|
|
Advice, please
At long last, after many, many years of planning and saving, I am,
hopefully, going to have a couple of satellite dishes stuck on the top of the tower block where I live (planning permission expected) and fed down to my apartment. Access to the signals will then be available to others in the block to help me to recover the capital cost of installation. I want to understand as much of this as possible and require some advice/explanations from the good folk here! Firstly, the LNBs fitted to the dishes will not be the conventional ones, but will turn the satellite signal into light, which will be fed down fibre optic cables. I was told that the advantage of this approach is that fibre optic distribution is relatively loss free compared to the conventional co-axial cable used. Globalinvacom are the manufacturers and if you want to look at their stuff, simply Google the company name to see their website. Does anybody have any experience of this approach? I know that the St Pancras Station development in London uses fibre optic cabling. Secondly, would you be so kind as to explain the differences and uses of the following LNB: Universal Single, Universal Twin, Universal Quad and Univeral Quatro. I am particularly puzzled between Quad and Quatro, which almost seem the same, with their linguistic roots both meaning 'four'. Thanks! John Porcella |
Advice, please
In article
s.com, John scribeth thus At long last, after many, many years of planning and saving, I am, hopefully, going to have a couple of satellite dishes stuck on the top of the tower block where I live (planning permission expected) and fed down to my apartment. Access to the signals will then be available to others in the block to help me to recover the capital cost of installation. I want to understand as much of this as possible and require some advice/explanations from the good folk here! Firstly, the LNBs fitted to the dishes will not be the conventional ones, but will turn the satellite signal into light, which will be fed down fibre optic cables. Why, are the distances -that- great?.. I was told that the advantage of this approach is that fibre optic distribution is relatively loss free compared to the conventional co-axial cable used. Globalinvacom are the manufacturers and if you want to look at their stuff, simply Google the company name to see their website. Does anybody have any experience of this approach? I know that the St Pancras Station development in London uses fibre optic cabling. Secondly, would you be so kind as to explain the differences and uses of the following LNB: Universal Single, Universal Twin, Universal Quad and Univeral Quatro. I am particularly puzzled between Quad and Quatro, which almost seem the same, with their linguistic roots both meaning 'four'. Depends a bit on how your going to do this either One LNB with a number of separate outputs, fine for small systems up to IIRC 8 TV's or a Four into a distribution switch unit.. Thanks! John Porcella -- Tony Sayer |
Advice, please
Firstly, the LNBs fitted to the dishes will not be the conventional ones, but will turn the satellite signal into light, which will be fed down fibre optic cables. * Why, are the distances -that- great? Yes. It is a twenty-one story building, with long corridors. Also, I was told that this method would not be subject to interference, nor would it interfere with the existing communal TV system, even though the cables would run next to each other down the dry risers. Secondly, would you be so kind as to explain the differences and uses of the following LNB: Universal Single, Universal Twin, Universal Quad and Univeral Quatro. I am particularly puzzled between Quad and Quatro, which almost seem the same, with their linguistic roots both meaning 'four'. Depends a bit on how your going to do this either One LNB with a number of separate outputs, fine for small systems up to IIRC 8 TV's or a Four into a distribution switch unit.. The system will have to feed my apartment to start with, with the maximum need to feed up to 115 flats and apartments, some of might want more than one outlet e.g. for a TVs in the living room and bedroom etc. Still wondering what those different types of LNB do! John Thanks! John Porcella -- Tony Sayer |
Advice, please
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:36:31 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote: I am particularly puzzled between Quad and Quatro, which almost seem the same, with their linguistic roots both meaning 'four'. They are almost the same. I understand the difference to be: Quad - four outputs, each output is switchable between Horizontal High, Horizontal Low, Vertical High, & Vertical Low - the switching is controlled by the Satellite receiver (almost always a Sky box, however more choice is now available) Quatro - 4 outputs, each one fixed to one of the following - Horizontal High, Horizontal Low, Vertical High, & Vertical Low Hopefully this is correct, but someone will be along in a moment to correct if I'm wrong :-) However, if I am reading the page at http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Fibr...cal%20LNB.aspx correctly, if you are utilising an optical LNB ( and the associtaed distribution kit) then the question is superfluous - the optical LNB has only one output - the four polarities being carried in the one fibre. More info on optical distribution he http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Fibr...Solutions.aspx -- Cheers Peter |
Advice, please
"John" wrote in message ... Secondly, would you be so kind as to explain the differences and uses of the following LNB: Universal Single, Universal Twin, Universal Quad and Univeral Quatro. Still wondering what those different types of LNB do! You might find the explanation on this page helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_converter Roger R |
Advice, please
On Apr 21, 2:27*pm, "Roger R"
wrote: "John" wrote in message ... Secondly, would you be so kind as to explain the differences and uses of the following LNB: Universal Single, Universal Twin, Universal Quad and Univeral Quatro. Still wondering what those different types of LNB do! You might find the explanation on this page helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_converter Roger R You are right...an interesting article! John |
Advice, please
"John" wrote in message
... Firstly, the LNBs fitted to the dishes will not be the conventional ones, but will turn the satellite signal into light, which will be fed down fibre optic cables. Why, are the distances -that- great? Yes. It is a twenty-one story building, with long corridors. Assuming 10ft per floor and 100 foot corridors, longest distance will be 310 ft from dish, that's nothing Also, I was told that this method would not be subject to interference, nor would it interfere with the existing communal TV system, even though the cables would run next to each other down the dry risers. Use good screened coax it won't be a problem, using fibre is just an excuse to cause expense Steve Terry -- Get a free Three 3pay Sim with £2 bonus after £10 top up http://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276 |
Advice, please
"Roger R" wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_converter An interesting article which makes a point that I had overlooked, namely that most LNBs are kept powered because this helps to stabilise the temperature and hence the local oscillator frequency. Well, if you're switching between four LNBs as I am, only one LNB receives power at a given time, leaving the others to go cold so to speak. This doesn't matter at all for DVB-S HD and SD signals, but when switching to an LNB for a DVB-S2 HD broadcast, the initial frequency drift manifests as intermittent picture break-up until the system stabilises. The solution, no doubt, is to obtain a suitably specified LNB... |
Advice, please
"Steve Terry" wrote in message ... "John" wrote in message ... Firstly, the LNBs fitted to the dishes will not be the conventional ones, but will turn the satellite signal into light, which will be fed down fibre optic cables. Why, are the distances -that- great? Yes. It is a twenty-one story building, with long corridors. Assuming 10ft per floor and 100 foot corridors, longest distance will be 310 ft from dish, that's nothing Also, I was told that this method would not be subject to interference, nor would it interfere with the existing communal TV system, even though the cables would run next to each other down the dry risers. Use good screened coax it won't be a problem, using fibre is just an excuse to cause expense Steve Terry -- Get a free Three 3pay Sim with £2 bonus after £10 top up http://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276 critcher asked ................. so what is the greatest distance a quad lnb standard sky dish can operate from with a decent signal strength ? |
Advice, please
On 21/04/2010 19:13, critcher wrote:
so what is the greatest distance a quad lnb standard sky dish can operate from with a decent signal strength ? Most do 36,000 km -- Adrian C |
Advice, please
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... On 21/04/2010 19:13, critcher wrote: so what is the greatest distance a quad lnb standard sky dish can operate from with a decent signal strength ? Most do 36,000 km Can't argue with that :-) -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Advice, please
The system will have to feed my apartment to start with, with the maximum need to feed up to 115 flats and apartments, some of might want more than one outlet e.g. for a TVs in the living room and bedroom etc. Still wondering what those different types of LNB do! John, I am no expert on Sat distribution systems, but this worries me on at least two fronts. Firstly, who put this constraint in place that the satellite "head end" should be in yours, or anyone else's flat? Was it you, or your contractor? This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. Presumably additional cables are going to be run to the individual flats from here. That will constitute the bulk of the work involved. I have read about these optical LNBs they are quite new and very possibly the way forward for the future, but right now this kit is very specialised, very expensive and hardly anyone has any experience of using it. If the fibre needs to be spliced and terminated then its even more specialised. Add to that the fact the outdoor bit (the LNB itself) will be exposed to our British climate. Will it be so difficult to run 4 conventional co-ax cables? Blocks such as yours are routinely installed with a conventional Quatro and cables. I will be interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Advice, please
I wonder what satellites you will be recieving if you are expecting a
"couple" of dishes to be installed? I am also just a little bit wary of fibre optics at the moment. Probably as I haven't used them yet! In general the principle seems fine and the great advantage is the low loss and ability to split the signals to many more outlets. It is only the main runs which are fibre optic, and then conversion is back to standard electrical at the local distribution points. To me, it seems that the main problems are having to use preset lengths of fibre optic cable, as terminating is difficult, and possible inexperience of installers if you don't get the right ones. |
Advice, please
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:30:54 -0700 (PDT), widgitt
wrote: I wonder what satellites you will be recieving if you are expecting a "couple" of dishes to be installed? I am also just a little bit wary of fibre optics at the moment. Probably as I haven't used them yet! I've been using optics for over 20 years - they are quite robust, but as to how they will perform in this particular application has yet to be seen. In general the principle seems fine and the great advantage is the low loss and ability to split the signals to many more outlets. The fibres themselves are very strong and will not suffer from water ingress. The literature I've seen indicates the fibres are terminated in FC/PC connestors - these connect by means of a screw thread and are made out of metal (steel?) so tend to be far more robust than the newer type of connector - which are made from plastic It is only the main runs which are fibre optic, and then conversion is back to standard electrical at the local distribution points. The design appears to indicate fibre all the way to the TV set - http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Fibr...Solutions.aspx To me, it seems that the main problems are having to use preset lengths of fibre optic cable, as terminating is difficult, and possible inexperience of installers if you don't get the right ones. Preset lengths are the way to go. There are self terminating optical connectors available, but they're not something I would use. -- Cheers Peter (Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group) |
Advice, please
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:36:31 -0700 (PDT), John wrote:
Thanks! John Porcella I can't find the end of your message. Where is it? |
Advice, please
Why, are the distances -that- great? Yes. *It is a twenty-one story building, with long corridors. Assuming 10ft per floor and 100 foot corridors, longest distance will be 310 ft from dish, that's nothing Also, I was told that this method would not be subject to interference, nor would it interfere with the existing communal TV system, even though the cables would run next to each other down the dry risers. Use good screened coax it won't be a problem, using fibre is just an excuse to cause expense I suspect that you are right! Would there not, though, be a saving in that the dishes would not have to be as big and no need for amplifiers down the line to cope with losses? How much more expensive, per metre, is fibre optic cable compared to traditional co-axial? Thanks very much indeed for your input. John Steve Terry -- Get a free Three 3pay Sim with £2 bonus after £10 top uphttp://freeagent.three.co.uk/stand/view/id/5276 |
Advice, please
On 21 Apr, 16:27, "John Legon" wrote:
"Roger R" wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_block_converter An interesting article which makes a point that I had overlooked, namely that most LNBs are kept powered because this helps to stabilise the temperature and hence the local oscillator frequency. Well, if you're switching between four LNBs as I am, only one LNB receives power at a given time, leaving the others to go cold so to speak. *This doesn't matter at all for DVB-S HD and SD signals, but when switching to an LNB for a DVB-S2 HD broadcast, the initial frequency drift manifests as intermittent picture break-up until the system stabilises. *The solution, no doubt, is to obtain a suitably specified LNB... May I ask why/how you are switching between four LNBS? Four dishes? John |
Advice, please
On 21 Apr, 22:03, "Graham." wrote:
The system will have to feed my apartment to start with, with the maximum need to feed up to 115 flats and apartments, some of might want more than one outlet e.g. for a TVs in the living room and bedroom etc. Still wondering what those different types of LNB do! John, I am no expert on Sat distribution systems, but this worries me on at least two fronts. Firstly, who put this constraint in place that the satellite "head end" should be in yours, or anyone else's flat? Was it you, or your contractor? The dishes would be on the roof and any associated equipment would be in the water tank room which is in a very large room also on the roof. Therefore, I think, that the 'headend' would not be in my apartment. The only thing in my apartment would be cabling and a small box that converts the laser signal back into a signal that a decoder can use (rf, I guess). This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. On the roof and yes. Not quite sure why you think it would be elsewhere! Presumably additional cables are going to be run to the individual flats from here. That will constitute the bulk of the work involved. Indeed. I have read about these optical LNBs they are quite new and very possibly the way forward for the future, but right now this kit is very specialised, very expensive and hardly anyone has any experience of using it. The firm that I have spoken to and used in the past has experience of it from the St Pancras International railway station development. If the fibre needs to be spliced and terminated then its even more specialised. No idea about that! Sorry! Add to that the fact the outdoor bit (the LNB itself) will be exposed to our British climate. As with all LNBs, traditional or otherwise, I suppose! I just hope that the dishes do not need replacing after every winter as the winds up at roof level are many miles per hour worse than at pavement level. Will it be so difficult to run 4 conventional co-ax cables? Probably not, though four cables would probably then need the hiring of somebody to drill through each and every concrete floor in the risers, whereas I hope that with fibre optic cable, only one cable will be required. I was told each floor drilling would cost £50 each or thereabouts! Blocks such as yours are routinely installed with a conventional Quatro and cables. I will be interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this. Indeed. John |
Advice, please
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John saying something like: This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. On the roof and yes. Not quite sure why you think it would be elsewhere! Because that's what it read like. "At long last, after many, many years of planning and saving, I am, hopefully, going to have a couple of satellite dishes stuck on the top of the tower block where I live (planning permission expected) and fed down to my apartment. Access to the signals will then be available to others in the block to help me to recover the capital cost of installation." |
Advice, please
"John" wrote:
On 21 Apr, 16:27, "John Legon" wrote: Well, if you're switching between four LNBs as I am, only one LNB receives power at a given time, leaving the others to go cold so to speak. This doesn't matter at all for DVB-S HD and SD signals, but when switching to an LNB for a DVB-S2 HD broadcast, the initial frequency drift manifests as intermittent picture break-up until the system stabilises. The solution, no doubt, is to obtain a suitably specified LNB... May I ask why/how you are switching between four LNBS? Four dishes? Three LNBs on one dish for reception of Astra 28E, Astra 19E and Hotbird 13E, and one LNB on a second dish for anything I care to point it at - currently Eurobird 9E. Switching is automatic through a four-way DiSEqC switch. FWIW, the second dish is connected to the switch through a 25-metre run of cheap satellite cable - the thinly braided stuff that the experts say should never be used. Another length of ten metres or so goes to the first receiver, from the loop-through of which a run of about 20 metres goes to the second receiver. So that's more than 50 metres of cable, despite which the signal quality at the second receiver is from 60% to 80% (depending on transponder). |
Advice, please
This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. On the roof and yes. Not quite sure why you think it would be elsewhere! Presumably additional cables are going to be run to the individual flats from here. That will constitute the bulk of the work involved. Indeed. So, it is becoming clear now, what is being proposed is an entirely optical distribution system, all the way to every flat... ....where presumably there will be the mother of all outlet plates to present the signals back into copper. That's some system. Also you mentioned dishes (plural), what is going to be distributed? What's the cost per dwelling? I'm asking so that others can help, to say I am out of my depth here would be an understatement. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Advice, please
On Apr 21, 10:30*pm, widgitt wrote:
I wonder what satellites you will be recieving if you are expecting a "couple" of dishes to be installed? I am going to apply for Planning Permission for three: one pointing at the Astra satellites for FreeSat and Sky Digital and one at the Eutelsat Hotbirds for European broadcasters. I do not intend to fit a third initially, but just in case somebody wants something that is not on the initial set-up, then I am not forced to apply for Planning Permission again. I am also just a little bit wary of fibre optics at the moment. Probably as I haven't used them yet! In general the principle seems fine and the great advantage is the low loss and ability to split the signals to many more outlets. It is only the main runs which are fibre optic, and then conversion is back to standard electrical at the local distribution points. To me, it seems that the main problems are having to use preset lengths of fibre optic cable, as terminating is difficult, and possible inexperience of installers if you don't get the right ones. That makes sense. John |
Advice, please
On Apr 21, 10:44*pm, Petert wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:30:54 -0700 (PDT), widgitt wrote: I wonder what satellites you will be recieving if you are expecting a "couple" of dishes to be installed? I am also just a little bit wary of fibre optics at the moment. Probably as I haven't used them yet! I've been using optics for over 20 years - they are quite robust, but as to how they will perform in this particular application has yet to be seen. In general the principle seems fine and the great advantage is the low loss and ability to split the signals to many more outlets. The fibres themselves are very strong and will not suffer from water ingress. The literature I've seen indicates the fibres are terminated in FC/PC connestors - these connect by means of a screw thread and are made out of metal (steel?) so tend to be far more robust than the newer type of connector - which are made from plastic It is only the main runs which are fibre optic, and then conversion is back to standard electrical at the local distribution points. The design appears to indicate fibre all the way to the TV set -http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Fibre%20Optic%20Solutions.aspx I agree. The pictures I have seen show the fibre optic cables going into the room with a TV and then into a small box which converts the light signal into something that current decoders can use. To me, it seems that the main problems are having to use preset lengths of fibre optic cable, as terminating is difficult, and possible inexperience of installers if you don't get the right ones. John |
Advice, please
On Apr 22, 11:57*am, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote: We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember John saying something like: This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. On the roof and yes. Not quite sure why you think it would be elsewhere! Because that's what it read like. "At long last, after many, many years of planning and saving, I am, hopefully, going to have a couple of satellite dishes stuck on the top of the tower block where I live (planning permission expected) and fed down to my apartment. *Access to the signals will then be available to others in the block to help me to recover the capital cost of installation." Hah-hah! Yes, it does seem like I am saying that I live on the roof! No...the dishes would be on the roof, and I live on floors four and five of the tower block! John |
Advice, please
On Apr 22, 4:56*pm, "Graham." wrote:
This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. On the roof and yes. Not quite sure why you think it would be elsewhere! Presumably additional cables are going to be run to the individual flats from here. That will constitute the bulk of the work involved. Indeed. So, it is becoming clear now, what is being proposed is an entirely optical distribution system, all the way to every flat... All the way to my apartment to start with, and then to others as they come on board. ...where presumably there will be the mother of all outlet plates to present the signals back into copper. That's some system. Also you mentioned dishes (plural), what is going to be distributed? Astra (for Sky D), Hotbirds (for Euro channels), DTT and DAB. What's the cost per dwelling? At the moment I do not even know what the total cost will be as I am waiting for a quote, which might be sitting on the floor at home when I get back from work. Initially, I shall be the only beneficiary, and then if others want the signals, then they are going to have to pay their fair share. I am certainly NOT going to run it for a profit, but enough needs to be generated to provide enough to pay back my capital outlay and a bit extra for maintenance. I'm asking so that others can help, to say I am out of my depth here would be an understatement. That makes two of us, but I want to learn! John -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Advice, please
John wrote:
No...the dishes would be on the roof, and I live on floors four and five of the tower block! If it had been floors 7 and 8, I'd have said your surname was really Malkovich, and I'd have claimed my 5 pounds. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk |
Advice, please
"John" wrote in message ... On Apr 22, 4:56 pm, "Graham." wrote: This is most unusual. Where is the existing aerial distribution point? Surely that is where the additional kit should be. On the roof and yes. Not quite sure why you think it would be elsewhere! Presumably additional cables are going to be run to the individual flats from here. That will constitute the bulk of the work involved. Indeed. So, it is becoming clear now, what is being proposed is an entirely optical distribution system, all the way to every flat... All the way to my apartment to start with, and then to others as they come on board. ...where presumably there will be the mother of all outlet plates to present the signals back into copper. That's some system. Also you mentioned dishes (plural), what is going to be distributed? Astra (for Sky D), Hotbirds (for Euro channels), DTT and DAB. What's the cost per dwelling? At the moment I do not even know what the total cost will be as I am waiting for a quote, which might be sitting on the floor at home when I get back from work. Initially, I shall be the only beneficiary, and then if others want the signals, then they are going to have to pay their fair share. I am certainly NOT going to run it for a profit, but enough needs to be generated to provide enough to pay back my capital outlay and a bit extra for maintenance. I'm asking so that others can help, to say I am out of my depth here would be an understatement. That makes two of us, but I want to learn! John -- Graham. %Profound_observation% I find it hard to believe any of this - but stop short, just, of the Troll accusation |
Advice, please
On Apr 22, 11:01*am, John wrote:
On 21 Apr, 22:03, "Graham." wrote: I will be interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this. Indeed. Fibre is very new technology for our industry. On the face of it there are many advantages, and I have no doubt that in a few years it will be the standard technolgy for larger systems. Eventually it will be the standard technology for all systems. But right now, I don't know. The available equipment (and test equipment) is virtually prototype, and there is very little choice of manufacturer. From the customer's point of view perhaps the market needs to mature a little. I think a lot of installers are looking for well-off guinea pigs at the moment. I'm watching the situation with great interest. This year's CAI show will be full of fun. Bill |
Advice, please
On Apr 22, 6:14*pm, John wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:56*pm, "Graham." wrote: Initially, I shall be the only beneficiary, and then if others want the signals, then they are going to have to pay their fair share. *I am certainly NOT going to run it for a profit, but enough needs to be generated to provide enough to pay back my capital outlay and a bit extra for maintenance. Your problem is that the system architecture depends on the number of subscribers. You can't install a system for one, then add another later, then another, etc. Also, the cost of adding individual subscribers after the main installation has been completed will be astronomical, compared to the cost per subscriber if the whole block (or a good part of it) is done at once. You need to install a backbone capable of feeding all likely subscribers, which will be a big investment up front, then charge per connection. Aim to make a profit, because otherwise you will make a loss. Bill |
Advice, please
In message
, " writes On Apr 22, 11:01*am, John wrote: On 21 Apr, 22:03, "Graham." wrote: I will be interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this. Indeed. Fibre is very new technology for our industry. On the face of it there are many advantages, and I have no doubt that in a few years it will be the standard technolgy for larger systems. Eventually it will be the standard technology for all systems. But right now, I don't know. The available equipment (and test equipment) is virtually prototype, and there is very little choice of manufacturer. From the customer's point of view perhaps the market needs to mature a little. I think a lot of installers are looking for well-off guinea pigs at the moment. I'm watching the situation with great interest. This year's CAI show will be full of fun. I have no experience of the use of optical transmission in the MATV and domestic end of the market. However, for many years it has been standard practice in the large cable TV networks, increasingly obviating the need for long cascades of RF repeater amplifiers. The present situation is that many areas are (or could be) fibre-to-the-cabinet, with coax only between the street cabinet and the home. One thing I can say is that most optical equipment is very expensive, but of course, the performance and reliability has to be very high indeed. Obviously, equipment for the somewhat simpler MATV market will probably be a lot cheaper. One of the main problems with the present optical technology is the need for absolutely cleanliness at the connectors. The approach is quite different from coax. It's essentially impractical for installers to fit connectors on the ends of bare fibres. This is overcome by splicing on fibre tails (supplied with connector at one end) - a fairly skilled job, and the splicer isn't cheap. In MATV installations, it may be more practical to use a selection of standard lengths of fibre (even if the excess has to be left carefully coiled up) However, like most things, what is cheap and commonplace today was often considered exotic and prohibitively expensive a few years ago. I'm sure than present problems will be overcome. -- Ian |
Advice, please
double-height? Nice.- We used to call them maisonettes, but the current buzz word seems to be a duplex apartment. John |
Advice, please
On Apr 22, 7:00*pm, Mark Carver wrote:
John wrote: No...the dishes would be on the roof, and I live on floors four and five of the tower block! If it had been floors 7 and 8, I'd have said your surname was really Malkovich, and I'd have claimed my 5 pounds. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. www.paras.org.uk Mark, I have only seen a part of that film, and hope to see it in full the next time it is on. From the bits that I saw on TV, it looked a weird movie! John |
Advice, please
On Apr 23, 2:33*am, "
wrote: On Apr 22, 11:01*am, John wrote: On 21 Apr, 22:03, "Graham." wrote: I will be interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this. Indeed. Fibre is very new technology for our industry. On the face of it there are many advantages, and I have no doubt that in a few years it will be the standard technolgy for larger systems. I was wondering that myself! As technologies converge further and the poor old cable has to carry higher and higher data volumes, I wonder if fibre optics are better placed to do that? Eventually it will be the standard technology for all systems. But right now, I don't know. The available equipment (and test equipment) is virtually prototype, and there is very little choice of manufacturer. From the customer's point of view perhaps the market needs to mature a little. I think a lot of installers are looking for well-off guinea pigs at the moment. I'm watching the situation with great interest. This year's CAI show will be full of fun. There is always something new in every industry it seems each year. Who would have thought of 3D TV in the home just a year or two back? John |
Advice, please
"John" wrote in message ... On Apr 23, 2:33 am, " wrote: On Apr 22, 11:01 am, John wrote: On 21 Apr, 22:03, "Graham." wrote: I will be interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this. Indeed. Fibre is very new technology for our industry. On the face of it there are many advantages, and I have no doubt that in a few years it will be the standard technolgy for larger systems. I was wondering that myself! As technologies converge further and the poor old cable has to carry higher and higher data volumes, I wonder if fibre optics are better placed to do that? Eventually it will be the standard technology for all systems. But right now, I don't know. The available equipment (and test equipment) is virtually prototype, and there is very little choice of manufacturer. From the customer's point of view perhaps the market needs to mature a little. I think a lot of installers are looking for well-off guinea pigs at the moment. I'm watching the situation with great interest. This year's CAI show will be full of fun. There is always something new in every industry it seems each year. Who would have thought of 3D TV in the home just a year or two back? Well call me Nostradamus, Because if you were to have asked me 20 years ago, I would have predicted A fully developed 3D TV industry by now. And bases on the Moon :-) Not sure about sat-nav and smart phones though. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Advice, please
I have no experience of the use of optical transmission in the MATV and domestic end of the market. However, for many years it has been standard practice in the large cable TV networks, increasingly obviating the need for long cascades of RF repeater amplifiers. That is what I was told, so hopefully the added cost of fibre optics is somewhat reduced by not needing as much amplification due to the very low levels of loss. One thing I can say is that most optical equipment is very expensive, Oh dear! but of course, the performance and reliability has to be very high indeed. If it all goes ahead I am hoping that the system is as near perfect for many years as is humanly possible. One of the main problems with the present optical technology is the need for absolutely cleanliness at the connectors. The approach is quite different from coax. It's essentially impractical for installers to fit connectors on the ends of bare fibres. This is overcome by splicing on fibre tails (supplied with connector at one end) - a fairly skilled job, and the splicer isn't cheap. In MATV installations, it may be more practical to use a selection of standard lengths of fibre (even if the excess has to be left carefully coiled up) Somebody else in the thread mentioned this. I shall insist on standard lengths if adding connectors is so tough. Thanks for the input. John |
Advice, please
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote: Somebody else in the thread mentioned this. I shall insist on standard lengths if adding connectors is so tough. Thanks for the input. John Make sure that the lengths of fibre are properly measured befor installation - you can then purchse ready terminated fibre lengths - Greenwoods http://www.greenwoodscomms.com/pdfs/fibre-optics.pdf supply patch cords up to 550 metres in length, terminated and they say will work at 1300nM I think they will supply any length, ready terminated. This will save a lt of tears -- Cheers Peter (Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group) |
Advice, please
In article , Graham. wrote:
Fibre is very new technology for our industry. On the face of it there are many advantages, and I have no doubt that in a few years it will be the standard technolgy for larger systems. I was wondering that myself! As technologies converge further and the poor old cable has to carry higher and higher data volumes, I wonder if fibre optics are better placed to do that? Better for higher data volumes certainly, but I don't know the maximum run length that can be used without repeaters. Perhaps somebody who knows can enlighten us? I suspect it's nowhere near what can be achieved (albeit at lower data rates) with ADSL, and thus will be dependent on electronics in street-boxes, with all the reliability implications of that. If you've got reasonably good ADSL, hang onto it because there's nothing between you and the exchange but wire, so a great deal less to go wrong than with any system that requires powered electronics in the street. Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
Advice, please
On Apr 23, 3:37*pm, Petert wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT), John wrote: Somebody else in the thread mentioned this. *I shall insist on standard lengths if adding connectors is so tough. A major disadvantage of standard pre-terminated lengths is that the plug on the end has to be passed through every aperture along the route during installation. The manufacturers tell us that the thin fibre means smaller holes in walls, but of course this is not the case. I regard the 'preterminated' idea as an interim, and I look forward to the day when the installer will fit terminations. If the machine to do it costs £5,000, so what? It will help sort out the men from the boys. Bill |
Advice, please
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:11:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Apr 23, 3:37*pm, Petert wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT), John wrote: Somebody else in the thread mentioned this. *I shall insist on standard lengths if adding connectors is so tough. A major disadvantage of standard pre-terminated lengths is that the plug on the end has to be passed through every aperture along the route during installation. The manufacturers tell us that the thin fibre means smaller holes in walls, but of course this is not the case. I regard the 'preterminated' idea as an interim, and I look forward to the day when the installer will fit terminations. If the machine to do it costs £5,000, so what? It will help sort out the men from the boys. Agreed, although I siuspect (witthout having checked) the you could probably purchase a cleaver and splice for less that that. Additionaly, Hydra cables are now avaiable - with up tp 96 fibres - - no bigger in diameter than a few fibres as the fibres inside to sheath don't carry individual cladding. -- Cheers Peter (Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com