I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I dotn
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messign up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to ake things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Private message

In article
,
stryped wrote:

I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I don't
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messing up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to take things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped

One assumes that use of a tower, rotator and directional antenna, an
expensive option, is necessary.

Be aware that an omnidirectional antenna has far *less* gain than a
directional antenna, and so may not work at all (even with an
amplifier), depending on how far you are from the various transmitting
towers.

It's hard to see how one could misinstall a rotator to cause this
effect. It sounds like your rotator is either worn out, broken or too
small for the antenna.

I would look into replacing the rotator and perhaps the antenna as well.
Local radio amateurs will know what does and does not work in your area.

Joe Gwinn

On Jan 7, 6:27*am, stryped wrote:
I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I dotn
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messign up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to ake things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped


You may be going to a lot of trouble for nothing, all the digital
stuff is pretty much up in what used to be the high-VHF and UHF
region, channel 5 used to be below the FM band and had a lot better
propagation. Might be you can't get your channel 5 anymore. The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic. And most of the long elements on those old TV antennas are
mostly waste metal anymore. Nothing on the air now to pick up at
those frequencies.

You can contact the station and find out which direction they're
beaming their signal. My folks had that problem with a station about
60 miles away, they changed the direction that they were beaming the
signal and reception became crap.

Stan

On Jan 7, 11:45*am, wrote:
On Jan 7, 6:27*am, stryped wrote:

See my antenna description on "Machining Thespians". The rotator
doesn't have to be at the top of the mast. Mine is on the bottom end
where it's accessible. The wind pressure on two ends of the antenna
are fairly well balanced and it doesn't swing out of line unless the
wind is really strong.

jsw

fired this volley in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-
:

The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic.

And there, Stan, is the crucial problem our emergency services planners
didn't think out well.

Not only is fringe area reception spotty, but rain and dust storms can
also interrupt it.

It used to be, you could rely upon a cheap battery-operated TV for
emergency information during major storms. Even a noisy, snowy picture
was (usually) useful for determining, say, storm tracks. Now, the
probability of that working has been reduced to almost zero.

You'd have thought that our far-sighted FCC and other planners of
emergency communications would have reserved ONE analog VHF station per
service area, just for that primary purpose. But no. Now we must rely
upon radio ONLY for crisis communications. That, or we can wait for the
sheriff's deputies to come along the streets with PAs blasting the news.

Hmmm... Town Criers! Who'd have thought we would have "planned"
ourselves back to that.


LLoyd

wrote in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-d077bb9ca909
@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 7, 6:27*am, stryped wrote:
I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I dotn
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messign up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to ake things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped


You may be going to a lot of trouble for nothing, all the digital
stuff is pretty much up in what used to be the high-VHF and UHF
region, channel 5 used to be below the FM band and had a lot better
propagation. Might be you can't get your channel 5 anymore. The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic. And most of the long elements on those old TV antennas are
mostly waste metal anymore. Nothing on the air now to pick up at
those frequencies.

You can contact the station and find out which direction they're
beaming their signal. My folks had that problem with a station about
60 miles away, they changed the direction that they were beaming the
signal and reception became crap.

Stan


Try going to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Welcome.aspx and follow the
"choose an antenna" route.

While it'll ask to send spam, just unclick those boxes and either use the
zip code OR expand the "more options" to provide lat/long addressing.

The results will provide a listing of stations within reach (color-coded
to indicate the type of antenna recommended), their directions, the
distances, RF channel, display channel, etc.

Don't be too surprised when the direction/distance info for several
stations coincide since they're probably being broadcase from the same
tower(s) even though the studios may be far apart...

"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
wrote in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-d077bb9ca909
@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 7, 6:27 am, stryped wrote:
I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I dotn
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messign up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to ake things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped


You may be going to a lot of trouble for nothing, all the digital
stuff is pretty much up in what used to be the high-VHF and UHF
region, channel 5 used to be below the FM band and had a lot better
propagation. Might be you can't get your channel 5 anymore. The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic. And most of the long elements on those old TV antennas are
mostly waste metal anymore. Nothing on the air now to pick up at
those frequencies.

You can contact the station and find out which direction they're
beaming their signal. My folks had that problem with a station about
60 miles away, they changed the direction that they were beaming the
signal and reception became crap.

Stan


Try going to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Welcome.aspx and follow the
"choose an antenna" route.

Wow. That's cool. My Zip code shows I can get 26 broadcast stations. g 17
without a preamp; !2 of them are in yellow.

But no Yankees games. d8-(

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 7, 1:38*pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
.

And there, Stan, is the crucial problem our emergency services planners
didn't think out well.

Not only is fringe area reception spotty, but rain and dust storms can
also interrupt it.

It used to be, you could rely upon a cheap battery-operated TV for
emergency information during major storms. Even a noisy, snowy picture
was (usually) useful for determining, say, storm tracks. * Now, the
probability of that working has been reduced to almost zero.

LLoyd

My HDTV reception is good during storms but the information available
from radio and TV isn't too useful. If any neighbors' phone lines are
still up this is the best source I've found:
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/northeast_loop.php

I think the really important information is whether I'll have enough
time to cut out and repair storm damage or I need to cover it up
solidly enough to withstand a snow load.

jsw

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:08:54 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article
,
stryped wrote:

I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I don't
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messing up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to take things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped

One assumes that use of a tower, rotator and directional antenna, an
expensive option, is necessary.

Be aware that an omnidirectional antenna has far *less* gain than a
directional antenna, and so may not work at all (even with an
amplifier), depending on how far you are from the various transmitting
towers.

It's hard to see how one could misinstall a rotator to cause this
effect. It sounds like your rotator is either worn out, broken or too
small for the antenna.

I would look into replacing the rotator and perhaps the antenna as well.
Local radio amateurs will know what does and does not work in your area.

Joe Gwinn


One of the most common problems with ratators is that the mast clamps
aren't tightened sufficiently and they eventually work free. Align
the rotator to North, aim the antenna north and run a self tapping
screw through the back plate and mast. It won't get out of alignment
again. I do that with my ham antenna. I don't think that putting the
omni on with the directional will help but I could be wrong. If all
else fails, go to satellite service and you won't have to worry about
it. These new digital signals are not as strong as the old analog
signals and if you're not aimed directly at them you will have
problems, or at least tha's my understanding of the situation.

Jim N5COT

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:38:42 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

fired this volley in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-
:

The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic.

And there, Stan, is the crucial problem our emergency services planners
didn't think out well.

Not only is fringe area reception spotty, but rain and dust storms can
also interrupt it.

It used to be, you could rely upon a cheap battery-operated TV for
emergency information during major storms. Even a noisy, snowy picture
was (usually) useful for determining, say, storm tracks. Now, the
probability of that working has been reduced to almost zero.

You'd have thought that our far-sighted FCC and other planners of
emergency communications would have reserved ONE analog VHF station per
service area, just for that primary purpose. But no. Now we must rely
upon radio ONLY for crisis communications. That, or we can wait for the
sheriff's deputies to come along the streets with PAs blasting the news.

Hmmm... Town Criers! Who'd have thought we would have "planned"
ourselves back to that.


LLoyd


The FCC didn't do that to us, Lloyd, it was the idiots in CONGRESS who
passed the law requiring all TV to go to digital. Come Nov 2010 we
will have the opportunity to completely clean house in the Congress.
I, for one, am going to vote against ANY incumbent. I would like to
see ALL of them thrown out on their ears, regardless of party and see
us start over with some people who aren't crooks and who have no ties
to any groups. Wouldn't THAT be great?

Jim

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"RAM³" wrote in message
0...
wrote in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-d077bb9ca909
@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 7, 6:27 am, stryped wrote:
I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is
about 12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations
I want with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem
but now goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on
properly because the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get
one of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5
foot pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect
that antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is
this will give me the little signal boost I need to get the
channel. I dotn want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing
on the tower. DOes this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a
19 Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to
channel 5 and the signal starts messign up and you tune back to a
known good channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good
channels. If you tune the tv off then back on it can get the known
good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the
exact same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town
and it is hard to find time to ake things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped


You may be going to a lot of trouble for nothing, all the digital
stuff is pretty much up in what used to be the high-VHF and UHF
region, channel 5 used to be below the FM band and had a lot better
propagation. Might be you can't get your channel 5 anymore. The
good news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort
of signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in
fringe areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going
to be great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between
fuzzy-ghosty pic. And most of the long elements on those old TV
antennas are mostly waste metal anymore. Nothing on the air now to
pick up at those frequencies.

You can contact the station and find out which direction they're
beaming their signal. My folks had that problem with a station
about 60 miles away, they changed the direction that they were
beaming the signal and reception became crap.

Stan


Try going to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Welcome.aspx and follow
the "choose an antenna" route.

Wow. That's cool. My Zip code shows I can get 26 broadcast stations.
g 17 without a preamp; !2 of them are in yellow.

But no Yankees games. d8-(


Consider yourself fortunate! )

On Jan 7, 11:38*am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
fired this volley in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-
:

The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. *But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic.

And there, Stan, is the crucial problem our emergency services planners
didn't think out well.

Not only is fringe area reception spotty, but rain and dust storms can
also interrupt it.

It used to be, you could rely upon a cheap battery-operated TV for
emergency information during major storms. Even a noisy, snowy picture
was (usually) useful for determining, say, storm tracks. * Now, the
probability of that working has been reduced to almost zero.

You'd have thought that our far-sighted FCC and other planners of
emergency communications would have reserved ONE analog VHF station per
service area, just for that primary purpose. *But no. *Now we must rely
upon radio ONLY for crisis communications. *That, or we can wait for the
sheriff's deputies to come along the streets with PAs blasting the news.

Hmmm... Town Criers! *Who'd have thought we would have "planned"
ourselves back to that.

LLoyd

The old low TV channel frequencies are supposed to be auctioned off to
the highest bidder and the congress critters have their beady little
eyes and itchy palms on those potential billions. So that's the
reason there's NO VHF TV signals allowed. Can you say "cell phone"
and "WiFi"? I knew you could.

Stan

Jim Chandler wrote:

One of the most common problems with ratators is that the mast clamps
aren't tightened sufficiently and they eventually work free. Align
the rotator to North, aim the antenna north and run a self tapping
screw through the back plate and mast.


Great, as long as some stations aren't almost due north, causing you
to run the rotor from end to end to move a couple degrees. I used to
install them facing east, where there were no local stations. The old
Alliance U98 or U100 rotors have a dial that could be rotated. The CDR
AR22 did the same thing.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

fired this volley in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-
:

The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic.

And there, Stan, is the crucial problem our emergency services planners
didn't think out well.

Not only is fringe area reception spotty, but rain and dust storms can
also interrupt it.

It used to be, you could rely upon a cheap battery-operated TV for
emergency information during major storms. Even a noisy, snowy picture
was (usually) useful for determining, say, storm tracks. Now, the
probability of that working has been reduced to almost zero.

You'd have thought that our far-sighted FCC and other planners of
emergency communications would have reserved ONE analog VHF station per
service area, just for that primary purpose. But no. Now we must rely
upon radio ONLY for crisis communications. That, or we can wait for the
sheriff's deputies to come along the streets with PAs blasting the news.

Hmmm... Town Criers! Who'd have thought we would have "planned"
ourselves back to that.


The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

On Jan 7, 6:10*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
...The old
Alliance U98 or U100 rotors have a dial that could be rotated. *The CDR
AR22 did the same thing.

The stop on my AR-22 is due west.

It was in a basket of dead rotators and control boxes I bought at a
ham flea market around 1985. All it needed was a new motor capacitor
and some scrubbing of the contact disks. I picked up the antennas
about the same time and have been cleaning and patching them every few
years, and slowly converting them to home-made. They are much easier
to scrub clean with removeable screwed connections instead of the
original rivets. OX-GARD ("monkey snot") protects the contacts and F
connectors for several years.

The next project will be a new UHF dipole tuned to the highest local
station, using a plastic project box for the center insulator. The box
will protect the balun from the weather. I'd love to have a spectrum
or network analyzer to tune it and check the cables but everyone who
has one for sale unfortunately knows what it's worth.

I disposed of several million worth of HP 8753C's etc at MITRE, all
Air Force property that I couldn't bid on. Likewise I got rid of a 13"
South Bend I really wanted to take home but couldn't.

jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Try going to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Welcome.aspx and follow the
"choose an antenna" route.

Wow. That's cool. My Zip code shows I can get 26 broadcast stations. g 17
without a preamp; !2 of them are in yellow.

I could get all of two. ABC and PBS. I'll stick with Dish.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Try going to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Welcome.aspx and follow the
"choose an antenna" route.

Wow. That's cool. My Zip code shows I can get 26 broadcast stations. g
17
without a preamp; !2 of them are in yellow.

I could get all of two. ABC and PBS. I'll stick with Dish.

Wes

Some of mine are duplicates, anyway: New York (yellow) and Philadelphia
(mostly violet) I may have access to 15 distinct stations.

This may be one of the best reception areas in the country. The ideal is
probably ten or fifteen miles southwest of me.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Some of mine are duplicates, anyway: New York (yellow) and Philadelphia
(mostly violet) I may have access to 15 distinct stations.

This may be one of the best reception areas in the country. The ideal is
probably ten or fifteen miles southwest of me.


That comes from the population density. Your area can support that number
of stations.

My two choices West and South, 22 and 32 miles away come from an antenna,
56 degrees, 11.7
miles away (somewhat East for those not paying attention). Go figure.
Must be one tall
hill there.

Wes

I'm spoiled, but I remember having just two stations, in Pennsylvania. I
didn't watch much TV then, but if I missed a favorite show, it was a
disaster.

--
Ed Huntress

stryped wrote:
I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I dotn
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messign up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to ake things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Private message

Before investing any additional time and money, consult the following
web site:

http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx

Plug in your address and elevation of your rig.
The report generated will tell you which level of antenna gain will pull
in which stations and their respective directions.

I currently use a DB8 with a pre-amp signal distributor. The antenna is
directional but has a wide field for short to mid-range stations.
Longest pull in without distortion is 70 miles with my current set up.

Another thing to keep in mind. The station your trying to pull in may be
operating at a lower power output to perform signal testing, has not
installed new equipment to complete conversion, or to prevent
interference with another station operating in your region.

As for putting one antenna over another, you may run into a signal
mixing problem. Old analog, the problem would manifest as a ghost in the
video. In the digital realm, it screws up the audio and can pixelate(?)
the video. General rule, 2 antennas 2 poles 2 feeds. Switch or multiplex
inside the building.

Good luck sorting this out.

Jim Vrzal
Holiday, Fl.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:31:50 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Try going to http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/Welcome.aspx and follow the
"choose an antenna" route.

Wow. That's cool. My Zip code shows I can get 26 broadcast stations. g 17
without a preamp; !2 of them are in yellow.

I could get all of two. ABC and PBS. I'll stick with Dish.

I get one channel and dropped Dish.

Hey, why are you guys responding to the known stryped troll, anyway?
You all (should) know better.

--
We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession
with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution
and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:

fired this volley in news:8d0c8279-66a3-4b3c-9db1-
:

The good
news with the new digital stuff is that if you can get any sort of
signal strength, the picture is likely to be good, better in fringe
areas than with the old analog stuff. But it's either going to be
great or you aren't going to get it at all, no in-between fuzzy-ghosty
pic.

And there, Stan, is the crucial problem our emergency services planners
didn't think out well.

Not only is fringe area reception spotty, but rain and dust storms can
also interrupt it.

It used to be, you could rely upon a cheap battery-operated TV for
emergency information during major storms. Even a noisy, snowy picture
was (usually) useful for determining, say, storm tracks. Now, the
probability of that working has been reduced to almost zero.

You'd have thought that our far-sighted FCC and other planners of
emergency communications would have reserved ONE analog VHF station per
service area, just for that primary purpose. But no. Now we must rely
upon radio ONLY for crisis communications. That, or we can wait for the
sheriff's deputies to come along the streets with PAs blasting the news.

Hmmm... Town Criers! Who'd have thought we would have "planned"
ourselves back to that.


The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the Supreme
Court, and always do.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Jim Chandler wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:08:54 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article
,
stryped wrote:

I have a very old large Radio Shack directional antenna that is about
12 years old. It is on top of a tower. I get all the stations I want
with the exception of channel 5 that used to be no problem but now
goes in and out. I have a rotor but it was not put on properly because
the wind blows the antenna around.

ANyway, I am tired of fooling with it. What I want to do is to get one
of those round, omni directional antennas and mount it on a 5 foot
pole on top of the existing antenna, use a diplexer to connect that
antenna to my new antenna, and be done with it. My thinking is this
will give me the little signal boost I need to get the channel. I don't
want to fool with this very much as I hate climbing on the tower. DOes
this sound like it will work?

One reason for wanting to increase the signal is I bought my wife a 19
Dynex tv for Christmas. great picture. But when you tune to channel 5
and the signal starts messing up and you tune back to a known good
channel the tuner messes up and can now get no good channels. If you
tune the tv off then back on it can get the known good channel now.

I took the tv back and got another one and the new one did the exact
same thing. I am so frustrated. I live a long way from town and it is
hard to find time to take things back, etc.

ANy advice is appreciated!stryped

One assumes that use of a tower, rotator and directional antenna, an
expensive option, is necessary.

Be aware that an omnidirectional antenna has far *less* gain than a
directional antenna, and so may not work at all (even with an
amplifier), depending on how far you are from the various transmitting
towers.

It's hard to see how one could misinstall a rotator to cause this
effect. It sounds like your rotator is either worn out, broken or too
small for the antenna.

I would look into replacing the rotator and perhaps the antenna as well.
Local radio amateurs will know what does and does not work in your area.

Joe Gwinn


One of the most common problems with ratators is that the mast clamps
aren't tightened sufficiently and they eventually work free. Align
the rotator to North, aim the antenna north and run a self tapping
screw through the back plate and mast. It won't get out of alignment
again. I do that with my ham antenna. I don't think that putting the
omni on with the directional will help but I could be wrong. If all
else fails, go to satellite service and you won't have to worry about
it. These new digital signals are not as strong as the old analog
signals and if you're not aimed directly at them you will have
problems, or at least tha's my understanding of the situation.

I thought they all came with the anti-rotation feature. Oh well. I do
recall lots of discussion in the 1950s and 1960s abut who made good and
bad rotators, and there was a wide variation in rotator quality. My
father's solution was to figure out where the various stations were, and
build a rhombic antenna point in at the most distant. The rhombic was
in the attic and built of #14 bare wire, straight out of the Radio
Amateurs' Handbook. Cheap, simple, and worked just fine with the black
and white TVs of the day.

Joe Gwinn

In article
,
Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Jan 7, 11:45*am, wrote:
On Jan 7, 6:27*am, stryped wrote:

See my antenna description on "Machining Thespians". The rotator
doesn't have to be at the top of the mast. Mine is on the bottom end
where it's accessible. The wind pressure on two ends of the antenna
are fairly well balanced and it doesn't swing out of line unless the
wind is really strong.

Be aware that such a well-balanced antenna still experience aerodynamic
torque from the wind, the torque tending to align the antenna broadside
to the wind.

The search term is Rayleigh Disk acoustic radiometer.

Deep theory: http://www.archive.org/details/acoustictorquesf00kell

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was *ever*
really run by non-lawyers.

Joe Gwinn

On Jan 12, 8:14*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
...
Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was *ever*
really run by non-lawyers.

Joe Gwinn

The government by its nature doesn't create, it only redistributes.
Otherwise it would be in unfair competition with the private
enterprise it's supposed to regulate fairly and even-handedly. We
don't stick to that completely, the Federal Reserve, NASA and the many
FFRDCs are in a grey area that trades philosophy for efficiency and
permanence. They inhabit the .ORG domain even if they act like .GOV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ment_ centers

Because of that the government isn't necessarily a good place for
really creative and ambitious engineers to work, unless they seek
management positions.

jsw

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was *ever*
really run by non-lawyers.


Have you ever read the 'early' history of the FCC?


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was *ever*
really run by non-lawyers.


Have you ever read the 'early' history of the FCC?

I learned it from my engineering colleagues the oldtimers who joined the
FCC during the Depression.

But perhaps you have a URL or reference to offer.

But I bet that the official history differs from that recounted by those
oldtimers in precisely the most telling areas.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers in
charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was *ever*
really run by non-lawyers.


Have you ever read the 'early' history of the FCC?

I learned it from my engineering colleagues the oldtimers who joined the
FCC during the Depression.

But perhaps you have a URL or reference to offer.


I had access to a private library in the '70s at what had been a
Crosley plant. It held their archives, including FCC documents, in get
this: REAL BOOKS where they described the work required to straighten
out the AM broadcast mess, their early work on TV standards and the
issues of Amateur radio. How many of your old timers were there in the
first few years of the FCC



But I bet that the official history differs from that recounted by those
oldtimers in precisely the most telling areas.


BTW, Joseph, tell us what you know about 'Courtesy' Radio & TV
broadcast licenses. Specifically the power specifications and
expiration dates, and how they differ from commercial broadcast
licenses.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers
in charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor
could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does
the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are
usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the
Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the
lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions
made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I
have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was
*ever*
really run by non-lawyers.


Have you ever read the 'early' history of the FCC?

I learned it from my engineering colleagues the oldtimers who joined the
FCC during the Depression.

But perhaps you have a URL or reference to offer.

I had access to a private library in the '70s at what had been a
Crosley plant. It held their archives, including FCC documents, in get
this: REAL BOOKS where they described the work required to straighten
out the AM broadcast mess, their early work on TV standards and the
issues of Amateur radio. How many of your old timers were there in the
first few years of the FCC

All of them, I think. The FCC was founded in 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission


But I bet that the official history differs from that recounted by those
oldtimers in precisely the most telling areas.


BTW, Joseph, tell us what you know about 'Courtesy' Radio & TV
broadcast licenses. Specifically the power specifications and
expiration dates, and how they differ from commercial broadcast
licenses.

Nothing. I was not in the Broadcast Bureau, I was in the Office of the
Chief Engineer.

But I can guess - Courtesy licenses had far better terms than other
kinds of license. The Broadcast Bureau was easily the most political
part of the FCC, because Congress cared deeply what the broadcasters
thought. Something about the power of the press and don't get into
fights with people who buy ink (or by extension electrons) by the
barrel. What Congress did *not* care abut was technical issues.

And you have proven my point that engineers have never and will never be
running regulatory agencies.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the engineers
in charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor
could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency does
the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are
usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the
Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the
lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'. Decisions
made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I
have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was
*ever*
really run by non-lawyers.


Have you ever read the 'early' history of the FCC?

I learned it from my engineering colleagues the oldtimers who joined the
FCC during the Depression.

But perhaps you have a URL or reference to offer.

I had access to a private library in the '70s at what had been a
Crosley plant. It held their archives, including FCC documents, in get
this: REAL BOOKS where they described the work required to straighten
out the AM broadcast mess, their early work on TV standards and the
issues of Amateur radio. How many of your old timers were there in the
first few years of the FCC

All of them, I think. The FCC was founded in 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

But I bet that the official history differs from that recounted by those
oldtimers in precisely the most telling areas.


BTW, Joseph, tell us what you know about 'Courtesy' Radio & TV
broadcast licenses. Specifically the power specifications and
expiration dates, and how they differ from commercial broadcast
licenses.

Nothing. I was not in the Broadcast Bureau, I was in the Office of the
Chief Engineer.

But I can guess - Courtesy licenses had far better terms than other
kinds of license. The Broadcast Bureau was easily the most political
part of the FCC, because Congress cared deeply what the broadcasters
thought. Something about the power of the press and don't get into
fights with people who buy ink (or by extension electrons) by the
barrel. What Congress did *not* care abut was technical issues.

And you have proven my point that engineers have never and will never be
running regulatory agencies.


Courtesy license were issued to military radio & TV stations. They
were issued for place keeping only, and to prevent a commercial station
being licensed on the same area and frequencies. It had nothing to do
with politics. The differences in the two licenses we Power level:
The license stated the initial power at the time it was issued, with the
disclaimer, "OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY". The expiration date was: "UNTIL
NO LONGER NEEDED". There are a lot of old records in the online FCC
database, but no record of the stations I engineered at, at Ft. Greely
in the early '70s.


The FCC replaced the DOC as the ruling agency, and their first job
was to cleaN up the mess of radio stations that interfered with each
other. Once again this was an engineering problem, not political.
Stations had been allowed on the air with little or no control.

Early TV has similar problems, requiring the realignment of channel
and power assignments. This was an engineering problem, not politics.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The FCC is run by lawyers. They did away with the
engineers
in charge, a long time ago.

Umm. I worked for the FCC in the early 1970s, in The Office of
The
Chief Engineer. The FCC was run by lawyers back then too. Nor
could it
be otherwise for any regulatory agency, as whatever the Agency
does
the
loser always takes the agency to Federal Court. Plaintiffs are
usually
billion-dollar companies, so they can afford to take it to the
Supreme
Court, and always do.


Earlier, the FCC was the domain of engineers. By the '70s the
lawyers
had completed the transition into 'The Vast Wasteland'.
Decisions
made
for political reasons, instead of sound engineering.

When did you work at the FCC?

Given the political and legal environment of a regulatory agency, I
have
a lot of trouble believing that any federal regulatory agency was
*ever*
really run by non-lawyers.


Have you ever read the 'early' history of the FCC?

I learned it from my engineering colleagues the oldtimers who joined
the
FCC during the Depression.

But perhaps you have a URL or reference to offer.

I had access to a private library in the '70s at what had been a
Crosley plant. It held their archives, including FCC documents, in get
this: REAL BOOKS where they described the work required to straighten
out the AM broadcast mess, their early work on TV standards and the
issues of Amateur radio. How many of your old timers were there in the
first few years of the FCC

All of them, I think. The FCC was founded in 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

But I bet that the official history differs from that recounted by
those
oldtimers in precisely the most telling areas.


BTW, Joseph, tell us what you know about 'Courtesy' Radio & TV
broadcast licenses. Specifically the power specifications and
expiration dates, and how they differ from commercial broadcast
licenses.

Nothing. I was not in the Broadcast Bureau, I was in the Office of the
Chief Engineer.

But I can guess - Courtesy licenses had far better terms than other
kinds of license. The Broadcast Bureau was easily the most political
part of the FCC, because Congress cared deeply what the broadcasters
thought. Something about the power of the press and don't get into
fights with people who buy ink (or by extension electrons) by the
barrel. What Congress did *not* care abut was technical issues.

And you have proven my point that engineers have never and will never be
running regulatory agencies.


Courtesy license were issued to military radio & TV stations. They
were issued for place keeping only, and to prevent a commercial station
being licensed on the same area and frequencies. It had nothing to do
with politics. The differences in the two licenses we Power level:
The license stated the initial power at the time it was issued, with the
disclaimer, "OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY". The expiration date was: "UNTIL
NO LONGER NEEDED". There are a lot of old records in the online FCC
database, but no record of the stations I engineered at, at Ft. Greely
in the early '70s.

What a letdown. By your presentation, I suspected dark undercurrents.


The FCC replaced the DOC as the ruling agency, and their first job
was to clean up the mess of radio stations that interfered with each
other. Once again this was an engineering problem, not political.
Stations had been allowed on the air with little or no control.

Early TV has similar problems, requiring the realignment of channel
and power assignments. This was an engineering problem, not politics.

Well, neither of us were at the FCC during this period, but having
worked there I have a lot of difficulty believing that they were ever
free of politics.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Courtesy license were issued to military radio & TV stations. They
were issued for place keeping only, and to prevent a commercial station
being licensed on the same area and frequencies. It had nothing to do
with politics. The differences in the two licenses we Power level:
The license stated the initial power at the time it was issued, with the
disclaimer, "OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY". The expiration date was: "UNTIL
NO LONGER NEEDED". There are a lot of old records in the online FCC
database, but no record of the stations I engineered at, at Ft. Greely
in the early '70s.

What a letdown. By your presentation, I suspected dark undercurrents.


Most people have never even heard of a Courtesy license, let alone
have any idea what they were. A lot of broadcast engineers have never
heard of them, or seen one.


The FCC replaced the DOC as the ruling agency, and their first job
was to clean up the mess of radio stations that interfered with each
other. Once again this was an engineering problem, not political.
Stations had been allowed on the air with little or no control.

Early TV has similar problems, requiring the realignment of channel
and power assignments. This was an engineering problem, not politics.

Well, neither of us were at the FCC during this period, but having
worked there I have a lot of difficulty believing that they were ever
free of politics.

Joe Gwinn


Joe, the FCC was created because the DOC was purely political, and
screwed up everything. They were to created to fix the technical
problems. Once that was taken care of, the FCC turned into a typical,
lawyer driven government agency. After all, someone had to fine the
stations that didn't comply to their new rules.

Do you know about the first TV channel realignment? When the '150
mile rule' went into effect, a lot of TV stations had to move to a
different channel.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Jan 7, 6:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
...The old
Alliance U98 or U100 rotors have a dial that could be rotated. The CDR
AR22 did the same thing.

The stop on my AR-22 is due west.

It was in a basket of dead rotators and control boxes I bought at a
ham flea market around 1985. All it needed was a new motor capacitor
and some scrubbing of the contact disks. I picked up the antennas
about the same time and have been cleaning and patching them every few
years, and slowly converting them to home-made. They are much easier
to scrub clean with removeable screwed connections instead of the
original rivets. OX-GARD ("monkey snot") protects the contacts and F
connectors for several years.

The next project will be a new UHF dipole tuned to the highest local
station, using a plastic project box for the center insulator. The box
will protect the balun from the weather. I'd love to have a spectrum
or network analyzer to tune it and check the cables but everyone who
has one for sale unfortunately knows what it's worth.

I disposed of several million worth of HP 8753C's etc at MITRE, all
Air Force property that I couldn't bid on. Likewise I got rid of a 13"
South Bend I really wanted to take home but couldn't.


I have a Polorad SA that I haven't been able to find a manual for.
Some 'tech' unsoldered a wad of wires in one of the power supplies, so I
can't trace the 20+ missing connections to troubleshoot it. I don't
have the model number handy, and it isn't on my 'Projects list' on theis
computer.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Courtesy license were issued to military radio & TV stations. They
were issued for place keeping only, and to prevent a commercial station
being licensed on the same area and frequencies. It had nothing to do
with politics. The differences in the two licenses we Power level:
The license stated the initial power at the time it was issued, with the
disclaimer, "OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY". The expiration date was: "UNTIL
NO LONGER NEEDED". There are a lot of old records in the online FCC
database, but no record of the stations I engineered at, at Ft. Greely
in the early '70s.

What a letdown. By your presentation, I suspected dark undercurrents.

Most people have never even heard of a Courtesy license, let alone
have any idea what they were. A lot of broadcast engineers have never
heard of them, or seen one.

Well, as I said, I was not in the Broadcast Bureau.


The FCC replaced the DOC as the ruling agency, and their first job
was to clean up the mess of radio stations that interfered with each
other. Once again this was an engineering problem, not political.
Stations had been allowed on the air with little or no control.

Early TV has similar problems, requiring the realignment of channel
and power assignments. This was an engineering problem, not politics.

Well, neither of us were at the FCC during this period, but having
worked there I have a lot of difficulty believing that they were ever
free of politics.

Joe Gwinn


Joe, the FCC was created because the DOC was purely political, and
screwed up everything. They were to created to fix the technical
problems. Once that was taken care of, the FCC turned into a typical,
lawyer driven government agency. After all, someone had to fine the
stations that didn't comply to their new rules.

Do you know about the first TV channel realignment? When the '150
mile rule' went into effect, a lot of TV stations had to move to a
different channel.


I always guessed that after the FCC came into existence, there had to be
adjustments, as there were lots of problems with cochannel
intereference, and also with adjacent-channel interference (because TV
receivers didn't have to be that good, for economic reasons). There was
not going to be a no-impact solution. When I got there all this was
managed using a stack of big paper maps with the theoretical coverage
areas drawn on the maps for the co- and adajecent channels. I was
involved in replacing these maps with computers, at least for land
mobile radio services.


Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Courtesy license were issued to military radio & TV stations. They
were issued for place keeping only, and to prevent a commercial station
being licensed on the same area and frequencies. It had nothing to do
with politics. The differences in the two licenses we Power level:
The license stated the initial power at the time it was issued, with the
disclaimer, "OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY". The expiration date was: "UNTIL
NO LONGER NEEDED". There are a lot of old records in the online FCC
database, but no record of the stations I engineered at, at Ft. Greely
in the early '70s.

What a letdown. By your presentation, I suspected dark undercurrents.

Most people have never even heard of a Courtesy license, let alone
have any idea what they were. A lot of broadcast engineers have never
heard of them, or seen one.

Well, as I said, I was not in the Broadcast Bureau.

The FCC replaced the DOC as the ruling agency, and their first job
was to clean up the mess of radio stations that interfered with each
other. Once again this was an engineering problem, not political.
Stations had been allowed on the air with little or no control.

Early TV has similar problems, requiring the realignment of channel
and power assignments. This was an engineering problem, not politics.

Well, neither of us were at the FCC during this period, but having
worked there I have a lot of difficulty believing that they were ever
free of politics.

Joe Gwinn


Joe, the FCC was created because the DOC was purely political, and
screwed up everything. They were to created to fix the technical
problems. Once that was taken care of, the FCC turned into a typical,
lawyer driven government agency. After all, someone had to fine the
stations that didn't comply to their new rules.

Do you know about the first TV channel realignment? When the '150
mile rule' went into effect, a lot of TV stations had to move to a
different channel.

I always guessed that after the FCC came into existence, there had to be
adjustments, as there were lots of problems with cochannel
intereference, and also with adjacent-channel interference (because TV
receivers didn't have to be that good, for economic reasons). There was
not going to be a no-impact solution. When I got there all this was
managed using a stack of big paper maps with the theoretical coverage
areas drawn on the maps for the co- and adajecent channels. I was
involved in replacing these maps with computers, at least for land
mobile radio services.


That sounds like no fun, considering a lot of them had errors. Also,
during that time some 'so called' frequency coordinators really screwed
up and did things like allowing a fleet of school buses on frequencies
reserved for ambulance service. Not only did they refuse to correct the
mistake, the bus drivers intentionally interfered with the dispatch of
ambulances.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[snip]
I always guessed that after the FCC came into existence, there had to be
adjustments, as there were lots of problems with cochannel
intereference, and also with adjacent-channel interference (because TV
receivers didn't have to be that good, for economic reasons). There was
not going to be a no-impact solution. When I got there all this was
managed using a stack of big paper maps with the theoretical coverage
areas drawn on the maps for the co- and adajecent channels. I was
involved in replacing these maps with computers, at least for land
mobile radio services.


That sounds like no fun, considering a lot of them had errors. Also,
during that time some 'so called' frequency coordinators really screwed
up and did things like allowing a fleet of school buses on frequencies
reserved for ambulance service. Not only did they refuse to correct the
mistake, the bus drivers intentionally interfered with the dispatch of
ambulances.

We (the staff of the FCC) knew that the maps and the then "licensee
database" (really a big print file) were riddled with errors, and so
made all licensees reapply for their licenses (at no cost). The biggest
problem was that the latitudes and longitudes were usually in error,
sometimes grossly so, and it mattered because we were going to use
propagation models running on these newfangled computers to predict
actual service areas and required spacings, all in an effort to pack
more users into a given geographic area. Crosschecking zipcodes (which
were also new then) with latitudes and longitudes helped a lot.

The founding articles on cell phone technology were published at the
same time. AT&T was going to implement the technology, but the rest of
industry (led by Motorola) appealed to the FCC to stop this, to instead
allow unregulated industry to do the job, and this is what happened.
Although nobody realized that cell phones would one day displace land
lines.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[snip]
I always guessed that after the FCC came into existence, there had to be
adjustments, as there were lots of problems with cochannel
intereference, and also with adjacent-channel interference (because TV
receivers didn't have to be that good, for economic reasons). There was
not going to be a no-impact solution. When I got there all this was
managed using a stack of big paper maps with the theoretical coverage
areas drawn on the maps for the co- and adajecent channels. I was
involved in replacing these maps with computers, at least for land
mobile radio services.


That sounds like no fun, considering a lot of them had errors. Also,
during that time some 'so called' frequency coordinators really screwed
up and did things like allowing a fleet of school buses on frequencies
reserved for ambulance service. Not only did they refuse to correct the
mistake, the bus drivers intentionally interfered with the dispatch of
ambulances.

We (the staff of the FCC) knew that the maps and the then "licensee
database" (really a big print file) were riddled with errors, and so
made all licensees reapply for their licenses (at no cost). The biggest
problem was that the latitudes and longitudes were usually in error,
sometimes grossly so, and it mattered because we were going to use
propagation models running on these newfangled computers to predict
actual service areas and required spacings, all in an effort to pack
more users into a given geographic area. Crosschecking zipcodes (which
were also new then) with latitudes and longitudes helped a lot.

The founding articles on cell phone technology were published at the
same time. AT&T was going to implement the technology, but the rest of
industry (led by Motorola) appealed to the FCC to stop this, to instead
allow unregulated industry to do the job, and this is what happened.
Although nobody realized that cell phones would one day displace land
lines.


I remember when Motorola offered to give up all their old mobile
phone frequencies to get what they wanted for cellular service. Some
idiots thought that they could set up their own mobile phone service if
they could get the licenses. They were too stupid to realize that the
startup cost was huge, and that the manufacturers would stop making new
equipment after Motorola shut down that service. Not only were the
startup costs high, but you needed an operator on duty 24/7 and
customers couldn't 'roam' and still use their old car or briefcase
phones. BTW, I repaired one of those briefcase phones and had to
replace the 'Gates' lead acid batteries. They were over half the weight
of that crappy phone.

As far as an organized system, that is like when HBO had the
Videochiper II developed to scramble C-band TV signals. They wanted to
set up a single clearinghouse for everyone who used the scrambling, but
the sat TV dealers didn't like that. We ended up with a real mess.
Sometimes you had to change vendors to get a new channel. Others were
over billing, terminating service on paid accounts, or randomly dropping
channels from your package and claiming nothing was wrong.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[snip]
I always guessed that after the FCC came into existence, there had to be
adjustments, as there were lots of problems with cochannel
intereference, and also with adjacent-channel interference (because TV
receivers didn't have to be that good, for economic reasons). There was
not going to be a no-impact solution. When I got there all this was
managed using a stack of big paper maps with the theoretical coverage
areas drawn on the maps for the co- and adajecent channels. I was
involved in replacing these maps with computers, at least for land
mobile radio services.


That sounds like no fun, considering a lot of them had errors. Also,
during that time some 'so called' frequency coordinators really screwed
up and did things like allowing a fleet of school buses on frequencies
reserved for ambulance service. Not only did they refuse to correct the
mistake, the bus drivers intentionally interfered with the dispatch of
ambulances.

We (the staff of the FCC) knew that the maps and the then "licensee
database" (really a big print file) were riddled with errors, and so
made all licensees reapply for their licenses (at no cost). The biggest
problem was that the latitudes and longitudes were usually in error,
sometimes grossly so, and it mattered because we were going to use
propagation models running on these newfangled computers to predict
actual service areas and required spacings, all in an effort to pack
more users into a given geographic area. Crosschecking zipcodes (which
were also new then) with latitudes and longitudes helped a lot.

The founding articles on cell phone technology were published at the
same time. AT&T was going to implement the technology, but the rest of
industry (led by Motorola) appealed to the FCC to stop this, to instead
allow unregulated industry to do the job, and this is what happened.
Although nobody realized that cell phones would one day displace land
lines.


I remember when Motorola offered to give up all their old mobile
phone frequencies to get what they wanted for cellular service. Some
idiots thought that they could set up their own mobile phone service if
they could get the licenses. They were too stupid to realize that the
startup cost was huge, and that the manufacturers would stop making new
equipment after Motorola shut down that service. Not only were the
startup costs high, but you needed an operator on duty 24/7 and
customers couldn't 'roam' and still use their old car or briefcase
phones.

No, they knew that startup costs were larger than they could handle. Th
game was to block a billion=dollar company, who would then pay to make
the problem go away. A number of fortunes were founded in this manner.


Joe Gwinn


BTW, I repaired one of those briefcase phones and had to
replace the 'Gates' lead acid batteries. They were over half the weight
of that crappy phone.

As far as an organized system, that is like when HBO had the
Videochiper II developed to scramble C-band TV signals. They wanted to
set up a single clearinghouse for everyone who used the scrambling, but
the sat TV dealers didn't like that. We ended up with a real mess.
Sometimes you had to change vendors to get a new channel. Others were
over billing, terminating service on paid accounts, or randomly dropping
channels from your package and claiming nothing was wrong.

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

No, they knew that startup costs were larger than they could handle. Th
game was to block a billion=dollar company, who would then pay to make
the problem go away. A number of fortunes were founded in this manner.


Some only found out after they did a little research. Local two way
radio shops with dreams of being billionaires when they couldn't take
care of the few customers they already had. It was fun bursting their
bubbles, for a while. It quickly turned into shooting fish in a barrel.



--
Greed is the root of all eBay.