Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article .net,
Usual Suspect wrote:

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 believe the local code has any say in the matter.

But if you want to give up your rights...

When I lived in Miami; there was a subdivision in Miami Lakes that had
banned TV antennas (before the FCC ruling). A homeowner had constructed
some form of "artwork" with a TV antenna in front of his house. It was
positioned toward the sky, unusable, but unmistakably a TV antenna!

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Use only Genuine Interocitor Parts" Tom Servo ;-P

A mismatch can cause ghosting in an analog TV.
What does ghosting do to a digital TV signal?

Just as a point of interest (to me at least) I grew up within 3 blocks of
an airport, it
was a several times a day occurance to have the picture flutter as an
airplane flew by.
Mike

On May 31, 7:31*am, Usual Suspect wrote:
I've had one on the roof since Dec 2004 in 90274 35 miles from Mt
Wilson split 4 ways with no preamps. It's a fine little UHF
antenna
and while they say it can do upper VHF, I have serious doubts.
I'll
find out for certain in 2 weeks.
G²

Thanks, G, for answering the question *asked*. I appreciate it. :-)

The issue re. rights may be interesting to some, but was not asked.
(Man, the
signal-to-noise ration on USENET is *so* low...)

If you think of it, please post a follow-up in 2 weeks.

Thanks.
--
Al, the usual

Well, it's the 'big day' and while we have an excellent antenna at
work, I didn't think the little 'SquareShooter' would be adequate for
VHF-hi (channels 7-13) DTV. I brought home the spectrum analyzer to
check out the signal before I tried a re-scan. So far 2 of the 4 VHF-
hi have completed the change over. KABC-7 and KCAL-9 are in their new
homes. The spectrum analyzer showed better than 20dB carrier to noise
which should be OK. I then connected to the computer tuner and it
works very well. I must say I am totally surprised about that as the
analog stations 7-13 were SO weak as to not even SEE a locked umage
from analog. As it is, it appears to be as good as the UHF DTV. If Fox
11 and KCOP-13 are as good as 7 and 9 I won't need to change a thing.

G²

wrote in message
...

So far 2 of the 4 VHF-
hi have completed the change over. KABC-7 and KCAL-9 are in their new
homes. The spectrum analyzer showed better than 20dB carrier to noise
which should be OK. I then connected to the computer tuner and it
works very well. I must say I am totally surprised about that as the
analog stations 7-13 were SO weak as to not even SEE a locked umage
from analog. As it is, it appears to be as good as the UHF DTV. If Fox
11 and KCOP-13 are as good as 7 and 9 I won't need to change a thing.

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

I got KABC but, so far, no KCAL. I'm in San Diego, so my situation will be
variable, depending on the ducting. I think I've lost KCBS, since they
moved to KCAL's old channel, 43, which has a local LPTV station sitting on
it. I still have some more antenna tricks to try. KCAL on 43 was always
very "iffy."

I've also lost KCET; There's a Mexican station (full power) on 28. KOCE
generally good.

On Jun 12, 11:56*pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
wrote in message

news:24d3eea0-2907-4cb1-
...

So far 2 of the 4 VHF-
hi have completed the change over. KABC-7 and KCAL-9 are in their
new
homes. The spectrum analyzer showed better than 20dB carrier to
noise
which should be OK. I then connected to the computer tuner and it
works very well. I must say I am totally surprised about that as
the
analog stations 7-13 were SO weak as to not even SEE a locked umage
from analog. As it is, it appears to be as good as the UHF DTV. If
Fox
11 and KCOP-13 are as good as 7 and 9 I won't need to change a
thing.

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

I got KABC but, so far, no KCAL. *I'm in San Diego, *so my
situation will be
variable, depending on the ducting. *I think I've lost KCBS, since
they
moved to KCAL's old channel, 43, which has a local LPTV station
sitting on
it. *I still have some more antenna tricks to try. *KCAL on 43 was
always
very "iffy."

I've also lost KCET; There's a Mexican station (full power) on 28.
*KOCE
generally good.

My optimism was premature. KABC is better than I expected and KCAL was
marginal. KTTV-11 Fox is way down in the mud and KCOP-13 is worse than
11, neither of which is usable at all. Keep in mind this is that
little SquareShooter (without the preamp) which is good for UHF isn't
going to make it for VHF hi. Oh well, some more cable along with a UHF/
VHF splitter (combiner) and that big Winegard in the garage will
hopefully cure it.

At 12:30am 6-13-09 KWHY-22 analog was still on the air but all that's
left are a few low power analogs - as they told us.

G²

On Jun 13, 1:08*am, wrote:

At 12:30am 6-13-09 KWHY-22 analog was still on the air but all
that's
left are a few low power analogs - as they told us.

G²

Dummy me, I just remembered KWHY is one of the LA nightlight stations
that will stay on another month with an infomercial on how to get your
TV converted.

G²

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:08:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Oh well, some more cable along with a UHF/
VHF splitter (combiner) and that big Winegard in the garage will
hopefully cure it.

By this little snippet of what was intended as an aside may, in fact,
be your solution for VHF. Given your predicament of "code" (arbitrary
or otherwise), you can put the cable to work.

The solution is called a "Franklin Antenna." It would be disguised as
an antenna cable (or telephone cable, or power line, or other
innocuous wire) that trails up (to something innocuous), but never
connects (who is going to look? and if they did, it could always be a
dummy connection).

A Franklin antenna is a stacked, gain antenna that is very colinear
(hence the cable motif). These are most often described on the Web
for home wi-fi or bluetooth applications, but with scaling you can
bring them back down into the TV VHF band. A quick search gives:
http://www.para.org.ph/membersarticl...s%20-%2021.pdf
which on page 11 gives a pictorial representation (I can't say I vouch
for the entire paper, but it is representative of the topic).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:10:24 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

(...)
The solution is called a "Franklin Antenna." It would be disguised as
an antenna cable (or telephone cable, or power line, or other
innocuous wire) that trails up (to something innocuous), but never
connects (who is going to look? and if they did, it could always be a
dummy connection).

A Franklin antenna is a stacked, gain antenna that is very colinear
(hence the cable motif). These are most often described on the Web
for home wi-fi or bluetooth applications, but with scaling you can
bring them back down into the TV VHF band. A quick search gives:
http://www.para.org.ph/membersarticl...s%20-%2021.pdf
which on page 11 gives a pictorial representation (I can't say I vouch
for the entire paper, but it is representative of the topic).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The only problem is that a Franklin antenna is usually vertically
polarized. TV is horizontal.... well some station have a vertically
polarized component, but it's mostly horizontal.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/68820
The Franklin antenna is not very wide band, covering perhaps a few UHF
channels, but certainly not the entire UHF TV band.

Topic drift: Franklin or AMOS antennas for Wi-Fi. NEC2 deck is under
the "main" page and is easily scaled for your favorite TV channel.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-7/index.html
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5/index.html

I don't have photos of the "disguise" TV antenna I installed on top of
a 175ft redwood tree. It was vertically polarized, crammed into a PVC
pipe, and filled with urethane foam (fence post compound). 20dB gain
wide band GaAsFET amp at the base. It was painted brown, to match the
tree trunk.

Performance was a disaster. There wasn't enough gain so most stations
were noisy. With an omnidirectinal pattern, it did a superior job of
converting reflections from the surrounding mountains, into obnoxious
and irritating ghosts. 4 tries, and no luck.

The plan was to install a pully near the top of the tree, and use a
rope to raise and lower verious experiments. Unfortunately, I used a
rope that did not do well in the sun. After about a year of trial and
error, the rope crumbled. The pully is still in the tree and can
probably be used again.

As for other disguise antennas, I've done some tinkering
characterizing various road signs for operation as antennas. The
aluminum sign is a tolerable radiator, but the galvanized steel
support is a problem. I've also seen all manner of urethane
sculptures, designed to resemble a tree, cactus, building materials,
lamps, boulders, etc, each with an antenna behind or inside. Also
fiberglass panels for hiding antennas in the sidewalk.

I've also crammed wi-fi repeaters inside a plastic owl. I've
disguised a wi-fi antenna by making it look like a giant bird nest. If
the neighbors asked, I told the owner to tell them it was a Roc nest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc_(mythology)
For HF, I've loaded into the rain gutters, installed chicken wire
under the carpeting for a ground, and strung wires between telephone
poles.

--
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 Jun 13, 10:10*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:08:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
Oh well, some more cable along with a UHF/
VHF splitter (combiner) and that big Winegard in the garage will
hopefully cure it.

By this little snippet of what was intended as an aside may, in
fact,
be your solution for VHF. *Given your predicament of
"code" (arbitrary
or otherwise), you can put the cable to work.

The solution is called a "Franklin Antenna." *It would be disguised
as
an antenna cable (or telephone cable, or power line, or other
innocuous wire) that trails up (to something innocuous), but never
connects (who is going to look? *and if they did, it could always
be a
dummy connection).

A Franklin antenna is a stacked, gain antenna that is very colinear
(hence the cable motif). *These are most often described on the Web
for home wi-fi or bluetooth applications, but with scaling you can
bring them back down into the TV VHF band. *A quick search
gives:http://www.para.org.ph/membersarticl...velopment%20of
%20Coll...
which on page 11 gives a pictorial representation (I can't say I
vouch
for the entire paper, but it is representative of the topic).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I hung the spectrum analyzer on the Winegard all channel antenna in
the rafters of the garage. The VHF channels are strong and free of
response 'bumps' (meaning no serious multipath) and the UHF may be
better than the squareshooter on the roof. Tomorrow I shoot a hole in
the stucco wall to get the new RG-6 coax (crazy guy at Torrance
Electronics sold me 100 ft for $9) pulled in to the splitter to feed
the computers and STB. It looks like it will be good.

G²

On Jun 9, 11:21*pm, "amdx" wrote:
A mismatch can cause ghosting in an analog TV.
What does ghosting do to a digital TV signal?

* Just as a point of interest (to me at least) I grew up within 3 blocks of
an airport, it
was a several times a day occurance to have the picture flutter as an
airplane flew by.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Mike

It was identifying the reflection of radio signals from a flying
aircraft that led to the development and use of radar.
Radar was major factor in the successful defence of Britain (Britain
1940) against German bombing (The Blitz) early in WWII (1939-1945).
Although it was initially very crude, (It was called Radio-location or
RDF, Radio Direction Finding) at the time.
Unfortunately the first war time US use of radar was misinterpreted
when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in Dec 1941!