Five's New Digital Channels

Some people might not be in a DTT coverage area, and they want to use a
proper satellite receiver not a crippled Sky dodgy-box.



That would be a very small number of people then, I would expect less
than the number of households who could not get Channel 5 when it first
launched.

I doubt any organisation would renegotiate rites to programs and/or
change their transmission arrangements for a small number of people who
live outside of a DTT or cable area and want to use a generic rather
than bespoke receiver. I cant see there would be a reasonable return on
the investment.

In message , no_Spam
writes

Some people might not be in a DTT coverage area, and they want to
use a proper satellite receiver not a crippled Sky dodgy-box.


That would be a very small number of people then, I would expect less
than the number of households who could not get Channel 5 when it first
launched.

I live approx. 20 miles north of London so not exactly in the wilds of
nowhere. I still cannot receive Channel 5 via the old analogue aerial to
this day!

Bob

In article ,
Bob Adams wrote:
I live approx. 20 miles north of London so not exactly in the wilds of
nowhere. I still cannot receive Channel 5 via the old analogue aerial to
this day!

You'd not do too well with the other four if using a Band I aerial
either...

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bob Adams wrote:
I live approx. 20 miles north of London so not exactly in the wilds of
nowhere. I still cannot receive Channel 5 via the old analogue aerial to
this day!

You'd not do too well with the other four if using a Band I aerial
either...

Your reply is meaningless to me. The other four work fine.

Bob

In article ,
Bob Adams wrote:
I live approx. 20 miles north of London so not exactly in the wilds
of nowhere. I still cannot receive Channel 5 via the old analogue
aerial to this day!

You'd not do too well with the other four if using a Band I aerial
either...

Your reply is meaningless to me. The other four work fine.

Your old 'analogue' aerial may not be suitable for the CH5 frequency from
your trasmitter - that's all I meant.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bob Adams wrote:
I live approx. 20 miles north of London so not exactly in the wilds
of nowhere. I still cannot receive Channel 5 via the old analogue
aerial to this day!

You'd not do too well with the other four if using a Band I aerial
either...

Your reply is meaningless to me. The other four work fine.

Your old 'analogue' aerial may not be suitable for the CH5 frequency from
your trasmitter - that's all I meant.


Many years ago, I was playing around with a few old TV aerials (of
various frequency groups) which I had collected over the years. One test
was simply to connect them up (in turn) and see what signal level I got
from the various transmitters which I could receive, regardless of the
group. I was surprised how bad a Group A aerial (for Crystal Palace) was
at receiving the Group B signals from Guildford (40/43/46/50). I noticed
that the best Guildford signals were not really received off the front
of the aerial, but were somewhat 'off beam', to either side.

In contrast, a Group B aerial received good signals from Guildford, and
also from Crystal Palace.

This is what will happen with a simple dipole when you use it higher
than its halfwave frequency. It also appears to happen with a yagi.
However, if you use an aerial BELOW its design frequency, all you lose
is gain (and probably back-to-front ratio).

Now I know that Crystal Palace Channel 5 is Ch37, and therefore
nominally within Group A, but it could be that, as Ch33 was the top CP
analogue channel, some early Group A aerials were really optimised only
up to Ch33 - especially the high-gain types. If so, they may be dropping
off noticeably at Ch37.

Also bear in mind that the radiation pattern of CP Channel 5 is not the
same as for the other four channels (especially to the south, where it
doesn't make it even as far as Crawley - barely 20 miles away). Where I
live (about 25 miles west of CP), on an ancient high-gain J-Beam Channel
5 is normally 6dB down on the other channels. However, after the
clematis has done its annual climb up the mast and over the aerial, the
difference is much greater, prompting me to get the ladder out and do
some trimming!

Ian.



--

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:


[Snip]

Palace Channel 5 is Ch37, and therefore
nominally within Group A, but it could be that, as Ch33 was the top CP
analogue channel, some early Group A aerials were really optimised only
up to Ch33 -

actually quite a lot started dropping off in performance above ch 30 ;-(

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"

Now I know that Crystal Palace Channel 5 is Ch37, and therefore
nominally within Group A, but it could be that, as Ch33 was the top CP
analogue channel, some early Group A aerials were really optimised only
up to Ch33 - especially the high-gain types. If so, they may be dropping
off noticeably at Ch37.

Aerial Group A only ever went as high as UHF Ch 34. Any Grp A aerial older
than ten years will only be optimised for UHF 21-34.

Since 1997 and C5, Group A was extended upward to Ch 37, and Groups B and E
downward to Ch 35 (from Ch 39).


Also bear in mind that the radiation pattern of CP Channel 5 is not the
same as for the other four channels (especially to the south, where it
doesn't make it even as far as Crawley - barely 20 miles away). Where I
live (about 25 miles west of CP), on an ancient high-gain J-Beam Channel
5 is normally 6dB down on the other channels. However, after the
clematis has done its annual climb up the mast and over the aerial, the
difference is much greater, prompting me to get the ladder out and do
some trimming!

C5 analogue is not actually transmitted from Crystal P, it comes from the
nearby Croydon tower. You're right about the radiation pattern, it's
restricted to the south.


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

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Now I know that Crystal Palace Channel 5 is Ch37, and therefore
nominally within Group A, but it could be that, as Ch33 was the top CP
analogue channel, some early Group A aerials were really optimised only
up to Ch33 - especially the high-gain types. If so, they may be dropping
off noticeably at Ch37.

An extreme example was my brother's circa 1990 aerial - he's in the NE of
Scotland and line of sight to Durris, about 10 miles away. Not even a
sniff of CH5 on the old aerial, but ok on the new one.

--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
Now I know that Crystal Palace Channel 5 is Ch37, and therefore
nominally within Group A, but it could be that, as Ch33 was the top CP
analogue channel, some early Group A aerials were really optimised only
up to Ch33 - especially the high-gain types. If so, they may be dropping
off noticeably at Ch37.

An extreme example was my brother's circa 1990 aerial - he's in the NE of
Scotland and line of sight to Durris, about 10 miles away. Not even a
sniff of CH5 on the old aerial, but ok on the new one.

That's not surprising.

The existing four channels from Durris are 22, 25, 28, 32

C5 is on Ch 67 (and 7dB lower in ERP), no chance on a group A, old or new !


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