In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , john west
scribeth thus

Many thanks to all. I followed the suggestion to recheck the Aerial
lead connection going into the Humax digi-box after remembering the
visiting at800 engineer pulled it apart and seemed to re-assemble it a
bit too quickly for my liking.

After re-doing this connection very carefully it now seems things are a
bit better this morning. (Although mild weather and clear skies might be
connected?).

Is it possible that the 4G phone companies although giving us a ' new
filter' might be degrading our freeview reception in ways they are not
very willing to talk about?

Our post code is NW7 1NE and the Bigger Aeroplanes which are at a higher
altitude and pass between our house and the Crystal Palace Transmitter
are now *not* breaking up our freeview reception as before.

But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.

Given that the much of the consensus in this group seems to be saying
this kind of plane interference is very unlikely, should i have myself
and my whole family enter the local Whittington Psychiatric Unit.....

Seriously though we are not imagining this, grateful for any further
thoughts. Thanks.



I would have thought that from where you are Heathrow operations would
have had no effect whatsoever. You might be under a flight path which
might just upset the whole shooting match to elstree or northolt but
consider where you are there would-be a lot of others experiencing the
same effects ?

I think there something really odd going on there I wonder if there
might be some odd effect from aircraft radio somehow or similar. Have
you tried asking the neighbours what their reception is like and if
they get the same as you?.

I would have thought you're on the Crystal place TX there wonder if you
might be using for some odd obscure reason an alternative TX according
the some TX sites you should be using the Finchley relay perhaps you are
on something else somewhere. Really needs someone there who knows what
their doing aerial wise that is and they are very far and few between!.

Ask locally or post up a picture of your aerial on flicker that will
help.


http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=40

I'm slightly concerned by a statement in the original post: "I bought a new
aerial, but that hasn't helped". To me, there's an implication of an
indoor aerial. obviously just buying a new aerial would have no effect
whatsoever, but what was done with it? Did the OP get a ladder our and
replace the old aerial or do something much simpler?

--
Please note new email address:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:49:10 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

On 25/09/2015 10:23, wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Mark Carver wrote:
On 25/09/2015 09:20, Big Les Wade wrote:

You seem to be saying here that interference from planes can't happen
because it would cause too much fuss from householders. Yet above, you
say "Yes, 'aeroplane flutter' was an issue in the analogue days"? Which
is it; interference from planes can happen, or it can't? Why would
householder fussing prevent interference to the digital signal but not
to the analogue signal?

Because of the way COFDM modulation (used for digital TV and DAB) works,
you effectively have interleaved data (with forward error correction),
spread over a few thousand separate carriers occupying almost 8 MHz (for
TV) of spectrum. Any reflection (at any given moment) will only cancel a
small selection of those carriers.

We have a boat moored at Gallions Point Marina, right under the flight
path into London City Airport. OK, we *are* very close to the
aircraft when they land but they certainly do break up the signal
(both vision and sound) on our Freeview TV. It's not just a minor
hiccough either, the sound goes off and the picture breaks up and
freezes for the few seconds while an aeroplane goes over. It is only
a few seconds though.

Yes, that doesn't surprise me, a plane very low will be reflecting
enough stuff back with a large aperture to 'punch out' enough of a mux
for a few seconds as it passes over.

As ever with all digital reception issues the only viable method to
see what's going on is with a spectrum analyser.

Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_i nstallations.pdf

That's our Bill ameliorating in public again.

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
This sounds like a classic case of 'misleading fault reporting', to be
honest. I think you'll find that there's no connection between the
planes and the fault.

You and others may be correct to dismiss the idea. But I'm not so sure as
I've not yet done the maths.

When dealing with common situations like this I think you'll find 45
years in the aerial trade a better guide than sums.

Bill

john west wrote:

But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
quite close to our house (presumably going to Heathrow and are at a
lower altitude than the big planes) are *still* breaking up our
reception for a few seconds 'every-time' one passes over.

Ah, now you're presenting up with an entirely different scenario!

Bill

john west wrote:

But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to west
quite close to our house

I could well believe that these might make your signal strength or
quality wobble a bit, based partly on wind turbine experience, also on a
little problem we used to have in the analogue days in the village of
Blaxton, which was near an RAF station.

Digital TV is remarkably good at ignoring all sorts of problems like
this, but . . . BUT . . . the crux of all this is that the signal
strength and quality must be good enough for the disturbance not to take
it below the threshold. The thing with digital telly is that it will
work absolutely perfectly for ever with a signal that is JUST adequate
("Oh that's a good picture! Better than we had with the old analgestic
or whatever they call it!") as long as that signal stays just (or better
than just) adequate. But even a tiny drop in strength or quality will
cause complete breakdown. So the thing is, if you have an abnormal
susceptibility to interference of any kind, the issue isn't the
interference it's the question of whether your installation is able to
produce, at the receiver, a good strong signal with the noise a long
long way below it. If not then you will suffer break up from any damn
stupid little thing that comes along.

If the planes were affecting everyone the way they are affecting you it
would be headline news really wouldn't it? But it's just you. And what's
special about you? Your installation, and the field strength available
to it.

Bill

Mark Carver wrote:


As stated it's low planes that seem to be causing
the problem,

Yes it is NOW! It was high ones to start with. The goal has been moved.

Bill

Dave Farrance wrote:
john west wrote:

Given that the much of the consensus in this group seems to be saying
this kind of plane interference is very unlikely, should i have myself
and my whole family enter the local Whittington Psychiatric Unit.....

We've continued discussing the issue, and it does seem that there is
reason to think that Freeview HD (channels 101 ,102 etc) would be
significantly more susceptible to aircraft interference than Freeview SD
(channels 1, 2 etc).

All other things being equal. Which they ain't.

Bill

tony sayer wrote:
An interesting assertion. How many times have such people as Charles
Hope (ex BBC) heard people blame 'the transmitter'?
Let's take your words above, "The picture was fine for a couple of
years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine again."
Without thinking too deeply, I can remember all of the following
occurrences:
1. A kite attached a bit of itself to the aerial. Eventually this blew off.
2. Yes it really was the transmitter! Or actually it was one in another
town on the same channel which had gone ever so slightly off tune, and
thus was putting coarse horizontal lines across the picture.
3. A bloke moved in at the top of the street and parked his big van in
the back alley every night, and it just happened to obstruct the signal
of someone at the bottom the street. After a while he was promoted so he
got a car, or maybe he died, or moved away, I dunno. But the van
disappeared.
4. The aerial was slightly loose and swung slightly off beam, then back
again.
5. Trees. Over and over again I've seen this sort of thing caused by
trees. No rhyme or reason quite often. They don't need to be in the
signal path.
6. A connection behind the TV was disturbed, then disturbed again a few
weeks later.
7. Ditto under the carpet.
8. Ditto in the loft.
9. Ditto on the roof.

Bill



You forgot water in the feeder cable thats now dried out but filled up
again?.


My list was by no means complete!

Bill

Graham. wrote:

Mr Wright of both these parishes has published work on the effect
on reception of windfarms, which is a related subject of course.

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/services/interference-studies/television_interference_studies_for_wind_turbine_i nstallations.pdf

That's our Bill ameliorating in public again.


They can't touch you for it!

Bill

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:19:57 +0100, charles
wrote:

I'm slightly concerned by a statement in the original post: "I bought a new
aerial, but that hasn't helped". To me, there's an implication of an
indoor aerial. obviously just buying a new aerial would have no effect
whatsoever, but what was done with it? Did the OP get a ladder our and
replace the old aerial or do something much simpler?

Maybe post the Argos order number?

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:25:28 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Mark Carver wrote:


As stated it's low planes that seem to be causing
the problem,

Yes it is NOW! It was high ones to start with. The goal has been moved.

Bill

https://youtu.be/dS12p0Zqlt0



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:17:02 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Martin
wrote:

We are about the same distance from Schiphol Airport. Planes landing
at Schiphol are between 600 metres and 3,000 metres altitude, when
they pass directly over us. On rare occasions a plane very briefly
interrupts Freesat.

Which would be a very different frequency to DVB-T/T2 and coming from a
very different azimuth into a more directional RX antenna.

Whilst stating the obvious, you omitted to point out that Freeview
doesn't exist 15 miles from Schiphol. :-)

Of course it does! You just need to be up high enough in one of the planes
to be able to receive it. Admittedly, arranging for an antenna directional
enough to choose your TX would be a challenge, though. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Martin
wrote:
Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around
10,000 feet to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about
120 miles away.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0miles&f=false
Admittedly, arranging for an antenna directional enough to choose your
TX would be a challenge, though. :-)

Maybe I'll watch Freeview from the top of a local mountain or make my
own mountain out of a mole hill. :-)

I appreciate that this can be particularly difficult from some parts of
Holland. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 25/09/2015 20:20, Bill Wright wrote:
john west wrote:

But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to
west quite close to our house

I could well believe that these might make your signal strength or
quality wobble a bit, based partly on wind turbine experience, also on a
little problem we used to have in the analogue days in the village of
Blaxton, which was near an RAF station.

Digital TV is remarkably good at ignoring all sorts of problems like
this, but . . . BUT . . . the crux of all this is that the signal
strength and quality must be good enough for the disturbance not to take
it below the threshold. The thing with digital telly is that it will
work absolutely perfectly for ever with a signal that is JUST adequate
("Oh that's a good picture! Better than we had with the old analgestic
or whatever they call it!") as long as that signal stays just (or better
than just) adequate. But even a tiny drop in strength or quality will
cause complete breakdown. So the thing is, if you have an abnormal
susceptibility to interference of any kind, the issue isn't the
interference it's the question of whether your installation is able to
produce, at the receiver, a good strong signal with the noise a long
long way below it. If not then you will suffer break up from any damn
stupid little thing that comes along.

If the planes were affecting everyone the way they are affecting you it
would be headline news really wouldn't it? But it's just you. And what's
special about you? Your installation, and the field strength available
to it.

Bill

The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the transmitter is from
Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
Transmitter.
The at800 engineer is coming again this Monday. Thanks to all.

In article ,
john west wrote:
The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
Humax DTRT2000 digi box.

That seems low for the London area. Does it show quality too?

--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

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

In article , john west
wrote:

The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
Humax DTRT2000 digi box.

Alas, such values tend not to be very good indicators in situations like
this.


The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the transmitter is from
Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
Transmitter. The at800 engineer is coming again this Monday.

See if he uses a spectrum analyser or equivalent and ask him about the
results. Then let us know what he does and how you get on.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , john west
scribeth thus
On 25/09/2015 20:20, Bill Wright wrote:
john west wrote:

But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which are
traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east to
west quite close to our house

I could well believe that these might make your signal strength or
quality wobble a bit, based partly on wind turbine experience, also on a
little problem we used to have in the analogue days in the village of
Blaxton, which was near an RAF station.

Digital TV is remarkably good at ignoring all sorts of problems like
this, but . . . BUT . . . the crux of all this is that the signal
strength and quality must be good enough for the disturbance not to take
it below the threshold. The thing with digital telly is that it will
work absolutely perfectly for ever with a signal that is JUST adequate
("Oh that's a good picture! Better than we had with the old analgestic
or whatever they call it!") as long as that signal stays just (or better
than just) adequate. But even a tiny drop in strength or quality will
cause complete breakdown. So the thing is, if you have an abnormal
susceptibility to interference of any kind, the issue isn't the
interference it's the question of whether your installation is able to
produce, at the receiver, a good strong signal with the noise a long
long way below it. If not then you will suffer break up from any damn
stupid little thing that comes along.

If the planes were affecting everyone the way they are affecting you it
would be headline news really wouldn't it? But it's just you. And what's
special about you? Your installation, and the field strength available
to it.

Bill

The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
Humax DTRT2000 digi box.
The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the transmitter is from
Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
Transmitter.
The at800 engineer is coming again this Monday. Thanks to all.


There might be the problem. It does seem you'd be better off using the
Finchley relay thats intended for your area

Hang on thats one of they that doesn't do all channels;(

Where is this aerial John?, indoors, outdoors on a wall on the chimney
does it point into the air as it were is there a stonking tower block in
line locally or some other obstruction?.

anyone any experience with AT 800 "engineers" or are thy much the same
as channel 5 re-tuners;?.


John, it would be of much use to post a few pictures of the aerial and
where its located a pix is often worth a 100000 words;!.
--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer
wrote:
In article , john west
scribeth thus
On 25/09/2015 20:20, Bill Wright wrote:
john west wrote:

But the smaller millionaire type planes like the 'Lear Jets' which
are traveling at a lower altitude and which are traveling from east
to west quite close to our house

I could well believe that these might make your signal strength or
quality wobble a bit, based partly on wind turbine experience, also on
a little problem we used to have in the analogue days in the village
of Blaxton, which was near an RAF station.

Digital TV is remarkably good at ignoring all sorts of problems like
this, but . . . BUT . . . the crux of all this is that the signal
strength and quality must be good enough for the disturbance not to
take it below the threshold. The thing with digital telly is that it
will work absolutely perfectly for ever with a signal that is JUST
adequate ("Oh that's a good picture! Better than we had with the old
analgestic or whatever they call it!") as long as that signal stays
just (or better than just) adequate. But even a tiny drop in strength
or quality will cause complete breakdown. So the thing is, if you have
an abnormal susceptibility to interference of any kind, the issue
isn't the interference it's the question of whether your installation
is able to produce, at the receiver, a good strong signal with the
noise a long long way below it. If not then you will suffer break up
from any damn stupid little thing that comes along.

If the planes were affecting everyone the way they are affecting you
it would be headline news really wouldn't it? But it's just you. And
what's special about you? Your installation, and the field strength
available to it.

Bill

The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
Humax DTRT2000 digi box. The new Aerial put up on the wall facing the
transmitter is from Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with
the Crystal Palace Transmitter. The at800 engineer is coming again this
Monday. Thanks to all.


There might be the problem. It does seem you'd be better off using the
Finchley relay thats intended for your area

Hang on thats one of they that doesn't do all channels;(

Where is this aerial John?, indoors, outdoors on a wall on the chimney
does it point into the air as it were is there a stonking tower block in
line locally or some other obstruction?.

anyone any experience with AT 800 "engineers" or are thy much the same as
channel 5 re-tuners;?.

I had as colleague who reired about the time ch5 turned up. He applied for
a job as a re-tuner and rejected because he was "too highly qualified".

--
Please note new email address:

john west wrote:

The signal strength is 63% according to the signal strength meter on our
Humax DTRT2000 digi box.

Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).

The new Aerial put up on the wall
Do you mean low down, relative to surrounding rooftops? Does it look
over a main road?

facing the transmitter is from
Blake-UK and of the type recommended for use with the Crystal Palace
Transmitter.
What type is it? Who installed it? Does it have a masthead amplifier?

Bill

On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).

I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
playback.

Jim

On 26/09/2015 11:05, Martin wrote:


Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000 feet
to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.

Quite so. Though sat while on the beach at Southwold Suffolk in April,
this is what my phone came up with, after a manual network search:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxwbmg9wjktd5bj/2015-04-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0

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

Bill Wright posted
Big Les Wade wrote:
I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing
100% signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was
fine for a couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and
now it's fine again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared
and we've changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.

An interesting assertion. How many times have such people as Charles
Hope (ex BBC) heard people blame 'the transmitter'?
Let's take your words above, "The picture was fine for a couple of
years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine again."
Without thinking too deeply, I can remember all of the following
occurrences:
1. A kite attached a bit of itself to the aerial. Eventually this blew off.
2. Yes it really was the transmitter! Or actually it was one in another
town on the same channel which had gone ever so slightly off tune, and
thus was putting coarse horizontal lines across the picture.
3. A bloke moved in at the top of the street and parked his big van in
the back alley every night, and it just happened to obstruct the signal
of someone at the bottom the street. After a while he was promoted so
he got a car, or maybe he died, or moved away, I dunno. But the van
disappeared.
4. The aerial was slightly loose and swung slightly off beam, then back
again.
5. Trees. Over and over again I've seen this sort of thing caused by
trees. No rhyme or reason quite often. They don't need to be in the
signal path.
6. A connection behind the TV was disturbed, then disturbed again a few
weeks later.
7. Ditto under the carpet.
8. Ditto in the loft.
9. Ditto on the roof.

And hey presto, just to make me a liar, tonight the problem has
returned. The BBC 1 signal is suddenly unwatchable. After months of 100%
signal strength and 85% signal quality, we are down to 70% signal
strength and 40-50% quality, with the associated picture blocking and
audio twonking. Other channels are not affected nearly as badly (thank
God because it's Downton Abbey any minute now and I'd be sure to get the
blame for it being unwatchable - well it's always unwatchable but you
know what I mean).

Absolutely *nothing* has changed in my set-up. Absolutely nothing. We've
been out all day so it can't be the wife hoovering and knocking the
cables. It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24
hours.

The one thing I suppose it might be is high barometric pressure, which
we've got at the moment.

--
Les

Big Les Wade wrote:

It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.

It can be the trees you know. Oh, I could tell you a tale or two . . .

Bill

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright posted
Big Les Wade wrote:
I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing 100%
signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was fine for a
couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine
again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared and we've
changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.

An interesting assertion. How many times have such people as Charles Hope
(ex BBC) heard people blame 'the transmitter'?
Let's take your words above, "The picture was fine for a couple of years,
then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine again." Without
thinking too deeply, I can remember all of the following occurrences:
1. A kite attached a bit of itself to the aerial. Eventually this blew
off.
2. Yes it really was the transmitter! Or actually it was one in another
town on the same channel which had gone ever so slightly off tune, and
thus was putting coarse horizontal lines across the picture.
3. A bloke moved in at the top of the street and parked his big van in the
back alley every night, and it just happened to obstruct the signal of
someone at the bottom the street. After a while he was promoted so he got
a car, or maybe he died, or moved away, I dunno. But the van disappeared.
4. The aerial was slightly loose and swung slightly off beam, then back
again.
5. Trees. Over and over again I've seen this sort of thing caused by
trees. No rhyme or reason quite often. They don't need to be in the signal
path.
6. A connection behind the TV was disturbed, then disturbed again a few
weeks later.
7. Ditto under the carpet.
8. Ditto in the loft.
9. Ditto on the roof.

And hey presto, just to make me a liar, tonight the problem has returned.
The BBC 1 signal is suddenly unwatchable. After months of 100% signal
strength and 85% signal quality, we are down to 70% signal strength and
40-50% quality, with the associated picture blocking and audio twonking.
Other channels are not affected nearly as badly (thank God because it's
Downton Abbey any minute now and I'd be sure to get the blame for it being
unwatchable - well it's always unwatchable but you know what I mean).

Absolutely *nothing* has changed in my set-up. Absolutely nothing. We've
been out all day so it can't be the wife hoovering and knocking the
cables. It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.

The one thing I suppose it might be is high barometric pressure, which
we've got at the moment.

Or you have a crap joint somewhere or water in the cable.

Bill Wright posted
Big Les Wade wrote:

It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24 hours.

It can be the trees you know. Oh, I could tell you a tale or two . . .

And an hour later it was all right again.

--
Les

In article , Mark Carver
scribeth thus
On 26/09/2015 11:05, Martin wrote:


Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000 feet
to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.

Quite so. Though sat while on the beach at Southwold Suffolk in April,
this is what my phone came up with, after a manual network search:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxwbmg9wjktd5bj/2015-04-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0

One the beach at Southwold!. Thats sacrilegious you should have been
here


https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52


Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
nectar
--
Tony Sayer

..

In article , Big Les Wade
scribeth thus
Bill Wright posted
Big Les Wade wrote:
I have had exactly the same problem as him, and my set is showing
100% signal strength from the nearby transmitter. The picture was
fine for a couple of years, then for a few months it was awful, and
now it's fine again. No LOS obstructions have appeared or disappeared
and we've changed nothing in the setup. It can only be the transmitter.

An interesting assertion. How many times have such people as Charles
Hope (ex BBC) heard people blame 'the transmitter'?
Let's take your words above, "The picture was fine for a couple of
years, then for a few months it was awful, and now it's fine again."
Without thinking too deeply, I can remember all of the following
occurrences:
1. A kite attached a bit of itself to the aerial. Eventually this blew off.
2. Yes it really was the transmitter! Or actually it was one in another
town on the same channel which had gone ever so slightly off tune, and
thus was putting coarse horizontal lines across the picture.
3. A bloke moved in at the top of the street and parked his big van in
the back alley every night, and it just happened to obstruct the signal
of someone at the bottom the street. After a while he was promoted so
he got a car, or maybe he died, or moved away, I dunno. But the van
disappeared.
4. The aerial was slightly loose and swung slightly off beam, then back
again.
5. Trees. Over and over again I've seen this sort of thing caused by
trees. No rhyme or reason quite often. They don't need to be in the
signal path.
6. A connection behind the TV was disturbed, then disturbed again a few
weeks later.
7. Ditto under the carpet.
8. Ditto in the loft.
9. Ditto on the roof.

And hey presto, just to make me a liar, tonight the problem has
returned. The BBC 1 signal is suddenly unwatchable. After months of 100%
signal strength and 85% signal quality, we are down to 70% signal
strength and 40-50% quality, with the associated picture blocking and
audio twonking. Other channels are not affected nearly as badly (thank
God because it's Downton Abbey any minute now and I'd be sure to get the
blame for it being unwatchable - well it's always unwatchable but you
know what I mean).

Absolutely *nothing* has changed in my set-up. Absolutely nothing. We've
been out all day so it can't be the wife hoovering and knocking the
cables. It can't be trees, because they don't grow that much in 24
hours.

The one thing I suppose it might be is high barometric pressure, which
we've got at the moment.


Http://www.dxinfocentre.com/tropo_eur.html

It is high your right, its 1043 here in Cambridge!.
--
Tony Sayer

..

On 28/09/2015 08:46, Martin wrote:
-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0

One the beach at Southwold!. Thats sacrilegious you should have been
here


https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52


Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
nectar

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...bdb5df!6m1!1e1


Oh, don't worry, I dragged SWMBO off for a pint just after 11:00hrs here :-

/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH88s1L1Ljeu9PtYffSFJXA!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

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

Mark Carver wrote:


Oh, don't worry, I dragged SWMBO off for a pint

Does SWMBO stand for 'She who is extremely tolerant'?

Bill

On 27/09/2015 16:57, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).

I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
playback.

Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
strengths results were 'marginal'.

My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
chimney which we have never used.

He connected a new cable and a filter to it and now everything seems
just fine.

Looking back on the whole business our original aerial worked well, then
because it all went bad i just assumed it was my fault somewhere, so I
doubled checked all the connections and bought and installed a new
aerial and some new leads.

Then 'after' doing this work i got a message come up on the television
which after going on line to investigate further, informed me about new
nearby 4G transmitter which could be causing problems.

How much less grief would have been caused if I had received some
*timely* notification of these 4G transmissions likely being the cause
of my picture break up issues issues.

Thanks to all, for your contributions.

In article ,
john west wrote:
Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
strengths results were 'marginal'.

My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
chimney which we have never used.

That should have told you where the best place was. ;-)

--
*Wood burns faster when you have to cut and chop it yourself.

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

In article , Martin
scribeth thus
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:59:58 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Mark Carver
scribeth thus
On 26/09/2015 11:05, Martin wrote:


Long ago I worked out that I needed to be at an altitude of around 10,000
feet
to get line of sight VHF from Manningtree, which is about 120 miles away.

Quite so. Though sat while on the beach at Southwold Suffolk in April,
this is what my phone came up with, after a manual network search:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rxwbmg9wjktd5bj/2015-04-20%2010.19.31.png?dl=0

One the beach at Southwold!. Thats sacrilegious you should have been
here


https://goo.gl/maps/g5qrbdLXWU52


Rumour has it they have pipes across the road to the source of that
nectar

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...,3a,75y,90t/da
ta=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s11668310!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Fstora ge.googleapis.com%2Fstatic.pano
ramio.com%2Fphotos%2Fsmall%2F11668310.jpg!7i1843! 8i1878!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sadnams+bre
wery+southwold!3m1!1s0x47da222290b01a0b:0xe47b0d2 76cbdb5df!6m1!1e1

Yep thats the place, well recommended a lovely little town Southwold is
almost came a cropper there many years ago, pub first then the beach and
showing off to new girlfriend and having a pig of a job to get back to
shore very awkward currents!.
--
Tony Sayer

In article , john west
scribeth thus
On 27/09/2015 16:57, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).

I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
playback.

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
strengths results were 'marginal'.

My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
chimney which we have never used.

He connected a new cable and a filter to it and now everything seems
just fine.


To the new aerial not the chimney one?.

Looking back on the whole business our original aerial worked well, then
because it all went bad i just assumed it was my fault somewhere, so I
doubled checked all the connections and bought and installed a new
aerial and some new leads.


This was the one up on the chimney that it was bought to replace?.

Then 'after' doing this work i got a message come up on the television
which after going on line to investigate further, informed me about new
nearby 4G transmitter which could be causing problems.


Humm... Do you know which transmitter your on the main Crystal Place
station or the relay at Finchley seems odd that messages came up on the
screen telling you that a local 4G was to start on a TX that covers most
all of London and a way out. Do you get all the MUX'es your entitled to
there or are some missing?.


How much less grief would have been caused if I had received some
*timely* notification of these 4G transmissions likely being the cause
of my picture break up issues issues.

Thats even if it was that it might well not have been.

Thanks to all, for your contributions.

--
Tony Sayer

On 29/09/2015 19:10, tony sayer wrote:
In article , john west
scribeth thus
On 27/09/2015 16:57, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 27/09/2015 15:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Although these built-in meters don't mean much that sounds dodgy to me.
In general Humax DTT boxes need to be showing more like 90% to work
properly (I was a Humax dealer before I retired).

I have a 9120. It seems to cope OK with signal strength down to 75% on
its own meter which rates my connection as somewhere between 78 and 82
usually. If it drops below 75 I get bits of a recording that skip on
playback.

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Bright young Engineer arrived yesterday and said his meter reading
strengths results were 'marginal'.

My aerial was at the gutter level on the second floor, he said he
thought it should be higher. We have an old aerial already on the
chimney which we have never used.

He connected a new cable and a filter to it and now everything seems
just fine.


To the new aerial not the chimney one?.

Looking back on the whole business our original aerial worked well, then
because it all went bad i just assumed it was my fault somewhere, so I
doubled checked all the connections and bought and installed a new
aerial and some new leads.


This was the one up on the chimney that it was bought to replace?.

Then 'after' doing this work i got a message come up on the television
which after going on line to investigate further, informed me about new
nearby 4G transmitter which could be causing problems.


Humm... Do you know which transmitter your on the main Crystal Place
station or the relay at Finchley seems odd that messages came up on the
screen telling you that a local 4G was to start on a TX that covers most
all of London and a way out. Do you get all the MUX'es your entitled to
there or are some missing?.


How much less grief would have been caused if I had received some
*timely* notification of these 4G transmissions likely being the cause
of my picture break up issues issues.

Thats even if it was that it might well not have been.

Thanks to all, for your contributions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the aerial worked fine at gutter level until all the trouble started. he
connected to the old one up on the roof.
i dont connect at all to the relay transmitter.

Ive got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. Its so annoying

--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...o-1075003-.htm

On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 20:15:02 +0000, Yanni wrote:

Ive got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near
Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. Its so
annoying

Many years ago when Hounslow was 97% white, I lived under the flight path
to Heathrow and also had disturbance on the TV bands. This was long before
UHF and mobile phones. I moved away in 1969 and not had any interference
since.

Well, lot of high rise around there as well?
Could be reflections as well as interference. Have you got a 4g filter, if
this is not another reply to an old post I'd suggest going to a real usenet
server and finding one of the UK tv groups to post your query on.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Yanni" wrote in message
roupdirect.com...
I've got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near Heathrow
Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. It's so annoying

--
For full context, visit
https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...o-1075003-.htm

Yanni posted
Ive got the exact same thing going on. I live in isleworth near
Heathrow Airport so pretty much the same place. How weird. Its so
annoying


On a closely unrelated subject, does anyone know why we can't get the
True Movies channel from the Crystal Palace transmitter?

--
Algernon

Algernon Goss-Custard formulated the question :
On a closely unrelated subject, does anyone know why we can't get the True
Movies channel from the Crystal Palace transmitter?

No one gets it now - its channel is now used by 'Sony Movies Classics',
or Sony Movies Christmas.

Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:

does anyone know why we can't get the True Movies channel from the
Crystal Palace transmitter?

Because the channel shutdown on 7th Jan, replaced by ...

https://sonymovies.co.uk/special/sony-movies-classic