Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:52:43h -0700, William Wright explained:

That's what's wrong with this country.

Exactly -- the attitude today is not even "it does not have to be perfect"
but "do as little as you can get away with doing".

Meanwhile the Chinese economy continues to grow and grow (10% over the
three months up to June 2010) ...

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 22:05:18h +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

I'd imagine that if the fruits of your labour is all that keeps hundreds
of people from hurtling to their death it concentrates the mind a little
more than than ensuring little old ladies can watch Corrie!

Pratt and Whitney?

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:26:10 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

Pratt and Whitney?

No, General Electric.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:51:02h -0700, William Wright explained:

When you lift an aerial (by pushing the mast up through the brackets)
to roof screening effects don't stop 'just like that'. Funny innit?

Rather than being a screening effect, could it actually be due to
destructive interference from signal bouncing off the roof?

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:51:02h -0700, William Wright explained:

When you lift an aerial (by pushing the mast up through the brackets)
to roof screening effects don't stop 'just like that'. Funny innit?

Rather than being a screening effect, could it actually be due to
destructive interference from signal bouncing off the roof?

that can happen, too. But remember that many roofs have a substantial
metal content (red concrete tiles are coated with iron oxide) which lifts
the local earth plane to roof top level.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Aug 9, 10:05*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 9, 6:26 pm, "Nick Le Lievre"

I don`t care if its not the most perfect job that could ever be done.

That's what's wrong with this country.

There was a programme on a month or so back about Rolls Royce making
turbofan engines, one thing that came across was how *everyone*
interviewed was very proud of the job they do (or did) and was concerned
to do it right.

I'd imagine that if the fruits of your labour is all that keeps hundreds
of people from hurtling to their death it concentrates the mind a little
more than than ensuring little old ladies can watch Corrie!

No that's wrong. If you are given a job to do you owe it to yourself
to do it to the best of your ability. Even if you are a student doing
a menial job during the holidays you should do it properly. If this
was drilled into kids at school things would be a lot better.

Bill

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Aug 9, 10:29*pm, J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:51:02h -0700, William Wright explained:



When you lift an aerial (by pushing the mast up through the brackets)
to roof screening effects don't stop 'just like that'. Funny innit?

Rather than being a screening effect, could it actually be due to
destructive interference from signal bouncing off the roof?

That's another way of conceptualising fresnel effects. There are
refractive as well as reflective effects involved. The simplest thing
is, don't have something near the signal path.

Bill

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Aug 9, 10:33*pm, charles wrote:
In article ,
* *J G Miller wrote:

On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:51:02h -0700, William Wright explained:

When you lift an aerial (by pushing the mast up through the brackets)
to roof screening effects don't stop 'just like that'. Funny innit?
Rather than being a screening effect, could it actually be due to
destructive interference from signal bouncing off the roof?

that can happen, too. *But remember that many roofs have a substantial
metal content (red concrete tiles are coated with iron oxide) which lifts
the local earth plane to roof top level.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Yes, if the roof is near the aerial. Yagis don't like a ground plane
within a couple of wavelengths. This used to be an issue in the days
of VP 45MHz transmissions. You could get low gain problems when you
were doing an aerial on a backyard pole (for a prefab or caravan).

Another thing is that any internal wiring can be almost where the
aerial is looking, potentially bad when the roof is made of flimsy
stuff like shingles.

Slightly off the subject, you can get massive problems when the aerial
is just above a flat roof and looking over it, when the tx is
significantly high up. You get nulls and peaks as you move the aerial
up and down the mast. It's because of shallow angle reflections from
the roof. I had one of these once where standing water on the roof
caused almost complete loss of all channels.

Bill

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

" wrote in message
...

No that's wrong. If you are given a job to do you owe it to yourself
to do it to the best of your ability. Even if you are a student doing
a menial job during the holidays you should do it properly. If this
was drilled into kids at school things would be a lot better.

I should imagine a lot depends on whether you like the job or not, I suppose
you love your job that`s why you put in the extra effort that others can`t
be bothered to.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:52:43h -0700, William Wright explained:

That's what's wrong with this country.

Exactly -- the attitude today is not even "it does not have to be perfect"
but "do as little as you can get away with doing".

The attitude of the installers maybe but I`m ok with it as long as it works
properly, if for some reason because of their cack handed installation the
system does not function as it should then I will be the first to complain.
I don`t care if the FM aerial is ****e or even if the freeview reception is
crap, all I`m really interested in is the satellite reception of Sky.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

In message , Nick Le Lievre
writes
"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 9th, 2010 at 13:52:43h -0700, William Wright explained:

That's what's wrong with this country.

Exactly -- the attitude today is not even "it does not have to be perfect"
but "do as little as you can get away with doing".

The attitude of the installers maybe but I`m ok with it as long as it
works properly, if for some reason because of their cack handed
installation the system does not function as it should then I will be
the first to complain. I don`t care if the FM aerial is ****e or even
if the freeview reception is crap, all I`m really interested in is the
satellite reception of Sky.

I would say that a reasonable compromise is:
"It doesn't have to be perfect - it only has to work as well as
something which IS perfect."
--
Ian

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

I would say that a reasonable compromise is:
"It doesn't have to be perfect - it only has to work as well as something
which IS perfect."

There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things, if you do it the right
way chances are you`ll have fewer problems months or years done the road and
I`m all in favor of those that operate in this way even if it means they
have to charge a bit more initially.

If you do it the wrong way (ie cheap and slap dash) this *could* mean that
months or years down the road problems may arise which may cost to fix. As I
am not paying for it, it makes no difference to me which way they do it, I
would prefer that they did it the right way obviously but if as it appears
they have done it the cheap and cheerful wrong way but it still works OK
then I`m not bothered obviously.

If problems do arise then I will think back to what has been said in this
thread and will have no doubts who is to blame, I won`t be paying to put it
right so it makes no odds to me how much it costs.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"charles" wrote in message
...

not that address anyhow. Looking at the satellite picture with Google
maps
it looks more like Le Clos Gosset.

I found Sat-Tech on the CAI website in its members directory, I cannot find
any of the others on there so judging by the work its most probably done by
one of the others. It would be nice to know who is responsible.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

In message , Nick Le Lievre
writes
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

I would say that a reasonable compromise is:
"It doesn't have to be perfect - it only has to work as well as
something which IS perfect."

There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things, if you do it the
right way chances are you`ll have fewer problems months or years done
the road and I`m all in favor of those that operate in this way even if
it means they have to charge a bit more initially.

If you do it the wrong way (ie cheap and slap dash) this *could* mean
that months or years down the road problems may arise which may cost to
fix. As I am not paying for it, it makes no difference to me which way
they do it, I would prefer that they did it the right way obviously but
if as it appears they have done it the cheap and cheerful wrong way but
it still works OK then I`m not bothered obviously.

If problems do arise then I will think back to what has been said in
this thread and will have no doubts who is to blame, I won`t be paying
to put it right so it makes no odds to me how much it costs.

If something works OK at first, but then has problems a few months or
years later, then it ISN'T working as well as something which is
perfect.

One of my previous employers took on a manager from a company which had
gone out of business. His first task was to investigate a backlog of
problems of equipment faults. Without having the slightest idea what the
problems were, he tut-tutted, and said that we shouldn't be supplying
faulty equipment. He proudly declared that his previous company would
NEVER EVER have supplied anything which was faulty. I was not alone in
wondering whether this policy was one of the reasons that he now found
himself working for us!
--
Ian

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

If something works OK at first, but then has problems a few months or
years later, then it ISN'T working as well as something which is perfect.

What I would like to know is something which is not perfect which this
installation obviously isn`t, work as well as something which is perfect, in
the short to long term. I guess I will find this out in due course and Bill
would most likely predict that something awry is bound to happen eventually
judging by how the masts were erected.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"Nick Le Lievre" wrote in message
...

What I would like to know is something which is not perfect which this
installation obviously isn`t, work as well as something which is perfect,
in the short to long term. I guess I will find this out in due course and
Bill would most likely predict that something awry is bound to happen
eventually judging by how the masts were erected.

Not trying to be pretentious or anything but I guess the general consensus
is that I should expect problems right from the off, the aerial is too low
so I will most probably have problems with analogue/freeview reception, the
FM aerial is rubbish so FM reception will be crap, and the satellite dish
will most likely bounce around in the wind meaning the picture will break up
in even mildly windy conditions. That does not give me much to look forward
too, but the SMATV here is so dire anything will be an improvement.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"Nick Le Lievre" wrote in message
...

but the SMATV here is so dire anything will be an improvement.

I mean the SMATV is seriously crap, I currently get five analogue channels
BBC1, BBC2, ITV, CH4, *FIVE*. If I wanted any more I would have to pay at
least £ 16.50 a month to have them delivered after being converted to
analogue. They would be in mono and 4:3. Half the channels in the
subscription package are FTA channels
http://www.newtelsolutions.com/content.asp?pageid=91

We won`t have Digital TV on November 17th unless this IRS is up and running,
if/when we do we`ll suddenly have access 15 Public Service Channels in
Digital for Free and the option to connect to Freesat or SKY and recieve
those in glorious digital aswell.

Its no wonder I have high hopes for this system.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 17:47:24h +0100, Nick Le Lievre wrote:

I guess I will find this out in due course

If you are walking past one of those buildings and it does come
crashing down on top of you because of failure of either the pole
or the fixing, you will indeed learn the answer to your question.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:36:13 +0100, "Nick Le Lievre"
wrote:

Well I know the States of Jersey would have wanted the erections to stick
out as little as possible

Funny, my ex was like that

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:05:18 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

wrote:

On Aug 9, 6:26 pm, "Nick Le Lievre"

I don`t care if its not the most perfect job that could ever be done.

That's what's wrong with this country.

There was a programme on a month or so back about Rolls Royce making
turbofan engines, one thing that came across was how *everyone*
interviewed was very proud of the job they do (or did) and was concerned
to do it right.

I'd imagine that if the fruits of your labour is all that keeps hundreds
of people from hurtling to their death it concentrates the mind a little
more than than ensuring little old ladies can watch Corrie!

Doesn't work at Railtrack

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 23:06:00h +0100, Albert Ross suggested:

Doesn't work at Railtrack

A maintenance contractor for Railtrack, shirley?

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 17:47:24h +0100, Nick Le Lievre wrote:

I guess I will find this out in due course

If you are walking past one of those buildings and it does come
crashing down on top of you because of failure of either the pole
or the fixing, you will indeed learn the answer to your question.

Here it is from another angle http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial5.JPG luckily
I have no need to ever walk anywhere near these IRS masts, so if it falls
down it won`t be my head that`s damaged.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:10:07 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 23:06:00h +0100, Albert Ross suggested:

Doesn't work at Railtrack

A maintenance contractor for Railtrack, shirley?

Railtrack employed the cheapskate cowboys. Another case where paying
more would have cost less.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:32:45 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:


One of my previous employers took on a manager from a company which had
gone out of business. His first task was to investigate a backlog of
problems of equipment faults. Without having the slightest idea what the
problems were, he tut-tutted, and said that we shouldn't be supplying
faulty equipment. He proudly declared that his previous company would
NEVER EVER have supplied anything which was faulty. I was not alone in
wondering whether this policy was one of the reasons that he now found
himself working for us!

I probably knew him :( or at least his exact duplicate. I just bet his
previous employer's kit had faults but they were denied rather than
fixed. No matter how much testing you do, customers will always find
unique problems in the Real World. Fixing them may lead to
improvements elsewhere.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:40:32 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:

Railtrack employed the cheapskate cowboys. Another case where paying
more would have cost less.

But they had the next quaterly dividend cheque for their stockholders
to worry about.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

"Nick Le Lievre" wrote in message
...
"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 17:47:24h +0100, Nick Le Lievre wrote:

I guess I will find this out in due course

If you are walking past one of those buildings and it does come
crashing down on top of you because of failure of either the pole
or the fixing, you will indeed learn the answer to your question.

Here it is from another angle http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial5.JPG
luckily I have no need to ever walk anywhere near these IRS masts, so if
it falls down it won`t be my head that`s damaged.

and here is another one http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial6.jpg from another
estate I walked past today, this estate also had two of these things erected

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

Nick Le Lievre wrote:

and here is another one http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial6.jpg from
another estate I walked past today

Even flimsier brackets.

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

On Thursday, August 12th, 2010, at 19:56:39h +0100, Nick Le Lievre wrote:

and here is another one http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial6.jpg from
another estate I walked past today, this estate also had two of these
things erected

Is it an optical illusion, or is the useless halo VHF antenna mounted
far too close to the top of the satellite dish?

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Thursday, August 12th, 2010, at 19:56:39h +0100, Nick Le Lievre wrote:

and here is another one http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial6.jpg from
another estate I walked past today, this estate also had two of these
things erected

Is it an optical illusion, or is the useless halo VHF antenna mounted
far too close to the top of the satellite dish?

Why does the halo 'enjoy' such a bad reputation? It's not the most
efficient of aerials, but they do work. They have a reasonable amount of
all-round coverage. At one time they were popular with radio amateurs
operating mobile in their cars on the 144 and 432MHz bands, before the
adoption of the wide-scale use of FM and vertical polarisation, using
off-the-shelf Japanese transceivers.
--
Ian

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , J G Miller
writes
On Thursday, August 12th, 2010, at 19:56:39h +0100, Nick Le Lievre wrote:

and here is another one http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial6.jpg from
another estate I walked past today, this estate also had two of these
things erected

Is it an optical illusion, or is the useless halo VHF antenna mounted
far too close to the top of the satellite dish?

Why does the halo 'enjoy' such a bad reputation? It's not the most
efficient of aerials, but they do work. They have a reasonable amount of
all-round coverage. At one time they were popular with radio amateurs
operating mobile in their cars on the 144 and 432MHz bands, before the
adoption of the wide-scale use of FM and vertical polarisation, using
off-the-shelf Japanese transceivers.

Possibly because the do provide "all round coverage". Good stereo needs a
directional aerial to minimise multipath effects. It is also very
noticeable that those who erect them never seem to have read the
instructions. Invariably the null point in the reception pattern is aimed
at the local transmitter.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Does this look like an IRS Aerial/Satellite
 

charles wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

Why does the halo 'enjoy' such a bad reputation? It's not the most
efficient of aerials, but they do work. They have a reasonable amount of
all-round coverage. At one time they were popular with radio amateurs
operating mobile in their cars on the 144 and 432MHz bands, before the
adoption of the wide-scale use of FM and vertical polarisation, using
off-the-shelf Japanese transceivers.

Indeed, and the IBA used them to provide the H component at a few FM
transmitter sites:-

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/shilton.php

However, the gain of one is less than unity when compared to a straight
dipole. Again most riggers don't think properly before using them. If
the customer wants a choice of stations that are coming from a diverse
range of Tx sites, then a VP dipole or a VP yagi suitably directed at
the weaker and/or 'favorite' transmission should be considered first.
There are only three or four minor transmitters (out or a total of
several hundred) that are HP only in the UK, so for omni directional
use, you are usually better off with VP,


Possibly because the do provide "all round coverage". Good stereo needs a
directional aerial to minimise multipath effects. It is also very
noticeable that those who erect them never seem to have read the
instructions. Invariably the null point in the reception pattern is aimed
at the local transmitter.

Indeed. The only source of UK FM on Jersey is from Les Platons (BBC
radio) and Fremont Point (ILR). The sites are very close to each other,
so as can be seen from the OP's picture, the rigger has managed to place
them in the halo's null !!!

http://user.itl.net/~nlel/aerial1.JPG