TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

In message , Bill Wright
writes

"Jim" wrote in message
onet...
charles wrote:
When some houses near my home were being re-roofed, the contractors
re-fitted aerials up to 6 to a mast, barely a foot apart.

Like this?

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesg.../061.html#img1

Bill


I bet the aerial on the wall is for the warden/manager.
--
Ian

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
Emley (which I use) is analogue 37, 41, 44, 47, 51 and digital is 40,
43, 46, 49, 50, 52.

My simple maths suggests that the N+5/N=5 rule is truly no more.

The n+9 rule hasn't been obeyed for ten years. Bilsdale analogue includes
26 and 35.

by the time C5 appeared sets had got better. My aerial set up had CP on 33
& Hannington on 42. My original colour set, Thorn 3000 series (ISTR) ,
didn't like it - later sets didn't mind. But I had to remove the
Hannington feed when Digiatl TV came along. Can't remember why - it might
have been N+9 again. That was with the old ITV digital box.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

charles wrote:
In article , Bill Wright

The n+9 rule hasn't been obeyed for ten years. Bilsdale analogue includes
26 and 35.

by the time C5 appeared sets had got better. My aerial set up had CP on 33
& Hannington on 42. My original colour set, Thorn 3000 series (ISTR) ,
didn't like it - later sets didn't mind. But I had to remove the
Hannington feed when Digiatl TV came along. Can't remember why - it might
have been N+9 again. That was with the old ITV digital box.


It would have been because from Nov 1998 until Aug 2000, both CP and
Hannington each used E29 for one of the muxes.

Hannington ditched the used of E29 in 2000, but Oxford now uses it.

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Bill Wright

The n+9 rule hasn't been obeyed for ten years. Bilsdale analogue
includes 26 and 35.

by the time C5 appeared sets had got better. My aerial set up had CP
on 33 & Hannington on 42. My original colour set, Thorn 3000 series
(ISTR) , didn't like it - later sets didn't mind. But I had to remove
the Hannington feed when Digiatl TV came along. Can't remember why -
it might have been N+9 again. That was with the old ITV digital box.


It would have been because from Nov 1998 until Aug 2000, both CP and
Hannington each used E29 for one of the muxes.

That makes very good sense - except that Hannington doesn't radiate digital
in my direction. But perhas there was enouh to muck up cpCP.

Hannington ditched the used of E29 in 2000, but Oxford now uses it.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

charles wrote:
In article , Mark Carver


It would have been because from Nov 1998 until Aug 2000, both CP and
Hannington each used E29 for one of the muxes.

That makes very good sense - except that Hannington doesn't radiate digital
in my direction. But perhas there was enouh to muck up cpCP.

I've got a feeling the E29 mux had a different radiation pattern, to the
present DTT transmissions. It had to be restricted towards the NW of
Hannington, because of Cirencester analogue, so there might have been
more radiation eastwards ?

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

http://www.paras.org.uk/

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Mark Carver


It would have been because from Nov 1998 until Aug 2000, both CP and
Hannington each used E29 for one of the muxes.

That makes very good sense - except that Hannington doesn't radiate
digital in my direction. But perhas there was enouh to muck up cpCP.

I've got a feeling the E29 mux had a different radiation pattern, to the
present DTT transmissions. It had to be restricted towards the NW of
Hannington, because of Cirencester analogue, so there might have been
more radiation eastwards ?

at least Circenceter was VP

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

charles wrote:
In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
charles wrote:
In article , Mark Carver

It would have been because from Nov 1998 until Aug 2000, both CP and
Hannington each used E29 for one of the muxes.
That makes very good sense - except that Hannington doesn't radiate
digital in my direction. But perhas there was enouh to muck up cpCP.

I've got a feeling the E29 mux had a different radiation pattern, to the
present DTT transmissions. It had to be restricted towards the NW of
Hannington, because of Cirencester analogue, so there might have been
more radiation eastwards ?

at least Circenceter was VP

So is Guildford ;-)


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

www.paras.org.uk

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
net...
charles wrote:
When some houses near my home were being re-roofed, the contractors
re-fitted aerials up to 6 to a mast, barely a foot apart.

Like this?

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesg.../061.html#img1

Bill


The aerials were all mounted vertically on a single
mast, all with vertical polarisation. In your
example, the aerials are mounted on horizontal spars
and the vertical separation is greater. Which would
be worse for overlapping fields?

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

"Jim" wrote in message
net...
Bill Wright wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
net...
charles wrote:
When some houses near my home were being re-roofed, the contractors
re-fitted aerials up to 6 to a mast, barely a foot apart.

Like this?

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesg.../061.html#img1

Bill
The aerials were all mounted vertically on a single mast, all with
vertical polarisation. In your example, the aerials are mounted on
horizontal spars and the vertical separation is greater. Which would be
worse for overlapping fields?

It's hard to say really, but in general I would have thought that if the
dipoles were broadside on there would be more chance of signal passing from
one to the other.

Bill

TV on different aerial causing interference?
 

On Feb 25, 8:40*pm, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message

net...





Bill Wright wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
ronet...
charles wrote:
When some houses near my home were being re-roofed, the contractors
re-fitted aerials up to 6 to a mast, barely a foot apart.

Like this?

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesg.../061.html#img1

Bill
The aerials were all mounted vertically on a single mast, all with
vertical polarisation. *In your example, the aerials are mounted on
horizontal spars and the vertical separation is greater. *Which would be
worse for overlapping fields?

It's hard to say really, but in general I would have thought that if the
dipoles were broadside on there would be more chance of signal passing from
one to the other.

Bill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Could be coupling between the two sections of coax running alongside
each other, this is likely to be comparable to the coupling between
the two antennas.

I believe many modern digital tuners use a zero IF technique with the
recovered I & Q signals being applied directly to the demodulator
chipset. So the avoidance of channels for fear of Local Oscillator re-
radiation problems imay no longer be necssary.

UKM