Tv reception - Page 3

Someone on one of the electronics forums was into urinating on electric  
fences.............  

Benderthe.evilrobot wrote:

Did not mythbusters do one on that?

No, they did "third rail".  you can easily get a lot closer to the active part
of a fence, and the voltage is significantly higher.

Most of the UK rail network has been electrified with overhead lines, we  
used to get the occasional report of drunks getting seriously injured by  
urinating off bridges.

The bridge near me has had sheet steel welded over the railings over the  
power lines.  

Presumably your signal levels arent great and  
the interference it produces swamps the TV signal.  

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 06:11:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"



He won't pay the local Indian guy $100 to put in Digital Aerial and
did it himself!
mkumar65 [ at ] live [ dot ] com [ dot ] com
Just had my tile roof cleaned and he straightened all the ones knocked
out of place

Petzl wrote:

I am still using the professionally installed system The other was to  
try and rectify what I erroneously thought was the problem.

wrote:



If it is a analogue TV aerial it's no good.

For years I also found turning devices on cost me reception?
Local paper gave me that guy and lucked he is good and cheap.

F Murtz wrote:



That will teach you to buy cheap shit from china!


PS. I bought a number of power supplies to convert fluro tube lights to
LED and they did exactly the same bloody thing.


At least they were only a couple of bucks each.

On 04/02/17 23:49, F Murtz wrote:


A lot of the cheap Chinese stuff is like that.

The "Muller" brand that Aldi stocks twice a year seem to produce
good light (even spread and good colour) and very little interference.

Clifford Heath.

I wish I could put down my TV reception's bad stints to something
like that. I ususally mumble something nasty about digital TV when
it happens because the "all or nothing" consequence of a weak
digital signal makes the whole experiance so much more annoying
than the bit of noise that might have appeared in analogue
reception.

It's funny how reception can be bad for a week or more then fine
for months afterwards, or only dodgy on a few nights. Probably
something to do with atmospheric conditions. Maybe I should
look at the atmosphere monitor webpages that the ham radio
people use next time there's a long stint of trouble.

The transmitter's around 70Km away.

On 05/02/17 09:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:


A lot of people were affected by the move to UHF (225 MHz up
to 570-ish). In some places where before you could survive
without direct line of sight (perhaps behind a hill) you now
can't, even with the digital system error correction.

Clifford Heath.

It was UHF before the switch to digital as well, but the
error correction I was able to perform in my mind when
watching a slightly fuzzy analogue picture was far better
than the digital video processor in my set-top box is able
to manage.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:00:21 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:




eeeeekkkkkk  a lot of those set top boxes are deaf junk, they are made  
for city dwellers, try borrow a family members or friends digital TV and  
see if that makes a difference

On 05 Feb 2017, noel wrote:



I've got a few other set-top boxes around that I could swap  
over. It would be a bugger of a thing to test though because  
you never know when the signal's going to come good of its own  
accord. I might get desperate enough to give it a try next  
time I get a week of "comes good at the end credits" pain.

On a bad night it can be out for well over 15min with the "no  
signal" window (or a scrambled resemblance of the last frame  
to make it through), so that would be a good chance to test.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:44:30 +1100, Clifford Heath wrote:



might be stupid question, but was the OP's antennae upgraded with the  
move to digital

We had that problem here with analogue, had new ant and amplifier  
installed when we moved in, was still not the best, move to digital  
required new ant, and the guys had to "substantially" wind back the  
amplifiers gain due to too much signal.

On 05 Feb 2017, noel wrote:



If I'm the OP you're talking about, my aerial is designed for  
digital. The installation was a DIY affair though (one person  
on the roof, another watching the set-top box's signal level  
menu). That procedure has been repeated a few times after the  
wind's blown the antenna in the wrong direction - the mounting  
design really isn't suited to the "watch the world blow by  
your window" winds out here.

Not optimal, but it shouldn't be any worse than the set-up on  
analogue.

Once upon a time on usenet Computer Nerd Kev wrote:


I'm about 70kms from the transmitter also and the installer has my aerial  
pointed upwards at about 30 degrees. I'd struggled going up and down a  
ladder and turning the damn thing several times myself and not getting a  
decent signal (but never thought to angle it upwards!) before discovering  
that, being disabled I was entitled to a subsidised professional install.  
Since it's been pointed up like that it's been great.

Best of luck.

Thanks. Unfortunately I just checked, and the aerial's design only allows
horizontal adjustment. Something to keep in mind though.

The angle's about right, but is there such a thing as stratosphere
bounce? or is the installer instead exploiting a side-lobe of the antenna?