to name two
>examples, one of each polarisation?)
>
>Any reflection from a high plane
>would arrive sufficiently delayed for the modulation system in use by
>digital TV to ignore it (it's expressly designed to do just that),
>unless it was so strong that it confused the receiver's AGC. And that's
>impossible, really, because your aerial will be discriminating against
>the reflection by 10 or 20dB (which is a lot.)
>
>It isn't possible that any interference actually generated by the plane
>will affect your reception. Think what a fuss there's be near airports
>if that was the case!
because it would cause too much fuss from householders. Yet above, you
say "Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days"? Which
is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
to the analogue signal?
>When you say you've bought a new aerial, well, buying the thing is only
>a small part of the process! Is it the right type, pointing the right
>way?
So unless somebody's knocked the aerial it must be pointing the right
way.
>Any obstructions? And there are other things. Just because you've had
>good reception until now doesn't mean thing really. I'm guessing that
>the signal from your aerial is marginal, and something is causing
>occasional break up.
signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was fine for a
couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine
again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared and we've
changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.
--
Les
Mark Carver
Sep 25, 2015, 4:38:01 AM9/25/15
to
On 25/09/2015 09:20, Big Les Wade wrote:
> You seem to be saying here that interference from planes can't happen
> because it would cause too much fuss from householders. Yet above, you
> say "Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days"? Which
> is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
> householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
> to the analogue signal?
Because of the way COFDM modulation (used for digital TV and DAB) works,
> You seem to be saying here that interference from planes can't happen
> because it would cause too much fuss from householders. Yet above, you
> say "Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days"? Which
> is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
> householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
> to the analogue signal?
you effectively have interleaved data (with forward error correction),
spread over a few thousand separate carriers occupying almost 8 MHz (for
TV) of spectrum. Any reflection (at any given moment) will only cancel a
small selection of those carriers.
The Natural Philosopher
Sep 25, 2015, 5:02:39 AM9/25/15
to
On 25/09/15 09:20, Big Les Wade wrote:
> Which is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
> householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
> to the analogue signal?
Sorry, that is a binary mindset.
> Which is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
> householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
> to the analogue signal?
Aircraft and indeed everything that moves causes interference with TV
signals.
The point is that modulation techniques are designed, in the case of
digital, to instead of 'slowly degradewith interference' to have enough
error correction so that signals don't degrade at all under light
interference, but degrade massively once the error correction is
overwhelmed.
So its perfectly reasonable to say that light moving ghosting from
aircraft on an analogue TV signal would be no obstacle to decent digital
transmissions.
--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.
c...@isbd.net
Sep 25, 2015, 5:33:11 AM9/25/15
to
path into London City Airport. OK, we *are* very close to the
aircraft when they land but they certainly do break up the signal
(both vision and sound) on our Freeview TV. It's not just a minor
hiccough either, the sound goes off and the picture breaks up and
freezes for the few seconds while an aeroplane goes over. It is only
a few seconds though.
--
Chris Green
·
Mark Carver
Sep 25, 2015, 5:49:15 AM9/25/15
to
enough stuff back with a large aperture to 'punch out' enough of a mux
for a few seconds as it passes over.
As ever with all digital reception issues the only viable method to
see what's going on is with a spectrum analyser.
Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.
<http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_installations.pdf>
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 7:10:07 AM9/25/15
to
> This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
> honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
> planes and the fault.
You and others may be correct to dismiss the idea. But I'm not so sure as
> honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
> planes and the fault.
I've not yet done the maths. However...
It occurred to me that the large path difference combined with the high
velocity might phase and amplitude fluctuate the received signal fast
enough to confuse any mpx correction. The situation could combine large
dopplers with large delays that change fast.
> Planes take a while to pass over when they're high up. How does that fit
> in with the picture break up? What about the planes you don't see? Any
> break up when you can't see any planes?
above speculation is relevant. No idea if it is at present.
Another possible problem is this group's old friend, "Digital Cliff".
So 4G might be enough to tip something over such a cliff for all I know.
Given millions of receivers someone somewhere could draw the short straw.
8-]
Anyone done any estimates on the effects I outline?
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 7:33:27 AM9/25/15
to
north." Often true when the aerial's loose!
When I was doing the 'wind turbine amelioration' work there was one
woman who had made a really good detailed diary who showed the close
correlation between the behaviour of the turbines (which were clearly
visible from her living room) and her TV reception. When the turbines
were turning fast her satellite reception would break up. Therefore, she
said, the wind turbine company must pay to fix her reception, and if
they couldn't do it they would jolly well have to pay for her to move
house to the bungalow that she had her eye on in the next village.
Her dish had been fixed (for no good reason) at the top of a ten foot
aerial mast, and when the wind blew (and the turbines whizzed round like
billio) the mast deflected and the dish went momentarily off beam. Thus
we must always remember that correlation is not causation.
Bill
john west
Sep 25, 2015, 7:45:02 AM9/25/15
to
Many thanks to all. I followed the suggestion to recheck the Aerial
lead connection going into the Humax digi-box after remembering the
visiting at800 engineer pulled it apart and seemed to re-assemble it a
bit too quickly for my liking.
After re-doing this connection very carefully it now seems things are a
bit better this morning. (Although mild weather and clear skies might be
connected?).
Is it possible that the 4G phone companies although giving us a ' new
filter' might be degrading our freeview reception in ways they are not
very willing to talk about?
Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.
Given that the much of the consensus in this group seems to be saying
this kind of plane interference is very unlikely, should i have myself
and my whole family enter the local Whittington Psychiatric Unit..... :)
Seriously though we are not imagining this, grateful for any further
thoughts. Thanks.
Dave Farrance
Sep 25, 2015, 7:55:59 AM9/25/15
to
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>It occurred to me that the large path difference combined with the high
>velocity might phase and amplitude fluctuate the received signal fast
>enough to confuse any mpx correction. The situation could combine large
>dopplers with large delays that change fast.
Hmm, yes. I recall reading that Doppler effects are especially
>It occurred to me that the large path difference combined with the high
>velocity might phase and amplitude fluctuate the received signal fast
>enough to confuse any mpx correction. The situation could combine large
>dopplers with large delays that change fast.
problematic for OFDM modulated signals, and is a limiting factor on the
use of OFDM broadcasts to high-speed road vehicles.
Presumably, given the huge number of subcarriers of DVB-T2 (do we use
32k in the UK?) and the speed of aircraft, then it would no longer be a
simple case of multi-path interference suppressing a few carriers, but
would be significantly destructive interference.
Mark Carver
Sep 25, 2015, 8:03:21 AM9/25/15
to
On 25/09/2015 12:55, Dave Farrance wrote:
> Presumably, given the huge number of subcarriers of DVB-T2 (do we use
> 32k in the UK?) and the speed of aircraft, then it would no longer be a
> simple case of multi-path interference suppressing a few carriers, but
> would be significantly destructive interference.
T1 uses 8k, T2 uses 32k. Be interesting (in view of the new info the
> Presumably, given the huge number of subcarriers of DVB-T2 (do we use
> 32k in the UK?) and the speed of aircraft, then it would no longer be a
> simple case of multi-path interference suppressing a few carriers, but
> would be significantly destructive interference.
OP has just posted) whether the T1 and T2 muxes are affected or just T2 ?
Mark Carver
Sep 25, 2015, 8:04:45 AM9/25/15
to
On 25/09/2015 12:45, john west wrote:
> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
> altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
> are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
>
> But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
> traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
> quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
> lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
> reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.
Is your TV able to receive HD channels, if so, are these channels
> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
> altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
> are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
>
> But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
> traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
> quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
> lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
> reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.
the ones that break up, or just the SD channels, or both ?
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 8:26:14 AM9/25/15
to
Big Les Wade wrote:
>> This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
>> honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
>> planes and the fault. Please don't be offended, but customers often
>> assign irrelevant 'causes' to their reception faults. It can be
>> anything from the weather, 'the number of aerials sucking on it', the
>> radio ham across the road coming home from work, next door's dog
>> barking and the noise affecting the waves, pretty well owt really.
>
> So it could be the planes then?
No, you've not read what I put carefully enough. 'Pretty well owt'
>> This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
>> honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
>> planes and the fault. Please don't be offended, but customers often
>> assign irrelevant 'causes' to their reception faults. It can be
>> anything from the weather, 'the number of aerials sucking on it', the
>> radio ham across the road coming home from work, next door's dog
>> barking and the noise affecting the waves, pretty well owt really.
>
> So it could be the planes then?
referred to the phenomena people blame for their poor reception, not to
real causes of same.
>> Planes take a while to pass over when they're high up.
>
> But they aren't, he's only 15 miles from Heathrow. They're probably only
> a few thousand feet up.
'few thousand feet' would be enough for everything I said.
>
>> How does that fit in with the picture break up? What about the planes
>> you don't see? Any break up when you can't see any planes?
>>
>> But assuming you aren't simply having a laugh it might be interesting
>> to discuss the scenario you describe.
>>
>> Planes so high up
>
> They're not so high up.
>
>> will probably be in an area of relatively low field strength, so any
>> reflections (which might have a rapid additive and subtractive effect
>> on the signal output of your aerial) will be similarly reduced in
>> strength. Beam tilt at the tx is the reason for this. Apart from the
>> obvious reasons for beam tilt there's the fact that such high powered
>> tx's aren't allowed to radiate much above the horizon because of the
>> possibility of EMI in aeroplanes.
>>
>> Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days, very rare
>> under circumstances such as yours for UHF but quite common for VHF.
>> The main reason for this is that UHF aerials are far more directional
>> than VHF ones. Indeed some types of VHF aerial had no discrimination
>> whatsoever against signals from above (anyone like to name two
>> examples, one of each polarisation?)
>>
>> Any reflection from a high plane
>
> They're not high.
See above.
>> will probably be in an area of relatively low field strength, so any
>> reflections (which might have a rapid additive and subtractive effect
>> on the signal output of your aerial) will be similarly reduced in
>> strength. Beam tilt at the tx is the reason for this. Apart from the
>> obvious reasons for beam tilt there's the fact that such high powered
>> tx's aren't allowed to radiate much above the horizon because of the
>> possibility of EMI in aeroplanes.
>>
>> Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days, very rare
>> under circumstances such as yours for UHF but quite common for VHF.
>> The main reason for this is that UHF aerials are far more directional
>> than VHF ones. Indeed some types of VHF aerial had no discrimination
>> whatsoever against signals from above (anyone like to name two
>> examples, one of each polarisation?)
>>
>> Any reflection from a high plane
>
> They're not high.
>
>> would arrive sufficiently delayed for the modulation system in use by
>> digital TV to ignore it (it's expressly designed to do just that),
>> unless it was so strong that it confused the receiver's AGC. And
>> that's impossible, really, because your aerial will be discriminating
>> against the reflection by 10 or 20dB (which is a lot.)
>>
>> It isn't possible that any interference actually generated by the
>> plane will affect your reception. Think what a fuss there's be near
>> airports if that was the case!
>
> You seem to be saying here that interference from planes can't happen
> because it would cause too much fuss from householders. Yet above, you
> say "Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days"? Which
> is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
> householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
> to the analogue signal?
understand why I carefully used the word 'generated'.
>
>> When you say you've bought a new aerial, well, buying the thing is
>> only a small part of the process! Is it the right type, pointing the
>> right way?
>
> He said "Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago".
> So unless somebody's knocked the aerial it must be pointing the right way.
end. Many of them are far from obvious.
>
>> Any obstructions? And there are other things. Just because you've had
>> good reception until now doesn't mean thing really. I'm guessing that
>> the signal from your aerial is marginal, and something is causing
>> occasional break up.
>
> I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing 100%
> signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was fine for a
> couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine
> again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared and we've
> changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.
Hope (ex BBC) heard people blame 'the transmitter'?
Let's take your words above, "The picture was fine for a couple of
years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine again."
Without thinking too deeply, I can remember all of the following
occurrences:
1. A kite attached a bit of itself to the aerial. Eventually this blew off.
2. Yes it really was the transmitter! Or actually it was one in another
town on the same channel which had gone ever so slightly off tune, and
thus was putting coarse horizontal lines across the picture.
3. A bloke moved in at the top of the street and parked his big van in
the back alley every night, and it just happened to obstruct the signal
of someone at the bottom the street. After a while he was promoted so he
got a car, or maybe he died, or moved away, I dunno. But the van
disappeared.
4. The aerial was slightly loose and swung slightly off beam, then back
again.
5. Trees. Over and over again I've seen this sort of thing caused by
trees. No rhyme or reason quite often. They don't need to be in the
signal path.
6. A connection behind the TV was disturbed, then disturbed again a few
weeks later.
7. Ditto under the carpet.
8. Ditto in the loft.
9. Ditto on the roof.
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 8:33:47 AM9/25/15
to
Mark Carver wrote:
>> We have a boat moored at Gallions Point Marina, right under the flight
>> path into London City Airport. OK, we *are* very close to the
>> aircraft when they land but they certainly do break up the signal
>> (both vision and sound) on our Freeview TV. It's not just a minor
>> hiccough either, the sound goes off and the picture breaks up and
>> freezes for the few seconds while an aeroplane goes over. It is only
>> a few seconds though.
>
> Yes, that doesn't surprise me, a plane very low will be reflecting
> enough stuff back with a large aperture to 'punch out' enough of a mux
> for a few seconds as it passes over.
>
> As ever with all digital reception issues the only viable method to
> see what's going on is with a spectrum analyser.
>
> Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
> on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.
>
> <http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_installations.pdf>
Yes I'd think a plane really close would have much the same effect as a
>> We have a boat moored at Gallions Point Marina, right under the flight
>> path into London City Airport. OK, we *are* very close to the
>> aircraft when they land but they certainly do break up the signal
>> (both vision and sound) on our Freeview TV. It's not just a minor
>> hiccough either, the sound goes off and the picture breaks up and
>> freezes for the few seconds while an aeroplane goes over. It is only
>> a few seconds though.
>
> Yes, that doesn't surprise me, a plane very low will be reflecting
> enough stuff back with a large aperture to 'punch out' enough of a mux
> for a few seconds as it passes over.
>
> As ever with all digital reception issues the only viable method to
> see what's going on is with a spectrum analyser.
>
> Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
> on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.
>
> <http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_installations.pdf>
wind turbine similarly close. It's interesting to watch the effect on an
analyser. A great 'orrible notch of infinite depth moves across the mux,
taking a good proportion of the carriers down far enough that the AGC
can't cope and/or the carrier's s/n ration is inadequate.
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 8:37:35 AM9/25/15
to
Martin wrote:
> We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing at Schiphol
> are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when they pass directly over
> us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly interrupts Freesat.
That of course is screening not reflections.
Bill
> We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing at Schiphol
> are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when they pass directly over
> us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly interrupts Freesat.
That of course is screening not reflections.
Bill
Dave Farrance
Sep 25, 2015, 8:43:25 AM9/25/15
to
Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 25/09/2015 12:55, Dave Farrance wrote:
>
>> Presumably, given the huge number of subcarriers of DVB-T2 (do we use
>> 32k in the UK?) and the speed of aircraft, then it would no longer be a
>> simple case of multi-path interference suppressing a few carriers, but
>> would be significantly destructive interference.
>
>T1 uses 8k, T2 uses 32k. Be interesting (in view of the new info the
>OP has just posted) whether the T1 and T2 muxes are affected or just T2 ?
Thanks. 32k it is then.
>On 25/09/2015 12:55, Dave Farrance wrote:
>
>> Presumably, given the huge number of subcarriers of DVB-T2 (do we use
>> 32k in the UK?) and the speed of aircraft, then it would no longer be a
>> simple case of multi-path interference suppressing a few carriers, but
>> would be significantly destructive interference.
>
>T1 uses 8k, T2 uses 32k. Be interesting (in view of the new info the
>OP has just posted) whether the T1 and T2 muxes are affected or just T2 ?
The UHF channel bandwidth is 8MHz, so each subcarrier is just 250Hz.
Crystal Palace PSB3 is on 545800000Hz, so shifting it by just half the
above to 545800125Hz would be destructive.
Doppler shift: f' = f * sqrt((1 + v/c) / 1 -v/c))
I find that I can rearrange that to:
v = c * ((g - 1)/(g + 1)) where g = (f'/f)^2
Which gives me a speed of 68.6 m/s or 153.6 mph, which *is* aircraft
landing speed, close enough.
Mark Carver
Sep 25, 2015, 8:49:59 AM9/25/15
to
strength relative to the wanted, to have an effect. The aerial's peak
gain will be in its horizontal plane (no pun ;-)) and in the direction
of the transmitter. As stated it's low planes that seem to be causing
the problem, possibly flying in or away on the same bearing as the
transmitter ?
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 9:35:18 AM9/25/15
to
In article <d6kff7...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
Erm... within a set of limits and assumptions.
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 9:35:18 AM9/25/15
to
In article <5d8a0blmsl6ngb6oe...@4ax.com>, Martin
very different azimuth into a more directional RX antenna.
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing at
> Schiphol are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when they
> pass directly over us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly interrupts
> Freesat.
Which would be a very different frequency to DVB-T/T2 and coming from a
> We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing at
> Schiphol are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when they
> pass directly over us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly interrupts
> Freesat.
very different azimuth into a more directional RX antenna.
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 9:57:59 AM9/25/15
to
In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I don't keep
such details in my head. :-)
<mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
> altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
> are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can check
> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
> altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
> are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I don't keep
such details in my head. :-)
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 9:57:59 AM9/25/15
to
> Is it possible that the 4G phone companies although giving us a ' new
> filter' might be degrading our freeview reception in ways they are not
> very willing to talk about?
It is possible that you'd benefit from a 'better' filter. Depends on the
> filter' might be degrading our freeview reception in ways they are not
> very willing to talk about?
local circumstances.
Here, I'd done some checking in advance so anticipated problems. And they
duly appeared when the local 4G base station went live. But here planes
didn't come into it. (Despite there also being a RAF base in much the same
direction at the time! 8-] ) So I wasn't bothered by Biggles and his chums.
To continue to get the full set of DVB multiplexes I needed one of the
'Ch60' 4G filters that have a tighter spec than the general purpose ones.
(Translation, bigger and more expensive.) This is because we still get one
TV transmission at the top of the band. i.e. as close in frequency as now
possible to the 4G. And the base station is close, and in much the same
direction as the TV transmitter. Fortunately, I'd talked to at800 in
advance and they sent me a filter that did the job.
So it depends on what the levels, etc, are where your TV antenna is picking
up things.
If none of your TV transmissions are in the top channels you might find
that *two* filters in series help. But may not. The problem here is that if
the planes *are* mucking up your TV reception then that problem is a severe
one, so you may find that only a tiny amount of added interference tips it
'over the cliff' at times. And unless the filters are good, they can also
lose some of the wanted signal, so simply throwing 'more filters' at it
isn't a panacea.
But note the series of "ifs", etc. The way to find out would be to
experiment. You can buy filters from places like CPC if at800 won't help
further.
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 9:57:59 AM9/25/15
to
In article <mu3ev8$uor$4...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
subcarrier interval or more. So overlapping the signals from different
subcarriers. Combine that with all the brisk changes in phase and amplitude
and you could get a mess that the RX can't unscramble.
However, as before, I've no idea if this *is* the cause in this case. Just
that I wouldn't reject the possibility at first suggestion.
<bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Yes I'd think a plane really close would have much the same effect as a
> wind turbine similarly close. It's interesting to watch the effect on an
> analyser. A great 'orrible notch of infinite depth moves across the
> mux, taking a good proportion of the carriers down far enough that the
> AGC can't cope and/or the carrier's s/n ration is inadequate.
In addition, a high dopper velocity may shift the reflections by a
> Yes I'd think a plane really close would have much the same effect as a
> wind turbine similarly close. It's interesting to watch the effect on an
> analyser. A great 'orrible notch of infinite depth moves across the
> mux, taking a good proportion of the carriers down far enough that the
> AGC can't cope and/or the carrier's s/n ration is inadequate.
subcarrier interval or more. So overlapping the signals from different
subcarriers. Combine that with all the brisk changes in phase and amplitude
and you could get a mess that the RX can't unscramble.
However, as before, I've no idea if this *is* the cause in this case. Just
that I wouldn't reject the possibility at first suggestion.
Dave Farrance
Sep 25, 2015, 11:08:50 AM9/25/15
to
so after some searching, I find that DVB-T2 seems to be more vulnerable
that DVB-T for this too. The interfering signal has to be at least 27dB
down or it will cause trouble (compared with 20dB for DVB-T, IIRC).
Table 6 here gives the failure point for co-channel interference (which
would cause the same sort of problems as frequency-shifted signals).
http://www.digitaleurope.org/Portals/0/Documents/TRPG/Broadcast/DIGITALEUROPE_White_Paper_DVB-T2_RF_27-04-2012.pdf
So it seems that the Freeview HD channels are extra-vulnerable for more
than one reason compared to Freeview SD.
Dave Farrance
Sep 25, 2015, 11:19:34 AM9/25/15
to
john west <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>Given that the much of the consensus in this group seems to be saying
>this kind of plane interference is very unlikely, should i have myself
>and my whole family enter the local Whittington Psychiatric Unit..... :)
We've continued discussing the issue, and it does seem that there is
>Given that the much of the consensus in this group seems to be saying
>this kind of plane interference is very unlikely, should i have myself
>and my whole family enter the local Whittington Psychiatric Unit..... :)
reason to think that Freeview HD (channels 101 ,102 etc) would be
significantly more susceptible to aircraft interference than Freeview SD
(channels 1, 2 etc). Can you compare that?
The Natural Philosopher
Sep 25, 2015, 11:55:59 AM9/25/15
to
On 25/09/15 14:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
> <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
>> altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
>> are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
>
> Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can check
> if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I don't keep
> such details in my head. :-)
>
> Jim
>
http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/coveragechecker/main/trade/NW7+1NE/NA/0/NA
> In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
> <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
>> altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
>> are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
>
> Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can check
> if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I don't keep
> such details in my head. :-)
>
> Jim
>
Java Jive
Sep 25, 2015, 12:13:23 PM9/25/15
to
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/AudioVisualTV/TerrestrialTV/TerrestrialCalculator.php?iRxWhereHow=C&iRxPost=NW7+1NE&iTxWhereHow=N
BTW, I don't know if it's relevant, but just there Finchley relay
might be giving a stronger signal than CP.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:57:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
> <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
> > altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
> > are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
>
> Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can check
> if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I don't keep
> such details in my head. :-)
>
> Jim
--
========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
BTW, I don't know if it's relevant, but just there Finchley relay
might be giving a stronger signal than CP.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:57:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
> <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
> > altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
> > are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.
>
> Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can check
> if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I don't keep
> such details in my head. :-)
>
> Jim
--
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Jim Lesurf
Sep 25, 2015, 12:38:09 PM9/25/15
to
In article <mu3qqe$ov6$1...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
have missed something. But the above looked like the highest CP channel is
35.
If so, it should be relatively easy to filter off G4.
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/09/15 14:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
> > <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a
> >> higher altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace
> >> Transmitter are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as
> >> before.
> >
> > Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can
> > check if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I
> > don't keep such details in my head. :-)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/coveragechecker/main/trade/NW7+1NE/NA/0/NA
The browser I used to look at that doesn't 'do' javascript, etc, so I may
> On 25/09/15 14:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
> > <mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a
> >> higher altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace
> >> Transmitter are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as
> >> before.
> >
> > Someone can now tell us/me what channels CP is broadcasting so we can
> > check if they are near the top of the band. Since I live far from CP I
> > don't keep such details in my head. :-)
> >
> > Jim
> >
> http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/coveragechecker/main/trade/NW7+1NE/NA/0/NA
have missed something. But the above looked like the highest CP channel is
35.
If so, it should be relatively easy to filter off G4.
tony sayer
Sep 25, 2015, 1:54:58 PM9/25/15
to
again?.
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Sep 25, 2015, 2:11:08 PM9/25/15
to
In article <mu3c06$eso$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
<mail.in...@mail.invalid> scribeth thus
have had no effect whatsoever. You might be under a flight path which
might just upset the whole shooting match to elstree or northolt but
consider where you are there would-be a lot of others experiencing the
same effects ?
I think there something really odd going on there I wonder if there
might be some odd effect from aircraft radio somehow or similar. Have
you tried asking the neighbours what their reception is like and if
they get the same as you?.
I would have thought you're on the Crystal place TX there wonder if you
might be using for some odd obscure reason an alternative TX according
the some TX sites you should be using the Finchley relay perhaps you are
on something else somewhere. Really needs someone there who knows what
their doing aerial wise that is and they are very far and few between!.
Ask locally or post up a picture of your aerial on flicker that will
help.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=40
--
Tony Sayer
charles
Sep 25, 2015, 2:19:45 PM9/25/15
to
In article <VwCgtpA8...@bancom.co.uk>,
I'm slightly concerned by a statement in the original post: "I bought a new
aerial, but that hasn't helped". To me, there's an implication of an
indoor aerial. obviously just buying a new aerial would have no effect
whatsoever, but what was done with it? Did the OP get a ladder our and
replace the old aerial or do something much simpler?
--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk
aerial, but that hasn't helped". To me, there's an implication of an
indoor aerial. obviously just buying a new aerial would have no effect
whatsoever, but what was done with it? Did the OP get a ladder our and
replace the old aerial or do something much simpler?
--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk
Graham.
Sep 25, 2015, 2:37:26 PM9/25/15
to
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:49:10 +0100, Mark Carver
That's our Bill ameliorating in public again.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 2:48:18 PM9/25/15
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <mu1nqb$fjl$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
> <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
>> honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
>> planes and the fault.
>
> You and others may be correct to dismiss the idea. But I'm not so sure as
> I've not yet done the maths.
When dealing with common situations like this I think you'll find 45
> In article <mu1nqb$fjl$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
> <bi...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
>> honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
>> planes and the fault.
>
> You and others may be correct to dismiss the idea. But I'm not so sure as
> I've not yet done the maths.
years in the aerial trade a better guide than sums.
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 2:52:53 PM9/25/15
to
john west wrote:
> But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
> traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
> quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
> lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
> reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.
Ah, now you're presenting up with an entirely different scenario!
> But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
> traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
> quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
> lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
> reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 3:20:55 PM9/25/15
to
john west wrote:
> But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
> traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
> quite close to our house
I could well believe that these might make your signal strength or
> But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
> traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
> quite close to our house
quality wobble a bit, based partly on wind turbine experience, also on a
little problem we used to have in the analogue days in the village of
Blaxton, which was near an RAF station.
Digital TV is remarkably good at ignoring all sorts of problems like
this, but . . . BUT . . . the crux of all this is that the signal
strength and quality must be good enough for the disturbance not to take
it below the threshold. The thing with digital telly is that it will
work absolutely perfectly for ever with a signal that is JUST adequate
("Oh that's a good picture! Better than we had with the old analgestic
or whatever they call it!") as long as that signal stays just (or better
than just) adequate. But even a tiny drop in strength or quality will
cause complete breakdown. So the thing is, if you have an abnormal
susceptibility to interference of any kind, the issue isn't the
interference it's the question of whether your installation is able to
produce, at the receiver, a good strong signal with the noise a long
long way below it. If not then you will suffer break up from any damn
stupid little thing that comes along.
If the planes were affecting everyone the way they are affecting you it
would be headline news really wouldn't it? But it's just you. And what's
special about you? Your installation, and the field strength available
to it.
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 3:25:34 PM9/25/15
to
Mark Carver wrote:
> As stated it's low planes that seem to be causing
> the problem,
Yes it is NOW! It was high ones to start with. The goal has been moved.
> As stated it's low planes that seem to be causing
> the problem,
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 3:31:44 PM9/25/15
to
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 3:36:04 PM9/25/15
to
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 25, 2015, 3:38:27 PM9/25/15
to
Graham. wrote:
>> Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
>> on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.
>>
>> <http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_installations.pdf>
>
> That's our Bill ameliorating in public again.
>
They can't touch you for it!
>> Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
>> on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.
>>
>> <http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_installations.pdf>
>
> That's our Bill ameliorating in public again.
>
Bill
Geo
Sep 25, 2015, 3:41:52 PM9/25/15
to
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:19:57 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
>I'm slightly concerned by a statement in the original post: "I bought a new
>aerial, but that hasn't helped". To me, there's an implication of an
>indoor aerial. obviously just buying a new aerial would have no effect
>whatsoever, but what was done with it? Did the OP get a ladder our and
>replace the old aerial or do something much simpler?
Maybe post the Argos order number?
wrote:
>I'm slightly concerned by a statement in the original post: "I bought a new
>aerial, but that hasn't helped". To me, there's an implication of an
>indoor aerial. obviously just buying a new aerial would have no effect
>whatsoever, but what was done with it? Did the OP get a ladder our and
>replace the old aerial or do something much simpler?
Graham.
Sep 25, 2015, 4:54:58 PM9/25/15
to
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:25:28 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:
https://youtu.be/dS12p0Zqlt0
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
wrote:
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Jim Lesurf
Sep 26, 2015, 5:35:59 AM9/26/15
to
In article <ffbb0btpl1nk8ro7e...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> doesn't exist 15 miles from Schiphol. :-)
Of course it does! You just need to be up high enough in one of the planes
to be able to receive it. Admittedly, arranging for an antenna directional
enough to choose your TX would be a challenge, though. :-)
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:17:02 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <5d8a0blmsl6ngb6oe...@4ax.com>, Martin
> ><m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing
> >> at Schiphol are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when
> >> they pass directly over us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly
> >> interrupts Freesat.
> >
> >Which would be a very different frequency to DVB-T/T2 and coming from a
> >very different azimuth into a more directional RX antenna.
> Whilst stating the obvious, you omitted to point out that Freeview
> wrote:
> >In article <5d8a0blmsl6ngb6oe...@4ax.com>, Martin
> ><m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing
> >> at Schiphol are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when
> >> they pass directly over us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly
> >> interrupts Freesat.
> >
> >Which would be a very different frequency to DVB-T/T2 and coming from a
> >very different azimuth into a more directional RX antenna.
> doesn't exist 15 miles from Schiphol. :-)
Of course it does! You just need to be up high enough in one of the planes
to be able to receive it. Admittedly, arranging for an antenna directional
enough to choose your TX would be a challenge, though. :-)
Jim Lesurf
Sep 26, 2015, 10:11:42 AM9/26/15
to
In article <61rc0b5n2df20nmmm...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around
> 10,000 feet to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about
> 120 miles away.
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XTyBFuWtesUC&pg=PT74&lpg=PT74&dq=line+of+sight+altitude+distance+120+miles&source=bl&ots=XIgpshwva3&sig=_5_kxzmMSTiVEMpLXIrQBmuQF2c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBGoVChMItdmi47iUyAIVDOcaCh0RlweR#v=onepage&q=line%20of%20sight%20altitude%20distance%20120%20miles&f=false
> own mountain out of a mole hill. :-)
I appreciate that this can be particularly difficult from some parts of
Holland. :-)
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around
> 10,000 feet to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about
> 120 miles away.
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XTyBFuWtesUC&pg=PT74&lpg=PT74&dq=line+of+sight+altitude+distance+120+miles&source=bl&ots=XIgpshwva3&sig=_5_kxzmMSTiVEMpLXIrQBmuQF2c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBGoVChMItdmi47iUyAIVDOcaCh0RlweR#v=onepage&q=line%20of%20sight%20altitude%20distance%20120%20miles&f=false
> >Admittedly, arranging for an antenna directional enough to choose your
> >TX would be a challenge, though. :-)
> Maybe I'll watch Freeview from the top of a local mountain or make my
> >TX would be a challenge, though. :-)
> own mountain out of a mole hill. :-)
I appreciate that this can be particularly difficult from some parts of
Holland. :-)
john west
Sep 27, 2015, 5:57:38 AM9/27/15
to
Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the transmitter is from
Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
Transmitter.
The at800 engineer is coming again this Monday. Thanks to all.
Jim Lesurf
Sep 27, 2015, 8:33:59 AM9/27/15
to
In article <mu8eeq$bv8$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
this.
> The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the transmitter is from
> Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
> Transmitter. The at800 engineer is coming again this Monday.
See if he uses a spectrum analyser or equivalent and ask him about the
results. Then let us know what he does and how you get on.
<mail.in...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
> Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
Alas, such values tend not to be very good indicators in situations like
> The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
> Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
this.
> The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the transmitter is from
> Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
> Transmitter. The at800 engineer is coming again this Monday.
results. Then let us know what he does and how you get on.
tony sayer
Sep 27, 2015, 9:32:35 AM9/27/15
to
In article <mu8eeq$bv8$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
<mail.in...@mail.invalid> scribeth thus
Finchley relay thats intended for your area:)
Hang on thats one of they that doesn't do all channels;(
Where is this aerial John?, indoors, outdoors on a wall on the chimney
does it point into the air as it were is there a stonking tower block in
line locally or some other obstruction?.
anyone any experience with AT 800 "engineers" or are thy much the same
as channel 5 re-tuners;?.
John, it would be of much use to post a few pictures of the aerial and
where its located a pix is often worth a 100000 words;!.
--
Tony Sayer
charles
Sep 27, 2015, 10:51:25 AM9/27/15
to
In article <h2ONs6DO...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
I had as colleague who reired about the time ch5 turned up. He applied for
a job as a re-tuner and rejected because he was "too highly qualified".
wrote:
a job as a re-tuner and rejected because he was "too highly qualified".
Bill Wright
Sep 27, 2015, 10:59:14 AM9/27/15
to
john west wrote:
> The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
> Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
> The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
> Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).
> The new Aerial put up on the wall
over a main road?
> facing the transmitter is from
> Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
> Transmitter.
Bill
Indy Jess John
Sep 27, 2015, 11:57:33 AM9/27/15
to
On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
> Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
> In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
> properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).
I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
> Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
> In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
> properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).
its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
playback.
Jim
Mark Carver
Sep 27, 2015, 2:13:29 PM9/27/15
to
On 26/09/2015 11:05, Martin wrote:
>
> Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000 feet
> to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.
Quite so. Though sat while on the beach at Southwold Suffolk in April,
>
> Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000 feet
> to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.
this is what my phone came up with, after a manual network search:-
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxwbmg9wjktd5bj/2015-04-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0>
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Big Les Wade
Sep 27, 2015, 3:46:42 PM9/27/15
to
Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> posted
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing
>>100% signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was
>>and we've changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.
And hey presto, just to make me a liar, tonight the problem has
returned. The BBC 1 signal is suddenly unwatchable. After months of 100%
signal strength and 85% signal quality, we are down to 70% signal
strength and 40-50% quality, with the associated picture blocking and
audio twonking. Other channels are not affected nearly as badly (thank
God because it's Downton Abbey any minute now and I'd be sure to get the
blame for it being unwatchable - well it's always unwatchable but you
know what I mean).
Absolutely *nothing* has changed in my set-up. Absolutely nothing. We've
been out all day so it can't be the wife hoovering and knocking the
cables. It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24
hours.
The one thing I suppose it might be is high barometric pressure, which
we've got at the moment.
--
Les
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing
>>100% signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was
>>fine for a couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and
>>now it's fine again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared
>>and we've changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.
returned. The BBC 1 signal is suddenly unwatchable. After months of 100%
signal strength and 85% signal quality, we are down to 70% signal
strength and 40-50% quality, with the associated picture blocking and
audio twonking. Other channels are not affected nearly as badly (thank
God because it's Downton Abbey any minute now and I'd be sure to get the
blame for it being unwatchable - well it's always unwatchable but you
know what I mean).
Absolutely *nothing* has changed in my set-up. Absolutely nothing. We've
been out all day so it can't be the wife hoovering and knocking the
cables. It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24
hours.
The one thing I suppose it might be is high barometric pressure, which
we've got at the moment.
--
Les
Bill Wright
Sep 27, 2015, 4:19:59 PM9/27/15
to
Big Les Wade wrote:
> It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.
It can be the trees you know. Oh, I could tell you a tale or two . . .
> It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.
Bill
Rod Speed
Sep 27, 2015, 4:38:06 PM9/27/15
to
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:$9vmpsTM...@invalid.com...
Big Les Wade
Sep 27, 2015, 5:22:16 PM9/27/15
to
Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> posted
--
Les
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>
>> It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.
>
>It can be the trees you know. Oh, I could tell you a tale or two . . .
And an hour later it was all right again.
>
>> It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.
>
>It can be the trees you know. Oh, I could tell you a tale or two . . .
--
Les
tony sayer
Sep 27, 2015, 6:02:50 PM9/27/15
to
In article <d6qpu6...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
here:)
https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52
Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
nectar;)
--
Tony Sayer
.
<mark....@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 26/09/2015 11:05, Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000 feet
>> to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.
>
>Quite so. Though sat while on the beach at Southwold Suffolk in April,
>this is what my phone came up with, after a manual network search:-
>
><https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxwbmg9wjktd5bj/2015-04-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0>
>
One the beach at Southwold!. Thats sacrilegious you should have been
>
>>
>> Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000 feet
>> to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.
>
>Quite so. Though sat while on the beach at Southwold Suffolk in April,
>this is what my phone came up with, after a manual network search:-
>
><https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxwbmg9wjktd5bj/2015-04-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0>
>
here:)
https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52
Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
nectar;)
--
Tony Sayer
.
tony sayer
Sep 27, 2015, 6:12:49 PM9/27/15
to
In article <$9vmpsTM...@invalid.com>, Big Les Wade
<L...@nowhere.com> scribeth thus
Http://www.dxinfocentre.com/tropo_eur.html
It is high your right, its 1043 here in Cambridge!.
--
Tony Sayer
.
<L...@nowhere.com> scribeth thus
It is high your right, its 1043 here in Cambridge!.
--
Tony Sayer
.
Mark Carver
Sep 28, 2015, 8:01:52 PM9/28/15
to
On 28/09/2015 08:46, Martin wrote:
-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0>
>>>
>> One the beach at Southwold!. Thats sacrilegious you should have been
>> here:)
>>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52
>>
>>
>> Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
>> nectar;)
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Adnams+Plc/@52.327065,1.680082,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s11668310!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Fstorage.googleapis.com%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Fsmall%2F11668310.jpg!7i1843!8i1878!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sadnams+brewery+southwold!3m1!1s0x47da222290b01a0b:0xe47b0d276cbdb5df!6m1!1e1
-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0>
>>>
>> One the beach at Southwold!. Thats sacrilegious you should have been
>> here:)
>>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52
>>
>>
>> Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
>> nectar;)
>
>
Oh, don't worry, I dragged SWMBO off for a pint just after 11:00hrs here :-
<https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.3250904,1.6794951,3a,75y,130.04h,80.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH88s1L1Ljeu9PtYffSFJXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1>
Bill Wright
Sep 28, 2015, 9:17:55 PM9/28/15
to
Mark Carver wrote:
>
> Oh, don't worry, I dragged SWMBO off for a pint
Does SWMBO stand for 'She who is extremely tolerant'?
>
> Oh, don't worry, I dragged SWMBO off for a pint
Bill
Bill Wright
Sep 29, 2015, 6:10:09 AM9/29/15
to
Martin wrote:
> In June, I bought 64 tins of Adnams Bitter by mail order - sent to a UK
> address. I found it disappointing. It is nowhere near as good as their draught
> bitter.
How could it possibly be as good as draught bitter? The draught bitter
is cask conditioned. The cans are pasteurised, filtered, chilled, and
then artificially gassed up.
Bill
> In June, I bought 64 tins of Adnams Bitter by mail order - sent to a UK
> address. I found it disappointing. It is nowhere near as good as their draught
> bitter.
How could it possibly be as good as draught bitter? The draught bitter
is cask conditioned. The cans are pasteurised, filtered, chilled, and
then artificially gassed up.
Bill
john west
Sep 29, 2015, 6:38:36 AM9/29/15
to
Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
strengths results were 'marginal'.
My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
chimney which we have never used.
He connected a new cable and a filter to it and now everything seems
just fine.
Looking back on the whole business our original aerial worked well, then
because it all went bad i just assumed it was my fault somewhere, so I
doubled checked all the connections and bought and installed a new
aerial and some new leads.
Then 'after' doing this work i got a message come up on the television
which after going on line to investigate further, informed me about new
nearby 4G transmitter which could be causing problems.
How much less grief would have been caused if I had received some
*timely* notification of these 4G transmissions likely being the cause
of my picture break up issues issues.
Thanks to all, for your contributions.
Indy Jess John
Sep 29, 2015, 8:12:40 AM9/29/15
to
Marstons Pedigree (in bottles, not cans)
Wadworths 6X in cans
Neither is as good as the draught served from a pump, but they are
surprisingly acceptable if you must buy ready packaged.
Jim
tony sayer
Sep 29, 2015, 2:14:11 PM9/29/15
to
In article <23sh0b9m035toh53s...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> scribeth thus
>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Adnams+Plc/@52.327065,1.680082,3a,75y,90t/da
>ta=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s11668310!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Fstorage.googleapis.com%2Fstatic.pano
>ramio.com%2Fphotos%2Fsmall%2F11668310.jpg!7i1843!8i1878!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sadnams+bre
>wery+southwold!3m1!1s0x47da222290b01a0b:0xe47b0d276cbdb5df!6m1!1e1
Yep thats the place, well recommended a lovely little town Southwold is
almost came a cropper there many years ago, pub first then the beach and
showing off to new girlfriend and having a pig of a job to get back to
shore very awkward currents!.
--
Tony Sayer
<m...@address.invalid> scribeth thus
>ta=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s11668310!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Fstorage.googleapis.com%2Fstatic.pano
>ramio.com%2Fphotos%2Fsmall%2F11668310.jpg!7i1843!8i1878!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sadnams+bre
>wery+southwold!3m1!1s0x47da222290b01a0b:0xe47b0d276cbdb5df!6m1!1e1
Yep thats the place, well recommended a lovely little town Southwold is
almost came a cropper there many years ago, pub first then the beach and
showing off to new girlfriend and having a pig of a job to get back to
shore very awkward currents!.
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Sep 29, 2015, 2:14:11 PM9/29/15
to
In article <mudpjj$84i$1...@dont-email.me>, john west
<mail.in...@mail.invalid> scribeth thus
>Looking back on the whole business our original aerial worked well, then
>because it all went bad i just assumed it was my fault somewhere, so I
>doubled checked all the connections and bought and installed a new
>aerial and some new leads.
>
This was the one up on the chimney that it was bought to replace?.
>Then 'after' doing this work i got a message come up on the television
>which after going on line to investigate further, informed me about new
>nearby 4G transmitter which could be causing problems.
>
Humm... Do you know which transmitter your on the main Crystal Place
station or the relay at Finchley seems odd that messages came up on the
screen telling you that a local 4G was to start on a TX that covers most
all of London and a way out. Do you get all the MUX'es your entitled to
there or are some missing?.
>How much less grief would have been caused if I had received some
>*timely* notification of these 4G transmissions likely being the cause
>of my picture break up issues issues.
Thats even if it was that it might well not have been.
Tony Sayer
<mail.in...@mail.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 27/09/2015 16:57, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
>>> In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
>>> properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).
>>
>> I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
>> its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
>> usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
>> playback.
>>
>> Jim
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
>strengths results were 'marginal'.
>
>My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
>thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
>chimney which we have never used.
>
>He connected a new cable and a filter to it and now everything seems
>just fine.
>
To the new aerial not the chimney one?.
>> On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
>>> In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
>>> properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).
>>
>> I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
>> its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
>> usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
>> playback.
>>
>> Jim
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
>strengths results were 'marginal'.
>
>My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
>thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
>chimney which we have never used.
>
>He connected a new cable and a filter to it and now everything seems
>just fine.
>
>Looking back on the whole business our original aerial worked well, then
>because it all went bad i just assumed it was my fault somewhere, so I
>doubled checked all the connections and bought and installed a new
>aerial and some new leads.
>
>Then 'after' doing this work i got a message come up on the television
>which after going on line to investigate further, informed me about new
>nearby 4G transmitter which could be causing problems.
>
station or the relay at Finchley seems odd that messages came up on the
screen telling you that a local 4G was to start on a TX that covers most
all of London and a way out. Do you get all the MUX'es your entitled to
there or are some missing?.
>How much less grief would have been caused if I had received some
>*timely* notification of these 4G transmissions likely being the cause
>of my picture break up issues issues.
>
>Thanks to all, for your contributions.
--
>Thanks to all, for your contributions.
Tony Sayer
Bill Wright
Sep 29, 2015, 9:31:53 PM9/29/15
to
Bill
john west
Sep 30, 2015, 10:58:04 AM9/30/15
to
the aerial worked fine at gutter level until all the trouble started. he
connected to the old one up on the roof.
i dont connect at all to the relay transmitter.
tony sayer
Oct 1, 2015, 6:49:01 PM10/1/15
to
In article <4h3m0bthev59adgk4...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> scribeth thus
>On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:05:42 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>by stretches of shallow water a few hundred yards out. The current enters
>through a gap in the shallows and exits through another making a sort off sine
>wave running parallel to the shore. The advice is go with the flow whilst trying
>to head back to the shore. Try putting your feet down occasionally. You might be
>able to stand up.
Yes I did just that, very handy being almost 6 foot 7 thats two metres
in metric;)..
--
Tony Sayer
<m...@address.invalid> scribeth thus
>On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:05:42 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>>Yep thats the place, well recommended a lovely little town Southwold is
>>almost came a cropper there many years ago, pub first then the beach and
>>showing off to new girlfriend and having a pig of a job to get back to
>>shore very awkward currents!.
>
>There is the same problem on the other side/this of the North Sea. It is caused
>>almost came a cropper there many years ago, pub first then the beach and
>>showing off to new girlfriend and having a pig of a job to get back to
>>shore very awkward currents!.
>
>by stretches of shallow water a few hundred yards out. The current enters
>through a gap in the shallows and exits through another making a sort off sine
>wave running parallel to the shore. The advice is go with the flow whilst trying
>to head back to the shore. Try putting your feet down occasionally. You might be
>able to stand up.
Yes I did just that, very handy being almost 6 foot 7 thats two metres
in metric;)..
--
Tony Sayer
john4...@gmail.com
Jul 12, 2018, 2:30:09 PM7/12/18
to
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 6:32:52 PM UTC+1, john west wrote:
> Suddenly in the last month or so our Freeview television picture is
> suddenly breaking up.
>
> We got a visit from the 'at800' Engineer who fitted a filter in-line
> before our television aerial amplifier. Apparently we have a new phone
> 4G transmitter installed quite near.
>
> The engineer said his readings were within accepted limits.
>
> We are about 15 miles north east of Heathrow Airport and get a lot of
> planes, they are sufficiently high so that we cannot read the markings
> on the planes. We are about thirteen miles north west of the crystal
> palace transmitter.
>
> Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
> that's very often.
>
> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
> carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new Aerial.
>
> Any suggestions please.
> Suddenly in the last month or so our Freeview television picture is
> suddenly breaking up.
>
> We got a visit from the 'at800' Engineer who fitted a filter in-line
> before our television aerial amplifier. Apparently we have a new phone
> 4G transmitter installed quite near.
>
> The engineer said his readings were within accepted limits.
>
> We are about 15 miles north east of Heathrow Airport and get a lot of
> planes, they are sufficiently high so that we cannot read the markings
> on the planes. We are about thirteen miles north west of the crystal
> palace transmitter.
>
> Now every time a plane goes over the picture and sound break up and
> that's very often.
>
> Everything worked fine before until about a month or so ago, and we have
> carefully checked all connections and leads and have bought a new Aerial.
>
> Any suggestions please.
john4...@gmail.com
Jul 12, 2018, 2:47:52 PM7/12/18
to
Woody
Jul 12, 2018, 3:48:25 PM7/12/18
to
<john4...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23fc3954-f70e-4002...@googlegroups.com...
an update and locked on to a different transmitter.
If the TV has manual tuning capability disconnect the aerial and start
an auto-tune to wipe the memory. When finished reconnect the aerial,
go to manual tuning and make it tune only the channels for CP - which
at present are 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28, plus if your TV is HD (i.e. has
an HD tuner) 30, 33, and 35. (If it hasn't got an HD tuner it will not
find these last three channels.) If you want London local TV also tune
29.
Good luck
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
Andy Burns
Jul 12, 2018, 3:57:42 PM7/12/18
to
Woody wrote:
> make it tune only the channels for CP - which
> at present are 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28, plus if your TV is HD (i.e. has
> an HD tuner) 30, 33, and 35.
COM7/COM8 are way up at 55 and 56 now
> make it tune only the channels for CP - which
> at present are 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28, plus if your TV is HD (i.e. has
> an HD tuner) 30, 33, and 35.
Woody
Jul 13, 2018, 3:45:49 AM7/13/18
to
"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:fqpq5k...@mid.individual.net...
Brian Gaff
Jul 13, 2018, 3:43:50 PM7/13/18
to
Next test swap the two tvs, if the same one mucks about not the aerial
surely?
More likely to be a duff preamp transistor in the receiver with the
breakup causing low signal or cross mosodulation resulting in on the verge
of break up conditions.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
surely?
More likely to be a duff preamp transistor in the receiver with the
breakup causing low signal or cross mosodulation resulting in on the verge
of break up conditions.
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Brian Gaff
Jul 13, 2018, 3:47:25 PM7/13/18
to
Yes that is very likely, seen that before. I seethe person posted they had
done what my earlier reply said thus making it pointless, but other than
that it would be interesting to know if the cables run outside to the place
where the dodgy pick up is happening. I've seen some terrible damage to
cables from window cleaner latdders decorators and birds!
news:pi8ba8$cu7$1...@dont-email.me...
done what my earlier reply said thus making it pointless, but other than
that it would be interesting to know if the cables run outside to the place
where the dodgy pick up is happening. I've seen some terrible damage to
cables from window cleaner latdders decorators and birds!
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
news:pi8ba8$cu7$1...@dont-email.me...
Yanni
Feb 1, 2021, 3:15:04 PM2/1/21
to
I’ve got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. It’s so annoying
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/tv-freeview-picture-breaking-up-new-4g-transmitter-and-aero-1075003-.htm
--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/tv-freeview-picture-breaking-up-new-4g-transmitter-and-aero-1075003-.htm
jon
Feb 2, 2021, 3:21:26 AM2/2/21
to
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 20:15:02 +0000, Yanni wrote:
> I’ve got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near
> Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. It’s so
> annoying
Many years ago when Hounslow was 97% white, I lived under the flight path
> I’ve got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near
> Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. It’s so
> annoying
to Heathrow and also had disturbance on the TV bands. This was long before
UHF and mobile phones. I moved away in 1969 and not had any interference
since.
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Feb 2, 2021, 3:37:43 AM2/2/21
to
Well, lot of high rise around there as well?
Could be reflections as well as interference. Have you got a 4g filter, if
this is not another reply to an old post I'd suggest going to a real usenet
server and finding one of the UK tv groups to post your query on.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Yanni" <c7c21932ad7f9467...@example.com> wrote in message
news:165fb8e8f87c8520$2$761265$4626...@news.newsgroupdirect.com...
Could be reflections as well as interference. Have you got a 4g filter, if
this is not another reply to an old post I'd suggest going to a real usenet
server and finding one of the UK tv groups to post your query on.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
news:165fb8e8f87c8520$2$761265$4626...@news.newsgroupdirect.com...
Algernon Goss-Custard
Feb 2, 2021, 3:59:00 AM2/2/21
to
Yanni <c7c21932ad7f9467...@example.com> posted
True Movies channel from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
--
Algernon
>I’ve got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near
>Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. It’s so
>annoying
>
On a closely unrelated subject, does anyone know why we can't get the
>Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. It’s so
>annoying
>
True Movies channel from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
--
Algernon
Unknown
Feb 2, 2021, 4:14:58 AM2/2/21
to
Algernon Goss-Custard formulated the question :
or Sony Movies Christmas.
> On a closely unrelated subject, does anyone know why we can't get the True
> Movies channel from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
No one gets it now - its channel is now used by 'Sony Movies Classics',
> Movies channel from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
or Sony Movies Christmas.
Andy Burns
Feb 2, 2021, 4:16:50 AM2/2/21
to
Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
> does anyone know why we can't get the True Movies channel from the
> Crystal Palace transmitter?
Because the channel shutdown on 7th Jan, replaced by ...
> does anyone know why we can't get the True Movies channel from the
> Crystal Palace transmitter?
<https://sonymovies.co.uk/special/sony-movies-classic>
Algernon Goss-Custard
Feb 2, 2021, 4:59:16 AM2/2/21
to
Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> posted
Umm. Pity I didn't ask before. Now I have missed the chance to record
"Double Indemnity" which was on yesterday.
--
Algernon
"Double Indemnity" which was on yesterday.
--
Algernon
Andy Burns
Feb 2, 2021, 5:53:00 AM2/2/21
to
Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
> Umm. Pity I didn't ask before. Now I have missed the chance to record
> "Double Indemnity" which was on yesterday.
Who needs a +1 channel when you can show filmA then a few minutes of
> Umm. Pity I didn't ask before. Now I have missed the chance to record
> "Double Indemnity" which was on yesterday.
news, then filmA again, then news, then filmB, then news, followed by
filmB again ...
Then wait about 4.5 days, rinse and repeat, suppose it gets each film a
showing at four different times over the course of week?
Andy Burns
Feb 2, 2021, 5:54:34 AM2/2/21
to
Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
> I have missed the chance to record "Double Indemnity"
It's back [twice] on Saturday evening
> I have missed the chance to record "Double Indemnity"
The Natural Philosopher
Feb 2, 2021, 6:54:39 AM2/2/21
to
..oh. no. double jeopardy - not double indemnity
--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.
Algernon Goss-Custard
Feb 2, 2021, 7:06:53 AM2/2/21
to
Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> posted
Yes, "Double Indemnity" is on again next Saturday evening. I can wait
that long.
--
Algernon
that long.
--
Algernon
The Natural Philosopher
Feb 2, 2021, 7:33:18 AM2/2/21
to
--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.
Richard Lindzen
Andy Burns
Feb 2, 2021, 10:47:54 AM2/2/21
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>
>> "Double Indemnity" is on again next Saturday evening.
>
channel an hour later.
Film 4, Monday 8th, Double Jeopardy 23:20, repeated on Film4+1 an hour
later.
> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>
>> "Double Indemnity" is on again next Saturday evening.
>
> not on my freeview it aint. double jeapordy is tho.
Sony Movies Classic, Saturday 6th 18:45, Double Indemnity, repeated same
channel an hour later.
Film 4, Monday 8th, Double Jeopardy 23:20, repeated on Film4+1 an hour
later.
The Natural Philosopher
Feb 2, 2021, 11:04:19 AM2/2/21
to
On 02/02/2021 15:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>
>>> "Double Indemnity" is on again next Saturday evening.
>>
>> not on my freeview it aint. double jeapordy is tho.
>
> Sony Movies Classic, Saturday 6th 18:45, Double Indemnity, repeated same
> channel an hour later.
>
No such channel on my freeview :-(
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>
>>> "Double Indemnity" is on again next Saturday evening.
>>
>> not on my freeview it aint. double jeapordy is tho.
>
> Sony Movies Classic, Saturday 6th 18:45, Double Indemnity, repeated same
> channel an hour later.
>
Sudbury has one mux missing basically
> Film 4, Monday 8th, Double Jeopardy 23:20, repeated on Film4+1 an hour
> later.
>
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”
― Jean Claud Jüncker
Andy Burns
Feb 2, 2021, 11:24:49 AM2/2/21
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Sony Movies Classic
a localTV mux.
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Sony Movies Classic
>
> No such channel on my freeview :-(
> Sudbury has one mux missing basically
It's not because you're missing COM7, it's because Sudbury doesn't have
> No such channel on my freeview :-(
> Sudbury has one mux missing basically
a localTV mux.
The Natural Philosopher
Feb 2, 2021, 2:03:03 PM2/2/21
to
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
"Saki"
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages