On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 23:37:43 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

A newer TV gets the analog and digital chanels off the cable. Then I have
one of the boxes hooked to the main TV.. If my wife could operate things, I
would go to something like Netflix.

For Netflix, there are a variety of options. Computer, game box,
media player, tablet computers, and built into the TV. For your wife,
I suggest you try one of the Roku media players:
http://www.roku.com/products/compare
I have an older Roku 2 XS box and use it for Netflix. The remote
control has only a few buttons, so it's fairly easy to learn. The
difficult part is searching for shows to watch. I like to do that on
a computah, where I can type in the name of the program on a real
keyboard. You can plug in a keyboard into the Roku box, but that
might add too much complexity. When I find something worth watching,
I add it to my "favorites" list, which appears at the top of the
screen when selecting shows on Netflix. What's really nice about
Netflix is the total lack of commercials.

Last week, one of my customers bought an Xbox One gizmo at Costco.
Nifty system which can be voice controlled. All he has to do is say
"Xbox show Netflix" and it's up. However, within Netflix, he has to
use the included remote control. With the cable box, he can go
directly to his favorite channel. "Xbox show TCM" will bring up
Turner Classic Movies. If your wife can handle voice commands, it
might be an (expensive) option.

Marginally related RF drivel: One of my friends is avid DX'er. He
has all his media and computer gizmos interconnected via Wi-Fi because
Wi-Fi creates less RFI than ethernet. Then, he asks me to figure out
why his wi-fi is so slow. None of the computers caused problems, but
running Netflix in full 1080p was what was killing his wireless. My
solution was to sell him a dual band wireless router, and reserve the
5GHz band for video.

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

On 12/16/2013 2:43 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 23:37:43 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

A newer TV gets the analog and digital chanels off the cable. Then I have
one of the boxes hooked to the main TV.. If my wife could operate things, I
would go to something like Netflix.

For Netflix, there are a variety of options. Computer, game box,
media player, tablet computers, and built into the TV. For your wife,
I suggest you try one of the Roku media players:
http://www.roku.com/products/compare
I have an older Roku 2 XS box and use it for Netflix. The remote
control has only a few buttons, so it's fairly easy to learn. The
difficult part is searching for shows to watch. I like to do that on
a computah, where I can type in the name of the program on a real
keyboard. You can plug in a keyboard into the Roku box, but that
might add too much complexity. When I find something worth watching,
I add it to my "favorites" list, which appears at the top of the
screen when selecting shows on Netflix. What's really nice about
Netflix is the total lack of commercials.

Last week, one of my customers bought an Xbox One gizmo at Costco.
Nifty system which can be voice controlled. All he has to do is say
"Xbox show Netflix" and it's up. However, within Netflix, he has to
use the included remote control. With the cable box, he can go
directly to his favorite channel. "Xbox show TCM" will bring up
Turner Classic Movies. If your wife can handle voice commands, it
might be an (expensive) option.

Marginally related RF drivel: One of my friends is avid DX'er. He
has all his media and computer gizmos interconnected via Wi-Fi because
Wi-Fi creates less RFI than ethernet. Then, he asks me to figure out
why his wi-fi is so slow. None of the computers caused problems, but
running Netflix in full 1080p was what was killing his wireless. My
solution was to sell him a dual band wireless router, and reserve the
5GHz band for video.


Then he has a problem in his ethernet. Properly installed, ethernet
creates virtually no interference.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

This post sound a lot more like one person thinking out loud, or two people having a conversation in such a way that they are trying to teach something - a lot like a infomertial.

The bottom line is - who cares.

.1 watt or 1 watt - the antenna the OP showed is either for 400 something Mhz or 900 mhz.
Until the neighbors complains - you can do what ever you want.

A local ham once told the story of a neighbor that had a baby monitor that operated on 50 something MHz.

To this ham - 6 meters was sacred.

To have to listen to some screaming baby day and night was intolerable.
Especially since these people lived on Mt Morenci road near Ridgeway PA and the elevation there reaches somewhere near 1900', the average terrain being only about 1400' - the baby monitor acted a lot like a 50 watt transmitter because of the height gain.

When they complained to the owner of the baby monitor, those people just laughed and said that it was a problem that the manufacturer should address, not the owner. So the hams made some tapes of the couple making love - which came over the baby monitor loud and clear each night and passed them around the community.

It wasn't very long after the couple found out that they were going viral that they got rid of the baby monitor.

The output of the transmitter has a lot less to do with the range of the transmitter then does the location and size of the antenna.
the problem being that if the radio transmitter was 400 mhz you would have some loss in the coax between the transmitter and the antenna that would negate any gains to be had by putting the antenna higher or outside.

If the radio transmitter was 900 mhz, now you have a big problem - where the loss in the coax is so great if the coax is more then a couple of feet long that any gains you could have are lost in the coax and unless you properly match the coax, the heating it might cause inside of the cheap $50 transmitter might be enough to burn it up.

Hence if the transmitters frequency is high enough, it will solve its own problem..

A FM broadcast transmitter in the range of 88 - 107 Mhz wouldn't really matter. I guess this is the point that I am making.

I have read several articles of night clubs - especially around the Cleveland Ohio that took it upon themselves to modify a FM transmitter that would normally have a range of about 1000' and modify it so it could be heard 20 miles away.

When the complaints were registered by the legal owners of the frequency, the FCC stepped in and removed the transmitter and gave the owners of the club a big fine. A month later a even bigger transmitter was found on the premises and another fine was levied. Two months after that, another transmitter was found on the property - which leads me to believe that the transmitter that the FCC found was the one that the club wanted them to find. The second transmitter was an alternate transmitter and the third transmitter was the actual transmitter. By the third fine, there was no way that a club - even in Cleveland Ohio could take in more legal revenue then it was paying out in fines. Oh and did i MENTION -the dancers wore no clothes.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:27:54 +0000, Channel Jumper
wrote:

This post sound a lot more like one person thinking out loud, or two
people having a conversation in such a way that they are trying to teach
something - a lot like a infomertial.

Well, you're back to your standard template. You begin all your
replies with a personal insult and follow it with drivel that has
nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Well, there was one
posting where you omitted the opening volly, after I suggested that
you drop it. In case you missed it, the topic is whether a low power
FM transmitter coverage will benefit from mounting the antenna upside
down.

The bottom line is - who cares.

Correct. NBC (nobody cares).

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

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 07:46:16 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Then he has a problem in his ethernet. Properly installed, ethernet
creates virtually no interference.

Yes, that's the theory. If the cable isn't perfectly balanced, it
will become an antenna. Shielded ethernet adds additional
opportunities to radiate. Most of the RFI originates from ethernet
switches and routers.

One oddity are ethernet hubs. What goes in one port, goes out all the
other ports. With a switch, only data destined for a specific MAC
address on another port is passed. The problem is many older hubs
will send data to a port if a cable is inserted but not terminated.
They're not suppose to do that, but I've found a few old hubs that do
that. If you have an ethernet RFI problem, look into replacing hubs
with switches.

"Understanding and Eliminating RF Interference" by Jim Brown K9YC
http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/RFIHamNCCC.pdf
Start reading at Page 20 for the ethernet radiation section.
Mo
http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/publish.htm

This thread may also be of interest:
http://lists.contesting.com/_rfi/2008-11/msg00025.html

Note that 100baseT is quieter than 10baseT. With 100baseT, the data
is first 4B5B encoded at 125Mbits/sec. To reduce crosstalk, it is
then scrambled and MLT-3 encoded. The result is a 31.2MHz carrier and
a mess of sidebands. The necessary scrambling has the side effect of
reducing high power peaks, and evening out the power spectrum over a
wider frequency range, thus reducing the RFI power at any given
frequency. It's much the same idea as the "spread spectrum"
modulation of computer clocks, to spread the power over a wider
frequency range, to meet FCC Part 15 requirements. So, instead of a
carrier or birdie, you'll hear broadband noise, which I guess is more
tolerable.




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

On 12/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 07:46:16 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Then he has a problem in his ethernet. Properly installed, ethernet
creates virtually no interference.

Yes, that's the theory. If the cable isn't perfectly balanced, it
will become an antenna. Shielded ethernet adds additional
opportunities to radiate. Most of the RFI originates from ethernet
switches and routers.


It's more than just theory. Over the years, we've installed hundreds of
ethernet systems, with little or no interference.

Shielded Category cable is much better - but you need to be careful. It
needs to be grounded at one end only (to prevent ground loops), and the
shield must carry through to the devices at the far end. The devices
must be shielded also, preferably in metal cases. Unfortunately, most
consumer-grade devices have plastic cases with little or no shielding
and do not connect to the shield. In cases like this, yes, the shield
can become a radiator. Commercial devices are better at this (but are a
lot more expensive).

One oddity are ethernet hubs. What goes in one port, goes out all the
other ports. With a switch, only data destined for a specific MAC
address on another port is passed. The problem is many older hubs
will send data to a port if a cable is inserted but not terminated.
They're not suppose to do that, but I've found a few old hubs that do
that. If you have an ethernet RFI problem, look into replacing hubs
with switches.


Again, that's the case with consumer-grade goods. Commercial grade are
much better at this.

"Understanding and Eliminating RF Interference" by Jim Brown K9YC
http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/RFIHamNCCC.pdf
Start reading at Page 20 for the ethernet radiation section.
Mo
http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/publish.htm


I think our expertise of doing this as a business for years in both
residential and commercial establishments qualifies us.

This thread may also be of interest:
http://lists.contesting.com/_rfi/2008-11/msg00025.html

Note that 100baseT is quieter than 10baseT. With 100baseT, the data
is first 4B5B encoded at 125Mbits/sec. To reduce crosstalk, it is
then scrambled and MLT-3 encoded. The result is a 31.2MHz carrier and
a mess of sidebands. The necessary scrambling has the side effect of
reducing high power peaks, and evening out the power spectrum over a
wider frequency range, thus reducing the RFI power at any given
frequency. It's much the same idea as the "spread spectrum"
modulation of computer clocks, to spread the power over a wider
frequency range, to meet FCC Part 15 requirements. So, instead of a
carrier or birdie, you'll hear broadband noise, which I guess is more
tolerable.


Again, it depends on the installation and equipment being used. But
10baseT is also old technology. 100baseT is more recent and solves a
lot of problems - both in radiation and susceptibility to interference
from external radiation.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 23:43:26 -0800 in rec.radio.amateur.antenna,
Jeff Liebermann wrote,
Marginally related RF drivel: One of my friends is avid DX'er. He
has all his media and computer gizmos interconnected via Wi-Fi because
Wi-Fi creates less RFI than ethernet.

Woah, how can that be? Would using shielded cat6 fix it?

On 12/16/2013 8:27 AM, Channel Jumper wrote:

1 watt or 1 watt - the antenna the OP showed is either for 400
something Mhz or 900 mhz.

What's your point?
Mikek

On 12/16/2013 11:11 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:27:54 +0000, Channel Jumper
wrote:

This post sound a lot more like one person thinking out loud, or two
people having a conversation in such a way that they are trying to teach
something - a lot like a infomertial.

Well, you're back to your standard template. You begin all your
replies with a personal insult and follow it with drivel that has
nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Well, there was one
posting where you omitted the opening volly, after I suggested that
you drop it. In case you missed it, the topic is whether a low power
FM transmitter coverage will benefit from mounting the antenna upside
down.

The bottom line is - who cares.

Correct. NBC (nobody cares).

Well, I did :-)

But I'm not nobody!
Two reasons, if it gave my a better coverage pattern for my yard, I
would do it.
Second reason, I'm curious, and you did answer my question with an
example. Thanks.

Anyway, moved the antenna a few feet, installed my filter, removed one
3db attenuator, and ran around the yard with my radio and didn't notice
any problem. It even got better reception in my workshop not perfect,
but better.
Mikek

On 12/2/2013 12:39 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Comcast is now all digital in the People's Republic of Santa Cruz CA.

I got my cable bill a few days ago, noted it had increased $10.00.
Told the wife, she said ya, after Nov. the reduction I got last Nov.
expired. She went in, made her yearly complaint, but this time she
got a $20.00 discount! The bill dropped from $123.54 to $103.xx.
(Cable, phone and internet)
$240 a year, I think I'll taker her out for an ice cream cone. :-)
Mikek