The draft DIY digital TV intro article is he

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV

Feel free to add to it directly (or post stuff here...)

Doing that one prompted a bit of a revamp or the TV aerial one - I have
added some tips on DIYing these - but you may be able to think of mo

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_aerial

A bit that was in there - but seemed out of place was on VHF aerials.
That is now waiting for some embellishment to turn it into a proper
article. (I am not sure how realistic its claims are anyway - never
having tried using a TV aerial for radio). Any thoughts?:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=VHF_aerial

(Could probably do with some sections on dimple dipoles, yagi, and the
(in)famous halo etc).

There is one on aerial plugs:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...V_aerial_plugs

Another on cable:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...for_TV_aerials

And finally one one amps:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...rial_amplifier

(note, due to spammers some of these articles are only editable if you
create yourself an account on the DIY wiki first)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
The draft DIY digital TV intro article is he

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV

Feel free to add to it directly (or post stuff here...)

Doing that one prompted a bit of a revamp or the TV aerial one - I have
added some tips on DIYing these - but you may be able to think of mo

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_aerial

A bit that was in there - but seemed out of place was on VHF aerials. That
is now waiting for some embellishment to turn it into a proper article. (I
am not sure how realistic its claims are anyway - never having tried using
a TV aerial for radio). Any thoughts?:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=VHF_aerial

(Could probably do with some sections on dimple dipoles, yagi, and the
(in)famous halo etc).

There is one on aerial plugs:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...V_aerial_plugs

Another on cable:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...for_TV_aerials

And finally one one amps:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...rial_amplifier

(note, due to spammers some of these articles are only editable if you
create yourself an account on the DIY wiki first)

Yes it's coming along nicely now.
One typo and one factual
1 "*Personally* Video Recorders"
2 name the additional channels that a FTV card will decode

Also explain that an ex-Sky subscription card is in effect a FTV card.

I think there is a need to explain more fully the differences between
the two Freesats, I think you need to separate it from the SKY heading.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:

Yes it's coming along nicely now.
One typo and one factual
1 "*Personally* Video Recorders"

ta - fixed

2 name the additional channels that a FTV card will decode

Added link to wikipedia article on this (moving target, so may as well
let some one else keep up! ;-)

Also explain that an ex-Sky subscription card is in effect a FTV card.

Yup, good point

I think there is a need to explain more fully the differences between
the two Freesats, I think you need to separate it from the SKY heading.

What, add "Freesat from sky" as a separate heading you mean?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Graham. wrote:

Yes it's coming along nicely now.
One typo and one factual
1 "*Personally* Video Recorders"

ta - fixed

2 name the additional channels that a FTV card will decode

Added link to wikipedia article on this (moving target, so may as well let
some one else keep up! ;-)

Also explain that an ex-Sky subscription card is in effect a FTV card.

Yup, good point

I think there is a need to explain more fully the differences between
the two Freesats, I think you need to separate it from the SKY heading.

What, add "Freesat from sky" as a separate heading you mean?



Reading it again more carefully I now think the heading structure is good.
Maybe I have to invoke that dreadful "disambiguation" word.

"Freesat from Sky" is a product that comprises a digibox, a card
and a dish (with installation if required) all for a one off payment of
£146.81

You can DIY with a second-hand digibox and an existing dish, or erect
one yourself.
You can buy a Freesat card from Sky for £20 or obtain one from an
ex-subscriber.
You would then have the equivalent of the "Freesat from Sky" product.

There is some stuff that's appeared in the Wiki today that I don't like.
Bill's balun paragraph is very informative but not appropriate here.
Advocating CAI approval is enough and, for example removes the
need to explain the anomaly of no balun in a L.P.

Why do we need to mention the DAT45 by name?
If we must do so, then it belongs under the Wideband heading.

Some thoughts about the extreme installation section
Most pro installers have never done any stacking or baying
At most, a link to a specialist site in the webliography.

Aerial amplifiers are not just for extreme installations

Explain the advantages of putting the amplifier before long
cable runs (DIYers rarely appreciate this important point)
and the way they can be conveniently line-powered

Am I correct in thinking the remit we have set ourselves excludes
distribution, and that left for a separate wiki? I think that would
be best.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:13:14 -0000 someone who may be "Graham."
wrote this:-

Am I correct in thinking the remit we have set ourselves excludes
distribution, and that left for a separate wiki? I think that would
be best.

It would be. An article on distribution will be long by the time it
has gone through things like satellite and terrestrial signals down
one cable to the socket.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mar 4, 1:13*pm, "Graham." wrote:

"Freesat from Sky" is a product that comprises a digibox, a card
and a dish (with installation if required) all for a one off payment of
£146.81

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Official price on the Sky web site seems to be £73.40 these days.

http://www.freesatfromsky.co.uk/pay-once.aspx

wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 1:13 pm, "Graham." wrote:

"Freesat from Sky" is a product that comprises a digibox, a card
and a dish (with installation if required) all for a one off payment of
£146.81

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Official price on the Sky web site seems to be £73.40 these days.

http://www.freesatfromsky.co.uk/pay-once.aspx

Yes only a fool would chose mine when yours is half the price
http://www.freesatfromsky.co.uk/
and even Sky don't call the 73.40 offer Freesat from anything!
(But I bet they don't remind you to cancel the rolling contract
after 4 months!)

I don't think we should use the expression "Freesat from Sky"
in the Wiki unless we are referring to the Sky product of that name.





--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Graham. wrote:

Yes it's coming along nicely now.
One typo and one factual
1 "*Personally* Video Recorders"
ta - fixed

2 name the additional channels that a FTV card will decode
Added link to wikipedia article on this (moving target, so may as well let
some one else keep up! ;-)

Also explain that an ex-Sky subscription card is in effect a FTV card.
Yup, good point

I think there is a need to explain more fully the differences between
the two Freesats, I think you need to separate it from the SKY heading.
What, add "Freesat from sky" as a separate heading you mean?



Reading it again more carefully I now think the heading structure is good.
Maybe I have to invoke that dreadful "disambiguation" word.

"Freesat from Sky" is a product that comprises a digibox, a card
and a dish (with installation if required) all for a one off payment of
£146.81

Yup, I think I probably added that bit after you read it the first time.
I think what is there now probably clarifies the situation.

There is some stuff that's appeared in the Wiki today that I don't like.
Bill's balun paragraph is very informative but not appropriate here.

I think that was mostly there before although with errors which Bill has
posted corrections for. Note that it is in the TV Aerial article
rather than the Digital TV one.

Am I correct in thinking the remit we have set ourselves excludes
distribution, and that left for a separate wiki? I think that would
be best.

I think a structure is beginning to emerge...

I think the Digital TV article wants to be simple and to the point
without much technical detail. Basically spelling out the options. There
is no need for much if any technical or DIY specific content.

The TV Aerial one, wants to cover stuff in more detail but with a bias
towards the DIY installation aspect of it. There are plenty of excellent
sites about that we can reference for fuller technical details. Howver
there is less about that covers the selection of a suitable aerial and
covers the physical process of gluing it to a building.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
The TV Aerial one, wants to cover stuff in more detail but with a bias
towards the DIY installation aspect of it. There are plenty of excellent
sites about that we can reference for fuller technical details. Howver
there is less about that covers the selection of a suitable aerial and
covers the physical process of gluing it to a building.

Should gluing be encouraged?

Bill

John Rumm wrote:
Graham. wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Graham. wrote:

Am I correct in thinking the remit we have set ourselves excludes
distribution, and that left for a separate wiki? I think that would
be best.

Agreed. A basic title like 'digital tv' is a starting point, and as
such needs to be an easy read to be useful. Thats why initially I kept
it to a very basic 'here are your choices' article. Bear in mind its
mainly useful for people that still havent gone digital, and a lot of
these people are confused about the subject. Many people just want to
know what they need and to make a choice, and arent interested in alot
of technical detail.


I think a structure is beginning to emerge...

I think the Digital TV article wants to be simple and to the point
without much technical detail. Basically spelling out the options. There
is no need for much if any technical or DIY specific content.


NT

"Graham." wrote in message
...
Bill's balun paragraph is very informative but not appropriate here.
Advocating CAI approval is enough and, for example removes the
need to explain the anomaly of no balun in a L.P.

Yes I agree.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"Graham." wrote in message
...
Bill's balun paragraph is very informative but not appropriate here.
Advocating CAI approval is enough and, for example removes the
need to explain the anomaly of no balun in a L.P.

Yes I agree.

The latest mods retire this bit as a standalone section. and instead
just add a comment on the end of the section about CAI approval - words
to the effect of regardless of the type of aerial; here are some things
to look for when trying to identify a good quality aerial (decent
construction, reflector, and balun).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Graham." saying
something like:

Also explain that an ex-Sky subscription card is in effect a FTV card.

Istr, if a card has been blocked by Sky for non-payment, it will not
work at all.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...


http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_aerial
This is a very impressive document. Good sound practical advice. I hope you
don't mind a few suggestions.

De-typoed:
Small set-top aerials vary in performance from poor to useless in most
areas. In strong signal locations one may be ok for a portable TV. The
advantages are minimal cost, no installation, and portability.

De-typoed:
In practice roof mounting gives a much stronger and better quality signal
than a loft aerial. A loft aerial will be quite satisfactory in many cases,
but not always. Rooftop is of course less convenient and more expensive.
Outdoor aerials, poles and cables have limited life, so the expense is
repeated over time.

Error:
Baluns
Nearly all TV aerials are described by the manufacturer as 75 ohm aerials,
yet nearly all are really designed as 300 ohm aerials, with construction
details reducing this to some degree, but not to 75 ohm. Connecting a 300
ohm aerial to 75? cable causes loss of gain, tendency to reflections, and
some degree of degradation of signal quality.
Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm signal
to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

In fact even cheap aerials are designed to match to 75ohm feeder. (More or
less). A folded dipole with no parasitic elements would match to 300 ohm.
Once you start adding elements the characteristic impedence drops. The balun
(in this case) usually converts 75 ohm balanced to 75 ohm unbalanced.
However some manufacturers use the balun design to tweak the matching, so
the dipole terminals might not be quite 75 ohm. The old baluns for VHF FM
actually did convert 75 to 300 or vice versa, as well as converting balanced
to unbalanced.

De-typoed:
a.. Don't choose a position where it will have your eye out every time you
climb through the loft hatch!
De-typoed:
a.. If more than one location is available, do a survey at each position to
see which is best. The easiest chimney to get to might not offer the best
results!
De-typoed:
Height is important - raising an aerial as little as a metre
De-typoed:
If multipath (i.e. ghosting) is a problem, try a more directional aerial,
and try different bearings. It may be preferable

Bill

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus

"John Rumm" wrote in message
net...


http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_aerial
This is a very impressive document. Good sound practical advice. I hope you
don't mind a few suggestions.

De-typoed:
Small set-top aerials vary in performance from poor to useless in most
areas. In strong signal locations one may be ok for a portable TV. The
advantages are minimal cost, no installation, and portability.

De-typoed:
In practice roof mounting gives a much stronger and better quality signal
than a loft aerial. A loft aerial will be quite satisfactory in many cases,
but not always. Rooftop is of course less convenient and more expensive.
Outdoor aerials, poles and cables have limited life, so the expense is
repeated over time.


Around 20 odd years?.. Seems unnecessary to make that point IMHO.

Might put some off an otherwise proper way to do it..

Error:
Baluns
Nearly all TV aerials are described by the manufacturer as 75 ohm aerials,
yet nearly all are really designed as 300 ohm aerials, with construction
details reducing this to some degree, but not to 75 ohm. Connecting a 300
ohm aerial to 75? cable causes loss of gain, tendency to reflections, and
some degree of degradation of signal quality.
Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm signal
to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Waaaay over the top for Joe public to take in .. better that

"the aerial needs to contain a balun which makes it work more
efficiently...

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
Error:
Baluns
Nearly all TV aerials are described by the manufacturer as 75 ohm aerials,
yet nearly all are really designed as 300 ohm aerials, with construction
details reducing this to some degree, but not to 75 ohm. Connecting a 300
ohm aerial to 75? cable causes loss of gain, tendency to reflections, and
some degree of degradation of signal quality.
Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm signal
to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Waaaay over the top for Joe public to take in .. better that

"the aerial needs to contain a balun which makes it work more
efficiently...


As Bill has explained, this entry is wrong. Simplifying it but still
leaving the misleading information is hardly correct?

A balun may be desirable but it isn't essential ...

Terry

In article , Terry Casey
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
Error:
Baluns
Nearly all TV aerials are described by the manufacturer as 75 ohm aerials,
yet nearly all are really designed as 300 ohm aerials, with construction
details reducing this to some degree, but not to 75 ohm. Connecting a 300
ohm aerial to 75? cable causes loss of gain, tendency to reflections, and
some degree of degradation of signal quality.
Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm signal
to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Waaaay over the top for Joe public to take in .. better that

"the aerial needs to contain a balun which makes it work more
efficiently...


As Bill has explained, this entry is wrong. Simplifying it but still
leaving the misleading information is hardly correct?

Well who is this aimed at?. Anyone with the tech know how is hardly
likely to be reading it.. More like its the man on the Clapham bendybus
who needs a bit of guidance..


A balun may be desirable but it isn't essential ...

Very desirable IMHO .. I'm sure NP will be along to disagree;!...


Terry

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Terry Casey
Well who is this aimed at?. Anyone with the tech know how is hardly
likely to be reading it.. More like its the man on the Clapham bendybus
who needs a bit of guidance..

Just out of interest, can you remember where you first heard the expression
'the man on the Clapham bendybus' ?

Bill

In article , Terry Casey
wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus
Error: Baluns Nearly all TV aerials are described by the manufacturer
as 75 ohm aerials, yet nearly all are really designed as 300 ohm
aerials, with construction details reducing this to some degree, but
not to 75 ohm. Connecting a 300 ohm aerial to 75? cable causes loss
of gain, tendency to reflections, and some degree of degradation of
signal quality. Better aerials have a small balun inside that
transforms the 300 ohm signal to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI
approved aerials have this.

Waaaay over the top for Joe public to take in .. better that

"the aerial needs to contain a balun which makes it work more
efficiently...


As Bill has explained, this entry is wrong. Simplifying it but still
leaving the misleading information is hardly correct?

A balun may be desirable but it isn't essential ...

in the same sort of way that an outdoor aerial is desirable. Yes, it may
work, but it may not.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Terry Casey wrote:

As Bill has explained, this entry is wrong. Simplifying it but still
leaving the misleading information is hardly correct?

A balun may be desirable but it isn't essential ...

I'd keep the technical content in. But I'd preface that section with
text making the balun of optional importance if the user is NOT
expecting reception in difficult areas with local sources of impulse
interference (like noisy central heating thermostats), which is a
situation that is effectively improved by having a balun.

--
Adrian C

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:58:51 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm signal
to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Are there no CAI approved log periodic antennas?

And anyway, some of the log period antennas are "better" quality than many
cheap and nasty Yagi-Uda antennas.

In article , J G Miller scribeth
thus
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:58:51 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm signal
to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Are there no CAI approved log periodic antennas?


Whatever good would that be, CAI approved ?.. Some of their members are
CAI approved does that mean there're all OK?..


And anyway, some of the log period antennas are "better" quality than many
cheap and nasty Yagi-Uda antennas.

And vicey verser..
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:06:29 +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:

In article , J G Miller scribeth
thus
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:58:51 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm
signal to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Are there no CAI approved log periodic antennas?


Whatever good would that be, CAI approved ?

You are totally missing the point I was trying to make.

If any of the CAI approved antennas are log periodics, then the
statement that all CAI approved antennas have baluns is erroneous.

I made no implication as to the value of something being CAI approved.

Some of their members are CAI approved does that mean there're all OK?..

OK by whose standards?

And anyway, some of the log period antennas are "better" quality than
many cheap and nasty Yagi-Uda antennas.

And vicey verser..

Indeed that is possible but since log periodics are a rather specialist
item, I would be interested in your providing an example of a particular
brand of log periodic antenna being of inferior quality to some of the
poor quality Yagi-Uda design antennas which are sold.

Perhaps the log periodic model sold in Maplins?

In article , J G Miller scribeth
thus
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:06:29 +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:

In article , J G Miller scribeth
thus
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:58:51 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Better aerials have a small balun inside that transforms the 300 ohm
signal to a genuine 75 ohm feed. All CAI approved aerials have this.

Are there no CAI approved log periodic antennas?


Whatever good would that be, CAI approved ?

You are totally missing the point I was trying to make.

If any of the CAI approved antennas are log periodics, then the
statement that all CAI approved antennas have baluns is erroneous.

I made no implication as to the value of something being CAI approved.

Right...


Some of their members are CAI approved does that mean there're all OK?..

OK by whose standards?

Do they have standards?. Having seen the "work" of one of their members
perhaps they do have -standards- but these can be rather variable;!..


And anyway, some of the log period antennas are "better" quality than
many cheap and nasty Yagi-Uda antennas.

And vicey verser..

Indeed that is possible but since log periodics are a rather specialist
item, I would be interested in your providing an example of a particular
brand of log periodic antenna being of inferior quality to some of the
poor quality Yagi-Uda design antennas which are sold.

Perhaps the log periodic model sold in Maplins?


A log is just another lump of plastic, screws and Ally formed
differently..to a Yagi..

Can't really see the argument. We can by a Yagi from Maxview or from
Jaybeam .. same materials but fashioned rather differently and different
prices and end product;?..
--
Tony Sayer

Alan Pemberton wrote:
J G Miller wrote:

You are totally missing the point I was trying to make.

If any of the CAI approved antennas are log periodics, then the
statement that all CAI approved antennas have baluns is erroneous.

I seem to be totally missing the point as well. To feed a log periodic
you have to shove the coax up one of the tubes and connect it to the
front ends of both. That forms a balun. Who is it that is going around
saying log periodics don't have baluns?

I think the suggestion is that it is far less readily apparent on a log
since there is not usually a separate transformer etc.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Bill Wright wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=TV_aerial
This is a very impressive document. Good sound practical advice. I hope you
don't mind a few suggestions.

Not at all, that is what it is here for!

De-typoed:
Small set-top aerials vary in performance from poor to useless in most

De-typoed:
In practice roof mounting gives a much stronger and better quality signal
than a loft aerial. A loft aerial will be quite satisfactory in many cases,

Ta - incorporated

Error:
Baluns
Nearly all TV aerials are described by the manufacturer as 75 ohm aerials,

Yup, not sure that section even needs to be there - since it already
suggests using a CAI aerial. I have taken it out altogether for the moment.

De-typoed:

[snip]

Thanks... updated.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

A bit that was in there - but seemed out of place was on VHF aerials.
That is now waiting for some embellishment to turn it into a proper
article. (I am not sure how realistic its claims are anyway - never
having tried using a TV aerial for radio). Any thoughts?:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=VHF_aerial

It's true enough.

In article , Grimly
Curmudgeon scribeth thus
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

A bit that was in there - but seemed out of place was on VHF aerials.
That is now waiting for some embellishment to turn it into a proper
article. (I am not sure how realistic its claims are anyway - never
having tried using a TV aerial for radio). Any thoughts?:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=VHF_aerial

It's true enough.

Yes but although the VHF aerial adds to the cost, like a TV aerial its a
very good -investment- (a dirty word in the UK;!), to improve the
performance of the equipment connected to it......
--
Tony Sayer

John Rumm wrote:


(Could probably do with some sections on dimple dipoles, yagi, and the
(in)famous halo etc).

It certainly should. Then I could find out what on eath they are...


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:


(Could probably do with some sections on dimple dipoles, yagi, and the
(in)famous halo etc).

It certainly should. Then I could find out what on eath they are...


I thought they were sexual positions myself - almost made being a radio
amatuer an attractive proposition )


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article , The Medway
Handyman scribeth thus
John Rumm wrote:


(Could probably do with some sections on dimple dipoles, yagi, and the
(in)famous halo etc).

It certainly should. Then I could find out what on eath they are...




For a start..

The halo is a bit of scrap ally;!...

--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:05:15 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
wrote this:-

For a start..

The halo is a bit of scrap ally;!...

Indeed.

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/fmanddabradio.html probably has more
than enough information for most people, including photographs.

It also has the results of tests on how much television aerials pick
up radio signals.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
For a start..

The halo is a bit of scrap ally;!...

The standard erection round here seems to be a Teves for UHF - completely
OTT given the strong line of sight signal, and a halo for FM which does
nothing for the inherent multipath from the surrounding buildings and
hills.
We need a Bill Wright round here. ;-)

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:14:13 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

The standard erection round here seems to be a Teves for UHF - completely
OTT given the strong line of sight signal, and a halo for FM which does
nothing for the inherent multipath from the surrounding buildings and
hills.

That has been the fashion for some time.

A more thought out installation in a strong signal area probably
consists of a small log periodic for television and a vertically
polarised dipole for FM and DAB.

Where one or more of the signals is weak a larger log periodic
and/or folded dipole FM and folded dipole DAB aerial are probably
the best. The FM/DAB aerials vertically polarised.

In low signal areas high gain aerials need to be thought through
properly. That is particularly so for FM and DAB aerials where the
wanted signals may come from a number of transmitters.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

A more thought out installation in a strong signal area probably
consists of a small log periodic for television and a vertically
polarised dipole for FM and DAB.

Where one or more of the signals is weak a larger log periodic
and/or folded dipole FM and folded dipole DAB aerial are probably
the best. The FM/DAB aerials vertically polarised.

Can UHF Log-Periodic aerials be different sizes ?

Surely physics dictates they will all have the same dimensions if
designed for the standard UHF TV range of 470 to 860 MHz, and all have
the same (theoretical) gain ? Or am I missing something ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

http://www.paras.org.uk/

In article , David Hansen
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:14:13 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

The standard erection round here seems to be a Teves for UHF - completely
OTT given the strong line of sight signal, and a halo for FM which does
nothing for the inherent multipath from the surrounding buildings and
hills.

That has been the fashion for some time.

A more thought out installation in a strong signal area probably
consists of a small log periodic for television and a vertically
polarised dipole for FM and DAB.

Where one or more of the signals is weak a larger log periodic
and/or folded dipole FM and folded dipole DAB aerial are probably
the best. The FM/DAB aerials vertically polarised.

In low signal areas high gain aerials need to be thought through
properly. That is particularly so for FM and DAB aerials where the
wanted signals may come from a number of transmitters.


Why would anyone bother with a DAB receiver for fixed listening?.
Connect anything up bigger then a 2" speaker and all is revealed in its
grittyness;(..
--
Tony Sayer

John Rumm wrote:

The draft DIY digital TV intro article is he

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV

One option we have not listed is "other" digital satellite options...
Anyone have any comments on what is out there for people who buy generic
non sky and non freesat boxes?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

I've hitherto been sitting this one out as I'm rather busy, but you
may care to take a look at ...

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...TVInTheUK.html

.... which outlines all the options for receiving TV here, and includes
a paragraph or two about other sat options.

More generally, there may also be something useful in ...

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi.../ChooseTV.html

.... and DIY satellite is covered in ...

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...telliteTV.html

.... particularly the first series of pages linked from there,
'Mounting A Dish Or Rotor'.

(If you happen to want to quote substantial sections of any of these,
that's fine, my price is simply a link to my original.)

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:51:54 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

One option we have not listed is "other" digital satellite options...
Anyone have any comments on what is out there for people who buy generic
non sky and non freesat boxes?

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:51:54 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
Anyone have any comments on what is out there for people who buy generic
non sky and non freesat boxes?

Much better quality programs on Arte and the German PSB stations than
the ratings chasing junk with which the BBC fill most of the schedules
of BBC-1, BBC-2, and BBC-3.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:

The draft DIY digital TV intro article is he

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Digital_TV

One option we have not listed is "other" digital satellite options...
Anyone have any comments on what is out there for people who buy generic
non sky and non freesat boxes?


I wouldn't recommend one for normal Astra 2 reception because there would
be no EPG
Incidentally, I bought 5 faulty Grundig GDS200 Digiboxen for 99pence* on
Ebay
All had PSU capacitor problems and I had all 5 working in one evening.
*Pity about the £17.50 postage, but they were still a bargin


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%