Amateur Rigger's Diary (very long)

Terry wrote:


Getting back to the topic, I'm sure the same technique will suffice in
the modern enviroment, as Bill suggested, to provide a figure of merit
for an installation. It also occurs to me that with Freeview receiver
virtually being given away with cornflakes these days, with a suitable
LCD display and a little modification to run the receiver from
batteries, a simple but effective piece of roof-top test equipment
could be made quite cheaply. Add a handfull of 3 and 6dB pads and off
you go!


http://www.swires.com/pdf/Terry2DS.pdf

Terry

"Marky P" wrote in message
...

Marky I think you've made a good effort. Bit worried about you up there
balanced only by the weight of your gonads either side of the apex but
looks
like you got through it in one piece. Result with the CAI approved cable
being in place to all points! How did you actually get up onto the roof?
And
how much did you charge for this work!!


We borrowed a roof ladder from the bulder who done some work on the
house, and the cost was meals out every night plus expenses. I come
quite cheap really.

And don't talk to me about gonads! Bloody hell, it ain't half
unconfottable up there. Luckily it was a smooth roof top, unlike the
neighbours which was spikey! Ouch!

Marky P.


Have I missed something here? Did you do the neighbours aerial as well?

You mention a picture of the neighbours aerial, bit it just shows another
picture of the main one you did (unless all the houses down there still have
the protective wrapping on the PVC windows!)

On 27 Feb, 20:58, "Toad" wrote:
Terry wrote:
Getting back to the topic, I'm sure the same technique will suffice in
the modern enviroment, as Bill suggested, to provide a figure of merit
for an installation. It also occurs to me that with Freeview receiver
virtually being given away with cornflakes these days, with a suitable
LCD display and a little modification to run the receiver from
batteries, a simple but effective piece of roof-top test equipment
could be made quite cheaply. Add a handfull of 3 and 6dB pads and off
you go!

http://www.swires.com/pdf/Terry2DS.pdf

How nice of Chris Swires to name one of his products after me!
Actually, we did meet once or twice about 15 - 16 years ago but I
don't think he would remember! His main product in those days was IIRD
the SA87, which cost considerably more than the £195 + VAT & Delivery
his new machine is priced at.

However, signal strength was not what I was considering measuring!
Determination of signal QUALITY was the objective in mind.

Terry

On 27 Feb, 19:41, "Brian Wood" wrote:

Don't **** on the boys chips Bill. Although I agree with a lot of what you
say, Marky probably had great fun completing the project and he and his
friend appear to be delighted with the outcome.
If it requires a return visit for a bit of tweaking I'm sure he will be only
too pleased to have another play.
How else are us keen amateurs gonna learn!

Brian


But Bill's 6dB attenuator trick is an quick and excellent "how close
to the cliff-edge are you?" test.

If you 'keen amateurs' don't read and inwardly digest such simple and
effective suggestions, then you ain't ever gonna learn nuffink!

Terry

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:41:50 -0000, "Brian Wood"
wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
Hi, I'm back from Ilfracombe! Job done and lots to talk about. Blody
miserable weather most of the time, but aerial is up & running with
better than expected results.

It's a commendable effort, but don't be too smug! You don't actually have
any figures to show how far above threshold the various muxes are. You
might have muxes that seem fine but in fact are only a few dB above going
pearshaped. Let's just hope not. Only time will tell.

Do you know Marky, what you've done there would be my worst nightmare.
Installing without any means of measuring the signal levels,
carrier/noise, and BER I mean. I would feel as if I was driving down the
motorway with a blindfold on. And I would drive away with no idea whether
I'd done a good job or not.

I'm not trying to devalue your achievement here, because you did the
research carefully and you seem to have made a pretty good stab at doing a
decent job. But really, your ignorance is bliss. Yes, it might be fine,
for ever. Or it might not . . .

Bill

Don't **** on the boys chips Bill. Although I agree with a lot of what you
say, Marky probably had great fun completing the project and he and his
friend appear to be delighted with the outcome.
If it requires a return visit for a bit of tweaking I'm sure he will be only
too pleased to have another play.
How else are us keen amateurs gonna learn!

Brian


Brian

I'm back down there in a couple of weeks, so I'll see how it's getting
on. At least the Bristol Channel isn't causing any funny business.

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:30:18 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:46:26 +0000, Marky P
wrote:

I will. That's why I took them. UInfortunately, we didn't have the
time to get any closer.

Shame your camera takes out of focus pictures.

It's zoom is pretty crap & it wasn't set for the highest resolution
:-(

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:05:25 -0000, "Doctor D"
wrote:


"Marky P" wrote in message
.. .

Marky I think you've made a good effort. Bit worried about you up there
balanced only by the weight of your gonads either side of the apex but
looks
like you got through it in one piece. Result with the CAI approved cable
being in place to all points! How did you actually get up onto the roof?
And
how much did you charge for this work!!


We borrowed a roof ladder from the bulder who done some work on the
house, and the cost was meals out every night plus expenses. I come
quite cheap really.

And don't talk to me about gonads! Bloody hell, it ain't half
unconfottable up there. Luckily it was a smooth roof top, unlike the
neighbours which was spikey! Ouch!

Marky P.


Have I missed something here? Did you do the neighbours aerial as well?

You mention a picture of the neighbours aerial, bit it just shows another
picture of the main one you did (unless all the houses down there still have
the protective wrapping on the PVC windows!)

Whoops! So I did. Here are the neighbour's aerials...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...6devon0005.jpg

Marky P.

Have I missed something here? Did you do the neighbours aerial as well?

You mention a picture of the neighbours aerial, bit it just shows another
picture of the main one you did (unless all the houses down there still
have
the protective wrapping on the PVC windows!)

Whoops! So I did. Here are the neighbour's aerials...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...6devon0005.jpg

Marky P.


So you did sort them out as well then! :-)

On 27/02/2007 03:45, Bill Wright wrote:

Do you know Marky, what you've done there would be my worst nightmare.
Installing without any means of measuring the signal levels, carrier/noise,
and BER I mean.

OK, I know there's a recommended 45dBuV minimum STB input for signal
level, perhaps it doesn't make much sense to take other bare numbers out
of context, but what are good/bad/indifferent numbers for S/N and BER?

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:47:59 -0000, "Mallory"
wrote:

water is a good attenuator of UHF, the attenuation due to water increases
with increasing frequency....

increasing rain density provides more attenuation....

its more marked on satellite dishes due to the higher frequencies used.

Stephen


It was ****ing down when we tested it. No signal problems, apart from
the dodgy mux.

Marky, take no notice of this rain theory. For all practical applications
it's ********. It's one of those old wives' tales that came about because of
water getting into aerial junction boxes and cable. I've never been able to
even measure it.

Bill