Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Broadcasters agree to analog TV shutoff date

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:48:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-07-12-digital-...;

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 9:37:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2005 01:36:20 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
posted:

>Presumably digital does allow tighter channel spacing.

That's the key, OTA (ATSC) DTV channels can be sequential,
this is the motivation behind the OTA DTV transition in the
USA.

At the end of the transition, OTA DTV will use only channels
2-51. Channels 52-69 may or may not be used for TV.

Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://www.geocities.com/lislislislis/avdtv.htm&gt;
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:53:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
news:1h6hd158t03lr0s7s4qotg12qu0f87osr2@4ax.com...
> On 15 Jul 2005 01:36:20 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
> posted:
< snip >
> >Presumably digital does allow tighter channel spacing.
< snip >
> At the end of the transition, OTA DTV will use only channels
> 2-51. Channels 52-69 may or may not be used for TV.

I hope the rules on geographic sparation are maintained. Right now, I have
pretty
decent DT reception from over 100 miles away. It's mostly due to a good
location
and a big antenna. Since two of the stations I have trouble with get EMI
from LPTV
analog channels in my own area. (Presumably they will go away after
transition.)

So, now, for them, I have to harness two antennas together and space them so
I get
phase cancellation of the undesired signal. I already have to do this for
two stations.
Any more and my poor roof is going to look more like an antenna farm.
Counting
my ham antennas, I have seven up there now.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 9:05:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella wrote:
> "K. B." <hotmail.com@lis2lis2> wrote in message
> news:1h6hd158t03lr0s7s4qotg12qu0f87osr2@4ax.com...
>
>>On 15 Jul 2005 01:36:20 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
>>posted:
>
> < snip >
>
>>>Presumably digital does allow tighter channel spacing.
>
> < snip >
>
>>At the end of the transition, OTA DTV will use only channels
>>2-51. Channels 52-69 may or may not be used for TV.
>
>
> I hope the rules on geographic sparation are maintained. Right now, I have
> pretty
> decent DT reception from over 100 miles away. It's mostly due to a good
> location
> and a big antenna. Since two of the stations I have trouble with get EMI
> from LPTV
> analog channels in my own area. (Presumably they will go away after
> transition.)
>
> So, now, for them, I have to harness two antennas together and space them so
> I get
> phase cancellation of the undesired signal. I already have to do this for
> two stations.
> Any more and my poor roof is going to look more like an antenna farm.
> Counting
> my ham antennas, I have seven up there now.
>
>
>
Why do you think the LPTV stations will go away after transition?

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aGlCe.4428$dU3.802@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sal M. Onella wrote:
> ... two of the stations I have trouble with get EMI
> > from LPTV
> > analog channels in my own area. (Presumably they will go away after
> > transition.)
>

> < snip >
>
> Why do you think the LPTV stations will go away after transition?
>
> Bob Miller

Solely because they are analog and analog is going away entirely. Is this
not exactly true? If not, why has a plan to retain analog LPTV been so well
suppressed? That could dick this up royally, pardon my French.

If they do go off, No Problem. If they don't, but instead transition to
digital, I don't know what the level of problem is. They can get the same
coverage (digital) with less than their current analog power, but will they
go to a lower power? Does the FCC have a stated policy?

I have seen papers on co-channel interfererence with all four possible
combinations of digital and analog, but I don't remember where. Sometimes
being an avid reader isn't all it's cracked up to be. <:-(
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:55:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:52:00 -0700 Sal M. Onella <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote:
|
| "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| news:aGlCe.4428$dU3.802@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
|> Sal M. Onella wrote:
|> ... two of the stations I have trouble with get EMI
|> > from LPTV
|> > analog channels in my own area. (Presumably they will go away after
|> > transition.)
|>
|
|> < snip >
|>
|> Why do you think the LPTV stations will go away after transition?
|>
|> Bob Miller
|
| Solely because they are analog and analog is going away entirely. Is this
| not exactly true? If not, why has a plan to retain analog LPTV been so well
| suppressed? That could dick this up royally, pardon my French.
|
| If they do go off, No Problem. If they don't, but instead transition to
| digital, I don't know what the level of problem is. They can get the same
| coverage (digital) with less than their current analog power, but will they
| go to a lower power? Does the FCC have a stated policy?

Why would they have to go away entirely? I'd think if they transition to
digital it would at least be better than when everyone was analog and they
had the same channel, power, antenna pattern.


| I have seen papers on co-channel interfererence with all four possible
| combinations of digital and analog, but I don't remember where. Sometimes
| being an avid reader isn't all it's cracked up to be. <:-(

Everyone is saying that with digital, the reception can be good even
further away than with analog. Comparing with crystal clear analog, or
nearly so, I can believe that. But if, as some say, that digitial will
work fine even beyond B-grade, out in the fringe (I can get decent TV
on analog to 125 miles or more ... not perfect ... but decent), then
what you will find happening if stations can be placed closer is that
some people will now fail to receive a working signal when before they
could. I'm not in favor of going any closer on the same channel.

But adjacent channel should be fine, I'd think. It's been fine in analog
for decades now. And the I.F. product avoidance (e.g. channel spacing of
5 or 7 in the USA) shouldn't be an issue for like reasons.

So as far as I can see, digital will allow more stations on the air, or
in some locations, UHF stations to move to VHF (though I'd still rather
see VHF moved to UHF). I just hope it isn't done by cramming stations
closer on the same channel.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:29:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:D bj0o801fml@news4.newsguy.com...

< snip >
>
> Why would they [LPTV] have to go away entirely? I'd think if they
transition to
> digital it would at least be better than when everyone was analog and they
> had the same channel, power, antenna pattern.

Simple: I don't want them radiating on those channels with their current
power. It would be
to my personal benefit for them to go away. They can switch off this moment
and go home
for all I care. Besides, I thought, the digital transition marked the end
of analog broadcasting
irrespective of power. ... maybe not.

At least these two analog LPTV outlets in San Diego County are on the same
channel(s) as
Los Angeles area DTV stations and cause me trouble. These two LPTV locals
are
in Spanish, which reduces their use to me, since I don't understand Spanish
well.

If they transition to digital, they could conceivably maintain their
coverage but reduce power.

BTW, if it were Home Shopping Network, I'd feel the same way -- no interest,
no need, etc.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 12:42:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:aGlCe.4428$dU3.802@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Sal M. Onella wrote:
>>... two of the stations I have trouble with get EMI
>>
>>>from LPTV
>>>analog channels in my own area. (Presumably they will go away after
>>>transition.)
>>
>
>>< snip >
>>
>>Why do you think the LPTV stations will go away after transition?
>>
>>Bob Miller
>
>
> Solely because they are analog and analog is going away entirely. Is this not exactly true? If not, why has a plan to retain analog LPTV been so well
> suppressed? That could dick this up royally, pardon my French.
>
> If they do go off, No Problem. If they don't, but instead transition to digital, I don't know what the level of problem is. They can get the same
> coverage (digital) with less than their current analog power, but will they go to a lower power? Does the FCC have a stated policy?
>
> I have seen papers on co-channel interfererence with all four possible combinations of digital and analog, but I don't remember where. Sometimes
> being an avid reader isn't all it's cracked up to be. <:-(
>
>
They have the option to go digital but can't file for digital yet since
the FCC can't seem to come up with the money to buy a program that would
allow LPTV stations to apply. That is the story I have been told.

There is no time table as yet that says when or even if LPTV stations
MUST go digital. But remember the rule with LPTV is that they are
secondary and cannot by definition interfere with full power stations so
they cannot by definition "dick" anything up. They would have to lower
their power, change the direction of their broadcast antenna or go off
the air if and when they interfere with any full power station.

But as of now LPTV will be around and maybe even prosper (something new)
in the digital age. I am a believer in that since with digital there
coverage will improve and if a customer gets their signal it will be
pristine just like the big boys. The only difference is that they have a
smaller coverage area typically.

If it wasn't for 8-VSB there would already have been a rebirth of OTA
broadcasting. LPTV stations typically are not carried by cable and do
not have must carry priveledges so they have had to survive so far as,
would you believe it, broadcasters. That may give them a leg up in the
re-birth of OTA if they take advantage of it. COFDM would have been
incredible for LPTV.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:06:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:42:03 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

| They have the option to go digital but can't file for digital yet since
| the FCC can't seem to come up with the money to buy a program that would
| allow LPTV stations to apply. That is the story I have been told.

Huh?

Could you please check your sources?

OTOH, the FCC seems to be rather clueless.


| If it wasn't for 8-VSB there would already have been a rebirth of OTA
| broadcasting. LPTV stations typically are not carried by cable and do
| not have must carry priveledges so they have had to survive so far as,
| would you believe it, broadcasters. That may give them a leg up in the
| re-birth of OTA if they take advantage of it. COFDM would have been
| incredible for LPTV.

Is there anyone here who believes the recent batch of FCC commisioners
has a clue?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 4:18:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:42:03 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | They have the option to go digital but can't file for digital yet since
> | the FCC can't seem to come up with the money to buy a program that would
> | allow LPTV stations to apply. That is the story I have been told.
>
> Huh?
>
> Could you please check your sources?

My sources are solid.
>
> OTOH, the FCC seems to be rather clueless.

Not so much clueless as underfunded. One reason the US is saddled with
8-VSB is that the FCC has not the manpower or equipment to properly test
rigourously for themselves. The MSTV/NAB test of 8-VSB and COFDM that
was FRAUDULENTLY run was then relied on by the FCC to stick with 8-VSB.
MSTV and the NAB were both partisan to 8-VSB out of ignorance at least
and allowed other interested 8-VSB parties to come and go and receive
inside information denied to the COFDM side which was told everything
was top secret.

I have found that FCC personel are great individually in every single
instance where I have encountered them. We have had all kinds of help
and have been given audiences with almost anyone we have asked for. It
is the "collective" FCC and their Congressional political bosses that
make it a disaster IMO. A disaster as to 8-VSB at least. Lots of other
things they are doing pretty good at. UWB, 802.11 etc and one of my
favorites 70 to 90 GHz radio use.
>
>
> | If it wasn't for 8-VSB there would already have been a rebirth of OTA
> | broadcasting. LPTV stations typically are not carried by cable and do
> | not have must carry priveledges so they have had to survive so far as,
> | would you believe it, broadcasters. That may give them a leg up in the
> | re-birth of OTA if they take advantage of it. COFDM would have been
> | incredible for LPTV.
>
> Is there anyone here who believes the recent batch of FCC commisioners
> has a clue?
>
The commissioners are the political side of the FCC. By the time they
know anything they have left. We have been through Kennard and Powell
and are now on Martin all since 1999. It is time that the FCC got an
engineer instead of a DC political lawyer for a change.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 7:36:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella wrote:
> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> news:D bj0o801fml@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> < snip >
>
>>Why would they [LPTV] have to go away entirely? I'd think if they
>
> transition to
>
>>digital it would at least be better than when everyone was analog and they
>>had the same channel, power, antenna pattern.
>
>
> Simple: I don't want them radiating on those channels with their current power. It would be to my personal benefit for them to go away. They can switch off this moment
> and go home for all I care. Besides, I thought, the digital transition marked the end of analog broadcasting irrespective of power. ... maybe not.
>
> At least these two analog LPTV outlets in San Diego County are on the same channel(s) as Los Angeles area DTV stations and cause me trouble. These two LPTV locals
> are in Spanish, which reduces their use to me, since I don't understand Spanish well.
>
> If they transition to digital, they could conceivably maintain their coverage but reduce power.
>
> BTW, if it were Home Shopping Network, I'd feel the same way -- no interest, no need, etc.>
>
>
Sounds like these LPTV stations are outside the B Grade of those Los
Angelos stations so they can stay on the air with their current power
analog and if they go digital they will be at 10% of that power most
likely but so will the Los Angelos full power stations. So your problem
with these stations will persist at least untill they go digital.

There is no date yet mandatory for LPTV stations to transition to
digital though technically they can now.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 7:36:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NEjDe.5643$dU3.1496@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
if they go digital they will be at 10% of that power most
> likely but so will the Los Angelos full power stations. So your problem
> with these stations will persist at least untill they go digital.

Ah ... if the locals go digital at 10% of their present analog power, I'll
be happy, since the interference is to Los Angeles stations that are
_already_ digital. Thus, they will maintain their current signal strength
here and the interfering signals will be reduced.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:18:02 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:42:03 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|> | They have the option to go digital but can't file for digital yet since
|> | the FCC can't seem to come up with the money to buy a program that would
|> | allow LPTV stations to apply. That is the story I have been told.
|>
|> Huh?
|>
|> Could you please check your sources?
|
| My sources are solid.

Fine. That supports the notion of cluelessness at the FCC. That's
what I have suspected all along. Oh wait, the FCC is a government
agency. Well, duh!


|> OTOH, the FCC seems to be rather clueless.
|
| Not so much clueless as underfunded. One reason the US is saddled with
| 8-VSB is that the FCC has not the manpower or equipment to properly test
| rigourously for themselves. The MSTV/NAB test of 8-VSB and COFDM that
| was FRAUDULENTLY run was then relied on by the FCC to stick with 8-VSB.
| MSTV and the NAB were both partisan to 8-VSB out of ignorance at least
| and allowed other interested 8-VSB parties to come and go and receive
| inside information denied to the COFDM side which was told everything
| was top secret.

Based on what I have read, 8-VSB does better than COFDM for longer distance
respection. And the USA has a lot more of that than Europe. Perhaps it
would have been better to require all receivers to have both and let the
choice be made on an allocation, or licensing, or station choice basis.
Then stations could run what worked best in their area.

As for the program for filing LPTV, why do they need a different one?
Why not adapt the one now used for FPTV?

Or better yet, put out a complete specification for what is needed in
such a program and let the open source software community develop it
totally for free. It would even work on free operating systems and
come with source code so anyone could maintain it in the future.

I'll stand by my cluelessness statement for now. That does not mean
people are bad intentioned. It just means they don't have the wider
vision that they could have. They are probably still in the box.


|> | If it wasn't for 8-VSB there would already have been a rebirth of OTA
|> | broadcasting. LPTV stations typically are not carried by cable and do
|> | not have must carry priveledges so they have had to survive so far as,
|> | would you believe it, broadcasters. That may give them a leg up in the
|> | re-birth of OTA if they take advantage of it. COFDM would have been
|> | incredible for LPTV.
|>
|> Is there anyone here who believes the recent batch of FCC commisioners
|> has a clue?
|>
| The commissioners are the political side of the FCC. By the time they
| know anything they have left. We have been through Kennard and Powell
| and are now on Martin all since 1999. It is time that the FCC got an
| engineer instead of a DC political lawyer for a change.

I'll agree with you on that. Lawyers should be "on staff", not in the
commission itself.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 10:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:18:02 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:42:03 GMT Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
> |>
> |> | They have the option to go digital but can't file for digital yet since
> |> | the FCC can't seem to come up with the money to buy a program that would
> |> | allow LPTV stations to apply. That is the story I have been told.
> |>
> |> Huh?
> |>
> |> Could you please check your sources?
> |
> | My sources are solid.
>
> Fine. That supports the notion of cluelessness at the FCC. That's
> what I have suspected all along. Oh wait, the FCC is a government
> agency. Well, duh!

The FCC is full of good people trying to do a decent job. The fact that
they are a government agency whose boss is Congress is the problem.
>
>
> |> OTOH, the FCC seems to be rather clueless.
> |
> | Not so much clueless as underfunded. One reason the US is saddled with
> | 8-VSB is that the FCC has not the manpower or equipment to properly test
> | rigourously for themselves. The MSTV/NAB test of 8-VSB and COFDM that
> | was FRAUDULENTLY run was then relied on by the FCC to stick with 8-VSB.
> | MSTV and the NAB were both partisan to 8-VSB out of ignorance at least
> | and allowed other interested 8-VSB parties to come and go and receive
> | inside information denied to the COFDM side which was told everything
> | was top secret.
>
> Based on what I have read, 8-VSB does better than COFDM for longer distance
> respection. And the USA has a lot more of that than Europe. Perhaps it
> would have been better to require all receivers to have both and let the
> choice be made on an allocation, or licensing, or station choice basis.
> Then stations could run what worked best in their area.

Yes that is what Sinclair asked for, allow COFDM also. If they had
though no broadcaster would have used 8-VSB. The "longer distance"
argument is BS as countries who actually did real testing of the two
found out. Australia was in the 8-VSB camp until their broadcasters
DEMANDED testing. Then, in spite of strong pressure from the US, they
switched to COFDM as did Taiwan after their broadcasters all but had a
real riot in their Congress. As would have Korea where broadcasters
refused to use 8-VSB for six years, tested COFDM and 8-VSB on their own
and demanded they be allowed to use it. They only gave up after their
government allowed COFDM for mobile on DAB frequencies.

The only reason US broadcasters didn't demand COFDM was that for the
most part, excluding Sinclair and a few others, US broadcasters are NOT
broadcasters. They depend on must carry over cable and pay little
attention to their OTA spectrum. When threatened by Congressman on the
payroll of CEA members they caved. Remember that Sinclair was not alone.
ABC, NBC, Granite and Pappas were all telling Congress that COFDM was
far better.
>
> As for the program for filing LPTV, why do they need a different one?
> Why not adapt the one now used for FPTV?

Who knows. It is a mystery to me.
>
> Or better yet, put out a complete specification for what is needed in
> such a program and let the open source software community develop it
> totally for free. It would even work on free operating systems and
> come with source code so anyone could maintain it in the future.

The program is written and will be in place by, was it May then June or
July or September and now October. They just can't buy it. Something
like $25,000 I was told.
>
> I'll stand by my cluelessness statement for now. That does not mean
> people are bad intentioned. It just means they don't have the wider
> vision that they could have. They are probably still in the box.
>
>
> |> | If it wasn't for 8-VSB there would already have been a rebirth of OTA
> |> | broadcasting. LPTV stations typically are not carried by cable and do
> |> | not have must carry priveledges so they have had to survive so far as,
> |> | would you believe it, broadcasters. That may give them a leg up in the
> |> | re-birth of OTA if they take advantage of it. COFDM would have been
> |> | incredible for LPTV.
> |>
> |> Is there anyone here who believes the recent batch of FCC commisioners
> |> has a clue?
> |>
> | The commissioners are the political side of the FCC. By the time they
> | know anything they have left. We have been through Kennard and Powell
> | and are now on Martin all since 1999. It is time that the FCC got an
> | engineer instead of a DC political lawyer for a change.
>
> I'll agree with you on that. Lawyers should be "on staff", not in the
> commission itself.
>
The commissioners are political animals and the technical side is
irrelevant. We have shown Martin and Abernathy this video in person and
most of the rest of the top technical people and department heads.

Using a 100 Watt transmitter at 425 ft. mobile reception with simple
omni antennas in the most RF challenged environment there is, Manhattan
www.viacel.com/bob.wmv

They know that COFDM is better. There is no political will to switch.

Bob Miller
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 2:59:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella (salmonella@food.poisoning.org) wrote in alt.video.digital-tv:
> You are correct. One case is KNBC. NTSC-4 and ATSC-36. I suppose
> Ch 4 would not be a great spot for DTV, given the electrical noise on
> VHF-LOW, so I'd just as soon have them stay on 36 ... IF ... KDTF-LP
> were to interfere less, one way or another.

I don't think that any TV station has selected to use a VHF-Low channel for
their final digital TV channel. VHF-Hi is quite popular, though, for
stations that get the chance.

--
Jeff Rife | Al Gore: To my left, you'll recognize
| Gary Gygax, inventor of Dungeons &
| Dragons.
| Gary Gygax: Greetings it's a...
| [rolls dice]
| Gary Gygax: ...pleasure to meet you.
| -- "Futurama"
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:11:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella wrote:

> I took that approach already and it works, but the directional antenna has
> less gain than my highest gain antenna. Are you ready for this? My usual
> LA antenna is a seven-foot parabolic and the extra gain is useful for times
> when propagation is poor, so I usually hook to it. Its front-to-side ratio
> is
> not terrific.
>
> I made the directional antenna by harnessing together two 4-bay bow-tie
> antennas, mounted with the radiation centers one-half wavelength apart,
> creating a very deep null at the sides. Since the interfering signal is
> almost exactly at right angles to the desired signal, it works perfectly.
> If I hook it to an analog tuner, I get zippo from KDTF-LP. Nice. I
> want to try 1.5 wavelength separation. Should have the same deep
> null and may have a larger effective aperture, hence more gain. Its
> frame is currently PVC pipe -- not sure if that's the way to go for
> 1.5 wavelengths.
>
> "Sal"
> (known to some as KD6VKW)
>
> PS: FCC NPR says bye-bye to Morse.



Have you tried stacking two UHF antennas for higher gain? Your
experience may help me decide if stacking is worth the effort. Channel
Master suggested that stacking might yield higher gain, but multipath
may increase. Also what frequencies do you use your 7 foot parabolic
antenna for and how is it constructed?

---.. ...-- 's
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 3:11:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"numeric" <numeric@att.net> wrote in message
news:LYVDe.461607$cg1.364699@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
> > I took that approach already and it works, but the directional antenna
has
> > less gain than my highest gain antenna.

< snip >

> Have you tried stacking two UHF antennas for higher gain? Your
> experience may help me decide if stacking is worth the effort. Channel
> Master suggested that stacking might yield higher gain, but multipath
> may increase. Also what frequencies do you use your 7 foot parabolic
> antenna for and how is it constructed?


I guess I can say yes ... since I have two side-by-side, I guess that
counts as stacking. Because of the losses in the combiner, there is
only about a 3dBmV increase over the signal level from one antenna
alone. (A 6 dBmV increase would be a doubling of the voltage.)

My antenna theory is a little weak in this area, so bear with me:
If I had the two antennas more widely separated horizontally, each
would have its own aperature, I think. So I might improve on the
3 dBmV in the previous paragraph. (There's so much to play with
these days, I don't know if I'll ever get to try it.)

See http://www.anarc.org/wtfda/stagger.pdf for a detailed article
about stacking. I lurched into it while looking for an illustration of my
parabolic.

My parabolic is constructed with a square tubular aluminum stock
frame, with a UHF folded dipole at the focus of the reflector. The
reflector is made of round tubular aluminum, like the elements of a
common TV antenna. See a (poor) picture at
http://www.kyes.com/antenna/pointing/pointing.html

73's
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:11:39 GMT numeric <numeric@att.net> wrote:

| Have you tried stacking two UHF antennas for higher gain? Your
| experience may help me decide if stacking is worth the effort. Channel
| Master suggested that stacking might yield higher gain, but multipath
| may increase. Also what frequencies do you use your 7 foot parabolic
| antenna for and how is it constructed?

Stacked right, multi-path should decrease. Stacked antennas increase
the aperture, which narrows the reception pattern, which if aimed right
at the direct path, reduces gain on alternate paths. If you have one
specific secondary path that causes problems, a pair of antennas can be
arranged to null out that direction.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
!