Does it matter if the tv antenna points one way, or 180^ the other?

Does it matter if the tv antenna points one way, or 180^ the other?

You guys, especially Dave, have convinced me that I need a better (and thus bigger) antenna more than I need an amplified antenna. Does it matter if I point an antenna with several elements of different lengths to the station, or if I point it the exact opposite direction? In my attic, it would be more convenient to do the latter. (I'm too old and at least now, too fat to go on the roof.)

Also, I thought 50 miles was the longest range on level ground for a transmitting tower of typical height and an antenna on the roof of a two-story house.

So what about a claim that a Wineguard antenna has a range of 75 to 80 miles????

formatting link
This antenna is rated for low-band VHF and I don't need that, I've learned, but it's the mileage claim I am asking about.

Even this one says: Up to 60 mile VHF range; 45 mile UHF range Don't they get that by mounting it on a 100 foot tower or something?

formatting link
And isn't the info obsolete because digital transmitters are working at lower power than analog did?

Thanks a lot.

Reply to
mm
Loading thread data ...

MM

Depends on the Front to Back ratio. FWIW the antenna should probably point to the origin of the signal with the shorter elements being the pointing end. And if you are looking at great distances from the source you will probably have to tune the antenna by rotating it while someone observes the picture/TV set.

Bob AZ

Reply to
Bob AZ

Many if not most late model digital format TV receivers have a signal strength indicator available via the menus. This would be very useful, I would think.

Mark Z.

Reply to
Mark Zacharias

I have to say you are going about this the wrong way. You are choosing to mount the antenna in the attic because it's easier. An indoor mount also has the advantage of reducing exposure to the weather. While this is easier, it has several major disadvantages. You have already mentioned one - difficulty in orienting it properly. There is another - signal attenuation, particularly at higher frequencies.

Have you considered the possibility you are focusing on convenience and ignoring performance?

As far as antenna range, my parents lived over 60 miles from the transmitter and received good signal levels with an antenna that was mounted less than 15 feet above ground level.

PlainBill

Reply to
PlainBill47

That depends on the antenna.

Typical log-periodic rooftop TV antennas are moderately directional. They have the greatest gain when the small end is pointing towards the transmitter. Directly off of the back, they're usually around 10 dB worse (i.e. one-tenth the power sensitivity). There are some directions around the side which are going to be *extremely* insensitive (very deep nulls).

Other sorts of antennas are bidirectional.

You'll probably get the best reception from a directional antenna, aimed towards the transmitter (or, sometimes, aimed off at an angle which minimizes the antenna's pickup of reflections from nearby buildings and trees).

That's often the case. If your signal level at the TV is low, it's usually better to try to improve it by adding antenna gain, than it is to use an amplifier. An amplifier will boost incoming noise by just as much as it will boost the desired signal.

You'll lose a significant amount of sensitivity if you point a traditional log-periodic antenna directly away from the TV station. With a 10 dB front-to-back ratio (typical for a log-periodic) you could cut the antenna range to about a third of what it would be at its best.

Let me toss out another idea for you. If you've got attic space which runs long-wise towards, and away from the TV towers, you could install a rhombic antenna. This is simply a diamond-shaped pattern of two wires, with the long axis of the diamond pointing towards / away from the transmitter. The feedline to the TV attaches at one end. At the other end, you can either "terminate" the rhombic with a resistor, or leave the two ends of the wires unconnected.

If you terminate the antenna with a resistor, it becomes a unidirectional antenna... the resistor is at the end pointed towards the transmitter, and the feedline attaches at the other end.

If you leave the wires at the far end open (unconnected) the rhombic is essentially bidirectional... it can receive signals from stations located off of either end.

Rhombics are fairly wide-band antennas. Their impedance is such that yu can probably use a standard 4:1 balun transformer to match them to a 75-ohm coax.

They do take up a fair bit of space - each "arm" of the diamond needs to be at least one wavelength long at the lowest frequency you want to receive. The longer, the better (as far as gain goes).

A big advantage to them is that they're inexpensive... all you need is wire, a termination resistor (450-to-600-ohm carbon composition will do), and a balun transformer.

formatting link
has an overview.

It depends very much on how high your rooftop is, and how high your mast is, and on the nature of the terrain between you and the transmitter. You can count on some amount of diffraction, which can actually let your antenna "see" a TV transmitter which is below the optical horizon.

"Up to" distance numbers are probably subject to the same sort of marketing inflation, and selective-circumstances picking that affect fuel-economy figures for cars. I'd guess that the upper limits of the "up to" ranges may assume a TV transmitter on top of Mount Wilson (or a similar-sized molehill), an antenna mounted on a tall mast on top of a multi-story apartment building, clear terrain, and perhaps a bit of atmospheric ducting under favorable weather conditions. "We saw a picture once, for 30 seconds, at 80 miles, so the range is up to 80 miles!"

"Assumes facts not in evidence."

A lot of TV stations had to run their "transition" digital transmitters at lower power than their analog transmitters, for any of a number of technical and legal reasons. Many of them (perhaps most) either boosted their digital transmission power on The Big Day (when the analog transmitters were turned off) or are in the process of doing so as time goes by.

TV stations *really* don't like losing area-coverage, since this reduces the number of viewers they can claim, and reduces the value of the commercial-ad time they have available to sell. Stations will tend to want to push up their transmitter power as far as they can afford and/or as far as the FCC will let them.

--
Dave Platt                                    AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Dave Platt

Been there, tried that. It works well but is rather sensitive to nearby metal objects. It will probably work in the attic.

The problem is that it's rather big.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com Inscribed thus:

With all due respect to Bill, what works in one place doesn't always work in another.

An example, Rhonda Valley. Two identical Tv's antenna and cables but a common chimney stack. Really good signal reception on one side of the stack and next to none on the other. Antenna less than 6 ot 7 feet apart at the same hight.

Solution split the feed from the high signal antenna and feed both sets from the single antenna. Which also had the effect of reducing the signal improving the picture on both Tv's.

--
Best Regards:
                Baron.
Reply to
baron

You certainly don't need VHF low, but do you really need VHF high ? I only have one station here on ch 13.

You could also use two separate antennas with a combiner. Concentrate on the UHF.

Milages is highly dependant on height and terrain. Height means nothing if there is a mountain in between. Its surprsing though, there are some big hills around here, and people got by from 30 mi away with hilly terrain on the old TV's. Getting rid of shadows on the old TV was the main problem. Digital has no shadows but must have a minimum signal to decode.

greg

Reply to
GregS

I too have seen this. I clearly remember installing an early CTV in a village that had generally poor UHF reception. Several members of the same family all lived in this tiny village, and all rented CTVs from the company that I worked for. One of the sons moved into a cottage in the same row as one of his brothers, who had good enough signals to receive colour without any preamping. We turned up at the same time as the antenna rigger, and then spent most of the rest of the day there, trying to get useable signals, just

100 feet from his brother. I remember watching the rigger (with my heart in my mouth - winter, frosty, slippy!) walking back and forth along the roof ridge, holding a bloody great pole with a phased pair of long Yagis on the top, trying to see if there was any point where we could get an acceptable signal from any transmitter, with a view to then moving back to the chimney, to see if we could figure a way to get the same signal from there.

As I recall, we ended up with something like a 15ft pole, with a double chimney lashing kit, and a phased pair of long Yagis *and* a preamp. House same height as his brother's one, no visible obstructions or hills as far as the eye could see across open countryside. Sometimes, there's just no rhyme or reason to TV reception.

As to receivable distance for an antenna, this depends a lot on the frequency involved. At UHF, there is little 'bending' effect of the basic radiated signal, so reception can be considered as pretty much 'line of sight'. There are effects that can extend this, but nothing that you could rely on. However, at VHF, wavefront tilt becomes more significant, and the signal will try to follow the curvature of the earth more or less, due to the wavefront 'digging in' and being 'pulled over'. This can give a significantly greater 'range' to a signal. When I was a kid, we used to watch really strong TV signals from a transmitter some sixty miles away. The antenna was a double 4 ele with a shared loop 'dipole' and delta match. This was a very common antenna type in my neck of the woods, at the time

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.