On May 31, 10:06*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:28:18 -0700, Usual Suspect

wrote:

WInegard makes an antenna-in-a-box, the SS-1000 which lists ~4 db
gain over
the UHF TV range:
http://tinyurl.com/nqpzm2

4dB isn't very much gain. *Compare this with some other available
antennas:
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html
Unfortunately, the SS-1000 and SS-1000 are not listed.

Sure it is but it's called 'Square Shooter'

Depending on the distance between your apartment and the antenna
location, the +4dB antenna gain may not be sufficient to compensate
for the coax loss. *Are you in a weak signal or strong signal area?
Is
an antenna amplifier justified? * If so, you might need 3
amplifiers
for your 3 different directions.

As I said, I use it 35 miles out from Mt Wilson (Los Angeles) and have
it split 4 ways - no preamps. I do have Line Of Sight (just barely)

Also, a 4dB gain antenna will not have a very directional antenna
pattern or be particularly directional. *My guess(tm) is perhaps
120
degrees wide. *There probably won't be much difference in signal
strength if your 3 directions are within the beam width.

You're right, it isn't very directional but it has a reasonable front-
to-back ratio.

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna
based on its
form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display bare-
element
type antennae on the mast.

I don't like getting into 'contests' with the HOAs if I can avoid it.
After all, we have to live with them.

As others have mentioned, this is mostly incorrect. *The problem is
in
the interpretation of the word "unreasonable", which might be
interpreted in a variety of ways. *Without details on your
situation,
I can't comment on this.

I do like the panel style for the reason that I can arrange 3
around a common
mast, aimed at remote cities, and join the outputs for increased
coverage.

Mast? *Welcome to "unreasonable". *The FCC 47.1.4000 clause that
limits antenna installation has nothing to say about the supporting
structure. *While the HOA may not be able to prevent you from
installing an antenna, they most certainly will have something to
say
about the design and construction of the supporting structure.
*They
may also demand that it be installed by a licensed and insured
installer to protect themselves against subsequent litigation. *I
know
you don't want to hear about all this, but methinks you should at
least be warned before blundering onward.

Has anyone experience with the SS-1000? Or can recommend a similar
style
antenna?

No recommendations. *Antennas are sized and designed to solve
specific
problems. *The design required in a strong signal area is quite
different from one in a weak signal area, in an urban canyon, for
an
indoor installation, or if it is intended to be disguised or
minimalized. *It's also important to know the lowest VHF frequency
or
channel that the antenna is expected to operate as this has a huge
effect on the physical size of the antenna. *Without a clue as to
your
situation, it's impossible to offer an endorsement or alternative.
*If
you find it inconvenient to disclose such details, I suggest you
use:
http://www.antennaweb.org
to optimize your selection and proposed installation.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *

All I can say is I've been using Winegard antennas since 1974 and have
found them to be well built good performers and have never been
disappointed with their products. Also, any friends who took my advice
were never disappointed with either the antannas OR me.

G²

On Sun, 31 May 2009 11:16:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 31, 10:06*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html
Unfortunately, the SS-1000 and SS-1000 are not listed.

Sure it is but it's called 'Square Shooter'

Sorry, typo error. I mean't the SS-1000 and SS-2000 (amplified). It
does list the "Sharp Shooter" which is a different indoor antenna.

What's inside the SS-1000 and some really weird "gain" tests:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/squareshot.htm

As I said, I use it 35 miles out from Mt Wilson (Los Angeles) and have
it split 4 ways - no preamps. I do have Line Of Sight (just barely)

Yes, but the original poster may not have such an ideal location.

Also, bad guess on the beamwidth. It's 54 (channel 69) to 95 (channel
7) degrees. Sorry.

You're right, it isn't very directional but it has a reasonable front-
to-back ratio.

It varies with frequency. It's only 2.6dB at channel 10. See specs
below.

All I can say is I've been using Winegard antennas since 1974 and have
found them to be well built good performers and have never been
disappointed with their products. Also, any friends who took my advice
were never disappointed with either the antannas OR me.

I try to avoid shopping by brand. Even the best manufacturers have
their lemons and losers. Right now, the advertising trend is to
replace your existing antenna with an HD or Digital TV antenna,
whatever that means. Also, to make it look like a DBS dish, which is
generally accepted by most HOA.

Specs and details:
http://www.winegarddirect.com/pdf/spec_ss1000-ss2000.pdf
http://www.winegarddirect.com/squareshooter-ss1000-ss2000/winegard-square-shooter.htm
http://www.winegarddirect.com/viewitem~p~ss-1000~d~Winegard-SS1000-SquareShooter-UHF-Only-DigitalAnalogHDTV-Antenna-System-(SS1000)~post~.htm
I don't see much to complain about in the design and construction of
this antenna. However, whether it's suitable for the OP's location
and application is unknown.

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

Yes, but the original poster may not have such an ideal location.

TV Fool azimuth plot:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2a4wghx.jpg

Was considering 3 antennae with wide reception angles pointed generally at
45, 140, 310 deg. Only 3 are LOS (15, 18, 33)

Pretty flat terrain, no tall structures nearby . Top of the mast: 14 ft. agl.


Thanks.
--
Al, the usual

On May 31, 11:52*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 11:16:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 31, 10:06*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html
Unfortunately, the SS-1000 and SS-1000 are not listed.

Sure it is but it's called 'Square Shooter'

Sorry, typo error. *I mean't the SS-1000 and SS-2000 (amplified). *It
does list the "Sharp Shooter" which is a different indoor antenna.

What's inside the SS-1000 and some really weird "gain" tests:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/squareshot.htm

It's antenna 'M', the Square Shooter

As I said, I use it 35 miles out from Mt Wilson (Los Angeles) and have
it split 4 ways - no preamps. I do have Line Of Sight (just barely)

Yes, but the original poster may not have such an ideal location.

And that is why I point out my line of sight condidtion at 35 miles

Also, bad guess on the beamwidth. *It's 54 (channel 69) to 95 (channel
7) degrees. *Sorry.

You're right, it isn't very directional but it has a reasonable front-
to-back ratio.

It varies with frequency. *It's only 2.6dB at channel 10. *See specs
below.

I don't expect it to be usable where I'm at for channels 7,9,11 and
13. I'll try it and if / when it fails, I'll tie in the VHF of the
Winegard in the garage eaves. Hopefully its VHF performance will make
the grade under the roof 'chaff'. If the wife would put up with the
all channel garage antenna on the roof, it would certainly be fine BUT
she doesn't want to look at it, hence the SS-1000 at least for the
UHF.

All I can say is I've been using Winegard antennas since 1974 and have
found them to be well built good performers and have never been
disappointed with their products. Also, any friends who took my advice
were never disappointed with either the antannas OR me.

I try to avoid shopping by brand. *Even the best manufacturers have
their lemons and losers. *Right now, the advertising trend is to
replace your existing antenna with an HD or Digital TV antenna,
whatever that means. *Also, to make it look like a DBS dish, which is
generally accepted by most HOA.

Specs and details: *
http://www.winegarddirect.com/pdf/spec_ss1000-ss2000.pdf
http://www.winegarddirect.com/squareshooter-ss1000-ss2000/winegard-sq...
http://www.winegarddirect.com/viewitem~p~ss-1000~d~Winegard-SS1000-Sq...
I don't see much to complain about in the design and construction of
this antenna. *However, whether it's suitable for the OP's location
and application is unknown.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *

You won't find any new Sony at our house but you will find 4 Gigabyte
motherboards with AMD processors, 3 old Technics receivers, 8 Advent
speakers, Canon cameras and a lot of who knows what. When one of the
brands falls short I'll re-evaluate but for now I'm happy.

G²

raypsi wrote in news:eedf031f-c023-4a15-abea-
:

Hey OM
This si just a rehash of another post awhile back in this here forum.
But DTV will never go away so:

I seen one on youtube, there are a tonne of them, but this, to the
best of my recollection, one used:

1pc 1x2 2ft long board
5 steel wire coat hangers
dry wall screws
and a 75 ohm to 300 ohm balun

to make a 4 bay bowtie antenna


That one is all over the internet. It works OK, but you would
get better results with copper wire, not steel coat hangers.
It also looks ugly.

For another idea, do a google for a Hoverman style antenna.

Then there is mine...

http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/C...V_antenna.html

On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:04:50 -0700, Usual Suspect
wrote:

Yes, but the original poster may not have such an ideal location.

TV Fool azimuth plot:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2a4wghx.jpg

Nice plot. Kinda looks like you'll need a rotator. The -3dB
beamwidth varies from 54 to 95 degrees. At best, 3 antennas will
cover 3*95 = 285 degrees. At worst, 3*54 = 162 degrees.

Was considering 3 antennae with wide reception angles pointed generally at
45, 140, 310 deg. Only 3 are LOS (15, 18, 33)

What are the ranges and approximate signal strengths? Looks like 18
and 33 can be covered with one antenna pointed at about 250 degrees. A
second antenna at 45 degrees *MIGHT* catch the largest number of
channels. However, there's no optimum location for a 3rd antenna to
catch all the remaining stations. You'll probably have to pick and
choose among the relatively strong ones and take what you can get.
With a UHF only antenna, stations 2-13 are problematic (or
impossible). If you're going to run multiple antennas, you'll
probably need an antenna switch, 3 tower mounted amplifiers, and 3
coax cable runs. If you try to combine then with a power splitter,
you'll get interaction between antennas and an ugly and unpredictable
pattern.

With an indoor antenna of any sorts, which ones can you receive
(including the weak ones)? With only 4dBi of antenna gain, I don't
think you'll be able to dig the ones you can't receive out of the
noise.

Pretty flat terrain, no tall structures nearby . Top of the mast: 14 ft. agl.

They let you have a 14 ft mast and you're worried about the antenna
police? Might as well go for broke. Install a real yagi antenna,
tower mounted amplifier, and rotator. For the tower amp, I recommend
a Channel Master 7777.
http://www.channelmasterintl.com/amplifiers.html
For an antenna, whatever you can find. The bigger and uglier the
anenna, the better it works. See specs at:
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

If you're not sure, buy just one antenna, hang it out the window on a
broom stick, and see what it does. If you're close, continue with
your proposed ideas. If it looks hopeless, give up before you burn
any more money.


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

Rich Griffiths wrote:
Check out: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

...

In this ruling, the FCC pre-empted not only state and local government
regulations but HOA CCR's and landlords' restrictions on renters.

This came about because the broadcasters have a strong lobby, and they
didn't want widespread limitations on receiving their over-the-air or
satellite transmissions.

I would suggest it came about because cable operators have a strong
lobby and wanted to be deregulated. The FCC was reluctant to do so as
long as many apartment- and condo-dwellers had no choice but to
subscribe to cable. By ensuring these people have access to OTA TV you
ensure (at least in theory) that if deregulated cable rates get too
high, one can switch to OTA or satellite.

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

Either way, Elmo is indeed correct.

--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
raypsi wrote in news:eedf031f-c023-4a15-abea-
:



Then there is mine...

http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/C...V_antenna.html

Hi, Gordon,

I recall when you introduced your neat handiwork to the group. I meant
to ask a question:

Did you ever try connecting each of the antennas' twin lead to its own
separate balun and combine the 75-ohm sides of the baluns into a single
coax? A passive splitter, connected backwards, performs this function
nicely.

I ask because, as you have your antenna wired (two antennas in parallel
to a single balun) looks like an impedance mismatch; the balun wants a
300-ohm connection to the two screws and two 300-ohm antennas at the same
time would be 150-ohms. I think you previously said you are not a techie,
so forgive me if I'm using terms you don't know.

Not being one to argue with success, if you tried it and it wasn't any
better, then more power to you. Rock on!

"Sal"

PS: For my fellow techies: Yes, I realize the 300-ohm figure for a bowtie
is nominal and the actual impedance will differ from that figure.
Paralleling the two antennas could be superior.

"Sal M. Onella" wrote in
:


"Gordon" wrote in message
...
raypsi wrote in news:eedf031f-c023-4a15-abea-
:



Then there is mine...

http://mysite.verizon.net/g_reeder/C...V_antenna.html

Hi, Gordon,

I recall when you introduced your neat handiwork to the group. I
meant
to ask a question:

Did you ever try connecting each of the antennas' twin lead to its
own
separate balun and combine the 75-ohm sides of the baluns into a
single coax? A passive splitter, connected backwards, performs this
function nicely.


No, I didn't think to try that. I could give it a shot, I have all
the necessary parts. I am concerned about loss, and thought that
the extra hardware would introduce too much extra loss.


I ask because, as you have your antenna wired (two antennas in
parallel
to a single balun) looks like an impedance mismatch; the balun wants
a 300-ohm connection to the two screws and two 300-ohm antennas at the
same time would be 150-ohms. I think you previously said you are not
a techie, so forgive me if I'm using terms you don't know.

I'm following you.

Hmmm... Yes. I can see how there could be a mismatch. But I
thought that only applied to simple things like resistance in DC
and AC circuits. RF is not one of my forte`s.

Anyway, I was trying to mimic the Channelmaster two and 4 bay
bowtie designs, that seem to have a 300 ohm feed.

Maybe someone could explain that.


Not being one to argue with success, if you tried it and it wasn't
any
better, then more power to you. Rock on!

Well, I got an improvement, probably in spite of myself. The
setup gives better signal strength, and is less suseptable to
interfearence (people walking aroung the room) than just a
single bowtie.


"Sal"

PS: For my fellow techies: Yes, I realize the 300-ohm figure for a
bowtie is nominal and the actual impedance will differ from that
figure. Paralleling the two antennas could be superior.

Gordon wrote:
Well, I got an improvement, probably in spite of myself. The
setup gives better signal strength, and is less suseptable to
interfearence (people walking aroung the room) than just a
single bowtie.

A mismatch can cause ghosting in an analog TV.
What does ghosting do to a digital TV signal?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com