Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:02:35 +0000, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:44:45 -0800, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:12:15 +0000, Pomegranate *******
wrote:

Would you please supply some evidence of your claims?

You don't even know what a 10Gb/s optical port looks like either,
jackass.

You are truly pathetic, and a total loser.

The only response a retard like you knows is "stalk and jab".

Would you please supply some evidence of your claims?


You wouldn't know what a constellation measurement was if one bit you in
the ass, much less understand it. Nuff said.

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On 2/9/2012 10:27 PM, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra wrote:


You wouldn't know what a constellation measurement was if one bit you in
the ass, much less understand it. Nuff said.

Holy crap! He's made it to the 1970s!

tom
K0TAR

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

tom wrote:

On 2/9/2012 9:35 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


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. 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



Cool! You seem to know what you are up to.

Can you put rough numbers around what you mentioned? Like what are
providers legally required to deliver at the far end of the drop?


We were required to deliver 0 dBmv at the end of 100 feet of RG-59 or
RG-6 for two sets per the franchise. The system was designed at +10
dBmv at the tap to allow for three or four TVs at the 100 foot range.
That was on a 36 channel system with RCA modulators & HST. It was done
for two reasons. To have a little extra signal available when the
system was built, and for conversion for a 300 MHz plant to a 450 MHz
plant without respacing the trunk amplifiers.


I build a headend & interface to tie two incompatible community loops
together. Ours was a sub split loop, and the other CATV company used
mid split. We used 2 & 12 for pilots, so we fed them Channel 2 into
their return, and down converted their feed to T-9 for our return. That
headend had two RCA HSP and a combiner. The interface was another HSP
in a large stainless steel NEMA box mounted to a power pole at the
boundary of the two systems. A pair of two way splitters were used to
route the signals between the systems, as well as into and out of the
HSP. The other company wanted us to install a modulator and a
demodulator at the boundary to give us audio & video, and another pair
from our side so the interface would be baseband. Their design was over
$15,000 in hardware alone. My design was under $3000 for all the
hardware & labor to install. I had system designers from both sides
telling me it wouldn't work, but it did the job with no problems. :)


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

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:29:01 -0600, tom wrote:

Nice to have amusing idiots back again.

Actually, asshole, folks here would like it if you would leave.

Bad enough seeing dopes like SkyBuck here, now we have to see idiots
like you and krw as well. No, dumb****, you are not amusing, idiot.

Did ya catch the FOAD in that, boy?

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:34:43 -0600, tom wrote:


Interesting how little you bother to learn about the people you swear
at.

Interesting how ****tards like you make presumptions about people (and
include insults), and then forget that you even did it, and act as if I
am some kind of offender against you because I called you the ****tard
you are for doing it..

You are as ****ing retarded as it gets, boy. Your mother should be
jailed.

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:34:43 -0600, tom wrote:

At least I can put a sentence together.

Is that what you call that?

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:34:43 -0600, tom wrote:

And I was leading 10M$ engineering projects while you were installing cable.

Yes, and now I am leading $400M (yes, idiot, the dollar sign goes in
front) telecom projects which include spaceborne elements and the fastest
gateways on the planet and put Americans to work all over the nation in
support, and you get to type stupid **** in Usenet and on your facebook
facetard account and wither away like the old, dead **** you are.

Soon enough, you'll be as senile as krw is and you won't even be able
to cut a cable fitting, and I will be still taking cross country tours
and racing on my bike and barefoot water skiing and living until 2110.
Hell, I'll set records. I am just getting started.

Yes, idiot... you are amusing, sometimes. Bwuahahahahahaha!

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On 2/9/2012 10:34 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

tom wrote:

On 2/9/2012 9:35 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Cool! You seem to know what you are up to.

Can you put rough numbers around what you mentioned? Like what are
providers legally required to deliver at the far end of the drop?


We were required to deliver 0 dBmv at the end of 100 feet of RG-59 or
RG-6 for two sets per the franchise. The system was designed at +10
dBmv at the tap to allow for three or four TVs at the 100 foot range.
That was on a 36 channel system with RCA modulators& HST. It was done
for two reasons. To have a little extra signal available when the
system was built, and for conversion for a 300 MHz plant to a 450 MHz
plant without respacing the trunk amplifiers.


I build a headend& interface to tie two incompatible community loops
together. Ours was a sub split loop, and the other CATV company used
mid split. We used 2& 12 for pilots, so we fed them Channel 2 into
their return, and down converted their feed to T-9 for our return. That
headend had two RCA HSP and a combiner. The interface was another HSP
in a large stainless steel NEMA box mounted to a power pole at the
boundary of the two systems. A pair of two way splitters were used to
route the signals between the systems, as well as into and out of the
HSP. The other company wanted us to install a modulator and a
demodulator at the boundary to give us audio& video, and another pair
from our side so the interface would be baseband. Their design was over
$15,000 in hardware alone. My design was under $3000 for all the
hardware& labor to install. I had system designers from both sides
telling me it wouldn't work, but it did the job with no problems. :)



Very nice. We were much more constrained on the install I mentioned up
the thread a ways. The fiber was fed at E1 speed, which probably didn't
work it very hard.

We had an issue at one point.

This was a distributed proc/data system, one of the first. Each cabinet
was a standalone PBX. And you could make 126 of them look like one.
And each could survive on its own.

First fiber campus we'd done. Staggered cut to the new infrastructure.
Fun stuff.

At one point we had to do the cutover to the other large pice of the
system. Each end connected the fiber. 0 signal.

TDR from A end showed 700 meters from A end, 800 meters from end B.
Length from A to B is 1500 meters.

The work that occurred because of that was not fun. Had to go get the
guy doing fusion splicing.

Joy. Midnight trip to Pittsburgh with the salesman.

Actually it was fun. Not much traffic at night.

Landing pattern at 160mph in between DC9s into Pittsburgh at about
midnight. And they didn't like 160 at all. This was scary.

Quickest turnoff onto a taxiway I've ever experienced. Of course the
taxiway may not have been one. We didn't care.

tom
K0TAR

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:24:45 -0600, tom wrote:

On 2/9/2012 9:18 PM, tom wrote:

I was lead at the first fiber campus install in the US. 1985.

And that would be college campus. Don't know about other types.

tom
K0TAR

Yes, and the fiber was obsolete within a few years after installation,
and is not compatible with the standardized cabling and I/O methodology
in use today. Even modern copper Ethernet is faster than that 20 year
old 100Mb/s obsolete fiber and that number was before the overhead.

Whoopie doo, the ditz knows how to polish a face. Not even required
any more.

Increasing Cable TV signal strength
 

On 2/9/2012 10:57 PM, The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:34:43 -0600, wrote:

And I was leading 10M$ engineering projects while you were installing cable.

Yes, and now I am leading $400M (yes, idiot, the dollar sign goes in
front) telecom projects which include spaceborne elements and the fastest
gateways on the planet and put Americans to work all over the nation in
support, and you get to type stupid **** in Usenet and on your facebook
facetard account and wither away like the old, dead **** you are.

Soon enough, you'll be as senile as krw is and you won't even be able
to cut a cable fitting, and I will be still taking cross country tours
and racing on my bike and barefoot water skiing and living until 2110.
Hell, I'll set records. I am just getting started.

Yes, idiot... you are amusing, sometimes. Bwuahahahahahaha!

Yup, he's amusing.

tom
K0TAR