Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 06:05 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 45
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:47:14 -0800, "Wayne"
wrote:



"The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:52:11 -0600, tom wrote:

On 2/10/2012 8:32 PM, Wayne wrote:

He really needs to create a new file from which to cut and paste. Like
most comedians', his jokes get stale after awhile.

-- VWW, K6EVE
-
But you must admit that this normally quiet newsgroup finally has some
activity. Who knows, this could take on the characteristics of the GFW.
--Wayne W5GIE

"GFW=Great Fractal Wars"


Unfortunately the traffic has nothing to do with antennas.

Things dried up here around 6 months ago. I suspect the people with
brains and stories, and some of us remember who they are, are no longer
with us or finally bailed due to the noise.



I was playing with Moonrakers way back in the early seventies.
-
Moonrakers? LOL. Ok now we have you calibrated.


No, you do not. I was 12 years old, and the gear was my dad's. You
have nothing, and you know nothing. All you do is presume, and you
presume wrong, boy.

The antennas I work with now are everything from 18 foot diameter
gateway heads to yagis for the military that we get in 20 foot long
crates that put anything you ever worked with to shame.

You should go see someone for that multiple personality disorder you
are sporting there, "we" boy. More like "wee boy".

I suppose Giant Rat of
Sumatra was your "call sign".


If you had any clue at all, you would be familiar with where the name
comes from. So you fail there too, asshole. No surprise that you are a
cultureless twit as well.

That pretty much means that *I* have YOU calibrated. You are a total
loser, or you would remember the art. The fact that you do not means that
you were a drab loser ****tard back then as well. My fingernail
clippings have more on the ball than you do, idiot.

Bwuahahahaha!
  #162   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 06:46 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
tom tom is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2009
Posts: 660
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On 2/11/2012 2:08 AM, Sal wrote:
wrote in message
. net...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:52:31 -0800, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra
wrote:



nuclear snippage


tom
K0TAR



I plonked the guy days ago. It would be so-o-o-o great if people quoted him
back little or none. I have no objection to appropriate profanity (and have
been known to howl the unprintable on occasion, myself.) But when overused
to no good end, ****/****ing,****er/****ed-up/****wad get tedious.

"Sal"



I was just making sure he was really the badass he's convinced that he is.

He's not. He's actually kind of pitiful.

Sooo, Plonk anyway!

tom
K0TAR

  #163   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 07:04 PM posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 398
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.
In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.

Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...
http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions

See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.



Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up.


In medical I tend to push the envelope and so do the standards
committees. Sometimes based on what we do. I designed all my cardiac
stuff defibrillator-proof, always, although it was not the law yet. Then
they made it law, because it makes sense.



You do it because they wouldn't hire you if you couldn't meet specs,
just like every other consultant, engineer or tech. They might even
jail you for your incompetence for not meeting the specs.


Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.



Believe it or not, most technical people have that same standard.
You're nothing special.

... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?


Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.



Once again the all knowing Jeorge shows his ignorance.


1: You don't know what you're talking about, about the cost of
service. Any extra operating costs become part of the basic service
that everyone pays. You won't work for nothing, and the utilities don't
give them free electricity. The service companies don't repair the
equipment for free. Do you have any idea how many amplifiers, taps and
set top boxes are needed for 10,000 active ports? To provide hotter
ports require more amplifiers, and raises the system noise floor. You
'designed an amplifier'. Big deal. A lot of engineers 'designed and
amplifier' and those companies are long out of business. Current CATV
amplifiers use hybrids designed specifically for the application and
they use them for many reasons. That just leave the design of the 60V
modified sine wave to DC power supplies, equalizers, gain control,
equalization and remote switching. Some locations also have remote
monitoring so the headend can check system status on a continuous
basis. It can also report outages when some of the equipment doesn't
respond. They can even detect power failures and monitor the battery
status in the standby power supplies to give them time to get a portable
generator to the area if it is an extended outage. The local
Brighthouse system remained in operation here for over four weeks after
a hurricane even though the only way to watch TV or access broadband was
with battery power or a generator.

2: '70s CATV tech was 12 channel with no return path. It was crude,
discrete point to point designs that looked like a ham put together from
junk TVs while drinking cheap beer. They were touchy as hell, their
tempco sucked, and they were impossible to service without a fully
equipped test bed. the power supplies were simple, poorly regulated
linear supplies with 85 C electrolytics that died quickly in the
southern sun. The large diecast aluminum housing ran hot to the touch
without the sun hitting them. That stuff was pretty well all scrapped
out by the mid to late '80s by 36 or more channels with return
capability. There was so much construction of upgraded systems that
there was a severe shortage of new hardware through most of the mid
'80s.

That '80s tech was gone in all but the smallest systems by 2000.
Today most systems are 450 MHz or higher, and are 'Fiber Enhanced' to
provide telephone, broadband, movies on demand and pay per view services
by breaking the system into cells that cover a few hundred homes, or
less.

3: You know nothing about CATV franchises. 'A measly 100 feet' is
more than adequate for a hell of a lot of drops & house wiring. If that
is what the franchise calls for, THAT IS THE SPECIFICATION, no matter
how much you whine like Sloman. A city or county won't pull a franchise
over one or two people complaining about weak signals. They receive a
fixed percentage of the system revenue every month, and the percentage
was set when the economy was up. If they pull the franchise, another
provider will offer a much lower percentage. It also involves legal
fees, and causes the rates to go up for the users. Why put up with all
that for a fraction of a percent of problems. Like people who built a
private road a mile long and want to pay the standard install fee when
it will cost about $15,000 to run a feeder for that one house. Or like
that marina. It isn't a street. It's private property. If they want
better service, let them pay for upgrades with .500 cable to each boat,
with a .500 to 'F" connector for each boat. That would only cost a few
hundred dollars a boat for materials. More if the cable is jacketed.
If it isn't it won't last long in salt air. Double that for the
hardware and labor to get a good idea of the costs.


Oh, that's right. You're too cheap to even have cable TV.

Read more carefully. I said TV doesn't matter to us, it is not about cost.



Then why are you being such an ignorant prick about the issue when
you have no horse in the race? You sound more like Dimbulb every day.
I used to think highly of you, but no longer

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #164   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 07:11 PM posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 398
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


JIMMIE wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:38 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. Pull on the
cable hard. In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. Repeat with a screw on connector. Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-255


Sorry Jeff but I never used my connectors to support my cables. You
may be right but completely irrelevant to me. To me F connector and
good connection shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. They are
what that are, cheap connectors at best that uses the center conductor
of the cable for a contact.



Then you would hate most microwave connectors lit SMA.


Now that is Yech. Heat shrink has nothing
to do with the pull test or hiding poor workmanship but it does help
keep corrosion down which is the biggest problem with F connectors.



You didn't need heat shrink on good 'F' connectors.

Ive never seen one pull apart except in the shoddiest of
installations. One of the best things I have found to insure you
maintain a good connection is to apply something like DeOxit to the
connectors when you assemble them. Best done while all the parts are
new.



Not needed, if you use flooded outdoor cable.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #165   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 07:15 PM posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 398
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


JIMMIE wrote:

On Feb 10, 11:38 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:17:03 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Jeff, I installed TVRO systems for several years and used a lot of F
connectors. Suprisingly the ones I found that worked best were the
ultra cheap ones that only took a pair of pliers to fasten These were
the ones with the separate crimp rings. Used with some good quality
heat shrink tubing this eliminated most of the problems you mention. I
dont know why these connectors went away, my only guess is that
someone wasn't making enough money on them.


Jimmie


Yech...

Please try this test. Insert such a crimp type F connector and cable
into some useless piece of equipment with a type F jack. Pull on the
cable hard. In my experience, it doesn't take much to make the cable
and connector part ways. Repeat with a screw on connector. Now,
repeat the experiment using a properly assembled compression type F
connector and cable. It takes considerably more brute force to break
the connection. I think the official minimum pull test is 55 lbs, but
I'm too lazy to Google for it now.

Hiding the workmanship under shrink tube is not very functional. It
will have little effect on the pull test.

Most of the cable leakage problems I've seen (and found) were due to
crimp type F connectors coming apart or badly crimped. That includes
both the hex shaped crimp, and ones held together with a crimped ring.

Bad:
http://www.fconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F-Connector2.jpg

Worse:
http://www.showmecables.com/images/catalog/product/F-connector-RG59.j...

Good:
http://images.lowes.com/product/converted/783250/783250926510lg.jpg

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


You are correct that the problem is in the hex crimp and part of this
is because they started making the crimp made on to the connector. The
other part is that you have to have a special tool to crimp them. All
the pictures that you showed are require a special crimp tool. If
these tools are worn or dont fit the particular plug/ cable
combination you will get a bad crimp. The old style that is probably
40 years old now that you could crimp the little ring with a pair of
pliers worked the best. Unfortunately you can no longer get them,
well I do have a few.



A 'special tool' that only cost about $20 and would do thousands of
crimps before it was worn out. I've bought them new, on sale for $8
US. You admitted to using pliers on the cheap crap, and you certainly
can't do that with a hex crimp.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.


  #166   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 07:29 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra wrote:


If you had any clue at all, you would be familiar with where the name
comes from. So you fail there too, asshole. No surprise that you are a
cultureless twit as well.

That pretty much means that *I* have YOU calibrated. You are a total
loser, or you would remember the art. The fact that you do not means that
you were a drab loser ****tard back then as well. My fingernail
clippings have more on the ball than you do, idiot.

Bwuahahahaha!


Which one are you?

http://www.forward.com/articles/127941/

"A schmuck is, in short, someone who lacks not intelligence, but all
insight into what is humanly appropriate and what is not. This makes his
condition remediable. A schlemiel, a schlimazel and a schmendrik are
irredeemably what they are. A schmuck can be enlightened. He can
acquire, through a painful process of self-examination, the moral and
social understanding that he has been missing. He can become, to revert
to Wex’s dichotomy, a mentsh."


--
VWW, P.E., K6EVE
Using PCLOS

  #167   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 07:38 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2011
Posts: 117
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength


"tom" wrote in message
. net...
On 2/11/2012 2:08 AM, Sal wrote:
wrote in message
. net...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:52:31 -0800, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra
wrote:



nuclear snippage


tom
K0TAR



I plonked the guy days ago. It would be so-o-o-o great if people quoted
him
back little or none. I have no objection to appropriate profanity (and
have
been known to howl the unprintable on occasion, myself.) But when
overused
to no good end, ****/****ing,****er/****ed-up/****wad get tedious.

"Sal"



I was just making sure he was really the badass he's convinced that he is.

He's not. He's actually kind of pitiful.

Sooo, Plonk anyway!

tom
K0TAR


:-))

"Sal"


  #168   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 07:59 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 409
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength



"The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:47:14 -0800, "Wayne"
wrote:



"The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:52:11 -0600, tom wrote:

On 2/10/2012 8:32 PM, Wayne wrote:

He really needs to create a new file from which to cut and paste. Like
most comedians', his jokes get stale after awhile.

-- VWW, K6EVE
-
But you must admit that this normally quiet newsgroup finally has some
activity. Who knows, this could take on the characteristics of the GFW.
--Wayne W5GIE

"GFW=Great Fractal Wars"


Unfortunately the traffic has nothing to do with antennas.

Things dried up here around 6 months ago. I suspect the people with
brains and stories, and some of us remember who they are, are no longer
with us or finally bailed due to the noise.



I was playing with Moonrakers way back in the early seventies.
-
Moonrakers? LOL. Ok now we have you calibrated.


No, you do not. I was 12 years old, and the gear was my dad's. You
have nothing, and you know nothing. All you do is presume, and you
presume wrong, boy.

The antennas I work with now are everything from 18 foot diameter
gateway heads to yagis for the military that we get in 20 foot long
crates that put anything you ever worked with to shame.
-
So what? Before you were born, I was working on 2-30 MHz log periodic
arrays that were collapsed into a nuc hard silo along with a telescoping
tower.

  #169   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 08:11 PM posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:02:37 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

Sorry Jeff but I never used my connectors to support my cables. You
may be right but completely irrelevant to me.


Umm... you've never tripped over a cable, had the equipment fall off
the table with the cables attached, run RG6a/u up a pole to where it
has to support its own weight, moved furniture with cables still
attached, flexed the connector when used as a test lead, pulled cable
through the wall or conduit with connectors attached, etc? These are
all very common situations which will stress the connector to cable
connection. While it might not be a problem for a fixed (stapled in
place) installation, it certainly will be a problem for the average
home user.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/mess01.html

I find it odd that outdoor CATV uses quad shielded cable to prevent RF
leakage and ingress, and having the cable swept to perfection, while
you recommend using inferior F connectors.

To me F connector and
good connection shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. They are
what that are, cheap connectors at best that uses the center conductor
of the cable for a contact. Now that is Yech.


I do have some issues with RG6a/u that uses copper plated steel core
center wire. Mostly, it's a corrosion problem for outdoor connections
where the home owner does their own wiring, and uses F connectors
without the necessary rubber o-ring needed for waterproofing. I've
swept F connectors on the bench and find them quite good and often
superior to the rare 75 ohm TNC and BNC connectors near the top end
(2GHz for satellite). Incidentally, most of the antennas (that
survived a recent storm) on my roof use RG6a/u coax. The mismatch
loss between 50 and 75 ohms is minimal. Some use F connectors, but
most use BNC's made for RG6a/u.

Heat shrink has nothing
to do with the pull test or hiding poor workmanship but it does help
keep corrosion down which is the biggest problem with F connectors.


Ahem. I worked for a marine radio company during the 1970's. I
learned a few things about waterproofing and corrosion. Heat shrink
doesn't work. Capillary action along the heat shrink to connector
boundary will suck the water into the connector.

What I use (when needed) is a layer of 1" PTFE tape (or 1/2" if that's
all I can find) over the connector. Once in place, a layer of Scotch
66 or other electrical tape to hold it in place. The PTFE will cold
flow into the irregularities on the connector surface, and there will
be zero capillary action. If I want UV resistance, I spray the tape
with clear Krlyon (acrylic) spray.

While we're on the topic, I've experimented with various allegedly
waterproof enclosures and packages. The only ones I consider
genuinely waterproof are sealed and pressurized with dry air. Anything
less will eventually leak.

Ive never seen one pull apart except in the shoddiest of
installations.


I have and all too often. I was at the neighbors trying to
troubleshoot their Comcast cable tv and modem mess. They had some
friend of theirs do the wiring. All the F connectors were crimp ring
type and were falling apart. The coax was mostly RG-59 with maybe 80%
coverage. I replaced the most disgusting and will finish the job when
I have time.

One of the best things I have found to insure you
maintain a good connection is to apply something like DeOxit to the
connectors when you assemble them. Best done while all the parts are
new.


DeOxit and Cramolin contain oleic acid, which will slightly corrode
copper. It's good for CLEANING connectors by removing the oxides, but
should not be left on the connector. If you want to make sure that
you can take the connector apart after the threads rot in place due to
galvanic action between the aluminum receptacle, and the nickel plated
crimp type F connector, some silicon or lithium grease would probably
be better.

Some notes on the contents:
http://www.antiqueradios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=82058&start=40&sid=71ca160c8f60768 6916a0f355e9ecc34

Jimmie


As for special tools, I love them. My various cable preparation tools
for various coax cable have saved me countless hours of fumbling with
a pocket knife and diagonal cutters. Using the various compression
tools on F connectors almost guarantee a good connection, unless I did
something dumb. Same with crimp lugs, various LMR-xxx coax cables,
and Anderson Power Pole connectors. The days of using a hammer or
vice grips to crimp a connector are over. The cost can be
substantial, but is well worth it if you work with connectors
regularly.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Misc/slides/crimpers.html
About $35/ea.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #170   Report Post  
Old February 11th 12, 08:11 PM posted to sci.electronics.repair,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,sci.electronics.design
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2010
Posts: 23
Default Increasing Cable TV signal strength

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
amdx wrote:
Hi All,
I'm on a boat, about 170ft from the utility post.
Recently our cable company switched to the wonderful world of
Digital TV. I got the new digital converter and had no picture.
I took the box back and got a second box, still no picture. So now I
suspect a weak signal and confirm that it is the cable length. The cable
company came out and gave me a better cable than I had installed. At
this point I have a picture but it is intermittent. The signal at the
utility post has 3 outputs and had a four way splitter, I suggested the
cable guy put in two 2 way splitters and give me the stronger (first) tap.
That got my signal to work almost all the time. I'd like to get the
signal to work 100% of the time.
Looks like the cable guys screwed up.
In your opinion.
If their company cable box doesn't deliver a useful and reliable signal
I call that screwed up. One pays for a service and expects to either get
it delivered as promised or money back.

... If they are delivering the level called for in
their franchise, they didn't screw up. It has always been up to the
customer to pay for or provide extra equipment for non standard
installs.

Mike's install does not sound non-standard. 170ft cable drop towards
premises which is fairly normal, plus the cable company's set-top box.
Grow up. That is an excessive length drop. A standard drop is under
100 feet. You think you know everything, and that the world has to live
by your rules. You don't, and it doesn't. ...
http://www.starvision.tv/lineup_res.htm

Quote "Maximum Drop Length 300 Feet"

Now that's what I call good service.

... I'll bet you've never even
seen a CATV franchise, or the dozen of pages of specifications agreed to
by both the CATV company and the local government. The CATV company
isn't a Santa Clause machine, and local governments know why there are
limits to the service provided. If there were't, no one could afford to
build or operate a CATV system. You've never designed a headend, or a
physical plant If they build to supply higher port levels, it has to
start at the headend, and requires closer spaced trunk amplifers. The
system noise goes up from all of the cascaded amplifers, and the
equipment runs hotter, withj a very reduced service life. When you can
design an RF distribution system of more than 500 MHz bandwidth and has
over 10,000 output ports, with the gain stabilized to a couple dBmv 20
miles from the headend and over a range from sub zero F to + 100 F then
you can tell me I'm wrong.

One headend I designed and built was only off by .1 dBmv at the test
port on the first trunk amp which was a half mile from the head end. If
you can do better than that, I'll listen to you and your opinions

See above. Obviously others can. And yes, I have designed RF broadband
power amps. Lots of them. Not just lashing up boxes but the actual
transistor level circuitry including layout guidance for the nasty stuff.

Fact is, if a cable company isn't competent to do a 170ft drop they
should decline the job. Otherwise it is a screw-up, plain and simple. In
our area they'd lose their shirts to the satellite guys because there
are many houses like ours where there is no reasonable way to get from
the street to the house with a 100ft limit. We have around 200ft that's
still there from the early 90's and the previous owner said cable TV
worked just fine for them. We are not subscribed because TV ain't that
important to us.

Yawn. You constantly harp about having to meet specs in medical, but
whine like a drunken jackass when other businesses have to meet their
specs. yes, they could design the sytems to 300 feet or more, but the
cost to every customer on the system would go up.

In medical I tend to push the envelope and so do the standards
committees. Sometimes based on what we do. I designed all my cardiac
stuff defibrillator-proof, always, although it was not the law yet. Then
they made it law, because it makes sense.



You do it because they wouldn't hire you if you couldn't meet specs,
just like every other consultant, engineer or tech. They might even
jail you for your incompetence for not meeting the specs.


Correct. And the spec for a competent cable company is typically 300ft,
as I have shown in the link. Plus the one below.


Believe it or not but I like to have to meet specs in medical because
they protect people. Including you.



Believe it or not, most technical people have that same standard.
You're nothing special.


Never said I was. Except that I do exceed standards at times where I
believe it is necessary. In the case of med electronics that has likely
saved lives. I do not subscribe to the idea that a standard is always
good enough. Because sometimes they are not.


... Would you like to pay
an extra 20% to 30% just so a very few locations can get better
service?

Out here we do not pay extra. Our cable companies out tend do use modern
technology, not cheap stuff from the 70's. A cable company that isn't
competent enough to do more than a measly 100ft would lose their
franchise rather quickly.



Once again the all knowing Jeorge shows his ignorance.


No. I suppose you know what MoCA is. Do you consider them ignorant?
Because they say the very same thing that I said. What matters is
today's state-of-the-art. Nobody cares about what it was in the 80's.
Today this is state-of-the-art:

http://www.cablefax.com/ct/sections/...ier_44237.html

Quote "The Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (MoCA) provides a standard ..."

then

Quote "The maximum cable distance supported between the root and the
last outlet is 300 feet, with a maximum attenuation of 25 dB". And this
is for MoCA, not just cable TV.


1: You don't know what you're talking about, about the cost of
service. Any extra operating costs become part of the basic service
that everyone pays. You won't work for nothing, and the utilities don't
give them free electricity. The service companies don't repair the
equipment for free. Do you have any idea how many amplifiers, taps and
set top boxes are needed for 10,000 active ports? To provide hotter
ports require more amplifiers, and raises the system noise floor. You
'designed an amplifier'. Big deal. A lot of engineers 'designed and
amplifier' and those companies are long out of business. ...



So how many linear RF amplifiers above 1W have you personally designed
and guided through layout?

Hint: All my clients are still in business and I am sure will be for a
long time to come.


... Current CATV
amplifiers use hybrids designed specifically for the application and
they use them for many reasons. That just leave the design of the 60V
modified sine wave to DC power supplies, equalizers, gain control,
equalization and remote switching. Some locations also have remote
monitoring so the headend can check system status on a continuous
basis. It can also report outages when some of the equipment doesn't
respond. They can even detect power failures and monitor the battery
status in the standby power supplies to give them time to get a portable
generator to the area if it is an extended outage. The local
Brighthouse system remained in operation here for over four weeks after
a hurricane even though the only way to watch TV or access broadband was
with battery power or a generator.


If that company can't do more than 100ft they'd fail miserably in our
market. It's not just our house, it's also the neighbor to the west, and
the one after that, and ...


2: '70s CATV tech was 12 channel with no return path. It was crude,
discrete point to point designs that looked like a ham put together from
junk TVs while drinking cheap beer. They were touchy as hell, their
tempco sucked, and they were impossible to service without a fully
equipped test bed. the power supplies were simple, poorly regulated
linear supplies with 85 C electrolytics that died quickly in the
southern sun. The large diecast aluminum housing ran hot to the touch
without the sun hitting them. That stuff was pretty well all scrapped
out by the mid to late '80s by 36 or more channels with return
capability. There was so much construction of upgraded systems that
there was a severe shortage of new hardware through most of the mid
'80s.

That '80s tech was gone in all but the smallest systems by 2000.
Today most systems are 450 MHz or higher, and are 'Fiber Enhanced' to
provide telephone, broadband, movies on demand and pay per view services
by breaking the system into cells that cover a few hundred homes, or
less.

3: You know nothing about CATV franchises. 'A measly 100 feet' is
more than adequate for a hell of a lot of drops & house wiring. ...



No, it is not. If you don't believe me check out Cameron Park, CA,
especially the area of the Estates. Then tell me how you want to do that
with 100ft drops.


... If that
is what the franchise calls for, THAT IS THE SPECIFICATION, ...



And the franchise would get kicked out of the market around here. You
can't serve this market with a sub-par spec. The big automotive
companies had once exhibited a "Well, this is the spec and that's that"
attitude like you do in this thread. Then they learned, the hard way. In
part by essentially going on welfare which was embarrassing.


... no matter
how much you whine like Sloman. A city or county won't pull a franchise
over one or two people complaining about weak signals. ...



They will if there's a whole big crowd showing up at the next meeting.
Now I won't because I only watch the evening news via antenna. But I
know a whole lot of folks who would be miffed to be declined service
because they are literally addicted to the sports channels. Many would
just get satellite though, they market that quite aggressively these days.


... They receive a
fixed percentage of the system revenue every month, and the percentage
was set when the economy was up. If they pull the franchise, another
provider will offer a much lower percentage. It also involves legal
fees, and causes the rates to go up for the users.



The county folks have one much more important thing on their mind: How
to get re-elected. That's what'll matter most to them. They know that
seeing complaints about what many people perceive as a utility service
they have "rights to" in the paper is not the way to get re-elected.


... Why put up with all
that for a fraction of a percent of problems. Like people who built a
private road a mile long and want to pay the standard install fee when
it will cost about $15,000 to run a feeder for that one house. Or like
that marina. It isn't a street. It's private property. If they want
better service, let them pay for upgrades with .500 cable to each boat,
with a .500 to 'F" connector for each boat. That would only cost a few
hundred dollars a boat for materials. More if the cable is jacketed.
If it isn't it won't last long in salt air. Double that for the
hardware and labor to get a good idea of the costs.


Then answer a question I asked you before but you did not comment on it:
Why did Mike's cable provider not decline service? Obviously it worked
reliably in the analog days and now with DTV it doesn't. If they can't
handle the 170ft drop after the digital switch, why did they not inform
Mike, cancel the service on their part and send someone out to pick up
the set-top box?

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tecsun PL-310 Signal Strength Metering Richard Fry Shortwave 4 May 17th 10 10:58 PM
What's Your Signal Strength? Chuck Shortwave 4 October 6th 04 10:51 PM
Signal Strength Suggestions Nickolas Antenna 4 August 30th 04 04:53 PM
APRS and signal strength.. Joel Homebrew 0 January 4th 04 11:13 PM
APRS and signal strength.. Joel Homebrew 0 January 4th 04 11:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017