"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
...

snip

It may not take too much antenna.

It doesn't.

I have two converter boxes, one Magnavox, one Zenith. I just now tried my
local stations with them using a straight 24-inch alligator clip lead as the
antenna. Location is a residential garage in the San Diego suburbs. Stucco
walls, metal garage door closed, overhead fluorescent lights on.
Transmitters in three different locations.

All the UHF locals came in, 10 transmitters with about twenty total
programs. The one low-power VHF did not. Looping the clip lead back and
clipping the end to the F-connector produced about the same results. (Lost
one TJ station.)

When I "upgraded" to a POS 2-bay bowtie in the rafters (about 8 feet up),
all eleven locals came in, plus KCBS from LA . On the Zenith box, arguably
a better unit, I got two more LA channels, although one of them had some
intermittent freezing and tiling.

If even poor antennas work well, why all the whining?

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

Sal M. Onella wrote:
If even poor antennas work well, why all the whining?

I've not had any problems with the UHF circular loop
that comes with standard rabbit ears. The only problem
I've had is with VHF channels on the dipole. I need
a weatherproof version of my RS rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, ABC is Channel 7 here in Tyler, TX.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Nov 21, 7:36�am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Sal M. Onella wrote:
If even poor antennas work well, why all the whining?

I've not had any problems with the UHF circular loop
that comes with standard rabbit ears. The only problem
I've had is with VHF channels on the dipole. I need
a weatherproof version of my RS rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, ABC is Channel 7 here in Tyler, TX.
--
73, Cecil �http://www.w5dxp.com

Now that the FCC has given a green light to whitespace device
deployments (particularly those that rely solely on spectrum-sensing
technology), you may find you need a better antenna than a simple
loop, bowtie or coat hanger.

For those of you who are not following the issue, a quote in this
week's TV Technology pretty much sums it up:

"MSTV (Maximum Service Television) told the Commission Oct 31 that the
least the FCC could do is subject the devices to rigorous testing
beforehand and ensure fair and reliable tests to prevent interference
to DTV. In a filing, MSTV also attacked the FCC proposal that a
device should be able to detect signals as low as -114 dBm, a level
MSTV equated with setting a smoke detector to only be able to detect a
raging fire."

Whitespace devices will also cause great harm to wireless microphones,
particularly older models.

-mpm

"mpm" wrote in message
...
"Whitespace devices will also cause great harm to wireless microphones,
particularly older models."

Isn't the estimate that something like 90% of all wireless mics are being used
by folks who technically never had the authorization to use the spectrum
(...that is used...) is the first place? Something like how only radio and TV
stations had the authority to use the standard wireless mic frequencies, but
these days anyone doing professional sound for theater, sporting events, etc.
is also using those same frequencies?

Joel Koltner wrote:
"mpm" wrote in message
...
"Whitespace devices will also cause great harm to wireless microphones,
particularly older models."

Isn't the estimate that something like 90% of all wireless mics are being used
by folks who technically never had the authorization to use the spectrum
(...that is used...) is the first place? Something like how only radio and TV
stations had the authority to use the standard wireless mic frequencies, but
these days anyone doing professional sound for theater, sporting events, etc.
is also using those same frequencies?


The FCC and the TV broadcasters looked the other way because there is no
evidence that such activity has ever caused any interference. I can get
6 microphones to work in an occupied analog TV channel and neither
notices the other.

The TV Band Devices the FCC has recently begun the process of
authorizing are way more damaging than a 50 mW 65 kHz deviation FM signal.

Luckily, these devices will not be allowed anywhere near where I work.
The FCC has banned them from the 13 biggest cities, and from within a
kilometer of a venue or stadium using wireless microphones. The
proposed rules do not require a Part 74 license for these protections.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
The FCC and the TV broadcasters looked the other way because there is no
evidence that such activity has ever caused any interference. I can get 6
microphones to work in an occupied analog TV channel and neither notices the
other.

OK. I don't have a big problem with folks using frequencies they're not
assigned when there isn't an interference issue, although I also don't have a
whole lot of sympathy for those same folks if one day they *are* interfered
with by assigned users.

The TV Band Devices the FCC has recently begun the process of authorizing
are way more damaging than a 50 mW 65 kHz deviation FM signal.

What are the power levels? Presumably the occupied spectrum is potentially
many tens of MHz?

Luckily, these devices will not be allowed anywhere near where I work. The
FCC has banned them from the 13 biggest cities, and from within a kilometer
of a venue or stadium using wireless microphones. The proposed rules do not
require a Part 74 license for these protections.

If these are consumer-type devices, realistically how will the FCC stop their
use in those 13 cities? It'll be like GMRS where technically everyone's
supposed to be licensed yet, in actuality, I imagine that well under 1% of the
actual users a If the consumer can buy a radio off-the-shop at Wal*Mart,
there'll use it wherever they want, regardless of what FCC rules say.

---Joel

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
The FCC and the TV broadcasters looked the other way because there is no
evidence that such activity has ever caused any interference. I can get 6
microphones to work in an occupied analog TV channel and neither notices the
other.

OK. I don't have a big problem with folks using frequencies they're not
assigned when there isn't an interference issue, although I also don't have a
whole lot of sympathy for those same folks if one day they *are* interfered
with by assigned users.

The TV Band Devices the FCC has recently begun the process of authorizing
are way more damaging than a 50 mW 65 kHz deviation FM signal.

What are the power levels? Presumably the occupied spectrum is potentially
many tens of MHz?

Luckily, these devices will not be allowed anywhere near where I work. The
FCC has banned them from the 13 biggest cities, and from within a kilometer
of a venue or stadium using wireless microphones. The proposed rules do not
require a Part 74 license for these protections.

If these are consumer-type devices, realistically how will the FCC stop their
use in those 13 cities? It'll be like GMRS where technically everyone's
supposed to be licensed yet, in actuality, I imagine that well under 1% of the
actual users a If the consumer can buy a radio off-the-shop at Wal*Mart,
there'll use it wherever they want, regardless of what FCC rules say.

---Joel


Each TVBD will be addressable and can be shut off when it consults the
database. The top 13 cities thing is probably an oversight, but it's in
the proposed law.

The proposed power for a portable device is 100 mW, except on a
first-adjacent to a DTV station, which is 40 mW. This makes no sense
because the 2nd adjacent channel is more likely to interfere.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:36:32 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
Sal M. Onella wrote:
If even poor antennas work well, why all the whining?

I've not had any problems with the UHF circular loop that comes with
standard rabbit ears. The only problem I've had is with VHF channels on
the dipole. I need a weatherproof version of my RS rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, ABC is Channel 7 here in Tyler, TX.

Where I'm sitting here in Whittier, KABC 7 is so strong I can get it
without even a cable plugged in!

It's 50, 56, and 58 I worry about; 2-13 and 28 are covered; I'm looking
forward to seeing if my new bowtie (from that youtube video, but with
ER708-2 x 1/16 filler rod) will pick up PAX on 30. They have some nice
oldies sometimes. (I also have some of the ER708-2 in 0.045".)

I'm gonna solder it together and hold it to the board with brass thumb-
tacks. ;-)

Just for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

Cheers!
Rich

On Nov 21, 7:04�pm, Rich Grise wrote:

Where I'm sitting here in Whittier, KABC 7 is so strong I can get it
without even a cable plugged in!

Decent power, line of sight (18.2 miles @ 172.2 deg true) will do
that.
Check your email....

-mpm

Rich Grise wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:36:32 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
Sal M. Onella wrote:
If even poor antennas work well, why all the whining?
I've not had any problems with the UHF circular loop that comes with
standard rabbit ears. The only problem I've had is with VHF channels on
the dipole. I need a weatherproof version of my RS rabbit ears.
Unfortunately, ABC is Channel 7 here in Tyler, TX.

Where I'm sitting here in Whittier, KABC 7 is so strong I can get it
without even a cable plugged in!

It's 50, 56, and 58 I worry about; 2-13 and 28 are covered; I'm looking
forward to seeing if my new bowtie (from that youtube video, but with
ER708-2 x 1/16 filler rod) will pick up PAX on 30. They have some nice
oldies sometimes. (I also have some of the ER708-2 in 0.045".)

I'm gonna solder it together and hold it to the board with brass thumb-
tacks. ;-)

Just for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

Cheers!
Rich


Ion TV 30 is in Claremont and has a 3.8 Megawatt Signal (elliptically
polarized no less). It should give you a tan in Whittier.