Wind Farm

Rick 386 wrote:Dave,

Maybe YANCHE can add some input..........

Rick

I would try to map the straight line path from your antenna to the various TV station transmitting towers. Perhaps it's obvious but you need to decide if the wind turbine blades are obstructing the signals or reflecting them. If it a reflection, you get multi-path signal reception which depending on the phase of the signals your antenna receives it will add or subtract signal. If the signal is being reflected off the rotating blades it will be a very complex signal. Any solution will likely require a new directional antenna with a narrow reception direction and a significant rejection characteristic for rear or side lobe reception. I suggest a detailed understanding of the map geometry before buying anything. There are instruments that can qualify the signal you have, but they are costly and typically only used by professionals. In addition there are fairly accurate computer simulation programs that predict signal strengths. These are what are used by antenna engineers when, for example, they are designing a new cell tower site and want to know the coverage. The simulations are surprisingly good. So much so the field surveys are seldom done these days.

They show up well at night... My drive to work in the morning consist of looking for new spots of lights from gas wells, or a well being flared off, and now seeing these red lights up on top of the mountain.

dcrane wrote:
"rabbit ears" I thought those did not work anymore to catch any TV signals ?

Some antennae may work better than others but an antennae is an antennae, there is no such thing as a "HD" or "digital antenna". It either does or does not pick up the signal, there is no compromise with digital. It's ll or nothing, If that $5 antennae works there is no benefit to better antennae.

What has changed is the tuners, any TV after 2007 is mandated to have a ATSC tuner. If it's an older TV without an ATSC tuner you need the digital converter box.

cArNaGe wrote:They show up well at night... My drive to work in the morning consist of looking for new spots of lights from gas wells, or a well being flared off, and now seeing these red lights up on top of the mountain.

I thought it was impressive that they can synchronize all those lights scattered across the mountain . But they could never get traffic lights to sync. I remember they spent something like $75000 or close to that figure to sync all the traffic lights in Pittston and they were worse than before. It was for energy conservation.

Flyer5 wrote: I remember they spent something like $75000 or close to that figure to sync all the traffic lights in Pittston and they were worse than before. It was for energy conservation.

If you're referring to the changes in the early part of the last decade that worked great, I rarely got stuck at a light in Pittston and I had to go through there about 2 or 3 times a day.

If the mast/pole in not grounded to earth-ground, you may give that a try.

Also, if using RG6 coax, break coax and couple it back together through a coax grounding block that is also grounded before entering the house wall.

Richard S. wrote:

Flyer5 wrote: I remember they spent something like $75000 or close to that figure to sync all the traffic lights in Pittston and they were worse than before. It was for energy conservation.

If you're referring to the changes in the early part of the last decade that worked great, I rarely got stuck at a light in Pittston and I had to go through there about 2 or 3 times a day.

Actually the first time back in the late 80s. I don't find myself in the downtown much anymore.

McGiever wrote:If the mast/pole in not grounded to earth-ground, you may give that a try.

Also, if using RG6 coax, break coax and couple it back together through a coax grounding block that is also grounded before entering the house wall.

I will try that . Thanks, Dave

Richard S. wrote:

dcrane wrote:
"rabbit ears" I thought those did not work anymore to catch any TV signals ?

Some antennae may work better than others but an antennae is an antennae, there is no such thing as a "HD" or "digital antenna". It either does or does not pick up the signal, there is no compromise with digital. It's ll or nothing, If that $5 antennae works there is no benefit to better antennae.

Whoa, there are significant differences in antennas. While a "HD" or "digital antenna" is a marketing term it is possible that a modern digital TV antenna is superior to an old analog TV antenna. While the frequency allocations (channels) for North America are still the same, many of the old channels are no longer used for TV. Any antenna designed to cover many frequencies is a compromise design. Digital TV uses fewer channels than analog TV. Since it less of a frequency range the antenna design can have fewer design compromises. In that sense a digital antenna could be better than an analog one. Lots of other technical parameters distinguish antennas, and only this technical data would allow you to compare one antenna to another. Unfortunately, non of this is listed on the box. It's all just marketing hype.

Even if your $5 antenna gets the signal, a more expensive one could be better, better in the sense that it might have less sensitivity to interfering signals different from the preferred antenna direction. As "Sting" says, "it all depends".

Yanche wrote:
Even if your $5 antenna gets the signal, a more expensive one could be better, better in the sense that it might have less sensitivity to interfering signals different from the preferred antenna direction. As "Sting" says, "it all depends".

Yanche if it's getting the signal that is all that matters. My point was that if the $5 antenna or even one you dug out of the closet that is 50 years old works it doesn't get any better than that. There is lot of people out there under the impression they need a $50 antenna marketed as "digital" to get better quality video when the $5 antenna is the same thing. As I said above with digital transmission it's all or nothing, there is no in between. As long as the $5 antenna works that is all you need.

Richard S. wrote:

Yanche wrote:
Even if your $5 antenna gets the signal, a more expensive one could be better, better in the sense that it might have less sensitivity to interfering signals different from the preferred antenna direction. As "Sting" says, "it all depends".

Yanche if it's getting the signal that is all that matters. My point was that if the $5 antenna or even one you dug out of the closet that is 50 years old works it doesn't get any better than that. There is lot of people out there under the impression they need a $50 antenna marketed as "digital" to get better quality video when the $5 antenna is the same thing. As I said above with digital transmission it's all or nothing, there is no in between. As long as the $5 antenna works that is all you need.

When I had just the rabbit ears the HD was not as good. When I went to the last antenna it was really improved. I am not sure about the antenna I have now because everything sucks, I will have to wait till Saturday to do anything on it.

Flyer5 wrote: When I had just the rabbit ears the HD was not as good. When I went to the last antenna it was really improved.

It's a technical impossibility for one to have better quality video than the other. A digital OTA transmission is a stream of 1's and 0's and it's the exact same 1's and 0's in the exact same sequence no matter which antenna you are using. If you're losing any of those 1's and 0's because of poor reception the quality of the video doesn't degrade and it can't degrade like you have in the analog world, it's lost and becomes corrupted. There is no in between.

The only way you can have lower quality video is if there is something else in the mix downgrading it, for example if you were using a digital converter box with the rabbit ears instead of connecting them directly to the TV.