|
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|
|
Simple TV antenna work better than big one
dpb wrote:
On 1/23/2014 9:55 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:43:18 -0600, wrote:
On 01/23/2014 08:19 AM, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER than
the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier.
If the big antenna on the house is pointed in the wrong direction,
it won't work very well.
The "huge" antenna is huge because it has many LONG elements - for the
reception of TV channels 2 through 13. Those are the VHF channels - the
ones that many stations are trying not to use any more.
The UHF channels (14 through 52) are the ones that are the channels of
choice since digital transmission started. Your "huge" antenna has a
limited capability to pick up the higher frequency UHF channels. Your
new smaller antenna is designed ONLY for the UHF channels 14 through 52,
and that's why it works better for those channels than the old, huge
antenna.
Antennas being sold these days have limited or even no capability to
pick up the VHF channels -
I recommended a 6 or 8 foot wire in my post, but in the past, I've used
3 and 4 foot wires and I still could pick up VHF, longer wave, channels.
I think the chance that an antenna has no capaiblity to pick up VHF is
about zero.
More importantly, someone should mention that since digital, the channel
numers which display on the TV and which the broadcaster promote during
station breaks have little or nothing to do with the actual channel on
which the tv signal is sent. There is a webpage that gives all the
stations that can be received at any spot in the US, and it gives their
actual frequency (and maybe the channel) on which each broadcasts, as
well as the channel that is associated with each one, the one that the
TV displays and the TV Guide refers to..
I can't remember the url right now.
...
Yep, size has nothing to do with it, it's resonance.
I don't think you can say size has nothing to do with it. But I
can't explain this right now.
Well, the "resonance" is dependent on the size (length) of the elements;
that's why they're the length they are and vary.
High-gain, long-distance antennas are also very directional; "there is no free lunch".
This is a very rural area and there are no stations within about 60 mi;
the furthest we get is almost 90 to the repeater tower. When went from
analog to digital they went from being sometimes blurry but viewable to
often dropping out entirely. The set at that time was still analog so
with an amplifier and converter finally did get to where could get the
three networks again but PBS has disappeared entirely, probably never to
be seen again as they didn't bump their power.
That set died not long ago and went to a digital; the first small brought
home as a trial was little better than the converter and the analog set;
when it was enough that decided could live with it brought the
higher-priced, larger set and as I expected, the tuner sensitivity was
_much_ higher and actually _most_ of the time now have the three plus
some other locals that weren't accessible before. _BUT_, have to orient
the antenna very carefully to split the difference between the signals;
one is much more to the NE than the other two that are almost due N and
if turn to get it most strongly the others are gone and vice versa.
There's a real issue with getting a new cable pulled to be able to have a
rotator plus the likelihood of one surviving the high winds in SW KS is
debatable so live with as is...
--
Many areas where you could get moderate to poor quality signals on analog
VHF, have been eliminated by going UHF. VHF has better over hill
performance. I could no longer get any tv at a campsite, where previously i
could.
Greg
|