Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

When I say weaker, I only mean relative to the other muxes?
The reason I ask is that when I first started using Freeview
the BBC channels were always the strongest with the signal
for channel Five often suffering from break ups. Whereas
now it is usually the BBC channels that suffer from interference
with the commercial channels being rock solid.

I only use an indoor aerial so the signal is marginal at best,
but could it be something to do with work for the Digital
switchover?

Fred X

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

"Fred X" wrote in message
...
When I say weaker, I only mean relative to the other muxes?
The reason I ask is that when I first started using Freeview
the BBC channels were always the strongest with the signal
for channel Five often suffering from break ups. Whereas
now it is usually the BBC channels that suffer from interference
with the commercial channels being rock solid.

I only use an indoor aerial so the signal is marginal at best,
but could it be something to do with work for the Digital
switchover?

Fred X

Yes because work in underway to convert fully to digital. The power
levels are being messed about with while people climb the mast.
I remember CH4/CH5 breaking up all the time, so the cowboy aerial
fitters made a killing. No it is a final round with BBC going off all the
time. Just get a small preamp for now. Changing aerials over is very
complex, but think of the much reduced electric bill when it's all
digital. Transmitters at a fraction of the power and not much need for
specialist gases running along transmission lines etc. No doubt the
companies will sack a few people.

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recentyears?
 

On Jan 11, 7:13*pm, "James R" wrote:

Changing aerials over is very
complex, but think of the much reduced electric bill when it's all
digital. *Transmitters at a fraction of the power

Think of all those DVB boxes wasting power 24/7 in people's houses -
it more than overshadows any savings in TX power.

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

James R wrote:
Changing aerials over is very
complex, but think of the much reduced electric bill when it's all
digital. Transmitters at a fraction of the power and not much need for
specialist gases running along transmission lines etc.

Specialist gases ? You mean nitrogen pumped into the feeders to keep moisture
out ?

Actually, after DSO average ERP levels will only be 7 dB down on peak sync for
the present analogue transmissions, so in fact most of the engineering
involved ahead of DSO is to beef up the feeders and transmitting aerials.
AIUI there's more chance of high voltage flashover in the feeders with high
power COFDM digital signals, then with analogue.

In short DSO has nothing to do with saving energy (certainly not the case
domestically is it ?) but everything to do with flogging off radio spectrum.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

In article , James R
scribeth thus

"Fred X" wrote in message
...
When I say weaker, I only mean relative to the other muxes?
The reason I ask is that when I first started using Freeview
the BBC channels were always the strongest with the signal
for channel Five often suffering from break ups. Whereas
now it is usually the BBC channels that suffer from interference
with the commercial channels being rock solid.

I only use an indoor aerial so the signal is marginal at best,
but could it be something to do with work for the Digital
switchover?

Fred X

Yes because work in underway to convert fully to digital. The power
levels are being messed about with while people climb the mast.
I remember CH4/CH5 breaking up all the time, so the cowboy aerial
fitters made a killing. No it is a final round with BBC going off all the
time. Just get a small preamp for now. Changing aerials over is very
complex, but think of the much reduced electric bill when it's all
digital. Transmitters at a fraction of the power and not much need for
specialist gases running along transmission lines etc. No doubt the
companies will sack a few people.



You sure about the pressured feeders on that;?..
--
Tony Sayer

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 7:13 pm, "James R" wrote:

Changing aerials over is very
complex, but think of the much reduced electric bill when it's all
digital. Transmitters at a fraction of the power

Think of all those DVB boxes wasting power 24/7 in people's houses -
it more than overshadows any savings in TX power.

It says in today's Times that Googling twice causes as much CO2 emission as
boiling a kettle once.

Bill

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
James R wrote:
In short DSO has nothing to do with saving energy (certainly not the case
domestically is it ?) but everything to do with flogging off radio
spectrum.

--
Mark

In short, it's another con. They'll use the greeny argument to back anything
they want to foist on us. It gets dragged into all sorts of things where
it's really irrelevant, just the same as Health and Safety, and Data
Protection, and radiation from cellphones.

You just have to be a total cynic these days. Treat all pronouncements from
the media, government, and business with the greatest suspicion. They've all
got an axe to grind.

Luckily the greeny game is in retreat, government having realised that if
people's standard of living is going to be reduced by the recession they
aren't going to take kindly to having it reduced still further by the use of
inefficient energy production, abandonment of convenient transport, and
bloody daft lightbulbs.

Bill

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:25:53 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

It says in today's Times that Googling twice causes as much CO2 emission as
boiling a kettle once.

Here is a BBC link about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm

I am rather skeptical about it myself, but without knowing all the
facts and figures it is hard to correct it. The 200M Internet searches
a day sounds very conservative, and if that is the figure they based
the calculation on, I wouldn't trust the rest of it.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Have the BBC muxes from Winter Hill become weaker in recent years?
 

In message ,
Andrew Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:25:53 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

It says in today's Times that Googling twice causes as much CO2
emission as boiling a kettle once.

Here is a BBC link about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7823387.stm

I am rather skeptical about it myself, but without knowing all the
facts and figures it is hard to correct it. The 200M Internet searches
a day sounds very conservative, and if that is the figure they based
the calculation on, I wouldn't trust the rest of it.

Is that energy used over and above the cost of having your PC switched on
anyway? Or does it assume that ALL power being used/CO being generated by
the computer is attributed to the Google Search you are currently carrying
out. My laptop will usually be doing at least 1 or 2 other things in the
background (not counting OS processes) when I run a google search...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

well OT now - Google emissions
 

I am rather skeptical about it myself....

I, also, am deeply sceptical. They seem to be making the common mistake of
dividing the overall cost of something by the transactions it handles, and
then assuming you've got a realistic cost per transaction. In particular,
they infer that reducing the number of transactions would reduce the cost
(in CO2, money, or whatever).

BAD LOGIC!

In reality, Google's servers use much the same amount of power whether they
are handling queries or twiddling their thumbs. Likewise, using your PC -
rather than leaving it running but unused - makes hardly any difference to
its power consumption.

As an ex-BT man, it is well known in my industry that phone calls cost BT
nothing at all. Really: the exchanges use the same amount of electricity
whether idle or carrying lots of traffic. There is literally no per-call
incremental cost.

All of the cost is in capital investment in the infrastructure, and its
ongoing electricity consumption.

The reason you get charged for phone calls is because BT must get a return
on its up-front investment, and charging by useage is the only fair and
equitable way of doing so (even though there are no useage-related costs).
The important point being that reducing the number of phone calls does not
reduce BT's costs. Only if the infrastructure can be shrunk, due to a
permanent reduction in load, can savings be made.

I think it's much the same with Google. The infrastructure is scaled to
handle the demands upon it, and it sits there producing a certain amount of
CO2 whether or not those demands actually arise.

Thus it is completely wrong to suggest that a Google query produces as much
CO2 as boiling a kettle, because NOT making that query does NOT save that
much CO2. Likewise, doubling your personal traffic on Google does not
increase CO2 emissions.

Only a long term, sustained reduction in Google traffic would allow them to
scale down their infrastructure, and thus reduce their CO2 emissions.

This may be worth aiming for, of course, but it is a completely different
point from the claims made in the press.

SteveT