On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles. I
also have an antenna amplifier on it. It does ok, but since I'm in a
rural area, getting a clear signal at all times is tough.

I wanted a tv in my work shed, and had a spare tv, but I but did not
want to buy another antenna, and the house is too far from the shed to
run coax. I was at an auction and bought a real simple antenna for $1.
It looks like a refrigerator grille (shelf) similar to a BBQ grill, but
square. It has three metal things in front of this grille that are
shaped like a bow-tie. That's it.

I mounted it on the roof of my shed, figuring it would be better than
nothing. I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be? I wish I could find another one like it, and put
that on the house, with a switch so I can select which antenna I want,
but I've not seen one like it in any stores. I am wondering how hard it
would be to make one from a refrig shelf and cut some sheet aluminum
into bow-tie shapes. Of course I know there needs to be insulators
between the bowties and the frame, and a coax connector .

It sounds like a stacked bowtie antenna assenbly. The reason it does better than the old house antenna is because it is designed /tuned much better for the new frequencies that are likely in your area since we went all digital.

On 1/22/14, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles. I
also have an antenna amplifier on it. It does ok, but since I'm in a
rural area, getting a clear signal at all times is tough.

I wanted a tv in my work shed, and had a spare tv, but I but did not
want to buy another antenna, and the house is too far from the shed to
run coax. I was at an auction and bought a real simple antenna for $1.
It looks like a refrigerator grille (shelf) similar to a BBQ grill, but
square. It has three metal things in front of this grille that are
shaped like a bow-tie. That's it.

I mounted it on the roof of my shed, figuring it would be better than
nothing. I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be? I wish I could find another one like it, and put
that on the house, with a switch so I can select which antenna I want,
but I've not seen one like it in any stores. I am wondering how hard it
would be to make one from a refrig shelf and cut some sheet aluminum
into bow-tie shapes. Of course I know there needs to be insulators
between the bowties and the frame, and a coax connector .






There are about 30 of them currently on Ebay for about $5-$75

search = uhf bow tie antenna

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:16:50 -0600, wrote:

On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles. I
also have an antenna amplifier on it. It does ok, but since I'm in a
rural area, getting a clear signal at all times is tough.

I wanted a tv in my work shed, and had a spare tv, but I but did not
want to buy another antenna, and the house is too far from the shed to
run coax. I was at an auction and bought a real simple antenna for $1.
It looks like a refrigerator grille (shelf) similar to a BBQ grill, but
square. It has three metal things in front of this grille that are
shaped like a bow-tie. That's it.

I mounted it on the roof of my shed, figuring it would be better than
nothing. I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be? I wish I could find another one like it, and put
that on the house, with a switch so I can select which antenna I want,
but I've not seen one like it in any stores. I am wondering how hard it
would be to make one from a refrig shelf and cut some sheet aluminum
into bow-tie shapes. Of course I know there needs to be insulators
between the bowties and the frame, and a coax connector .

It might just be the location. Even though it's not far from the other,
I think that can make a difference. Or it might be the tuners.

Here's an experiment Just take a piece of insulated wire, unshielded,
about 6 feet long or 8 feet or whatever, and connect it to the back of
the tv or the digital converter box, whereever the current antenna is
connected, and see how that works. There is probably an F-connector
(or the other half of one) there. Just push the wire, stripped of
insulation at the end of course, into the center hole in the connector.

The only reason it has to be insulated is so that if it flops around and
lands on something metal, the picture won't be influenced much.

Let us/me know how it works.

Anyhow, I have a DVDR with digital tuner connected through an antenna
amp to a big antenna in the attic. I'm in NW Baltimore but got almost
all the DC stations at first. I think the amp failed and now I only get
the Baltimore stations.

Next to the DVDR is a VCR with a digital converter box**. Plugged in as
an antennaa to the box is a wire like above. I get more stations on the
converter box than on the DVDR. **An expensive one, it was 80 dollars
before the 40 dollar coupon. Expensive because it has timed channel
tuning (which could work with the VCR to do timer recording) . The brand
on it is one of the satellite companies, of all things.

OTOH, when I just plug that wire into the DVDR, it doesn't do so well.
The tuner on the converter box is better. Before digital, I noticed
that some brands of TV had better tuners, Zenith I think.

I go through a lot of tv's because I find them in the trash or people
give them to me and I fix them, if necessary, and I used to sell them,
then I gave them away, plus I use 6 at home, one in almost every room.

On 1/22/14, 8:16 PM, wrote:
On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles. I
also have an antenna amplifier on it. It does ok, but since I'm in a
rural area, getting a clear signal at all times is tough.

I wanted a tv in my work shed, and had a spare tv, but I but did not
want to buy another antenna, and the house is too far from the shed to
run coax. I was at an auction and bought a real simple antenna for $1.
It looks like a refrigerator grille (shelf) similar to a BBQ grill, but
square. It has three metal things in front of this grille that are
shaped like a bow-tie. That's it.

I mounted it on the roof of my shed, figuring it would be better than
nothing. I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be? I wish I could find another one like it, and put
that on the house, with a switch so I can select which antenna I want,
but I've not seen one like it in any stores. I am wondering how hard it
would be to make one from a refrig shelf and cut some sheet aluminum
into bow-tie shapes. Of course I know there needs to be insulators
between the bowties and the frame, and a coax connector .





Maybe something like this from Radio Shack?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...nt=C T2032189

Sorry about the long link.... if you can't make it work, just go to
radioshack.com, and slap tv antenna in the search box... for me it came
up near the top of the second page of search results. Or just search on
it's stock number, 55068842. Note that they have loads of other antennas
available, but many are web only items.

As another poster mentioned, a different mounting position, sometimes
even just a few feet away can make a dramatic difference. Receiver
sensitivity of the individual TV's involved is another major factor.

For the shed... if you have the space in there, try cobbling up an
adjustable indoor mount of some sort, and put it inside somewhere
accessible... it'll give you some flexibility to fine tune the 'aim' for
varying climatic conditions, and make the antenna last practically
forever... same for the house if you can pull it off... attic space
often works well too.

In any case, I'd suggest trying your new $1.00 special on/in the house
before getting involved with fabricating or buying another one... just
my .02¢ worth.

Erik

On 01/22/2014 10:16 PM, wrote:
On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles. I
also have an antenna amplifier on it. It does ok, but since I'm in a
rural area, getting a clear signal at all times is tough.

I wanted a tv in my work shed, and had a spare tv, but I but did not
want to buy another antenna, and the house is too far from the shed to
run coax. I was at an auction and bought a real simple antenna for $1.
It looks like a refrigerator grille (shelf) similar to a BBQ grill, but
square. It has three metal things in front of this grille that are
shaped like a bow-tie. That's it.

I mounted it on the roof of my shed, figuring it would be better than
nothing. I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be? I wish I could find another one like it, and put
that on the house, with a switch so I can select which antenna I want,
but I've not seen one like it in any stores. I am wondering how hard it
would be to make one from a refrig shelf and cut some sheet aluminum
into bow-tie shapes. Of course I know there needs to be insulators
between the bowties and the frame, and a coax connector .







Does the antenna have a rotor on it? If not it may simply be aimed
improperly.

On 1/23/14, 12:15 AM, Erik wrote:
On 1/22/14, 8:16 PM, wrote:
On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles. I
also have an antenna amplifier on it. It does ok, but since I'm in a
rural area, getting a clear signal at all times is tough.

I wanted a tv in my work shed, and had a spare tv, but I but did not
want to buy another antenna, and the house is too far from the shed to
run coax. I was at an auction and bought a real simple antenna for $1.
It looks like a refrigerator grille (shelf) similar to a BBQ grill, but
square. It has three metal things in front of this grille that are
shaped like a bow-tie. That's it.

I mounted it on the roof of my shed, figuring it would be better than
nothing. I was amazed. The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be? I wish I could find another one like it, and put
that on the house, with a switch so I can select which antenna I want,
but I've not seen one like it in any stores. I am wondering how hard it
would be to make one from a refrig shelf and cut some sheet aluminum
into bow-tie shapes. Of course I know there needs to be insulators
between the bowties and the frame, and a coax connector .





Maybe something like this from Radio Shack?

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...nt=C T2032189


Sorry about the long link.... if you can't make it work, just go to
radioshack.com, and slap tv antenna in the search box... for me it came
up near the top of the second page of search results. Or just search on
it's stock number, 55068842. Note that they have loads of other antennas
available, but many are web only items.

As another poster mentioned, a different mounting position, sometimes
even just a few feet away can make a dramatic difference. Receiver
sensitivity of the individual TV's involved is another major factor.

For the shed... if you have the space in there, try cobbling up an
adjustable indoor mount of some sort, and put it inside somewhere
accessible... it'll give you some flexibility to fine tune the 'aim' for
varying climatic conditions, and make the antenna last practically
forever... same for the house if you can pull it off... attic space
often works well too.

In any case, I'd suggest trying your new $1.00 special on/in the house
before getting involved with fabricating or buying another one... just
my .02¢ worth.

Erik

More... it looks like that same antenna can be had a good bit cheaper at
places other than Radio Shack:

https://www.google.com/#q=GE+24792&safe=off

I didn't have time to scrutinize it's Amazon reviews, but at a quick
glance, it appeared to do well.

Erik

Antennas catch the signal, wires and signal boosters get it to where
it's needed. http://www.tvfool.com/
Cut the cable,
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/cord-cut...ews-17928.html
and
NFLX up 18% after hours, earnings report yesterday,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...rofit/4778787/

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.

Mark

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 - that's why they're smaller and look different
than the antennas put up 20 - 50 years ago.

Can't determine the details based on your post, but here are some
thoughts why a small antenna works better than the big antenna.

The big antenna might be VHF only, where most if not all of your digital
TV signals are now on the UHF band. The little antenna is a UHF antenna
and tuned to receive what is available today in your area, so it does a
better job than the big antenna that is tuned for VHF signals.

The big antenna and feed line (coax or twin line) have been up there for
decades.
plastic dries out and starts cracking, elements oxidize, feed line dries
out, cracks, insulation fails, end connectors fail, providing a lousy
signal path.

A signal preamp on the big TV antenna is VHF only and does not allow all
of the UHF signal to pass to the TV.

You have too many splitters in the house, weakening the signal to each TV

The big antenna is not aimed at the current TV signal transmit tower.

A couple of trees grew up over 20 years that are in the way of the big
antenna.

Could be other reasons as well.

Steve
N2UBP

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Mark Storkamp wrote:

Why would this be?

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF?

Didn't I just say that - 20 minutes before you?

In article ,
wrote:

The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be?

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF? They
stopped broadcasting on the VHF band a few years back when everything
went digital. You can still use it for FM radio though.

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 - that's why they're smaller and look different
than the antennas put up 20 - 50 years ago.




Good catch.

Yep, size has nothing to do with it, it's resonance.

Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com writes:
Mark Storkamp wrote:

Why would this be?

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF?

Didn't I just say that - 20 minutes before you?

It can take longer than that for the article to propogate to all
the various usenet servers.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:43:18 -0600, philo* 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.

that's why they're smaller and look different
than the antennas put up 20 - 50 years ago.




Good catch.

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.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:37:12 -0600, Mark Storkamp
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be?

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF? They
stopped broadcasting on the VHF band a few years back when everything
went digital.

That's not totally true. There are hundreds of stations, and the only
source I know of (whose url I can't remember, but if I could) that lists
actual frequency and/or channel of transmission doesn't have all of them
on one page. You have to give a location and then it lists the ones
nearby. Last I looked, I think at least one channel I watch in
Baltimore was VHF.

No, here it is. It's tvfool.com or antennaweb.org . Not sure yet.

There is also http://www.antennapoint.com/ and
http://broadcastengineering.com/towe...a-broadcasters
whose google summaries look like they might be helpful but I havent'
looked at them before.

You can still use it for FM radio though.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:02:57 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:37:12 -0600, Mark Storkamp
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be?

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF? They
stopped broadcasting on the VHF band a few years back when everything
went digital.

That's not totally true. There are hundreds of stations, and the only
source I know of (whose url I can't remember, but if I could) that lists
actual frequency and/or channel of transmission doesn't have all of them
on one page. You have to give a location and then it lists the ones
nearby. Last I looked, I think at least one channel I watch in
Baltimore was VHF.

No, here it is. It's tvfool.com or antennaweb.org . Not sure yet.

tvfool.com is what I had in mind. Specifically
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29

I looked up my address and found two big stations transmitting on a VHF
channel, Channel 7, WJLA, the ABC affiliate in DC transmits on actual
channel 7.

And Channel 9, WUSA, the CBS affiliate in DC, transmits on actual
channel 9.

I used to get these before my antenna amp had problems but It doesn't
matter if I get them or not, because a million or two people in
Washington DC and its suburbs get them.

Also Channel 8, WCAL, an NBC affiliate which I think is in Lancaster,
Pa. transmits on channel 8. I've never been able to get this station,
but my friend who lives in a suburb 10 miles farther north than I used
to get it. Before digital I guess.

This is just those within 30 miiles of Baltimore. I'm sure there are
dozens or hundreds within the country.

There are four more listed for me like this, but all are too far to
receive without a tall antenna, and probably even with one. Never
heard of anyone watching them. For 8, 2, 4, and 6. The first 3 would
interere with closer channels.

There is also http://www.antennapoint.com/ and
http://broadcastengineering.com/towe...a-broadcasters
whose google summaries look like they might be helpful but I havent'
looked at them before.

You can still use it for FM radio though.

On 1/23/2014 8:43 AM, philo wrote:
(snipped)

Yep, size has nothing to do with it,

Not according to my wife. :-)

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...

--

On 01/23/2014 08:37 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:

[snip]

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF? They
stopped broadcasting on the VHF band a few years back when everything
went digital. You can still use it for FM radio though.


Not stopped, although more stations have changed to UHF (this stated
BEFORE the change to digital). Here, there is one local station that
uses channel 7.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:16:50 -0600, Caulking-Gunn wrote:

On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles

TV antennas are rated by miles?

"Danny D." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:16:50 -0600, Caulking-Gunn wrote:

On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles

TV antennas are rated by miles?


That is one way they have been advertised for many years.

While they should be rated in gain by DB or DBi or such, I guess the general
public would have no idea what they are talking about. To simplify things
the advertising people just give a rating in miles. Just like the car gas
milage, what you get depends on the area you are in and how you mount it.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 01/23/2014 09:55 AM, micky wrote:

[snip]

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.


antennaweb.org ?

That's how I checked that channel 7 here is actually broadcasting on
channel 7.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:39:35 -0600, 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

I have all the problems you list.

What brand was the little one that ddidn't work well?



What brand was the big on ethat worked much better?




Thanks.

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...

On 1/24/2014 1:18 AM, micky wrote:
....

What brand was the little one that ddidn't work well?



What brand was the big on ethat worked much better?
.....

Both were LG; the difference isn't brand but quality (say price).
You're looking for best sensitivity you can find; unfortunately it's not
much-publicized spec if at all. Which is why I used a local dealer with
whom I have done business before and arranged the loan for trial rather
than just walking into BORG-like place...

--

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 1/24/2014 1:18 AM, micky wrote:
...

What brand was the little one that ddidn't work well?



What brand was the big on ethat worked much better?
....

Both were LG; the difference isn't brand but quality (say price).
You're looking for best sensitivity you can find; unfortunately it's not
much-publicized spec if at all. Which is why I used a local dealer with
whom I have done business before and arranged the loan for trial rather
than just walking into BORG-like place...

To the OP: Note that amplifiers like the one on your "big" antenna can
do more harm than good. Amplifiers amplify both the desired signal
and their own internally generated noise. You want the first thing
that the signal see coming from the antenna to be a low noise
amplifier circuit. In a TV, that may be called the "front end". If
it is external, it is called an amplifier. An old amplifer from the
60's or 70' probably has a worse noise figure than the front end of a
modern TV tuner expecially on the higher UHF frequencies. (In
addition, amplifiers can be overloaded by strong local signals, but I
doubt that is the problem here). If you want the original antenna to
work better, try removing the amp and replace the lead-in with new low
loss cable. It may surpise you. Remember, though, as others have
said, most of your big antenna isn't being used for most of the
stations. Only the small elements (usually in the front) are being
used for UHF. The antenna you consider to be small (a UHF bow-tie) is
one of the best UHF antennas out there.

Pat

On 1/24/2014 9:39 AM, Pat wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:14:39 -0600, wrote:

On 1/24/2014 1:18 AM, micky wrote:
...

What brand was the little one that ddidn't work well?



What brand was the big on ethat worked much better?
....

Both were LG; the difference isn't brand but quality (say price).
You're looking for best sensitivity you can find; unfortunately it's not
much-publicized spec if at all. Which is why I used a local dealer with
whom I have done business before and arranged the loan for trial rather
than just walking into BORG-like place...

To the OP: Note that amplifiers like the one on your "big" antenna can
do more harm than good. Amplifiers amplify both the desired signal
and their own internally generated noise. You want the first thing
that the signal see coming from the antenna to be a low noise
amplifier circuit. In a TV, that may be called the "front end". If
it is external, it is called an amplifier. An old amplifer from the
60's or 70' probably has a worse noise figure than the front end of a
modern TV tuner expecially on the higher UHF frequencies. (In
addition, amplifiers can be overloaded by strong local signals, but I
doubt that is the problem here). If you want the original antenna to
work better, try removing the amp and replace the lead-in with new low
loss cable. It may surpise you. Remember, though, as others have
said, most of your big antenna isn't being used for most of the
stations. Only the small elements (usually in the front) are being
used for UHF. The antenna you consider to be small (a UHF bow-tie) is
one of the best UHF antennas out there.

+2

The interesting thing here is that the OTA stations have stayed on the
VHF band after the switchover...I don't know why that is; perhaps that's
cheaper as avoids some other initial startup costs I'd presume likely?
These are all repeaters, not the main station towers--the stations main
towers are all in Wichita area 200+ mi distant. Not at all like a metro
area out here...if terrain weren't flat and treeless there'd be no
signal at all I expect.

Interestingly, yesterday the one most to the NE wasn't picking up again;
in the cold I didn't go out to see if it has anything to do with the
antenna positioning again in the wind...today's a little warmer, I'll
likely go take a look this afternoon...

--


--

"dpb" wrote in message ...

Interestingly, yesterday the one most to the NE wasn't picking up again;
in the cold I didn't go out to see if it has anything to do with the
antenna positioning again in the wind...today's a little warmer, I'll
likely go take a look this afternoon...


Could be the wind blew the antenna to another direction. It could also be
that the signals vary during to the time of day and and other factors.
Radio/TV signals are not constant at ranges of around 30 or more miles due
to many factors. At the UHF frequencies, snow in the air, snow and leaves
on the trees can effect the signal.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 1/24/2014 11:45 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

wrote in message ...

Interestingly, yesterday the one most to the NE wasn't picking up again;
in the cold I didn't go out to see if it has anything to do with the
antenna positioning again in the wind...today's a little warmer, I'll
likely go take a look this afternoon...


Could be the wind blew the antenna to another direction. It could also be
that the signals vary during to the time of day and and other factors.
Radio/TV signals are not constant at ranges of around 30 or more miles due
to many factors. At the UHF frequencies, snow in the air, snow and leaves
on the trees can effect the signal.

....

Ya' think!!???!!!

"...I didn't go out to see if it has anything to do with the
antenna positioning again in the wind..."

Just came in; indeed, turns out the clamp at the top is loose enough it
rotated there.

I had raised the height 2-3 ft last summer--long story short, Dad
initially built it such that it can be laid down for working on the
antenna. In a big blow last summer it came down 'cuz at that location
where the hole for the bolt thru the pipe was drilled had, over 30+ yr,
cracked and that wind finished it off. While putting it back I
heat-shrunk a short section into the cutoff and then place the top
section over that which is just loose enough I can rotate it with some
effort -- a manual rotator. I'd never gotten around to finishing that
with a clamp until just day before yesterday when it was nice and warm
and I came across the pieces-parts I'd started with in the general shop
cleanup which is underway (and has been since this time last year) and
finished it up. Hence, I was somewhat surprised given that I hadn't
expect the antenna to rotate on the tower itself and I surely thought my
clamp was holding...

The only bad part is that now I can't lay it down so will have to wait
'til I can get the manlift out to get up there to torque it down
tightly...it's surely convenient sometimes to have a 40-ft JLG boom
lift. (That's another story... )

--

dpb wrote:

The interesting thing here is that the OTA stations have stayed on the
VHF band after the switchover...I don't know why that is; perhaps that's
cheaper as avoids some other initial startup costs I'd presume likely?

VHF covers a much wider area and gets better building penetration than UHF. Not
sure what criteria was used for deciding who got to stay in VHF. In fact, I seem
to recall that during the transition, some stations moved up to UHF temporarily
before moving back down into VHF. Some additional detail he
http://www.antennasdirect.com/faqs.html

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.

Mark

Big antenna usually means VHF frequencies for tv antennas. UHF equals
smaller.
Most towns no longer have low band VHF. Some still have upper VHF, and
these little UHF antennas are NOT designed for their reception. Also called
HDTV antennas.

A popular UHF antenna, and pretty good reception is the dual or quad
stacked bow tie, with flat back reflector.

Greg

Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

The signal from that simple antenna is BETTER
than the huge antenna on the house, and there is no amplifier. Plus the
shed roof is lower than the tower I have by the house.

Why would this be?

Because the huge antenna is VHF and the new small one is UHF? They
stopped broadcasting on the VHF band a few years back when everything
went digital. You can still use it for FM radio though.

No, we still have channel 13 in Pittsburgh. The other stations all moved to
UHF digital.

Greg

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

dpb wrote:
On 1/24/2014 9:39 AM, Pat wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:14:39 -0600, wrote:

On 1/24/2014 1:18 AM, micky wrote:
...

What brand was the little one that ddidn't work well?



What brand was the big on ethat worked much better?
....

Both were LG; the difference isn't brand but quality (say price).
You're looking for best sensitivity you can find; unfortunately it's not
much-publicized spec if at all. Which is why I used a local dealer with
whom I have done business before and arranged the loan for trial rather
than just walking into BORG-like place...

To the OP: Note that amplifiers like the one on your "big" antenna can
do more harm than good. Amplifiers amplify both the desired signal
and their own internally generated noise. You want the first thing
that the signal see coming from the antenna to be a low noise
amplifier circuit. In a TV, that may be called the "front end". If
it is external, it is called an amplifier. An old amplifer from the
60's or 70' probably has a worse noise figure than the front end of a
modern TV tuner expecially on the higher UHF frequencies. (In
addition, amplifiers can be overloaded by strong local signals, but I
doubt that is the problem here). If you want the original antenna to
work better, try removing the amp and replace the lead-in with new low
loss cable. It may surpise you. Remember, though, as others have
said, most of your big antenna isn't being used for most of the
stations. Only the small elements (usually in the front) are being
used for UHF. The antenna you consider to be small (a UHF bow-tie) is
one of the best UHF antennas out there.

+2

The interesting thing here is that the OTA stations have stayed on the
VHF band after the switchover...I don't know why that is; perhaps that's
cheaper as avoids some other initial startup costs I'd presume likely?
These are all repeaters, not the main station towers--the stations main
towers are all in Wichita area 200+ mi distant. Not at all like a metro
area out here...if terrain weren't flat and treeless there'd be no signal at all I expect.

Interestingly, yesterday the one most to the NE wasn't picking up again;
in the cold I didn't go out to see if it has anything to do with the
antenna positioning again in the wind...today's a little warmer, I'll
likely go take a look this afternoon...



The FCC probably made them stay. That what happened to channel 13 here.
They were ready to switch to UHF, but FCC said no.

Greg

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 1/24/2014 1:18 AM, micky wrote:
...

What brand was the little one that ddidn't work well?



What brand was the big on ethat worked much better?
....

Both were LG; the difference isn't brand but quality (say price).
You're looking for best sensitivity you can find; unfortunately it's not
much-publicized spec if at all. Which is why I used a local dealer with
whom I have done business before and arranged the loan for trial rather
than just walking into BORG-like place...

Good idea.

thanks.

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:17 -0700, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

dpb wrote:

Not sure what criteria was used for deciding who got to stay in VHF. In fact, I seem
to recall that during the transition, some stations moved up to UHF temporarily
before moving back down into VHF.

The lowest channels used to be the prestige channels. Big buck
network owned stations were often on 2, 3, 4, or 5. When many were
forced to UHF during the transition to digital, they applied to get
their old VHF channel back after the final switch to digital because
"everyone knows lower channels are better". However, it turns out
that multipath, reflections, skip, etc, were a much bigger problem
with digital than analog. Some stations figured that out quickly and
modified their request to stay on UHF after the transition. Others
weren't so quick and are now stuck on a VHF channel because there
aren't anymore UHF openings in their area. Digital is a little better
at avoiding adjacent channel interference, though, so more UHF
channels might be opened up by the FCC soon - not more channels
overall, but more available in an area because channel spacing isn't
as important. There is lots of debate going on about that. In my
area, two stations ended up on VHF (8 and 10). Both have coverage
problems. 10 added a 2nd remote low power transmitter on UHF channel
24 leaving which comes in loud and string here. That leaves 8 as the
only VHF for me. They had requested their old transition UHF channel
back, but it has not yet been approved. Another station claimed
adjacent channel interference would be a problem with that request. I
would love to only need VHF.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:03:55 -0500, Ralph Mowery wrote:

To simplify things the advertising people just give
a rating in miles.

That is just weird. Thanks for clarifying that the
marketing folks classify a TV antenna in distance.

I understand what your point is, which is that distance
equates (loosely) to decibels of gain, but, I wonder
how well they (the advertisers) police themselves?

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:20:12 -0500, Pat wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:17 -0700, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

dpb wrote:

Not sure what criteria was used for deciding who got to stay in VHF. In fact, I seem
to recall that during the transition, some stations moved up to UHF temporarily
before moving back down into VHF.

The lowest channels used to be the prestige channels. Big buck
network owned stations were often on 2, 3, 4, or 5. When many were
forced to UHF during the transition to digital, they applied to get
their old VHF channel back after the final switch to digital because
"everyone knows lower channels are better". However, it turns out
that multipath, reflections, skip, etc, were a much bigger problem
with digital than analog. Some stations figured that out quickly and
modified their request to stay on UHF after the transition. Others
weren't so quick and are now stuck on a VHF channel because there
aren't anymore UHF openings in their area. Digital is a little better
at avoiding adjacent channel interference, though, so more UHF
channels might be opened up by the FCC soon - not more channels
overall, but more available in an area because channel spacing isn't
as important. There is lots of debate going on about that. In my
area, two stations ended up on VHF (8 and 10). Both have coverage
problems. 10 added a 2nd remote low power transmitter on UHF channel
24 leaving which comes in loud and string here. That leaves 8 as the
only VHF for me. They had requested their old transition UHF channel
back, but it has not yet been approved. Another station claimed
adjacent channel interference would be a problem with that request. I
would love to only need VHF.
Oops. That last word was meant to be UHF.

"Danny D." wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:16:50 -0600, Caulking-Gunn wrote:

On my house, I have a large tv antenna that is rated at 100 miles

TV antennas are rated by miles?

They have been doing that for as long as remember, 60's.

The better companies will give more info. DB gain varies between channels.

This is a large UHF antenna rated at 60 miles. Probably one of the best.
Outdoor antennas with long cable runs benefit with amplifier.

http://www.winegard.com/kbase/upload/HD-8800.pdf

Greg