After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
dipole antenna.
Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
300 ohm twin lead to build.
So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
Lew
"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> What time of the year and time of day are you experiencing problems and
> for how long at a time?
Year round any time of day however we mostly watch night time TV so we
notice this mostly at night.
Several years ago when I as with Dish Network the sun spot situation would
happen but it was never any thing like I am experiencing with HD Satelite.
>
> If it occurs during the spring and fall then you could be experiencing
> receiver overload caused by the SUN. The SUN is the most powerful
> transmitter in the solar system. When the DirecTV satellite pass in front
> of the sun the sun overloads the receiver for a few minutes.
>
> If the problem is ocuring at other times then I don't have any help for
> you. HI HI...
DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away.
Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
I can't wait for Uverse.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:47:59 +0100, J. Clarke wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
>
> Because the signal strength is much less than previously and the digital
> signal dies under multipath conditions that would not even be noticeable
> with an analog signal.
Ahhh.. that's the digital difference, it's very much an "it is or it isn't"
situation from the signal stream right down to end user satisfaction.
Some sort of fractal logic at work here, perchance, the microcosm implicit in
the macrocosm - the opposite of ironic?
In Britain it's become some sort of elitist game. I know plenty of people
with NO worthwhile terrestrial signal unless they hang on to their five
channels of analogue reception while others have a gerzillion channels of
sparkling, crystal-clear worthless junk. It's going to be quite bloody when
the all-noing government pulls the plug on all analogue broadcasts. Some
rural areas are either going to have to go satellite or run 60-foot poles up
on top of their picturesque cottages. My mother-in-law lives maybe 10 miles
from a transmitter but is in a reception shadow (hilly terrain.) Like
everyone else in her area, she has the digital box and an expensive new
antenna rig but still watches analogue because the reception is great,
channel switching is instantaneous and she is comfortable with her
traditional stations and has no desire for forty channels of manga. I had a
play with her set and it takes maybe 20 seconds to change from one channel to
another to find out that it's something you don't want to watch.. Channel
surfing is effectively impossible, and the "guide" takes just as long to
scroll through.. each line takes about 20 seconds to refresh.
Everyone in the village is in a similar situation, so it's not just the
senile old bat going luddite with the technik.
Progress
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand bananary and
those who prefer a straight answer.....
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
You Call" incidents.
My shop was was fine, uninterrupted services. My house?
No phone.
No Intertubes
No TV
No 911
My Crackberry went looking for my WiFi and took the expensive data-
route for my e-mails as it like to go roaming across the river to a US
supplier. (I usually get refunded for those)
All in all, it made me aware just how much I am depending on that
farking little coax coming into my house, and subsequently my office
as well.
I'm not suggesting we're going back to smoke signals and pigeons, but
holy cow.. that was a wake-up call.
Too vulnerable for my tastes... not to mention my daughter couldn't
get at her home-work, or do her after-school job as a barista at a
local coffee shop.
===============================
What, your daughter couldn't make coffee drinks without a computer? Here in
the states, baristas actually memorize how to make the drinks. <g, d & r>
Seriously though, being so dependent on so many large, complicated systems
can really screw you up if the service becomes interupted in any way. And
anything from an errant cutin a line to an earthquake can create the outage.
I have been involved in planning for such interuptions for some offices.
There really isn't much you can do. And any redundencies gets quite
expensive.
"Leon" wrote
>
> TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.
> Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
> that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.
>
> The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
> you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
> watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
> watch it. We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at
> any specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
> hours of HD TV.
>
> We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
> anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.
>
> Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
> submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are
> broadcasting. With out the recorder you "do" have to work around all of
> the Vast Wasteland to view a particular broadcast here and there. With a
> recorder you probably watch less TV because you only turn it on when you
> have time to watch it and you are only watching exactly what you intend to
> watch.
>
> You have to really try it to understand the efficiency. I know 4 or 5
> people that pretty much made the same comments that you did. They said we
> don't watch much TV we don't need it. I explained, you don't watch much
> TV because the shows you want to watch are not on when you want to watch.
> When you learn that you have total access regardless of broadcast time or
> channel to the 10% of worth while viewing, you look at the multi channel
> recorder a bit differently. They now have the recorders and wonder how
> they ever did with out them. They spend less time in front of the TV but
> see more of what they want.
>
> The beauty of a DVR is that it will search typically 2 weeks in advance
> for content that you are interested in . You search by show name, persons
> name, type programming, time or day. Additionally it will remember your
> preferences and automatically record them regardless of day or time,
> automatically changes if the show is moved to another day or time. And
> it will not record repeats if you don't want it to do so, so my DVR only
> records NYW about 15 times a year and If I choose to do so I can watch the
> entire season in 1 day.
>
--
I will add these remarks to Leon's comments.
As my wife says, "Thank God for fast forward." Thee is somg good programs
that would be unwatchable if you had to endure the commercials. Recording
them makes it possible to watch it.
If you find a series that you like, and it is available in repeats, the DVR
allows you to "catch up". And if you really like the series, catching up
can be fun.
If you are a movie buff, there is gold in mining some of the offerings on
odd hours on obscure channels. I regularly score a good scifi, golden oldie
or foreign flick this way.
As for my better half, she loves anything about animals and geology
(earthquakes, volcanos, etc). There are literally hours of programming each
day on these topics. Hell, there is a whole channel devoted to animals.
There is also the National Geographic channel.
Me, I am a history, technology and military buff. And, of course, I like
woodworking too!! I like the discovery channel.
There is no doubt that there is a great wasteland on TV. But if you search
for some good stuff, it is there. It is like the internet. Lots of stuff
out there. And there is that subset of good stuff that you like. You just
got work a little to find it. And WANT to find it.
You can not function well in a digital environment withut some basic search
skills.
--
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Actually ATT had been doing my phones for a long time, DSL about 10
> years. Cell just over 1 year. TV is all they are not gestating now.
>
> We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7
> years IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better
> for us. U'd think 2 would be plenty. LOL
Ever notice how there's nothing worth watching on several hours of the day,
but some hours there's 3-4 decent shows? The nothing worth watching seems
to coincide with the time I'm ready for supper, too.
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Apr 23, 9:46=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
> You Call" incidents.
> My shop was was fine, uninterrupted services. My house?
> No phone.
> No Intertubes
> No TV
> No 911
> My Crackberry went looking for my WiFi and took the expensive data-
> route for my e-mails as it like to go roaming across the river to a US
> supplier. (I usually get refunded for those)
>
> All in all, it made me aware just how much I am depending on that
> farking little coax coming into my house, and subsequently my office
> as well.
>
> I'm not suggesting we're going back to smoke signals and pigeons, but
> holy cow.. that was a wake-up call.
> Too vulnerable for my tastes... not to mention my daughter couldn't
> get at her home-work, or do her after-school job as a barista at a
> local coffee shop.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> What, your daughter couldn't make coffee drinks without a computer? =A0He=
re in
> the states, baristas actually memorize how to make the drinks. =A0<g, d &=
r>
Ohh, she knows how to make the coffees, smartass, but opening the till
without Net access is the problem.
She got a big pat on the back from the owner when she made her own
till and took cash transactions. Not too shabby for a 15-year old who
can add and subtract without a calculator.
> Seriously though, being so dependent on so many large, complicated system=
s
> can really screw you up if the service becomes interupted in any way. =A0=
And
> anything from an errant cutin a line to an earthquake can create the outa=
ge.
On another level, I used to be able to start any car, no matter what.
Jan 19 1993, I was the only car that ran on my street. 1986 Olds 88.
Can of ether, screwdriver in the carb... the rest of the street, fuel
injection, dead in their drive-ways. Nowadays, all that stuff is
waaaaay to goofy for me to even consider trying to learn anything
about it. I am very fortunate to have a very good mechanic as a solid
friend.
> I have been involved in planning for such interuptions for some offices.
> There really isn't much you can do. And any redundencies gets quite
> expensive.
A case of single malt, a box of batteries, small generator, satellite
dish, smoked salmon, freezer full of sausages, defibrillator, good to
go for a few days. Propane. Weatherby D'ITALIA (III) O/U and a box or
two of treats for the criminally inclined... because NOBODY messes
with my Ren & Stimpy collection.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:15:19 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Swingman has had it for about 1 year IIRC and he seems pretty pleased with
>it.
>Apparently the internet service clows DSL away, IIRC about 4-5 times faster
>down load than DSL.
I currently have broadband cable Internet so to equal about the same
speed I need to bump up to the third tier Internet service with
U-verse. Here, I think Uverse has 5 tiers now at about $5 more per
tier.
> Beware of hardware charges. The first box (with a large DVR) is free
>> but there is a charge for other boxes. Also they do charge $10 a
>> month for HD service unless you buy their largest programming package.
>This is nothing new, I pay $5 for extra boxes now and a $10 charge for HD
>service and $6 for DVR service. IIRC Uverse does not charge extra for the
>DVR service. I do know that many more permium movie channels are availavle
>for about the same price I am pay ringht now with much less programing
>content.
For the same money I'm paying now I can get a little more content and
quite a bit more HD content. If I add their phone, in total it saves
me about $20 a month.
I'm leaning more and more.
Mike O.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I start with a personal filter:
>
>No sitcoms.
>No CSI anything
>No Reality TV.
>Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
>No American Idol.
>No fake hospital shows.
>No made for TV sports broadcasts.
>
>After that, take a look at what's left.
That's more or less my filter as well. The cool thing about TiVo is you can
mine what's left. I got interested in Clint Eastwood as a director, so set TiVo
to record any movie he directed. At this point, I've seen them all, so I
cancelled that.
I have it set up to record the local news, but just keep one show. So I can
watch it when I want, but don't get a backlog. Our local PBS does a lot of good
shows late at night. I can see them with no loss of sleep.
Don't forget the value of skipping commercials. You can watch a one hour show
in 40 minutes.
-- Doug
"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>>
>> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>>
>> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
>> antenna.
>>
>> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>>
>> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
>> ohm twin lead to build.
>>
>> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
> would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
> Jim
Shoot. I live so far out in the burbs that a folded dipole gets only a few
FM radio stations. Rabbit ears get only WGN (the station, of course, and
also white gaussian noise elsewise). There's a 20 year old, normal, ordinary
log periodic TV antenna lying in the attic, that hasn't been used in 19.9
years. It would probably work well enough if I mounted it outside where it
belongs, but it serves a useful purpose right now broadbanding the half wave
20m dipole, also inside, so it tunes enough to transmit on 40m and 15m.
We've been on cable and dish since long ago, all digital for at least half
that. Not everyone lives close to the city center.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need
> a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color
> TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit
> ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out
> doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a
> brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than
> analog as you well know.
With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a
strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you will
need a new antenna.
"Mike O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:15:19 -0500, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For the same money I'm paying now I can get a little more content and
> quite a bit more HD content. If I add their phone, in total it saves
> me about $20 a month.
>
> I'm leaning more and more.
>
Actually ATT had been doing my phones for a long time, DSL about 10 years.
Cell just over 1 year. TV is all they are not gestating now.
We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7 years
IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better for us. U'd
think 2 would be plenty. LOL
Jim wrote:
> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
> would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
received signal strength.
Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.
I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Mike O. wrote:
> You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
> normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
> record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.
>
> Mike O.
I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
matter). However, you may not even get THAT. The first thing the tech
did when he came to install U-Verse was to check the signal quality, and
he immediately said it was very borderline and that I'd only be able to
get ONE HD channel at any given time; apparently, my house is at the
very fringe of the distance limit from the box where the signal
originates. At the time I thought "No problem, I only have one HD TV
and no immediate plans to get another", but it didn't take long at all
to discover that my wife likes to record EVERYTHING, and while she's got
an HD show recording I have to watch my 52" LCD in standard definition...
--
As an artist, I like to work in many different
mediums, but my favorite (by far!) is VAPORS.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike O. wrote:
>> You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
>> normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
>> record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.
>>
>> Mike O.
>
> I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
> simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
> matter). However, you may not even get THAT. The first thing the tech
> did when he came to install U-Verse was to check the signal quality, and
> he immediately said it was very borderline and that I'd only be able to
> get ONE HD channel at any given time; apparently, my house is at the very
> fringe of the distance limit from the box where the signal originates. At
> the time I thought "No problem, I only have one HD TV and no immediate
> plans to get another", but it didn't take long at all to discover that my
> wife likes to record EVERYTHING, and while she's got an HD show recording
> I have to watch my 52" LCD in standard definition...
>
> --
> As an artist, I like to work in many different
> mediums, but my favorite (by far!) is VAPORS.
> To reply, eat the taco.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:43:25 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Actually ATT had been doing my phones for a long time, DSL about 10 years.
>Cell just over 1 year. TV is all they are not gestating now.
When the Uverse guy comes they are going to want to switch
you to VOIP phone instead of your land-line. I think the unlimited LD
package is $30.
It doesn't really affect your Internet and TV package price from
Uverse but does affect the initial rebate by $50 I think.
Some people don't want VOIP for various reasons but that's where the
most savings are....at least in this area.
>We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7 years
>IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better for us. U'd
>think 2 would be plenty.
You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.
Mike O.
Mike O. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:18:09 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
>> that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
>
> Here's a link to the now famous coat hanger antenna.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw
>
> There are a couple variations of this but this is the basic idea. It's
> mostly a UHF antenna but some guys get upper VHF channels especially
> with an added reflector. That version builds the bowties on one edge
> of a 2x4 with a piece of plywood (or cardboard) covered with foil
> attached to the other edge. You can also combine 2 for more gain and
> some guys are mounting them on a rotor.
>
> I built one and set it the back yard and it worked just fine. I used
> pieces of romex I found laying around the jobsite for the bowties. I
> haven't fished a wire from the basement to the attic yet so now it's
> hanging in the floor truss space for emergencies. Basically that's at
> ground level and it even works there.
>
> You can buy practically the same antenna for not a whole lot of money
> but where's the fun in that?
I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
>> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
>> Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
>>
>> Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)
>
> SU is the bomb! But how did he work around the line of sight problem?
Good electronics, good antennas (IIRC they had a Phelps-Dodge omni at
60'), and a 1200 mile "wormhole" is the only explanation I can offer.
There was considerable surprise at both ends - that's a /long/ way for a
low-power VHF signal to travel.
SU did well until I tried to add a threaded hole for a setscrew. :-(
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Art Greenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:16:45 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
>> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
>> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
>> Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
>
> Tropo duct, no doubt.
>
> I think the bandwidth of that quad is going to be a bit narrow for even
> one digital channel, let alone a whole range of channels. You ought to
> be able to put together a simple log-periodic yagi that would likely do
> much better.
>
> Hmmm... what would a log-period quad look like?
An interesting question. Configured for the highest gain I've managed to
achieve, the element lengths made a geometric progression, and the
element spacings an arithmetic progression.
Way back I built one for a friend who lived in Philly so he could watch
a NYC sports channel (Channel 9?) and it worked well sitting on a pair
of sawhorses in his garage. He was a /very/ happy camper. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Art Greenberg wrote:
> When I lived in and around Philly, getting most of the NYC channels was
> pretty easy with even the simplest roof-top antenna.
I still have no clue what his problem might have been (I was living in
NJ and wasn't much of a TV watcher). He complained one day at work and I
took the antenna to his place the following Saturday morning, we did a
quick test in his garage, and I headed home.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
>>That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
>>300 ohm twin lead to build.
>>
>>So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>
>>Lew
>>
>If you ever need a antenna with a bit more capability,
>google "HDTV coat hanger antenna". You will likely be able
>to receive stations you didn't know were even there. The
>added plus is that it is also very economical to make.
>regards, Joe.
I worked in the Arctic and noticed that some Inuit use the heat
dissapating grid off the back of old fridges as an antennae to pick up
CBC. Considering that was an analog signal from 100's of miles away,
it was an impressive use of recycling.
P
"CW" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need
>> a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color
>> TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit
>> ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out
>> doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a
>> brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than
>> analog as you well know.
>
>With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
>designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a
>strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you will
>need a new antenna.
External rabbit ear antennae have had UHF capabilities for forty years.
scott
Nova <[email protected]> writes:
>Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
>>> why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>>
>>
>> Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
>> received signal strength.
>>
>> Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
>> pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.
>>
>> I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
>> that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
>>
>
>The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1"
> so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.
>
The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog carrier
to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.
scott
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:02:09 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Just what the hell is worth recording as presented in what Newton Minnow
>> defined as "A Vast Wasteland" more than 40 years ago?
>>
>> Lew
To sum up Leon's (snipped) remarks:
DVR has changed the way we watch TV. Rarely do we ever watch anything
live. On the odd occasion when we do, we can't stand it and typically
pause at an opportune spot and go kill 15 or 20 minutes doing
something else (no, that would be 10). Then we'll come back and pick
up where we left off, fast forwarding through the commercials as we
go.
Of course we also have the option of saying, "this sucks," deleting
the recording thus far, and then pursuing something else--TV or
otherwise.
To repeat: we virtually never watch live TV. DVR makes that possible.
And by the way, among the treasures I found was a series called "The
Mechanical Universe" which airs a couple of times a day on the
University House channel (or something like that) on our Dish
satellite. I saw it back in the '80s, remembered it as outstanding,
and see now that I was right. I have about 32 of the 52 episodes on
the hard drive and will convert all to DVD at some point.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
Mike O. wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:32:26 -0500, Steve Turner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
>>> normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
>>> record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.
>>>
>>> Mike O.
>> I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
>> simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
>> matter).
>
> Didn't I say 2 in HD and 2 in SD..??
Well By Golly Gee, I guess you did! Sorry about that, I don't read so
good sometimes. :-)
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:32:26 -0500, Steve Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> You'll be able to record 4 feeds 2 in HD and 2 in SD. That's the
>> normal initial bandwidth when they move into an area. Plus you can
>> record or watch recordings from any of your set top boxes.
>>
>> Mike O.
>
>I think you have that backwards - they currently only claim two
>simultaneous HD channels (whether recording or watching, it doesn't
>matter).
Didn't I say 2 in HD and 2 in SD..??
Here they claim you can get 4 simultaneous channels but only 2 in HD
and the other 2 in SD. The service guy also claimed that the number
feeds will increase over time as the network is developed in a
specific area. In a nearby larger market (KC) where this guy
normally works he said that some areas there have up to 6 simultaneous
channels.
Mike O.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:42:28 -0500, MikeWhy wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
> >> expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
> >> length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?
> >
> > I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
> > everthing including FM in my area.
> >
> > SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".
>
> The "accepted" (on FCC tests) simplified equation for a half-wave dipole
> wire length is:
> feet = 468/MHz.
That is the "accepted" formula because it yields the proper length for
any half-wave long wire antenna, including a folded dipole.
> A folded dipole simply folds each leg of the dipole back to the
> center. Effectively, the 5' long folded dipole has 10' of wire. Its
> resonant frequency is thus 46.8 MHz according to the formula.
> Interestingly, this works out to about a full wave for the 100 MHz FM
> band.
Not correct. The resonant frequency of a half-wave dipole, folded or
otherwise, at 60 inches long is 93.6MHz. That is a little below the
center of the FM broadcast band (98MHz).
The effect of making the half-wave antenna in this manner is twofold;
(1) it raises the feedpoint impedance to 300 ohms, as compared to a
single-wire half-wave dipole at about 75 ohms; and (2) it increases the
useful bandwidth of the antenna somewhat over that of a single-wire
half-wave dipole.
As with any antenna, the actual resonant frequency, feed point impedance
and bandwidth will all be somewhat dependent upon the environment around
the antenna.
> The simplified formula differs from the theoretical value in a vacuum
> by the velocity factor of the wire, in this case apparently about 95%
> (from 492/MHz in a vacuum).
Yes. In free space (vacuum), the wavelength of a radio wave is found by
the equation 300/(Frequency in MHz). For example, 50MHz has a wavelength
of 6 meters in free space. Converting this to feet, where 1 meter is
3.28 feet, gives 984/(Frequency in MHz). Divide by two for a half
wavelength and you get 492/(Frequency in MHz). So you see, the equation
used to compute the length of a half-wave antenna takes into account
fact that we are computing the length of a physical antenna, rather than
free space wavelength. It is resonably accurate so long as the diameter
of the conductor is very small compared to the operating wavelength.
> I wouldn't worry much about it. The antenna's resonant frequency is
> not nearly so important for receive-only operations as it is for
> transmitters. A mismatch on a transmitter presents a very high
> impedance, causing the feedline to also radiate, and plays all kinds
> of havoc to equipment in the vicinity.
Very oversimplified, but probably appropriately so for this discussion.
However, I would not go so far as to say that the frequency an antenna
is "cut" to isn't important for receiving operations. The antenna will
not perform as well if it is mistuned, and that effect can be dramatic,
depending upon how far off resonance the antenna is.
> A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
> broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
> same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.
I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
(folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
(perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.
The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
the maximum.
> Given a choice, I would face the antenna toward the signal and the
> ends toward the local RF noise. However, if reception is so marginal
> that this is enough to make or break the chain, consider it broken
> and get a tuned, multi-element, directional antenna. The same goes
> fiddling with the wire length.
Often the proper orientation of any antenna with a small to moderate
amount of directivity, such as a dipole, is a compromise. We can't
always arrange for an interfering source to be 90 degrees away from the
direction of the transmitter we are trying to receive signals from.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you
>> need a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style
>> Color TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old
>> rabbit ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old
>> out doors antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by
>> a brand new antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna
>> than analog as you well know.
>
> With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
> designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in a
> strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not, you
> will need a new antenna.
I get about 30 channels in Houston however most of the antennas are about 8
miles away "as the crow flies". Oddly with a similar antenna and with an
analog TV the reception for 3 of the 5 major network stations was terrible.
I added a $50 digital tuner to that TV and with the same antenna the
reception was perfect.
My father lives 2 miles from me, added the digital tuner, and a $50 set of
"digital" rabbit ears and the reception sucks if you stand too close or too
far away. The antenna is located near the ceiling.
On Apr 24, 9:52=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Leon" =A0wrote
>
>
>
> > TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watc=
h.
> > Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segmen=
t
> > that you wanted to hear about. =A0Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.
>
> > The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on th=
at
> > you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" =
to
> > watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
> > watch it. =A0We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anythi=
ng at
> > any specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to =
50
> > hours of HD TV.
>
> > We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
> > anything. =A0We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.
>
> > Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being=
a
> > submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are
> > broadcasting. With out the recorder you "do" have to work around all of
> > the Vast Wasteland to view a particular broadcast here and there. =A0Wi=
th a
> > recorder you probably watch less TV because you only turn it on when yo=
u
> > have time to watch it and you are only watching exactly what you intend=
to
> > watch.
>
> > You have to really try it to understand the efficiency. =A0I know 4 or =
5
> > people that pretty much made the same comments that you did. =A0They sa=
id we
> > don't watch much TV we don't need it. =A0I explained, you don't watch m=
uch
> > TV because the shows you want to watch are not on when you want to watc=
h.
> > When you learn that you have total access regardless of broadcast time =
or
> > channel to the 10% of worth while viewing, you look at the multi channe=
l
> > recorder a bit differently. =A0They now have the recorders and wonder h=
ow
> > they ever did with out them. =A0They spend less time in front of the TV=
but
> > see more of what they want.
>
> > The beauty of a DVR is that it will search typically 2 weeks in advance
> > for content that you are interested in . =A0You search by show name, pe=
rsons
> > name, type programming, time or day. =A0Additionally it will remember y=
our
> > preferences and automatically record them regardless of day or time,
> > automatically =A0changes if the show is moved to another day or time. =
=A0And
> > it will not record repeats if you don't want it to do so, so my DVR onl=
y
> > records NYW about 15 times a year and If I choose to do so I can watch =
the
> > entire season in 1 day.
>
> --
> I will add these remarks to Leon's comments.
>
> As my wife says, "Thank God for fast forward." =A0Thee is somg good progr=
ams
> that would be unwatchable if you had to endure the commercials. Recording
> them makes it possible to watch it.
>
> If you find a series that you like, and it is available in repeats, the D=
VR
> allows you to "catch up". =A0And if you really like the series, catching =
up
> can be fun.
>
> If you are a movie buff, there is gold in mining some of the offerings on
> odd hours on obscure channels. =A0I regularly score a good scifi, golden =
oldie
> or foreign flick this way.
>
> As for my better half, she loves anything about animals and geology
> (earthquakes, volcanos, etc). =A0There are literally hours of programming=
each
> day on these topics. Hell, there is a whole channel devoted to animals.
> There is also the National Geographic channel.
>
> Me, I am a history, technology and military buff. =A0And, of course, I li=
ke
> woodworking too!! =A0I like the discovery channel.
>
> There is no doubt that there is a great wasteland on TV. =A0But if you se=
arch
> for some good stuff, it is there. =A0It is like the internet. =A0Lots of =
stuff
> out there. And there is that subset of good stuff that you like. You just
> got work a little to find it. =A0And WANT to find it.
>
> You can not function well in a digital environment withut some basic sear=
ch
> skills.
> --
Mythbusters, Keith and Rachel, Daily Planet, Formula 1, Entourage...
that's about it...
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
>> why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>
>
> Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
> received signal strength.
>
> Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
> pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.
>
> I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
> that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
>
The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1"
so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.
I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I have
to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at minimum some
station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the signal
completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven and
clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the stations in
my area.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:27:27 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>
>Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>
>Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
>dipole antenna.
>
>Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>
>That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
>300 ohm twin lead to build.
>
>So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>
>Lew
>
If you ever need a antenna with a bit more capability,
google "HDTV coat hanger antenna". You will likely be able
to receive stations you didn't know were even there. The
added plus is that it is also very economical to make.
regards, Joe.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away.
>> Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
>>
>> I can't wait for Uverse.
>
>Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
>You Call" incidents.
Two weeks ago my neighbor was replacing some old fencing. He called
and had the area flagged and the guy who flagged the ATT stuff told
him "that cable can be 5' on either side of the flags".
What the hell is the point...???
Mike O.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> writes:
> "CW" wrote:
>
>> The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
>> frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
>
> Seems to be working just fine, especially on the UHF channels.
>
> Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.
As long as the signal is strong.
When the signal is weak, the picture doesn't just get "fuzzy."
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "nhurst" wrote:
>
>>Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?
>
> No, but it is simple enough to build.
>
> 1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
> 2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
> 3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
> 4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming the
> antenna lead wire to TV set.
>
> Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight
> pins, then attach lead to TV.
>
The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital frequencies are
on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black screen
> while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.
Are you reading this some where? Do you actually have digital? I have had
digital for close to 4 years and if I am getting bad reception the picture
is all kinds of terrible, you would swear you were doing mushrooms when this
happens.
>
>> I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I
>> have to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at
>> minimum some station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the
>> signal completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven
>> and clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the
>> stations in my area.
>
> Lucky you.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>
> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>
> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
> antenna.
>
> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>
> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
> ohm twin lead to build.
>
> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>
> Lew
>
>
Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that you need a
COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW style Color TV's?
They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our 15 year old rabbit ear
antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe that perhaps an old out doors
antenna that has been fighting the elements may be out done by a brand new
antenna but the digital signal requires no better antenna than analog as you
well know.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:57:37 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Art Greenberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:16:45 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
> >> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
> >> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
> >> Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
> >
> > Tropo duct, no doubt.
> >
> > I think the bandwidth of that quad is going to be a bit narrow for even
> > one digital channel, let alone a whole range of channels. You ought to
> > be able to put together a simple log-periodic yagi that would likely do
> > much better.
> >
> > Hmmm... what would a log-period quad look like?
>
> An interesting question. Configured for the highest gain I've managed to
> achieve, the element lengths made a geometric progression, and the
> element spacings an arithmetic progression.
Antenna theory is definitely not one of my arrows, and I've never really
learned/understood the things that go into computing proper (or optimal)
element length and spacing for a yagi or LPY. What you describe sounds
vaguely familiar. I assume your multi-element quads use a single driven
element. But a log-periodic antenna uses multiple driven elements of
varying length, and this is what gives it wider bandwidth. I don't see
why that couldn't be done using quad elements rather than dipole
elements. But as I said, I just don't know.
> Way back I built one for a friend who lived in Philly so he could watch
> a NYC sports channel (Channel 9?) and it worked well sitting on a pair
> of sawhorses in his garage. He was a /very/ happy camper. :)
When I lived in and around Philly, getting most of the NYC channels was
pretty easy with even the simplest roof-top antenna.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
>> expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in required
>> length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?
>
> I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
> everthing including FM in my area.
>
> SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".
The "accepted" (on FCC tests) simplified equation for a half-wave dipole
wire length is:
feet = 468/MHz.
A folded dipole simply folds each leg of the dipole back to the center.
Effectively, the 5' long folded dipole has 10' of wire. Its resonant
frequency is thus 46.8 MHz according to the formula. Interestingly, this
works out to about a full wave for the 100 MHz FM band. It might be worth
experimenting with slightly shorter lengths, moving the resonant frequency
to, say, 75 MHz. The gains will be minimal, if measurable at all (let alone
noticeable).
The simplified formula differs from the theoretical value in a vacuum by the
velocity factor of the wire, in this case apparently about 95% (from 492/MHz
in a vacuum). I wouldn't worry much about it. The antenna's resonant
frequency is not nearly so important for receive-only operations as it is
for transmitters. A mismatch on a transmitter presents a very high
impedance, causing the feedline to also radiate, and plays all kinds of
havoc to equipment in the vicinity.
A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the same 2 dB
attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends. Given a choice, I would face
the antenna toward the signal and the ends toward the local RF noise.
However, if reception is so marginal that this is enough to make or break
the chain, consider it broken and get a tuned, multi-element, directional
antenna. The same goes fiddling with the wire length.
Using a Four bay El-cheapo UHF, my shop is getting
a FAR better signal than my Direct TV setup in the
house.
The local channels are VERY close to my
neighbors HD tv setup that he pays pretty big bucks
for.
Leon wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> I'm guessing it's more of a bandwidth issue. 1080i requires (guessing)
>> at least 4 times the bandwidth as 480i which makes it more susceptible
>> to pixelization/drop out.
>
> 720 for me.
> My LCD is relatively old, almost 4 years old. 720i was expensive enough,
> 1080 was way more expensive and my set is only 46". At the time I was told
> that above 46" was pretty much when you needed to go with 1080.
>
> The weird thing, if I switch from Satellite to rabbit ear the reception from
> the locals if fine. If I switch to satellite the HD reception is fine on
> all 70 or so channels EXCEPT the local channels.
>
>
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:16:45 -0500, Morris Dovey wrote:
> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
> Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
Tropo duct, no doubt.
I think the bandwidth of that quad is going to be a bit narrow for even
one digital channel, let alone a whole range of channels. You ought to
be able to put together a simple log-periodic yagi that would likely do
much better.
Hmmm... what would a log-period quad look like?
--
Art Greenberg
WA2LLN
artg at eclipse dot net
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:43 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> The top 108Mhz of the UHF band has/is being assigned or auctioned off
> for other purposes, otherwise all old TV frequencies are the same.
Low VHF (analog channels 2 through 6) likewise.
> However, there may be some stations migrating from VHF to the remaining
> UHF frequencies. As well, some stations may not alight on their final
> frequency assignment until the June deadline.
>
> Formerly K7OQF from the vacuum tube days.
--
Art Greenberg
WA2LLN
artg at eclipse dot net
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:32:38 -0500, Leon wrote:
> > This is the big problem with digital--it doesn't degrade
> > gracefully--it's all or nothing.
>
> Where did you hear that? My digital can be terrible right in between
> perfect and nothing. Terrible pixelization and this goes for my
> neighbor, BIL, and father.
Yes, you _can_ have a marginal signal. Its just that the signal strength
"knee" is quite sharp. If you have a picture with artifacts present due
to marginal signal strength, it won't take much of a decrease in signal
strength to get to where no data can be recovered ... and no picture
produced.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
>> why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>
>
> Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
> received signal strength.
>
> Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
> pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.
>
> I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
> that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
>
The following web site allows you to input your zip code (the only
information REQUIRED), indicate if there are obstructions in your area
and tell the calculator what type of structure the building is and the
site will provide a chart of the stations in your area and what type of
antenna is required for each station.
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
also see:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvantennas.html
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1" so
> the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.
That's is what I thought but my dad gets a lot of pixilization and slow
motion and dropped sound with his digital tuner and TV. I thought you would
get all or none way back when. As it turns out with my HD satelite DVR and
mostly only with local stations broadcast through satelite I regularially
get pixilization. The probpem is nonexistent with the premium satelite
channels unless it is raining.
>
> I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I have to
> turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at minimum some
> station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the signal
> completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven and clipping.
> A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the stations in my area.
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> [email protected]
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Nova <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a "1"
>> so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog receiver.
>>
>
>
> The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog carrier
> to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
> signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.
>
> scott
I'm not familiar with the set up for digital TV but I was a TELCO data
transmission specialist for quite a few years.
With DOV/DUV (data over voice/data under voice) the S/N ratio seldom
cause problems with the data, unless the noise was severe, while it
would greatly impact the modulated analog signals. Phase jitter on the
other hand would wipe out the data with little impact on the analog.
The same help true for the Async data using 2024, 2028 and 2029 modems.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And my personal experience with digital is that there's perfect picture,
> frozen picture, or black screen. I've never seen anything that looks like
> "doing mushrooms" however I am willing to grant that there may be some
> sets out there that show pixelation when they lose bits.
Actually, it is not the tuner in the TV that is the problem unless it is
raining hard. The HD satellite receiver DVR gets the weak signal and
records it that way. Typically when I am using the tuner in the TV I am
using an off air antennas, the rabbit ears.
Typically when the weather is fine the only time this happens is when
getting the satellite digital signal passed through to the HDTV and only
when viewing local stations. Switching inputs to rabbit ears and watching
the same local HD channel solves the problem. Obviously if there is severe
rain this can happen at any time with either source.
Doing mushrooms. LOL OK let me describe this a bit better. I will give
you two examples of how this looks. As the signal weakens the sound starts
distorting to indicate that the picture is about to degrade. Slowly the
picture begins to have different color blocks appear off and on. As this
progresses the picture appears to blur and it strongly resembles a 'Picasso"
painting but there is still motion. "If" it worsens it may freeze and or
become totally unrecognizable.
In its worse state and for my second example you have to think about looking
at a jpg file and zooming in. As you greatly zoom in the pixels become
larger and you see less details of the picture. this is what the screen
looks like as it freezes and or just before the screen goes blank. This
can go on for an entire episode of a show. then suddenly every thing is
fine for several seconds and it goes through this cycle over and over. If
it is exceptionally bad I will get a black screen for a few seconds during
the cycle.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>>>
>>> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>>>
>>> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
>>> dipole antenna.
>>>
>>> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>>>
>>> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
>>> ohm twin lead to build.
>>>
>>> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
>> would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>> Jim
>>
>>
> You would't but the frequencies WILL change.
>
I was wondering how they get those subchannels.
I live about 50 miles from the transmitter tower. The analog TVs were never
able to get consistent signals from the UHF stations. Now, however, these
stations come in quite well.
But, since nothing is broken here, there is nothing to fix (yet).
Jim
"Leon" wrote:
> TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to
> watch.
Around here you either get begging of 5-7 year old reruns in those
time slots.
> Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a
> segment that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00
> AM.
With 24/7 news cycle NBD, it will repeat in 20 minutes.
If the movie is on a 3:00AM, it wil run again.
> The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on
> that you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient
> for "you" to watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best
> time for you to watch it.
Agreed, but what's to watch?
> We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at any
> specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to
> 50 hours of HD TV.
Agreed.
> We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss
> seeing anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.
I miss several weeks of "crap" on a regular basis with no ill effects.
> Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and
> being a submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they
> are broadcasting.
I can selectively ignore most anything, especially commercials.
"Mute" is a great function.
> you are only watching exactly what you intend to watch.
If the program it will run again, it's a matter of filling time since
there is so much total trash being broadcast.
I have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a couple of
programs a week that I'm willing to sit down and watch.
If I miss one, it will rerun soon enough.
Lew
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
>>> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
>>> Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
>>>
>>> Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)
>>
>> SU is the bomb! But how did he work around the line of sight problem?
>
> Good electronics, good antennas (IIRC they had a Phelps-Dodge omni at
> 60'), and a 1200 mile "wormhole" is the only explanation I can offer.
> There was considerable surprise at both ends - that's a /long/ way for a
> low-power VHF signal to travel.
>
> SU did well until I tried to add a threaded hole for a setscrew. :-(
Me too! I learned a trick or two about 10d nails from that. At this rate,
I'll be ready to test again, oh say, 2012 when the auroras descend again to
the plains states. Wondering if Skynet and Nostradamus will cooperate. (I
worked Moscow on 3 watts in 2000 on an attic wire. That was special enough
for me.)
Mike O. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away.
>>>Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
>>>
>>>I can't wait for Uverse.
>>
>>Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
>>You Call" incidents.
>
>
> Two weeks ago my neighbor was replacing some old fencing. He called
> and had the area flagged and the guy who flagged the ATT stuff told
> him "that cable can be 5' on either side of the flags".
>
> What the hell is the point...???
>
> Mike O.
For main backbone and ring feeds AT&T the cable is located using two
very low frequencies referred to as "CD" and "ACID". Anomalies such as
water and power lines can skew the locating receiver.
New York State laws gives me a 3' buffer on either side of the cable
before it's considered a mis-locate. Usually the marks are within a few
inches but I'm not going to tell that to the contractor. I've been on
one dig where my marks were 5' off as the cable was running parallel to
a buried 25 KV power line. The indication I got made me suspect the
locate was not accurate and I worked with the contractor to resolve the
problem.
On the long distance (trans-continental) cables a technician is required
to be on site if the dig is within 5' of the cable.
In my area no phone company that I'm aware of locates POTS (Plain Old
Telephone Set) lines to a building.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
> anything.
Period. Full stop. :)
"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black
>>>screen while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.
>>
>>
>> Are you reading this some where? Do you actually have digital? I have
>> had digital for close to 4 years and if I am getting bad reception the
>> picture is all kinds of terrible, you would swear you were doing
>> mushrooms when this happens.
>>
>
> They've been broadcasting digital signals in the Houston area for over
> four years???
Satellite has been digital way longer than that. But I have been watching
local digital directly from local broadcast with rabbit ear for almost 4
years. It was just a couple of stations to begin with, the local
advertising, local news, and day time was in standard. Most prime time
was about the only time you could watch in HD.
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> External rabbit ear antennae have had UHF capabilities for forty years.
So do your bedsprings but it doesn't make them efficient.
"Art Greenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:32:38 -0500, Leon wrote:
>> > This is the big problem with digital--it doesn't degrade
>> > gracefully--it's all or nothing.
>>
>> Where did you hear that? My digital can be terrible right in between
>> perfect and nothing. Terrible pixelization and this goes for my
>> neighbor, BIL, and father.
>
> Yes, you _can_ have a marginal signal. Its just that the signal strength
> "knee" is quite sharp. If you have a picture with artifacts present due
> to marginal signal strength, it won't take much of a decrease in signal
> strength to get to where no data can be recovered ... and no picture
> produced.
I think it goes with out saying that if as the signal degrades enough you
eventually get no picture. That said however most satellite receivers have
a built in signal strength meter and you can check individually sources for
signal strength. Not until my strength gets down to "about" 60% do I
actually loose a picture. Anything in the 60 to 80 % range can cause mild
to moderate picture quality loss. Typically 90% and better produces a great
picture. It is not uncommon for picture quality to degrade on a daily basis
and oddly some channels are worse than other.
And this is exaggerated more with satellite HD programming, signal strength
has to be higher for a better picture. I have 2 TV's using the same dish
but 2 completely different kind of receivers/DVR's One is HD, one is
strictly regular definition. The HD receiver picture quality is much more
fussy about the strength being higher to get a good picture. With the
regular definition receiver signal strength can drop considerably lower than
the HD unit before noticeable picture quality drops. I have a regular TV
hooked up to a "off air" rabbit ear antenna and digital tuner for local
channels and most of the time the picture quality if perfect. I am about 8
miles from the transmitter towers.
"Art Greenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
>> broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
>> same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.
>
> I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
> (folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
> (perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
> function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
> proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.
>
> The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
> the maximum.
Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.
>> Given a choice, I would face the antenna toward the signal and the
>> ends toward the local RF noise. However, if reception is so marginal
>> that this is enough to make or break the chain, consider it broken
>> and get a tuned, multi-element, directional antenna. The same goes
>> fiddling with the wire length.
>
> Often the proper orientation of any antenna with a small to moderate
> amount of directivity, such as a dipole, is a compromise. We can't
> always arrange for an interfering source to be 90 degrees away from the
> direction of the transmitter we are trying to receive signals from.
Apparently, you were not then "given a choice."
Leon wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black screen
>>while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.
>
>
> Are you reading this some where? Do you actually have digital? I have had
> digital for close to 4 years and if I am getting bad reception the picture
> is all kinds of terrible, you would swear you were doing mushrooms when this
> happens.
>
They've been broadcasting digital signals in the Houston area for over
four years???
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Actually ATT had been doing my phones for a long time, DSL about 10
>> years. Cell just over 1 year. TV is all they are not gestating now.
>>
>> We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7
>> years IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better
>> for us. U'd think 2 would be plenty. LOL
>
> Ever notice how there's nothing worth watching on several hours of the
> day,
> but some hours there's 3-4 decent shows? The nothing worth watching seems
> to coincide with the time I'm ready for supper, too.
Yeah I have noticed that, rairely is there anything worth watching before
7:00pm CTS
>
> Puckdropper
> --
> "The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
> reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
> rec.woodworking
>
> To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Good point but I get tired of calling ATT for DSL problems and DirecTV
> for TV problems. I want one call to do it all.
>
Try Verizon
<hehe>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I use ATT/Yahoo now with DSL, I imagine the news groups would be
> exactly the same. That said you cannot get most of the groups
> similar to a.b.p.w. to get that group but I pay Giganews $2.99 per
> month for 25 times more content than I use. Last month I used 2% of
> what was available to me. Unfortunately there is no roll over. :~(
>
I pay $124/mo for Verizon FiOS: phone, TV (2 STBs), 20/5 internet.
I paid $10 to astraweb for non-Verizon usenet since last June:
Your Account: Pay-by-Download
Account Status: Active
Bytes Downloaded: 239,565,280 bytes (0.24 GB)
Downloads Left: 24,760,434,720 bytes (24.76 GB)
Admittedly, I use Verizon's internet for most of my newsgroups
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> Exactly, I chopped the cable line and the hole was not where the
> markings were.
Got sewerline replaced. Luckily water and gas were not in the way, they
were near where they were supposed to be. But, the contractor was also
very careful digging ...
I feel sorry for the old oak tree who was depending on us flushing
nutrients his&her way. It's an ugly thing, but it does give some shade.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Leon" wrote:
> We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or
> 7 years IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be
> better for us. U'd think 2 would be plenty. LOL
Just what the hell is worth recording as presented in what Newton
Minnow defined as "A Vast Wasteland" more than 40 years ago?
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>
>> TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.
>
> Around here you either get begging of 5-7 year old reruns in those time
> slots.
>
>> Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
>> that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.
>
> With 24/7 news cycle NBD, it will repeat in 20 minutes.
>
> If the movie is on a 3:00AM, it wil run again.
>
>> The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
>> you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
>> watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
>> watch it.
>
> Agreed, but what's to watch?
>
>> We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at any
>> specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
>> hours of HD TV.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
>> anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.
>
> I miss several weeks of "crap" on a regular basis with no ill effects.
>
>> Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
>> submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are
>> broadcasting.
>
> I can selectively ignore most anything, especially commercials.
>
> "Mute" is a great function.
>
>> you are only watching exactly what you intend to watch.
>
> If the program it will run again, it's a matter of filling time since
> there is so much total trash being broadcast.
>
> I have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a couple of programs a
> week that I'm willing to sit down and watch.
>
> If I miss one, it will rerun soon enough.
>
> Lew
Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
missing.
I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:27:36 -0500, Jim wrote:
> I was wondering how they get those subchannels.
Subchannels are on the same carrier - IOW the same frequency - as the
main channel. The various data streams for all of the channels, both
video and audio, are divided into fixed-length sections called packets.
Each packet includes a few bits that say which stream the data in it
belongs to. Then the packets from the various streams are mixed together
("multiplexed") to create the transmitted data stream.
When you switch among subchannels for a particular main channel, all you
are doing is telling the receiver to pick the packets that belong to the
selected subchannel.
The frequencies will change due to the need to simultaneously transmit
the digital and analog versions of the channels for some period of time,
and then reclaim some of frequencies from the low VHF and high UHF
channels for other uses once the analog signals are turned off.
Depending upon where you are, you may still need a combination high
VHF/low UHF antenna to receive all of the digital stations in your area.
I know this is true in Philadelphia PA, for example, where WPVI and WHYY
will relocate their digital transmissions to the high VHF band on June
12th.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
Robatoy wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:13 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away.
>> Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
>>
>> I can't wait for Uverse.
>
> Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
> You Call" incidents.
> My shop was was fine, uninterrupted services. My house?
> No phone.
> No Intertubes
> No TV
> No 911
> My Crackberry went looking for my WiFi and took the expensive data-
> route for my e-mails as it like to go roaming across the river to a US
> supplier. (I usually get refunded for those)
>
> All in all, it made me aware just how much I am depending on that
> farking little coax coming into my house, and subsequently my office
> as well.
>
> I'm not suggesting we're going back to smoke signals and pigeons, but
> holy cow.. that was a wake-up call.
> Too vulnerable for my tastes... not to mention my daughter couldn't
> get at her home-work, or do her after-school job as a barista at a
> local coffee shop.
He may not been a clown only a poor guy trying to do a job when the
cable was poorly marked and installed. I know of one occasion when the
cable was cut because the cable made an unneeded loop between two known
location of the cable.
Leon wrote:
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog
>> carrier
>> to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
>> signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.
>>
>> scott
>
> That gets me to thinking. I have DirecTV on 2 televisions. From the same
> HD dish goes a lead to the HD DVR to a HD LCD, also to a analog DVR to an
> analog TV. Reception on the analog DVR and TV are basically perfect unless
> the weather is poor, piss poor. Almost daily my HD DVR and HD LCD TV and my
> neighbor, BIL, and father's SAME setup have periods of bad reception on any
> of the major local networks. I wonder if DirecTV is currently converting an
> analog signal from these stations to digital and if that could be the
> problem. On a 3rd going from a rabbit ear antenna to a CHEAP digital
> converter to an analog TV produces great results day in and day out. Non
> local HD channels do fine. DirecTV cannot figure out the problem nor can
> the installers on any of the 7 or 8 times that they have come out to replace
> the dish or HD DVR.
>
>
I'm guessing it's more of a bandwidth issue. 1080i requires (guessing)
at least 4 times the bandwidth as 480i which makes it more susceptible
to pixelization/drop out.
"the existing folded dipole antenna."
>
>
CURIOUS - Did you visit Antenna Web before deciding upon an antenna?
If so, I would be interested in what they reported as far as your
antenna requirements and reception probabilities. I am NOT near a big
city and can only get one Public TV station with our roof-mounted
antenna.
I built a dipole for the FM radio I have, but it didn't improve things
all that much for "distant" stations.
Thanks
CW wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "nhurst" wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?
>> No, but it is simple enough to build.
>>
>> 1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
>> 2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
>> 3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
>> 4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming the
>> antenna lead wire to TV set.
>>
>> Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight
>> pins, then attach lead to TV.
>>
> The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital frequencies are
> on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
>
>
The top 108Mhz of the UHF band has/is being assigned or auctioned off
for other purposes, otherwise all old TV frequencies are the same.
However, there may be some stations migrating from VHF to the remaining
UHF frequencies. As well, some stations may not alight on their final
frequency assignment until the June deadline.
Formerly K7OQF from the vacuum tube days.
"nhurst" wrote:
>Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?
No, but it is simple enough to build.
1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming
the antenna lead wire to TV set.
Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of straight
pins, then attach lead to TV.
Enjoy.
Lew
.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:08:39 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:12:10 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>> Yet it's the principal basis of reference that's used in the real
>> world of antenna performance measurement. dBi only has relevance in
>> marketing.
>
>Is the radiation pattern of a dipole uniform in all directions? If not,
>which single gain value would you use for as the base reference gain?
If you don't understand the concepts of antennas (dipoles in
particular) and lobes, there is no point in discussing this further.
Go buy those antennas with 2.1 dB more gain (*calculated*
against...thin air) than the identical product of their competitor
(*measured* against a real life antenna)r. You're a perfect subject
for their market.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Apr 23, 12:13=A0am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away=
.
> Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
>
> I can't wait for Uverse.
Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
You Call" incidents.
My shop was was fine, uninterrupted services. My house?
No phone.
No Intertubes
No TV
No 911
My Crackberry went looking for my WiFi and took the expensive data-
route for my e-mails as it like to go roaming across the river to a US
supplier. (I usually get refunded for those)
All in all, it made me aware just how much I am depending on that
farking little coax coming into my house, and subsequently my office
as well.
I'm not suggesting we're going back to smoke signals and pigeons, but
holy cow.. that was a wake-up call.
Too vulnerable for my tastes... not to mention my daughter couldn't
get at her home-work, or do her after-school job as a barista at a
local coffee shop.
On Apr 20, 11:27=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>
> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>
> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
> dipole antenna.
>
> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>
> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
> 300 ohm twin lead to build.
>
> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>
> Lew
Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these? I have some
extra cable sitting around and our current antenna isn't very good.
-Nathan
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:12:10 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Art Greenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>> A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
>>>>>> same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.
>>>
>>> A dipole is not "somewhat directional"--it's absolutely directional.
>>> It has its major lobes perpendicular to its axis. It has extreme nulls
>>> off the ends. It is, by definition, directional.
>>>
>>>>> I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a
>>>>> dipole
>>>>> (folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside
>>>>> to
>>>>> (perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
>>>>> function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and
>>>>> the
>>>>> proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.
>>>>>
>>>>> The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db
>>>>> below
>>>>> the maximum.
>>>
>>> A dipole has no gain. In fact, it is the real world reference to which
>>> other antennas are compared to determine their gain. The isotropic
>>> radiator, while interesting to consider in a theoretical sense,
>>> doesn't (and can't) exist. While useful for theoretical modeling, it's
>>> sole purpose in the real world is to make an antenna with gain (Yagi,
>>> LPDA, rhombic, etc.) seem like it has more gain by making the
>>> comparison not legitimately to a dipole, but hyperbolically, to an
>>> isotropic radiator.
>>>
>>>>Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
>>>>applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls
>>>>will
>>>>certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because
>>>>the
>>>>end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.
>>>
>>> Nothing more amusing to me than to see the theoretical dBi (decibels
>>> of gain in reference to an isotropic radiator, which doesn't exixt)
>>> applied to a dipole. Geez, it's a dipole. It has no gain. dBi,
>>> particularly when discussing a dipole, is essentially a worthless
>>> "value." And to further make the point, when one tosses out the
>>> calculated dBi, the antenna used as a reference is almost universally
>>> the dipole (dBd). That's why it's so amusing. One might as well say a
>>> dipole has zero gain when compared to a...dipole. Duh! can anyone
>>> spell tautology?
>>
>>Zero similarly doesn't exist in older number systems. Even they learned
>>the
>>errors of their ways, or at least succumbed to natural selection pressures
>>in their own way.
>>
>
>>Dipoles have non-uniform directivity.
>
> ???
>
>>It would make a lousy basis of reference.
>
> Yet it's the principal basis of reference that's used in the real
> world of antenna performance measurement. dBi only has relevance in
> marketing.
Is the radiation pattern of a dipole uniform in all directions? If not,
which single gain value would you use for as the base reference gain? You
have this completely backwards. Marketing benefits from a single figure of
merit, some "gain" value over a dipole or some other value. It makes sense
to you and me as some indication of its performance in presumably the
forward direction.
Antennas are passive devices. Forward gain comes from accepting energy from
one direction while rejecting energy from other directions. (Simplisticly
speaking, since nits count.) By itself, it says very little about the
antenna. The single figure of merit is meaningful mostly for marketing. A
picture here is worth a few thousand words. Have a look at
http://www.eznec.com/.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:12:10 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Art Greenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
>>>>> broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
>>>>> same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.
>>
>> A dipole is not "somewhat directional"--it's absolutely directional.
>> It has its major lobes perpendicular to its axis. It has extreme nulls
>> off the ends. It is, by definition, directional.
>>
>>>> I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
>>>> (folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
>>>> (perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
>>>> function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
>>>> proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.
>>>>
>>>> The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
>>>> the maximum.
>>
>> A dipole has no gain. In fact, it is the real world reference to which
>> other antennas are compared to determine their gain. The isotropic
>> radiator, while interesting to consider in a theoretical sense,
>> doesn't (and can't) exist. While useful for theoretical modeling, it's
>> sole purpose in the real world is to make an antenna with gain (Yagi,
>> LPDA, rhombic, etc.) seem like it has more gain by making the
>> comparison not legitimately to a dipole, but hyperbolically, to an
>> isotropic radiator.
>>
>>>Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
>>>applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
>>>certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
>>>end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.
>>
>> Nothing more amusing to me than to see the theoretical dBi (decibels
>> of gain in reference to an isotropic radiator, which doesn't exixt)
>> applied to a dipole. Geez, it's a dipole. It has no gain. dBi,
>> particularly when discussing a dipole, is essentially a worthless
>> "value." And to further make the point, when one tosses out the
>> calculated dBi, the antenna used as a reference is almost universally
>> the dipole (dBd). That's why it's so amusing. One might as well say a
>> dipole has zero gain when compared to a...dipole. Duh! can anyone
>> spell tautology?
>
>Zero similarly doesn't exist in older number systems. Even they learned the
>errors of their ways, or at least succumbed to natural selection pressures
>in their own way.
>
>Dipoles have non-uniform directivity.
???
>It would make a lousy basis of reference.
Yet it's the principal basis of reference that's used in the real
world of antenna performance measurement. dBi only has relevance in
marketing.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:57:20 -0500, Art Greenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:09:43 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> > The top 108Mhz of the UHF band has/is being assigned or auctioned off
> > for other purposes, otherwise all old TV frequencies are the same.
>
> Low VHF (analog channels 2 through 6) likewise.
My bad. I just researched this ... channels 2 through 6 are still
allocated to DTV use, but it looks like there will be very, very few
stations using those channels for broadcast.
--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:01:26 -0500, "Jim" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>>
>> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>>
>> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
>> antenna.
>>
>> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>>
>> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
>> ohm twin lead to build.
>>
>> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
>would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>Jim
>
>
Because with digital TV you need more signal to get any picture at all
compared to analog. If the signal is just below the threshold, you get
a totally useless picture or no picture at all. With analog, the same
picture would just have a bit of snow.
Having said that, the "new better digital" antennas are not different
than antennas before digital. You just *may* need one with more gain
to get a picture.
Jim wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>>
>> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>>
>> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
>> dipole antenna.
>>
>> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>>
>> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of
>> 300 ohm twin lead to build.
>>
>> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
> why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Because the signal strength is much less than previously and the digital
signal dies under multipath conditions that would not even be noticeable
with an analog signal.
> Jim
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.
...
If you have enough signal level to have digital, that's generally true.
Otoh, when there isn't enough you have nothing w/ digital where analog
was probably still just snowy/ghosty but at least visible.
So far here we're 1 for 2; the other two have delayed 'til the June
witching date. When they make the switch, then I'll investigate what
it'll take to get 'em all if it's within reason; 'til then I'll just do
w/o the PBS. Discussion w/ their engineer wasn't promising that they
thought would have a signal (and didn't really seem to give a flip,
either, of course).
--
Jim wrote:
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>>>>
>>>> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>>>>
>>>> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded
>>>> dipole antenna.
>>>>
>>>> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>>>>
>>>> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10
>>>> of 300 ohm twin lead to build.
>>>>
>>>> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
>>> why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>> You would't but the frequencies WILL change.
>>
> I was wondering how they get those subchannels.
Some form of multiplexing.
> I live about 50 miles from the transmitter tower. The analog TVs
> were never able to get consistent signals from the UHF stations.
> Now, however, these stations come in quite well.
>
> But, since nothing is broken here, there is nothing to fix (yet).
> Jim
CW wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "nhurst" wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a link that shows how to make one of these?
>>
>> No, but it is simple enough to build.
>>
>> 1) Cut a piece of 300 ohm twin lead 60" long.
>> 2) Solder ends together on each end to form a continuous circle.
>> 3) At exactly the mid-point, cut one of the leads in half.
>> 4) Solder a piece of 300 ohm twin lead at the cut side, thus forming
>> the antenna lead wire to TV set.
>>
>> Stretch wire along a wall and attach to wall with a couple of
>> straight pins, then attach lead to TV.
>>
> The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
> frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
There are no "new digital frequencies". There are different channel
assignments but the frequencies are the same as for analog TV, except that
for digital there are fewer of them since the FCC has chosen to divert one
block of frequencies to other purposes.
CW wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Remember way back when the TV experts in the stores preached that
>> you need a COLOR TV antenna for best reception on one of those NEW
>> style Color TV's? They are at it again with the Digital TV's. Our
>> 15 year old rabbit ear antenna works fine on our LCD. I believe
>> that perhaps an old out doors antenna that has been fighting the
>> elements may be out done by a brand new antenna but the digital
>> signal requires no better antenna than analog as you well know.
>
> With the change to digital comes new frequencies. Your rabbit ears are
> designed for VHF. The digital transmissions are on UHF. If you are in
> a strong signal area, your rabbit ears may continue to work. If not,
> you will need a new antenna.
Some digital is on UHF, some on VHF, just as some analog was on UHF and some
was on VHF. Nothing new _there_.
Nova wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now,
>>> why would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
>>
>>
>> Narrower bandwidth at same or less transmit power results in lower
>> received signal strength.
>>
>> Two other ways of coping with the problem are to use a signal
>> pre-amplifier and using a directional (gain) antenna.
>>
>> I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad
>> antenna that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
>>
>
> The digital receiver only has to determine if the bit is a "0" or a
> "1" so the signal doesn't have to be as strong as with an analog
> receiver.
That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black screen
while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.
> I've got an antenna with a variable pre-amp. Using that antenna I
> have to turn the gain to minimum to receive anything. Even at
> minimum some station drop in and out. If I raise the gain I loose the
> signal completely. I suspect the signal is still being over driven
> and clipping. A plain old $9 antenna works perfectly on all the
> stations in my area.
Lucky you.
Maxwell Lol wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "CW" wrote:
>>
>>> The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
>>> frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
>>
>> Seems to be working just fine, especially on the UHF channels.
>>
>> Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.
>
> As long as the signal is strong.
>
> When the signal is weak, the picture doesn't just get "fuzzy."
This is the big problem with digital--it doesn't degrade gracefully--it's
all or nothing.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
>>> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from
>>> my Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
>>>
>>> Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)
>>
>> SU is the bomb! But how did he work around the line of sight problem?
>
> Good electronics, good antennas (IIRC they had a Phelps-Dodge omni at
> 60'), and a 1200 mile "wormhole" is the only explanation I can offer.
> There was considerable surprise at both ends - that's a /long/ way
> for a low-power VHF signal to travel.
>
> SU did well until I tried to add a threaded hole for a setscrew. :-(
Signal propagation is a wonderful thing.
I remembrer one night I was watching something on Channel 4 in Jacksonville,
Florida, and the picture faded out and came back with a different show from
the one I had been watching. Then there was a station break and I found
that I was now watching the Channel 4 that was in some place more than a
thousand miles away (I forget where--that was at least 40 years ago).
[email protected] wrote:
> "the existing folded dipole antenna."
>>
> CURIOUS - Did you visit Antenna Web before deciding upon an antenna?
> If so, I would be interested in what they reported as far as your
> antenna requirements and reception probabilities. I am NOT near a big
> city and can only get one Public TV station with our roof-mounted
> antenna.
...
That's one more than we're now getting since the switchover. W/ the
outdoor mast-mounted antenna, their signal is undetectable entirely
during a scan although the analog was reasonably watchable most of the
time. As I've noted previously, I'm not going to spend time trying to
fine-tune antenna position, etc., until the other stations also switch
over so only do it once to at least see what the prospects are.
The one commercial station that did switch is ok and although it is the
closest of the three (~60 mi) the box sensitivity is about 43% most
times. Only dropout every so often. What's really annoying about that
is that the box warmup message comes on again and hangs around for a
while--if it would simply just go out and come back that wouldn't be
nearly such a pita.
I'm sure w/ simply a dipole Lew's close enough to his transmitters there
was no need to look it up.
For us, the FCC maps and the antennaweb.org site both indicate "far
fringe" but claim _should_ be viewable. The current antenna is rated
for far fringe (I don't recall gain figures, etc) and relatively new
having been replaced a couple years ago after big ice storm took
previous one down and broke it up pretty badly.
I've noticed on those coverage maps other regional areas have very
marked directional beam patterns that are leaving large sections of the
formerly covered broadcast areas out entirely. It's clear the folks who
thought all this up never thought a lick about fringe reception areas.
What kind of distance and terrain do you have to deal with? At least
here it's flat which gives better shot. I'm guessing I may have to
raise tower to get it farther from the house than it is at the moment
when the others switch. I've no additional amp at the moment, either, btw.
--
Nova wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> That may be the theory, but if it misses a few bits you get a black
>>> screen while with analog you get a viewable degraded image.
>>
>>
>> Are you reading this some where? Do you actually have digital? I
>> have had digital for close to 4 years and if I am getting bad
>> reception the picture is all kinds of terrible, you would swear you
>> were doing mushrooms when this happens.
>>
>
> They've been broadcasting digital signals in the Houston area for over
> four years???
Yes they have, and most of the rest of the country as well.
And my personal experience with digital is that there's perfect picture,
frozen picture, or black screen. I've never seen anything that looks like
"doing mushrooms" however I am willing to grant that there may be some sets
out there that show pixelation when they lose bits.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> We have had the capability to record 2 programs at one time for 6 or 7
>> years IIRC, Uverse allows 4 programs and oddly that would be better for
>> us. U'd think 2 would be plenty. LOL
>
> Just what the hell is worth recording as presented in what Newton Minnow
> defined as "A Vast Wasteland" more than 40 years ago?
>
> Lew
TOH, NYW, vs. what my wife wants to watch vs. what my son likes to watch.
Or you are too tired to catch the night time news but there is a segment
that you wanted to hear about. Or a movie comes on at 3:00 AM.
The beauty to being able to record is that if something does come on that
you want to watch is that you watch it when it is convenient for "you" to
watch, not the time that the network thinks is the best time for you to
watch it. We no longer have to be in front of the TV to watch anything at
any specific time and can record up to 200 hrs of regular and or up to 50
hours of HD TV.
We could literally not watch TV for several weeks and not miss seeing
anything. We watch TV and what we want when it suits us.
Not using the recorder means you have to wait for commercials and being a
submissive to the networks if you want to watch what they are broadcasting.
With out the recorder you "do" have to work around all of the Vast Wasteland
to view a particular broadcast here and there. With a recorder you probably
watch less TV because you only turn it on when you have time to watch it and
you are only watching exactly what you intend to watch.
You have to really try it to understand the efficiency. I know 4 or 5
people that pretty much made the same comments that you did. They said we
don't watch much TV we don't need it. I explained, you don't watch much TV
because the shows you want to watch are not on when you want to watch. When
you learn that you have total access regardless of broadcast time or channel
to the 10% of worth while viewing, you look at the multi channel recorder a
bit differently. They now have the recorders and wonder how they ever did
with out them. They spend less time in front of the TV but see more of what
they want.
The beauty of a DVR is that it will search typically 2 weeks in advance for
content that you are interested in . You search by show name, persons name,
type programming, time or day. Additionally it will remember your
preferences and automatically record them regardless of day or time,
automatically changes if the show is moved to another day or time. And it
will not record repeats if you don't want it to do so, so my DVR only
records NYW about 15 times a year and If I choose to do so I can watch the
entire season in 1 day.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:daa2d165-68a6-48b7-bec2-0ae51270530a@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 23, 12:13 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles away.
> Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
>
> I can't wait for Uverse.
Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
You Call" incidents.
My shop was was fine, uninterrupted services. My house?
No phone.
No Intertubes
No TV
No 911
My Crackberry went looking for my WiFi and took the expensive data-
route for my e-mails as it like to go roaming across the river to a US
supplier. (I usually get refunded for those)
All in all, it made me aware just how much I am depending on that
farking little coax coming into my house, and subsequently my office
as well.
I'm not suggesting we're going back to smoke signals and pigeons, but
holy cow.. that was a wake-up call.
Too vulnerable for my tastes... not to mention my daughter couldn't
get at her home-work, or do her after-school job as a barista at a
local coffee shop.
Good point but I get tired of calling ATT for DSL problems and DirecTV for
TV problems. I want one call to do it all.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:13:51 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I can't wait for Uverse.
ATT finally has U-verse working in our area. They are pushing it
pretty hard here but I haven't taken the plunge yet since I'm still
doing my homework.
Their prices are competitive with the local cable company but not much
better The programming packages do seem a little better with more HD
channels. The service is TV over Internet and you start to see
better savings if you let them do VOIP with your phone.
When they arrive in your area you'll start seeing the installer
trucks. Those guys know more about the actual service than the sales
people do.
Beware of hardware charges. The first box (with a large DVR) is free
but there is a charge for other boxes. Also they do charge $10 a
month for HD service unless you buy their largest programming package.
My biggest question is (which I'm having a hard time finding the
answer to) since the Internet service seems to be ATT/Yahoo what do
they do for newsgroups.
Mike O.
"Leon" wrote
> Add to the filter, NO SPORTS except for the occasional Golf tournament
> that may interest me. I can filter on that too. I choose the tournament
> with a specific player or players.
>
GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting than
golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:fZPIl.2870$b11.977
@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>
> I don't have a problem making TV watching more convenient.
>
> I start with a personal filter:
>
> No sitcoms.
> No CSI anything
> No Reality TV.
> Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
> No American Idol.
> No fake hospital shows.
> No made for TV sports broadcasts.
>
> After that, take a look at what's left.
>
> If I had cable, probably leave set tuned to C-Span and forget it.
>
> As it is, have local station doing a CNN type broadcast.
>
> Usually leave TV set to that channel and the sound becomes white noise
> while I do something else.
>
> If something happens, "Flashes" across the screen.
>
> Plenty of time to look then to catch the endless repeats.
>
> Lew
>
How about woodworking shows? If your PBS station is accurate with their
program guide information, a DVR could catch the occasional episode of
NYW or TOH. (I've got my mother's DVR set to record the Woodwright's
Shop. We don't get it from the PBS station here.)
I don't watch local networks very much... They show what's basically on
your list. If we could pull in Fox 43 for the occasional baseball game,
I wouldn't see any reason to give Dish $5/mo for locals. (Especially
because they don't have the digital sub channels!)
Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
"Leon" wrote:
> Yeah I pretty much don't watch that crap either.
>
> Add to your filter, NO Commercials,
>
> Because you can fast forward through a commercial a 1 hour show is
> now a 40 minute show and and the show you like to watch does not
> take as much of your time to watch.
It's 23 minutes program, 7 minutes commercial per 30 minutes on the
clock; however, what I find a much larger PITA is what the networks do
with their 23 minutes.
It goes something like this:
1) Summarize what we just told you.
2) Tell you what we are going to tell you.
3) Tell you what we told you we were going to tell you.
4) Summarize what we just told you.
5) Tell you a commercial is coming and they will return after it.
Basic outline of a speech, it hasn't changed in years.
If you are lucky, #5, which is the new material, might reach 10-12
minutes per 30 minute segment.
A communication rate of about 30%-35% is a total waste of my time.
Don't get me wrong, in times of emergency, broadcasting does a
fantastic job.
OTOH, the product they try to sell to pay the bills is not a very good
product IMHO.
I'm not about to invest resources in equipment nor my time to use it
in order to create something that my make it to mediocre status.
As the old saying goes, a sows ear does not a silk purse make.
Lew
"Lee Michaels" wrote:
> GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting
> than golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)
If you have never played the game, your comments are understandable;
however, watching todays touring pros "do their thing" is a display of
totally remarkable talent enhanced by endless hours of practice.
Lew
"LRod" wrote:
> I don't think I understand your problem with making TV watching
> convenient.
I don't have a problem making TV watching more convenient.
I start with a personal filter:
No sitcoms.
No CSI anything
No Reality TV.
Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
No American Idol.
No fake hospital shows.
No made for TV sports broadcasts.
After that, take a look at what's left.
If I had cable, probably leave set tuned to C-Span and forget it.
As it is, have local station doing a CNN type broadcast.
Usually leave TV set to that channel and the sound becomes white noise
while I do something else.
If something happens, "Flashes" across the screen.
Plenty of time to look then to catch the endless repeats.
Lew
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:58:15 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Douglas Johnson" wrote:
>> Now, I'm in control of what I watch and when. Before, I could
>> control what I watched, or when I watched it, but not both.
>
>Your basic assumption is that there is something worth saving to watch
>at a time of your convenience.
>
>Not necessarily an accurate assumption.
>
>I must be in the minority, but IMHO, the bulk of TV is little more
>than white noise.
I don't think I understand your problem with making TV watching
convenient. Your own statement, "...the bulk of TV is little more than
white noise," logically parses to mean that there is something more
substantive than white noise in at least some TV (which, by the way,
does indeed make Doug's assumption accurate).
That's the whole point of DVRs. YOU pick what (if anything) YOU want
to watch. YOU pick when to watch IF YOU picked something. YOU get to
FF through the unwanted stuff (ads are essentially white noise).
What's the problem?
The beauty, as stated in several different ways, is that YOU can
easily ignore the TV as much as you want. But if some gem crops up
(and there are some, by your own admission), YOU get to enjoy it
without having to sift through a lot of white noise.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "LRod" wrote:
>
>> I don't think I understand your problem with making TV watching
>> convenient.
>
> I don't have a problem making TV watching more convenient.
>
> I start with a personal filter:
>
> No sitcoms.
> No CSI anything
> No Reality TV.
> Forget Trump and all his derivatives.
> No American Idol.
> No fake hospital shows.
> No made for TV sports broadcasts.
Yeah I pretty much don't watch that crap either.
Add to your filter, NO Commercials,
Because you can fast forward through a commercial a 1 hour show is now a 40
minute show and and the show you like to watch does not take as much of your
time to watch..
Add to the filter, NO SPORTS except for the occasional Golf tournament that
may interest me. I can filter on that too. I choose the tournament with a
specific player or players.
Now consider that of all the filters you personally filter daily, the DVR
now does it for you automatically. You don't have to waste time when you
turn the TV to apply your filter.
Your openion of TV programming is not unique to you. I felt the same way,
as did most every one that I know that now have DVR's. We assuredly watch
more TV that we want to watch in less time than it took to watch fewer
programs.
> After that, take a look at what's left.
>
> If I had cable, probably leave set tuned to C-Span and forget it.
>
> As it is, have local station doing a CNN type broadcast.
>
> Usually leave TV set to that channel and the sound becomes white noise
> while I do something else.
>
> If something happens, "Flashes" across the screen.
>
> Plenty of time to look then to catch the endless repeats.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee Michaels" wrote:
>
>> GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting than
>> golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)
>
> If you have never played the game, your comments are understandable;
> however, watching todays touring pros "do their thing" is a display of
> totally remarkable talent enhanced by endless hours of practice.
>
> Lew
>
Absolutely! And unlike most all other sports with big money pay, a golfer
only gets paid if he plays well enough to place. Can a baseball, football,
soccer, basketball, or hockey player say that?
A golfer normally gets no help from team mates. He is 100% responsible for
his score.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It's 23 minutes program, 7 minutes commercial per 30 minutes on the clock;
> however, what I find a much larger PITA is what the networks do with their
> 23 minutes.
>
> It goes something like this:
>
> 1) Summarize what we just told you.
> 2) Tell you what we are going to tell you.
> 3) Tell you what we told you we were going to tell you.
> 4) Summarize what we just told you.
> 5) Tell you a commercial is coming and they will return after it.
>
LOL
I hate those celebrity magazine shows.
AND the local news does that.
World Coming To A END! Listen to details on Friday's late night news.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
... snip
>
> It goes something like this:
>
> 1) Summarize what we just told you.
> 2) Tell you what we are going to tell you.
> 3) Tell you what we told you we were going to tell you.
> 4) Summarize what we just told you.
> 5) Tell you a commercial is coming and they will return after it.
>
> Basic outline of a speech, it hasn't changed in years.
>
> If you are lucky, #5, which is the new material, might reach 10-12
> minutes per 30 minute segment.
>
> A communication rate of about 30%-35% is a total waste of my time.
>
> Don't get me wrong, in times of emergency, broadcasting does a
> fantastic job.
>
> OTOH, the product they try to sell to pay the bills is not a very good
> product IMHO.
>
Well, that's close. However, that is not really the product. *You* are
the product that they deliver to the advertisers to pay the bills. The
product you cite above is really the bait to deliver you to the
advertisers.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Leon" wrote
>
>> Add to the filter, NO SPORTS except for the occasional Golf tournament
>> that may interest me. I can filter on that too. I choose the tournament
>> with a specific player or players.
>>
> GOLF???? Did you say GOLF????? Watching paint dry is more exciting than
> golf. I am falling asleep just thinking about it. :-)
>
>
>
Golf is one of the most spectacular sporting events ever. The only event
more exciting is watching grass grow...
Leon wrote:
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog
>> carrier
>> to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
>> signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.
>>
>> scott
>
> That gets me to thinking. I have DirecTV on 2 televisions. From the same
> HD dish goes a lead to the HD DVR to a HD LCD, also to a analog DVR to an
> analog TV. Reception on the analog DVR and TV are basically perfect unless
> the weather is poor, piss poor. Almost daily my HD DVR and HD LCD TV and my
> neighbor, BIL, and father's SAME setup have periods of bad reception on any
> of the major local networks. I wonder if DirecTV is currently converting an
> analog signal from these stations to digital and if that could be the
> problem. On a 3rd going from a rabbit ear antenna to a CHEAP digital
> converter to an analog TV produces great results day in and day out. Non
> local HD channels do fine. DirecTV cannot figure out the problem nor can
> the installers on any of the 7 or 8 times that they have come out to replace
> the dish or HD DVR.
>
>
What time of the year and time of day are you experiencing problems and
for how long at a time?
If it occurs during the spring and fall then you could be experiencing
receiver overload caused by the SUN. The SUN is the most powerful
transmitter in the solar system. When the DirecTV satellite pass in
front of the sun the sun overloads the receiver for a few minutes.
If the problem is ocuring at other times then I don't have any help for
you. HI HI...
Dave N
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
>Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
>missing.
>I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
>the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL
This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is very difficult
to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a viewer's
relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would never go
back to regular TV.
Now, I'm in control of what I watch and when. Before, I could control what I
watched, or when I watched it, but not both.
-- Doug
"Douglas Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
>>Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
>>missing.
>>I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
>>the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL
>
> This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is very
> difficult
> to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a viewer's
> relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would never
> go
> back to regular TV.
That is about when we got out first TiVO also, the first DirecTV DVR's were
2 tuner TiVo's
And then we switched to HD and the new DirecTV DVR's were no longer TiVo
units and the reliability went out the door. Almost 4 years later they have
made enough software upgrades to the DVR that it is tolerable.
Leon wrote:
> "Douglas Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Most all of your responses to TV programming would improve with a DVR.
>>> Until you let "it" do the hunting you really don't know what you are
>>> missing.
>>> I have heard all of you responses time and again from those that "thought"
>>> the same way. Now they actually like watching the TV. LOL
>> This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is very
>> difficult
>> to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a viewer's
>> relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would never
>> go
>> back to regular TV.
>
> That is about when we got out first TiVO also, the first DirecTV DVR's were
> 2 tuner TiVo's
>
> And then we switched to HD and the new DirecTV DVR's were no longer TiVo
> units and the reliability went out the door. Almost 4 years later they have
> made enough software upgrades to the DVR that it is tolerable.
>
I had to have one replaced after one year of use - bad disc drive. Got
the new one hooked up to my broadband router using powerline ethernet
connectors. Gives you access to "Demand" over the internet which gives
another recording path other than the 2 tuners. Some of the demand
programming from DirecTV is now in 1080p format. You can also play
slide shows, movies and audio from your PC. I put the TVersity Windoze
media server app on the OverLords PC which has all our
audio/picture/video data on it. To go with my 46" 1080p Mitsubishi LCD,
a 5.1 sound system is a must. The speakers that come in these new HDTV
sets are unbearably bad.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Your basic assumption is that there is something worth saving to watch at
> a time of your convenience.
There is plenty worth saving to watch at a later time, you just have to look
at every hour of broadcast 24/7 for the next 2 weeks. Or let the DVR do
that for you. I mean you invest in a new LCD to watch TV you might as well
make the most of your investment and find stuff worth watching.
> Not necessarily an accurate assumption.
>
> I must be in the minority, but IMHO, the bulk of TV is little more than
> white noise.
If you are confined to what is currently being broadcast, you do get a lot
of crap. If you use a DVR to seek and record the type shows you would watch
you will probably find much more to watch. You just don't realize how much
you would probably enjoy until you have a DVR locate and record. You send a
little time setting it up telling it what you want to watch, who you want to
watch, what kind of programming you want to watch and a few days later you
have a line up of recordings. And it continues to do this until you tell
it to change or stop. And you watch the programming when you "want" to sit
down and watch TV.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:EL_Il.89792$0%[email protected]...
>>
> I had to have one replaced after one year of use - bad disc drive. Got
> the new one hooked up to my broadband router using powerline ethernet
> connectors.
We went through 5 replacement DirecTV HD DVR's before they decided that it
was the software. The Tivo unit to this day still works like a charm, It is
bullet proof. Some time this year DirecTV is suppose to offer an new Tivo
HF DVR. Uverse is probably going to get my business before that happens.
Gives you access to "Demand" over the internet which gives
> another recording path other than the 2 tuners. Some of the demand
> programming from DirecTV is now in 1080p format.
I tried it once in the beginning but have not gone back to look at what's
out there.
You can also play
> slide shows, movies and audio from your PC. I put the TVersity Windoze
> media server app on the OverLords PC which has all our
> audio/picture/video data on it. To go with my 46" 1080p Mitsubishi LCD,
> a 5.1 sound system is a must. The speakers that come in these new HDTV
> sets are unbearably bad.
Yeah, I have been using 5.1 since about ummmmmm 1994 IIRC. That said
however I have a Sony Bavia and it has remarkably good speakers. I have no
idea where the bass comes from as the speakers openings behind the grill
appear to be 2" x 6". But still it is cool to hear some one enter on the
right side of the room and then see him appear on the right side of the
screen. Or hear a helicopter approaching from the rear speakers and finally
appear at the top of the screen and going away from you.
"Douglas Johnson" wrote:
> This is the problem that TiVo has had from the beginning. It is
> very difficult
> to explain that TiVo (or DVR's) make a fundamental change in a
> viewer's
> relationship with television. I've had a TiVo since 2001 and would
> never go
> back to regular TV.
>
> Now, I'm in control of what I watch and when. Before, I could
> control what I
> watched, or when I watched it, but not both.
Your basic assumption is that there is something worth saving to watch
at a time of your convenience.
Not necessarily an accurate assumption.
I must be in the minority, but IMHO, the bulk of TV is little more
than white noise.
Lew
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The digital receiver _first_ must convert the modulation of an analog
> carrier
> to the '0' or '1' instead of converting the modulation into an analog NTSC
> signal. This is the step where the S/N ratio matters.
>
> scott
That gets me to thinking. I have DirecTV on 2 televisions. From the same
HD dish goes a lead to the HD DVR to a HD LCD, also to a analog DVR to an
analog TV. Reception on the analog DVR and TV are basically perfect unless
the weather is poor, piss poor. Almost daily my HD DVR and HD LCD TV and my
neighbor, BIL, and father's SAME setup have periods of bad reception on any
of the major local networks. I wonder if DirecTV is currently converting an
analog signal from these stations to digital and if that could be the
problem. On a 3rd going from a rabbit ear antenna to a CHEAP digital
converter to an analog TV produces great results day in and day out. Non
local HD channels do fine. DirecTV cannot figure out the problem nor can
the installers on any of the 7 or 8 times that they have come out to replace
the dish or HD DVR.
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:43:44 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I have a great deal of difficulty finding more than a couple of
>programs a week that I'm willing to sit down and watch.
So much so, in fact, that I've found the difficulty to so outweigh the
benefit that it's been years since I've suffered through any TV
offering at all. If my wife didn't have a couple of "police
procedural" shows that she enjoys, I would be quite content without a
TV in the house.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Art Greenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
>>>> broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
>>>> same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.
>
> A dipole is not "somewhat directional"--it's absolutely directional.
> It has its major lobes perpendicular to its axis. It has extreme nulls
> off the ends. It is, by definition, directional.
>
>>> I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
>>> (folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
>>> (perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
>>> function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
>>> proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.
>>>
>>> The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
>>> the maximum.
>
> A dipole has no gain. In fact, it is the real world reference to which
> other antennas are compared to determine their gain. The isotropic
> radiator, while interesting to consider in a theoretical sense,
> doesn't (and can't) exist. While useful for theoretical modeling, it's
> sole purpose in the real world is to make an antenna with gain (Yagi,
> LPDA, rhombic, etc.) seem like it has more gain by making the
> comparison not legitimately to a dipole, but hyperbolically, to an
> isotropic radiator.
>
>>Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
>>applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
>>certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
>>end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.
>
> Nothing more amusing to me than to see the theoretical dBi (decibels
> of gain in reference to an isotropic radiator, which doesn't exixt)
> applied to a dipole. Geez, it's a dipole. It has no gain. dBi,
> particularly when discussing a dipole, is essentially a worthless
> "value." And to further make the point, when one tosses out the
> calculated dBi, the antenna used as a reference is almost universally
> the dipole (dBd). That's why it's so amusing. One might as well say a
> dipole has zero gain when compared to a...dipole. Duh! can anyone
> spell tautology?
Zero similarly doesn't exist in older number systems. Even they learned the
errors of their ways, or at least succumbed to natural selection pressures
in their own way.
Dipoles have non-uniform directivity. It would make a lousy basis of
reference.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>
> I'm guessing it's more of a bandwidth issue. 1080i requires (guessing)
> at least 4 times the bandwidth as 480i which makes it more susceptible
> to pixelization/drop out.
720 for me.
My LCD is relatively old, almost 4 years old. 720i was expensive enough,
1080 was way more expensive and my set is only 46". At the time I was told
that above 46" was pretty much when you needed to go with 1080.
The weird thing, if I switch from Satellite to rabbit ear the reception from
the locals if fine. If I switch to satellite the HD reception is fine on
all 70 or so channels EXCEPT the local channels.
"Jim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>>
>> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>>
>> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
>> antenna.
>>
>> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>>
>> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
>> ohm twin lead to build.
>>
>> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
> would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
> Jim
>
>
You would't but the frequencies WILL change.
"Mike O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> DirecTV has finally started blaming the Air Force Base some 30 miles
>>> away.
>>> Basically they have given up on trying to cure a week signal problem.
>>>
>>> I can't wait for Uverse.
>>
>>Some clown cut through a fibre-optic cable, one of those "Dig Before
>>You Call" incidents.
>
> Two weeks ago my neighbor was replacing some old fencing. He called
> and had the area flagged and the guy who flagged the ATT stuff told
> him "that cable can be 5' on either side of the flags".
>
> What the hell is the point...???
Exactly, I chopped the cable line and the hole was not where the markings
were.
"Mike O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:13:51 -0500, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I can't wait for Uverse.
>
>
> ATT finally has U-verse working in our area. They are pushing it
> pretty hard here but I haven't taken the plunge yet since I'm still
> doing my homework.
Swingman has had it for about 1 year IIRC and he seems pretty pleased with
it.
Apparently the internet service clows DSL away, IIRC about 4-5 times faster
down load than DSL.
> Their prices are competitive with the local cable company but not much
> better The programming packages do seem a little better with more HD
> channels. The service is TV over Internet and you start to see
> better savings if you let them do VOIP with your phone.
> When they arrive in your area you'll start seeing the installer
> trucks. Those guys know more about the actual service than the sales
> people do.
I have been noticing the trucks working the general area since mid
September. Word is it shoud be available very very soon, March/April.
> Beware of hardware charges. The first box (with a large DVR) is free
> but there is a charge for other boxes. Also they do charge $10 a
> month for HD service unless you buy their largest programming package.
This is nothing new, I pay $5 for extra boxes now and a $10 charge for HD
service and $6 for DVR service. IIRC Uverse does not charge extra for the
DVR service. I do know that many more permium movie channels are availavle
for about the same price I am pay ringht now with much less programing
content.
> My biggest question is (which I'm having a hard time finding the
> answer to) since the Internet service seems to be ATT/Yahoo what do
> they do for newsgroups.
I use ATT/Yahoo now with DSL, I imagine the news groups would be exactly the
same. That said you cannot get most of the groups similar to a.b.p.w. to
get that group but I pay Giganews $2.99 per month for 25 times more content
than I use. Last month I used 2% of what was available to me.
Unfortunately there is no roll over. :~(
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'll probably build a seven-element quad much like the 2m (146 MHz)
> antenna that let me check into a Rhode Island FM repeater net from my
> Minnesota home using a 14W transceiver.
>
> Swingman helped me draw the hubs with SU a while back. :-)
SU is the bomb! But how did he work around the line of sight problem?
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> After more than 20+ years of service, my analog TV died.
>
> Since the switch to digital is coming, got an LCD as a replacement.
>
> Unboxed the new unit, plugged in the power and the existing folded dipole
> antenna.
>
> Followed the set up instructions, unit works like a champ.
>
> That folded dipole took about 20 minutes time and less than $0.10 of 300
> ohm twin lead to build.
>
> So much for overpriced antennas and cable.
>
> Lew
>
>
I had much the same experience a couple of years ago. Really, now, why
would you need a new antenna if the frequencies don't change?
Jim
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:18:09 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>I can't pick up PBS even with a pre-amp, so plan to build a quad antenna
>that should deliver about 21db of forward gain.
Here's a link to the now famous coat hanger antenna.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw
There are a couple variations of this but this is the basic idea. It's
mostly a UHF antenna but some guys get upper VHF channels especially
with an added reflector. That version builds the bowties on one edge
of a 2x4 with a piece of plywood (or cardboard) covered with foil
attached to the other edge. You can also combine 2 for more gain and
some guys are mounting them on a rotor.
I built one and set it the back yard and it worked just fine. I used
pieces of romex I found laying around the jobsite for the bowties. I
haven't fished a wire from the basement to the attic yet so now it's
hanging in the floor truss space for emergencies. Basically that's at
ground level and it even works there.
You can buy practically the same antenna for not a whole lot of money
but where's the fun in that?
Mike O.
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:47:02 -0500, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Art Greenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> A dipole is also somewhat directional, with about 2 dB of gain in its
>>> broadside direction compared to a point radiator. This implies the
>>> same 2 dB attenuation in its side lobes, off the ends.
A dipole is not "somewhat directional"--it's absolutely directional.
It has its major lobes perpendicular to its axis. It has extreme nulls
off the ends. It is, by definition, directional.
>> I think you're referring to an isotropic radiator? The gain of a dipole
>> (folded or not) is around 3dbi IIRC. This is the ideal gain broadside to
>> (perpendicular to) the antenna. The actual gain will be very much a
>> function of height above ground, the conductivity of the ground, and the
>> proximity and type of of surrounding opjects.
>>
>> The gain "off the ends" can be very low, much worse than 2 or 3db below
>> the maximum.
A dipole has no gain. In fact, it is the real world reference to which
other antennas are compared to determine their gain. The isotropic
radiator, while interesting to consider in a theoretical sense,
doesn't (and can't) exist. While useful for theoretical modeling, it's
sole purpose in the real world is to make an antenna with gain (Yagi,
LPDA, rhombic, etc.) seem like it has more gain by making the
comparison not legitimately to a dipole, but hyperbolically, to an
isotropic radiator.
>Since we care about nits today, 2.15 dBi, actually, and not entirely
>applicable due to the parasitic coupling you mentioned. The end nulls will
>certainly be considerably different from a simple wire dipole because the
>end current nodes do not fall to zero as they must on the simple wire.
Nothing more amusing to me than to see the theoretical dBi (decibels
of gain in reference to an isotropic radiator, which doesn't exixt)
applied to a dipole. Geez, it's a dipole. It has no gain. dBi,
particularly when discussing a dipole, is essentially a worthless
"value." And to further make the point, when one tosses out the
calculated dBi, the antenna used as a reference is almost universally
the dipole (dBd). That's why it's so amusing. One might as well say a
dipole has zero gain when compared to a...dipole. Duh! can anyone
spell tautology?
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> "CW" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The dipole you discribe is cut for VHF low. The new digital
>>>> frequencies are on UHF. You'll need to make a new antenna.
>>>
>>> Seems to be working just fine, especially on the UHF channels.
>>>
>>> Matter of fact, digital UHF is much better than analog UHF was.
>>
>> As long as the signal is strong.
>>
>> When the signal is weak, the picture doesn't just get "fuzzy."
>
> This is the big problem with digital--it doesn't degrade gracefully--it's
> all or nothing.
Where did you hear that? My digital can be terrible right in between
perfect and nothing. Terrible pixelization and this goes for my neighbor,
BIL, and father.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> was told that this dimension was related to the bandwidth one
> expected to receive. If so, wouldn't there be a difference in
> required
> length for UHF vs VHS, vs FM, say?
I'll let any Hams on list answer your question; however, 60" covers
everthing including FM in my area.
SFWIW, Radio Shack sells a factory made unit which is 60".
Lew