I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?
(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places. Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer. The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?
2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)
3. Will reception improve?

Thanx to all who reply.

jg

Yes, your reception will improve. You have a mismatched impedience
now. Yes, you need a balun transformer. Around $5 at any hardware
store, or Radio Shack. If the old cable is deteriorating, it's time
to replace it. The balun comes with about 4 inches of flat cable that
goes to the 2 antenna nuts, then the coax screws to it and goes to the
tv stuff in the house.

Just do it. It's no big deal to do as long as you can get on the roof
and to the antenna. Total cost is the balun, some electrical tape,
and whatever coax you need. Then tape the coax to the mast with
electrical tape. You dont need standoffs for coax.

(Be sure to wire brush the rust off the antenna nuts and coat them
with automotive grease.

Mark



On 8 Feb 2006 21:53:31 -0800, "jg" wrote:

I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?
(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places. Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer. The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?
2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)
3. Will reception improve?

Thanx to all who reply.

jg

jg wrote:
I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?
(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places.

When moisture gets into flat cable (300-ohm twinlead) it degrades the
signal. If the insulation is cracked and the wires are exposed, it
should be replaced all the way to the antenna. Don't use cheap twinlead.
The good kind has foam insulaton under the plastic outer insulation.
Connect the new twinlead just like the old one at the antenna. Clean the
antenna terminals with some electrical cleaner spray and a plastic scrub
pad. It might be better to replace the terminal screws, nuts and washers
with new ones made of brass or stainless steel. This may require cutting
and/or drilling the old screws off. They usually get corroded on an old
antenna.


Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer. The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

If you decide to continue using twinlead to the antenna, you should
install an impedance matching transformer where the twinlead connects to
the existing coax. (See next paragraph below.) Twinlead has less signal
loss than coax so it's preferred in reception areas where signal
strengths are low. This may not apply in your case. Coax has greater
signal loss than twinlead but better immunity to noise reception from
home appliances. This is a consideration when deciding which kind of
antenna lead wire to use. If coax is used all the way from the antenna
to the TV it might require an antenna amplifier to make up for the
signal loss in the coax. The amplifier is installed on the antenna mast.
The power supply for the amp' is located near the TV.

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?

If you want to connect 75-ohm coax to a TV antenna which only has two
screw terminals for twinlead, you'll need an impedance matching
transformer. This is the kind which is used on the back of older TV's
that have antenna screw terminals instead of a female coax connector.
The matching transformer has a coax connector on one end and two wires
(pigtails) on the other. The pigtails would be attached to the two
terminals on the antenna and the coax goes to the female connector on
the matching transformer. You should use a transformer made for outdoor
use. You can buy one at Radio Shack or home improvement stores that have
a TV hardware department. The labeling will say that it's made for
connecting coax to a TV antenna which has screw terminals.

2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)
3. Will reception improve?

Matching transformers for TV use are not expensive, so it's not worth
the effort to make one. It's also not easy to make one that works well
at TV frequencies, especially UHF. Proper impedance matching between
antenna and lead wire is important for getting the best signal quality
to the TV.

Thanx to all who reply.

jg

Thanx, I'll try it this weekend. I have some high end coax cable ready
for the job. Only one more question... should I worry about the
quality of the balun transformer? The ones I have seen at Home
Depot/Lowes/Radio Shack look pretty flimsy. I know there is probably
nothing inside that should not get wet, but I still wonder...

jg

On 9 Feb 2006 00:54:33 -0800, "jg" wrote:

Thanx, I'll try it this weekend. I have some high end coax cable ready
for the job. Only one more question... should I worry about the
quality of the balun transformer? The ones I have seen at Home
Depot/Lowes/Radio Shack look pretty flimsy. I know there is probably
nothing inside that should not get wet, but I still wonder...

jg

I'm not sure what to tell you about the quality of them. I'd guess
they are all made by the same company anyhow, but who knows? Use the
boot that comes with them, and I tend to wrap electrical tape around
that to be sure it stays dry at the coax connector. If water gets
inside the balun, it's cracked and bad from the start. They are
sealed. As another posted said, replace the screws and nuts on the
antenna with brass ones if they are real rusted or corroded.

Mark

jg wrote:
Thanx, I'll try it this weekend. I have some high end coax cable ready
for the job. Only one more question... should I worry about the
quality of the balun transformer? The ones I have seen at Home
Depot/Lowes/Radio Shack look pretty flimsy. I know there is probably
nothing inside that should not get wet, but I still wonder...

jg

The outdoor TV antenna baluns are sealed better to prevent moisture from
getting inside and degrading the components. They also have a rubber
boot to cover the coax connector.

Here are two URL's for Radio Shack TV antenna baluns. The second one has
gold plated connectors which should make it more reliable for outside use.

http://tinyurl.com/9codd
http://tinyurl.com/dnmxd

Twinlead has less signal loss than coax so it's
preferred in reception areas where signal
strengths are low.

Should I be worried about this? Currently the twinlead only runs from
the top of the antenna to where it enters my house. About 40 ft. Then
I have coax in my crawl space for another 80 feet or so. 30 ft of
which is just coiled and wasted. Reception for local (Sacramento)
stations is pretty good. Reception for San Francisco stations is too
grainy to watch at times. My zip code is 95682. (So I should not
expect too much from San Francisco.)

If need be I can replace the existing twinlead with new twinlead.
Should I look into this?

jg

While you are at it, you may wish to replace the antenna as well. If you do
be sure to get one with good UHF reception. Once the US switches to digital
TV, I believe in 2009, all TV signals will be in the UHF band.

"jg" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?
(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places. Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer. The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?
2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)
3. Will reception improve?

Thanx to all who reply.

jg

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:03:47 GMT, "Jeff" wrote:

While you are at it, you may wish to replace the antenna as well. If you do
be sure to get one with good UHF reception. Once the US switches to digital
TV, I believe in 2009, all TV signals will be in the UHF band.

That's not true. VHF High Band and UHF.

JG,

I agree with everyone here that coax is better but so far noone has
mentioned there are two types of coax, 50 ohm and 75 ohm. Make sure
that you use the 75 ohm coax. 50 ohm is generally used for
communications and you can't tell the difference between the two by the
size or thickness of the coax. You can tell by the number stamped on
the coax, eg. RG75U, etc.

J



jg wrote:
I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?
(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places. Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer. The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?
2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)
3. Will reception improve?

Thanx to all who reply.

jg

jg wrote:
Twinlead has less signal loss than coax so it's
preferred in reception areas where signal
strengths are low.


Should I be worried about this? Currently the twinlead only runs from
the top of the antenna to where it enters my house. About 40 ft. Then
I have coax in my crawl space for another 80 feet or so. 30 ft of
which is just coiled and wasted. Reception for local (Sacramento)
stations is pretty good. Reception for San Francisco stations is too
grainy to watch at times. My zip code is 95682. (So I should not
expect too much from San Francisco.)

If need be I can replace the existing twinlead with new twinlead.
Should I look into this?

jg

If you want the best weak signal reception (San Francisco) either use
new twinlead all the way from the antenna to the TV or new coax all the
way with an antenna amplifier too. You might want to consider an antenna
rotator if the local and distant stations are in different directions.
BTW- If you use twinlead, install it with a continuous twist along it's
length. Make several twists per yard. I know it's a pain to do this but
it helps to reduce the reception of noise from home applicances on the
twinlead.

On 8 Feb 2006 21:53:31 -0800, "jg" wrote:

I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?

Maybe.

(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places. Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer.

How did you do that? Soldered one wire to the center and the other to
the braid? I'm curious, but as others have said, you should redo it,
and run straightaway to a tv or a signal splitter, if you want to go
to more than one tv. They still sell them for flat lead.

I would also pay attention to the way the wire is run now. Flat lead
should have stand-offs to keep it away from the pole and the siding,
and as someone pointed out, it should be twisted I can imagine that
some prior amateur or neat-freak kept the wire untwisted because he
thought it looked better. So if they didn't do a good job the last
time, your job can be better. (The interference will still try to
interfere, but its effect on one part of the flat-lead will be exactly
the opposit of its effect on the other part of the wire, so the two
effects will cancel each other out. Hence, no interference. This is
similar to the reason that wires from burglar alarm sensors use
twisted pairs of wires, so that lightening won't generate a voltage
spike in the wires that will damage the control panel (or set off the
alarm?).

The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?

Yes.

2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)

They're not so much heavy duty as they are designed to keep the
insides dry, with the rubber cover and all.

3. Will reception improve?
Thanx to all who reply.

jg


Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

You haven't told us what type of tv antenna you have, and whether or
not you have a rotor. To get San Francisco stations in your area, you
must use a rotor as the Sacramento stations and the San Francisco
stations are not coming from the same direction. Also, to get the UHF
stations from San Francisco, I recommend the Channel Master 8-bay
bowtie. It is very common in Sacramento to have separate VHF and UHF
antennas as it is fairly easy to get decent reception from San
Francisco, Santa Rosa, Concord, Chico, Redding, Reno, and even more, as
well as all the local stations. But you MUST have a high-gain antenna
with a narrow beamwidth. Otherwise, the local stations will interfere
with the distant stations. As in Fresno (where I now live), with a
high-gain antenna with a narrow beamwidth, it is possible to get more
than one station on the SAME channel, just by turning the antenna. I
recommend NOT using any pre-amp at the antenna as the powerful
Sacramento stations will wipe out most of the distant stations.
Generally speaking, in the Sacramento area good coax cable will work
better than twin lead, especially if you are around any electrical
interference. Also, even twisted twin line can pick up signals that
may interfere with the distant signals. But DON'T have several feet of
coax wound up in your attic. Every foot of lead, whether twin lead or
coax, adds to signal loss. Generally speaking, the antenna should be
mounted as high as possible, although this is not always the case,
especially with UHF signals. There is never a guarantee as to what you
will receive. As far as using a balum at the antenna (and at the tv if
necessary), all balums are NOT created equal. Different samples from
the same manufacturer can vary greatly in the amount of signal loss,
etc., especially at the UHF frequencies. For the antenna AND balum, I
recommend staying away from Radio Shack. In Sacramento, the most
popular antennas for picking up San Francisco, are made by Winegard and
Channel Master. The BEST UHF antenna you can use is the Channel Master
7-foot parabolic but strong winds can cause problems if the mast is not
strong enough. I used the 7-foot parabolic on a 30-ft. mast with rotor
and got excellent reception from most of the UHF stations from San
Francisco. Second best is the 8-bay bowtie. For more information,
read my article in RADIO ELECTRONICS magazine, August 1982, titled HOW
TO SELECT THE BEST TV ANTENNA. You should be able to find that issue
at a library.

How did I connect the twinlead to the coax? I used two cones and
twisted them. Center to one lead, outside to the other lead. This was
meant to be a temporary solution (two years ago.)

At any rate I have one more question, if I go twinlead all the way from
the antenna to the TV (almost to the TV, I'll have to switch over just
before cable runs up the wall behind my tv) should I be concerned with
grounding? As I explained before, coax is well grounded just before
entering crawlspace. Will I need to do the same for twinlead?

On 9 Feb 2006 10:57:54 -0800, "jg" wrote:

Twinlead has less signal loss than coax so it's
preferred in reception areas where signal
strengths are low.

Should I be worried about this? Currently the twinlead only runs from
the top of the antenna to where it enters my house. About 40 ft. Then
I have coax in my crawl space for another 80 feet or so. 30 ft of
which is just coiled and wasted. Reception for local (Sacramento)
stations is pretty good. Reception for San Francisco stations is too
grainy to watch at times. My zip code is 95682. (So I should not
expect too much from San Francisco.)

If need be I can replace the existing twinlead with new twinlead.
Should I look into this?

jg

You can't expect good reception by mixing the two kinds of cable.
Use one or the other. Coax is preferred. You get less ghosts with
coax, and most likely better signal. Depending on your directions, an
antenna rotor may benefit you. That way you can point it toward
SanFrancisco or your local towers.

BTW: Coax is easier to install. You dont need all those standoffs and
stuff.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:35:10 -0500, Joey
wrote:

JG,

I agree with everyone here that coax is better but so far noone has
mentioned there are two types of coax, 50 ohm and 75 ohm. Make sure
that you use the 75 ohm coax. 50 ohm is generally used for
communications and you can't tell the difference between the two by the
size or thickness of the coax. You can tell by the number stamped on
the coax, eg. RG75U, etc.

J


Yes, this is correct. Most hardware stores only carry the 75 ohm
RG75U these days. The 50 ohm was popular in the 70's and 80's during
the CB radio craze, but is seldom used these days except by amateur
radio people and the few that still use CB. In fact Radio Shack no
longer carries the 50 ohm cable in bulk. I wanted a piece for my
scanner and they only had pre-made cables, and not the lengths even
close to what I needed. I finally chopped a piece off an old CB
antenna and soldered on my own ends.

Geeezzzz, I'm having a brain fart.... Is that RG50U.... ????
Don't sound right.... The older I get the more my memory fades !!!

On 9 Feb 2006 23:52:42 -0800, "jg" wrote:

How did I connect the twinlead to the coax? I used two cones and

Cones?

Wirenuts?

Are you in the USA?

twisted them. Center to one lead, outside to the other lead. This was
meant to be a temporary solution (two years ago.)

LOL

My mother paid a tv guy to connect our tvs to the rooftop antenna,
back in 1957. When I was in the attic several years later, a little
before she was going to move, I saw that he had just twisted the wires
together, even though there was a flatlead antennal splitter hanging
right there, not being used.

At any rate I have one more question, if I go twinlead all the way from
the antenna to the TV (almost to the TV, I'll have to switch over just
before cable runs up the wall behind my tv) should I be concerned with
grounding? '

The purpose of grounding iirc is for lightening protection.
Lightening protection is NOT accomplished by providing a path for the
lightening to reach the earth. A conductor would have to be enormous
to accomplish that (as big as your thigh?).. It's accomplished by
providing a path for excessive charge in the antenna or any piece of
high metal to dissipate to the earth, so that the lighening will not
be attracted by that charge.

As I explained before, coax is well grounded just before
entering crawlspace. Will I need to do the same for twinlead?

This question is beyond me.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

I couldn't tell you what kind of antenna I have if my life depended on
it. It is big and it is very high. At least 40 feet high. If memory
serves correctly, I only have one antenna for both VHF and UHF. (Too
dark to see right now.)

As for the direction, both the Sacramento and the San Francisco
stations are in the same general direction. I am about 40 miles East
of Sacramento and given that the Sac antennas are in the Delta by
Stockton, I pick up San Fran stations as well. Ironically the station
that I really want to pick up does not come in at all, it is Channel
19. (I want my kids to watch Spanish cartoons and I refuse to pay for
cable.) I think Channel 19 is East of Modesto some place. (I had a
link to a site that pinpointed all towers on a map but I have since
lost it. Maybe someone here knows of the site.)

So as of earlier reading I was leaning towards coax, then twinlead (to
minimize loss) and now I'm confused all over again.

This is basically a summary of what I have gleaned from you gusy...

Coax:
Pros:
--Easy to install.
--Less suseptible to interferance.
--I have a huge roll ready for deployment.
Cons:
--More lossy

Twinlead:
Pros:
--Less lossy
Cons:
--More difficult to install.
--Must twist.
--Must purchase about 100 ft.
--Must purchase hardware to keep away from mast and wall.

Come the weekend, I'm doing one or the other... so I better decide by
then.

Thanx again to all who replied.

jg

Your best off to use RG6, if using coax. Its lower loss than the more
common RG59

You can avoid all these issues by getting satellite TV! In most areas
of the country they carry lour locals.

all conveient on one pizza pan sized dish, and bets of all they have
DVR, digital tv recorders built in.

you record what you want, to watch anytiome you care to, and can skip
thru commercials. one version is called TIVO. a hour of prime time has
15 minutes of commercials, well thats now my time to do with as I wish!

satellite tv has free installs, with no commitments if you get the
right package. you have nothing to lose!

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:05:08 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:35:10 -0500, Joey
wrote:

JG,

I agree with everyone here that coax is better but so far noone has
mentioned there are two types of coax, 50 ohm and 75 ohm. Make sure
that you use the 75 ohm coax. 50 ohm is generally used for
communications and you can't tell the difference between the two by the
size or thickness of the coax. You can tell by the number stamped on
the coax, eg. RG75U, etc.

J


Yes, this is correct. Most hardware stores only carry the 75 ohm
RG75U these days. The 50 ohm was popular in the 70's and 80's during
the CB radio craze, but is seldom used these days except by amateur
radio people and the few that still use CB. In fact Radio Shack no
longer carries the 50 ohm cable in bulk. I wanted a piece for my
scanner and they only had pre-made cables, and not the lengths even
close to what I needed. I finally chopped a piece off an old CB
antenna and soldered on my own ends.

Geeezzzz, I'm having a brain fart.... Is that RG50U.... ????
Don't sound right.... The older I get the more my memory fades !!!
RG-6/U is 75 Ohm. RG-58/U is still fairly common for ethernet.

The website you are referring to is located at:
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Address.aspx - but be careful using this
site. With your zip code, you might get the idea that your local
stations and the San Francisco stations are in the same direction. NOT
SO. They list so many channels in that same GENERAL direction that you
really can't decipher from that website which direction the signal is
coming from.

The Sacramento and San Francisco stations are NOT located in the exact
same direction. That is why you need a highly directional antenna with
a very narrow beamwidth. You can separate the locals from the Bay Area
stations. You can "pick up" the San Francisco stations when the
antenna is pointed towards the Sacramento towers, but you can get a
STRONGER signal when turning the antenna towards Mt. Sutro (San
Francisco towers), and at the same time, REDUCE the local signals, thus
giving you a stronger signal with less interference. To help clear up
the confusion between coax and twin lead -- First, twin lead must be
installed properly - not touching any metal to say the least, as it
should be a few inches from any metal. It's not good to install twin
lead between walls, etc. As far as loss goes, coax is consistant
regardless of the weather. Twin lead losses can be greater than coax
during wet or damp weather. To have low loss, twin lead must be dry.
Also, twin lead is more suseptible to breakage during high winds. You
want the SAME lead in all the way from the antenna to the television.
Don't mix twin lead with coax. You might get excellent reception of
the local channels, but it can make a big difference on distant
reception. IF your antenna is high gain on UHF, has good directional
characterics, you should easily get channel 19 from Modesto UNLESS
there is a mountain near you blocking signals from that direction.
However, channel 14 in San Francisco is also Univision. I have picked
up weak signals from channel 14 even here in Fresno. I can tell you
this - When living in Fair Oaks, I had the largest Channel Master
UHF/VHF antenna available, installed on a 40-ft mast with rotor and I
could NOT get any signal on channel 14. But my neighor had a cheap,
small antenna mounted on the chimney and got a good signal on channel
14. Higher is not always better on UHF. Also, ANY bad balum OR even
twisting wires combining coax to twin line can totally wipe out some
UHF frequencies.

Funny that you mention that. I have a linux box that I've setup with
MythTV. I've also tried Freevo.

jg wrote:
I couldn't tell you what kind of antenna I have if my life depended on
it. It is big and it is very high. At least 40 feet high. If memory
serves correctly, I only have one antenna for both VHF and UHF. (Too
dark to see right now.)

Is the antenna 40-ft high from the ground or roof top? How do you get up
to it? With an antenna that high you want to do it right the first time.
I strongly suggest getting a new antenna with a good UHF front-end and a
rotator to fine tune the aiming. An antenna amplifier would be a good
investment too. I would use coax because it's stronger and more durable
than twinlead. This will minimize the possibility of a broken downlead,
requiring you to go back up to the antenna.
Be very careful with this project. Have a helper close by and look out
for power lines that might come in contact with the antenna and mast.
Good luck.

In that particular area, you have to be very careful using an antenna
amplifier, especially if you are talking about a pre-amp mounted at the
antenna. Only a professional will know which amp will work in that
area. Some of the Sacramento signals are so strong on UHF that the
pre-amp can do more harm than good. Remember, doubling a weak signal
will help, but also doubling that very strong signal can put that
signal all over the dial. I had a pre-amp in a large directional
antenna in Sacramento and had to have it removed. I couldn't get ANY
distant channel as all the locals wiped them out. Using a weak amp
MIGHT help in this case. You CAN NOT improve the signal-to-noise ratio
at the antenna. What you hope to achieve is to keep as much of that
signal as possible. In other words, to reduce the lead losses. But
ALL pre-amps/amps introduce some noise. You can't get a better signal
that what you are getting at the antenna, no matter what you do.

You might check with dealers in your area. But I have an idea that if
you replaced your lead to just ONE coax cable from antenna to tv, you'd
see a major improvement in reception from San Francisco and/or Modesto.

40 ft. from ground. Getting to it is fairly easy. I just get on the
rooftop, take a couple of nuts out and bring the antenna down towards
me. I did it in the past. Thanx for your suggestions.

Here's a link to a picture of my antenna, maybe someone can tell me
what I have. Also, does the fact that the "receivers" are off place
and therefore touching affect the signal? Since I will be up there, I
will straighten them, but odds are they will get crossed again. (I've
aready fixed this in the past.)

http://www.acequality.net/temp/antenna.jpg

In article .com,
jg wrote:
(I had a
link to a site that pinpointed all towers on a map but I have since
lost it. Maybe someone here knows of the site.)

If you want a really detailed list, www.fcc.gov has database search
pages for various services. I can't remember the exact URL, but
go to the FCC site, then the pages for the "Media Bureau" and then
there'll be links to television and other broadcast databases.

When you find the query page, you feed it your latitude and longitude
in Degrees/Minutes/Seconds and feed it a radius distance in miles
(or kilometers?) and it will come back with a list of every TV station
(analog an digital), repeater, and station under construction, with a
distance and degree heading.


Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

jg wrote:
Here's a link to a picture of my antenna, maybe someone can tell me
what I have. Also, does the fact that the "receivers" are off place
and therefore touching affect the signal? Since I will be up there, I
will straighten them, but odds are they will get crossed again. (I've
aready fixed this in the past.)

http://www.acequality.net/temp/antenna.jpg

It appears you have the Radio Shack model VU-120 antenna. The best
information I can get on this antenna is: gain is only fair to good
and directivity is probably below average to average. This antenna is
made mainly for local/suburb reception, NOT for distant stations. The
beamwidth on this antenna is NOT narrow enough - that is why you can
pick up San Francisco stations without turning the antenna. NOT A GOOD
ANTENNA FOR WHAT YOU WANT TO RECEIVE. Stick with Channel Master,
Winegard, or Jerrold brand antennas. They are built to last and have
much higher gain and much better directivity. In YOUR case, I would
add the Channel Master 8-bay bowtie antenna for distant UHF signals and
keep your other antenna for the locals. Otherwise, you are talking
about a $200 UHF/VHF antenna. The 8-bay antenna is not high priced,
and beats the UHF section of EVERY UHF/VHF antenna on the market that I
know of. But it is extremely directional and you will need a rotor.
Also, not only is the gain high and the directivity outstanding, but
the design of an 8-bay bowtie gives more "signal capture area" because
of the large screen behind the active elements. This really helps in
mountainess areas and other weak signal areas. The design of the
antenna also narrows both vertical and horizontal beamwidth, resulting
in less ghosting. If you can barely pick up a UHF signal with your
current antenna, chances are the signal will be very good with the
8-bay bowtie. And I'm talking about your current antenna with NEW
coax cable, not your current mixed lead.

More info on your antenna compared to the 8-bay bowtie on UHF signals.
The following are approximate figures based on all the information I
can find. Your antenna gives an average gain of about 6 db while the
8-bay bowtie gives an average gain of 13.0 db. Depending on the
channel, the MINIMUM gain on your antenna is about 0 db while the
MINIMUM on the 8-bay bowtie is 9.5. I don't have specifics as to the
channels on your antenna. Every 3 db DOUBLES the signal. The average
horizontal beamwith of your antenna on UHF is about 31 degrees while
the 8-bay bowtie is about 21 degrees. BIG differences. The 8-bay
bowtie rejects signals coming from the sides and back several times as
much as your current antenna.

mm wrote:

My mother paid a tv guy to connect our tvs to the rooftop antenna,
back in 1957. When I was in the attic several years later, a little
before she was going to move, I saw that he had just twisted the wires
together, even though there was a flatlead antennal splitter hanging
right there, not being used.

Back in those days there were a lot of fly-by-night TV repair shops.
Most breakdowns didn't require a great deal of skill to fix, and the
industry was much less regulated than it is today. Someone could read a
few books, buy some tools and tubes, and set up a business.

On 10 Feb 2006 09:58:17 -0800, wrote:

In that particular area, you have to be very careful using an antenna
amplifier, especially if you are talking about a pre-amp mounted at the
antenna. Only a professional will know which amp will work in that
area. Some of the Sacramento signals are so strong on UHF that the
pre-amp can do more harm than good.

All I have is a RS amplified antenna in the attic -- the amplifer is
in the antenna -- and I love it because I'm in Baltimore and I can get
all the DC stations**. Rarely but sometimes, the signal is too strong
with Baltimore stations, so I have an A-B swtich that disconnects the
entire antenna if I want. Then I just use the one foot piece of co-ax
from the VCR to the A-B swtich, and even that little signal is more
than enough when I'm tuned to any station that overloads when using
the amplified antenna.

I suppose I could have gotten a variable reducer, or an amp with
variable amplification, and sought the best compromise value, but this
was simpler, and lets me use maximum for the DC stations. For
example, for a few months channel 9 was weak. Then it got to be fine
and about the same time channel 7 got weak. Now they're both fine,
but I want to keep amplification at its max for the hardware I bought.

**BTW, this is better than cable because cable doesn't have DC
stations. Often there is a sports game or even a non-sports show on
tv in Baltimore while DC is carrying the regular weekly show.

Also, once when I was watching Law and Order on two tv's at the same
time (fiddling with one of them) I saw that the last minute of the
show, the part after the last commercial, was shown on the DC channel,
but on the Baltimore channel, they put in another commercial. Very
distressing. The earlier part of the show they had been totally
synchronized. Channel 11 in Baltimore basically cheated everyone out
of that last minute or 30 seconds, which resolved some of the plot
issues. Now I watch channel 4 in DC more often.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:05:08 -0600, wrote:


Geeezzzz, I'm having a brain fart.... Is that RG50U.... ????
Don't sound right.... The older I get the more my memory fades !!!

Not sure what you have but it may be called jamais vu, never seen.
The feeling that you've never seen something when in fact you have
seen it. You may even know logically that you've seen it, but you
feel like you haven't.

Sort of the opposite of deja vu, the feeling that something was
already seen.


Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:29:15 GMT, Bob wrote:

mm wrote:

My mother paid a tv guy to connect our tvs to the rooftop antenna,
back in 1957. When I was in the attic several years later, a little
before she was going to move, I saw that he had just twisted the wires
together, even though there was a flatlead antennal splitter hanging
right there, not being used.

This is boring. Skip to the last paragraph at the end.

It's possible, remotely possible, that he brought the splitter, tried
it and decided he was getting better reception, all in all, without
it. I think the antenna lead only went to one room, the den?, and my
mother wanted a tv in the bedroom too. (Although I don't remember us
having two sets. !!! or what the second set would have looked like.
After the Dumont broke, we got a Zenith with remote control. But that
was in the den. Plainly I do remember the three runs of flatlead
twisted together,(one from the antenna and two from the sets) so we
must have had two sets.)

Or maybe the previous owner had an antenna wire in the living room and
that's why there was a splitter in the attic, but I don't remember
seeing such a wire.

Back in those days there were a lot of fly-by-night TV repair shops.
Most breakdowns didn't require a great deal of skill to fix, and the
industry was much less regulated than it is today. Someone could read a
few books, buy some tools and tubes, and set up a business.

The industry is regulated today? I'm serious. I haven't heard
anything about this.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:30:11 -0500, mm
wrote:


Geeezzzz, I'm having a brain fart.... Is that RG50U.... ????
Don't sound right.... The older I get the more my memory fades !!!

Not sure what you have but it may be called jamais vu, never seen.

After David's post, I realize you really have never seen it.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.

Is this the bad boy you are referring to?

http://salestores.com/chma428bouhf.html

jg wrote:

19. (I want my kids to watch Spanish cartoons and I refuse to pay for
cable.) I think Channel 19 is East of Modesto some place. (I had a


I don't think Univision shows cartoons anymore.

jg wrote:

Funny that you mention that. I have a linux box that I've setup with
MythTV. I've also tried Freevo.


Not to get too far off-topic, but how's that working out for you? I've
always been intrigued by the idea of MythTV.

Close, but no cigar.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html

The site I saw about 3 years ago, actually mapped out (mapquest style)
all the towers within any given radious.

jg wrote:
I have done some reading about balun transformers and how I can connect
my existing flat antena cable to 75 ohm cable.

However, my questions is this... what if I replace the 30 year old flat
cable all the way to the antenna. Will this yield better reception?
(It is pretty good as it is.) The exiting flat cable is starting to
fall apart at some places. Currently I just have it directly wired to
my coax cable (just before it enters the house) with out any type of
transformer. The coax is properly grounded (to the circuit breaker
box.)

So my questions are these:

1. How do I connect the coax directly to the antenna? Or should I?
Do I still need a balun transformer?
2. If I need a balun transformer, does anyone know of a heavy duty
outdoor one? (Or should I build my own.)
3. Will reception improve?

Thanx to all who reply.

jg

Hi,
Coax impedance is typically ~50 or ~70 Ohm range depending on the type
and it's so called unbalanced feeder vs. twin lead is 300 Ohm balanced.
Balun means Balanced/Unbalanced kinda transformer to keep the impedance
matched for minimum signal loss. Buy good quality coax like Belden brand
and use also good quality weather tight balun. You connect the balun at
the antenna terminal, screw in coax at the other end of balun.
It's done.
Good luck,
Tony

jg wrote:

Twinlead has less signal loss than coax so it's
preferred in reception areas where signal
strengths are low.


Should I be worried about this? Currently the twinlead only runs from
the top of the antenna to where it enters my house. About 40 ft. Then
I have coax in my crawl space for another 80 feet or so. 30 ft of
which is just coiled and wasted. Reception for local (Sacramento)
stations is pretty good. Reception for San Francisco stations is too
grainy to watch at times. My zip code is 95682. (So I should not
expect too much from San Francisco.)

If need be I can replace the existing twinlead with new twinlead.
Should I look into this?

jg

Hi,
Twin lead also has better quality foam ones not the skinny twirly kind.
Coiling up extra coax is not a good idea it can act like RF choke and
could lower signal level.
Tony