Why Buy a Converter?

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:30:20 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:30:53 -0400 Bishoop wrote:
|
| | "Lee" wrote in message
| | . ..
| | Rog' wrote:
| | Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or satellite,
| | and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized converter for
| | our analog-TV's? Maybe just in case someone blows up our
| | cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
| |
| | How about losing your power and you drag out your battery TV that you
| | plugged into the car to check on the storm? I keep one just for that
| | reason as I live in Florida.
| |
| | L e e
| |
| | Doesn't the converter box require AC power?
|
| The one I saw in Walmart requires DC. I presume they provide an adaptor to
| convert the AC to DC.
|
| Or you could wait until the government changes AC over to DC.
|
|
|
| Kewl! I've been waiting for the opportunity to use my new v2.0 jumper
| cables from the car to power the house. It may sound kinda kludgey, but
| I'm ready for an upgrade.

Those jumper cables may not be UL listed for the voltages involved :-)

There are a lot of things that could be better about the way electricity is
delivered to homes (maybe changing to DC is one of them). But it is simply
not practical to make the change because so many things are not ready. One
such change I propose is increasing the voltage. It would be more efficient
in most circumstances. We know how to keep it safe, now. And for a great
many things, it's not hard to make them "240 ready". Virtually every computer
already is, for example. DC, OTOH, would be a lot harder, even though we do
have the technology to step DC down from distribution voltages (2kV to 35kV)
to delivery voltages (100V to 600V). Still, had Edison prevailed in having
DC everywhere, while we might have had many difficulties through the 1900's,
we might well be better off now (for example an electronic ballast can run a
fluorescent light using DC when designed for that purpose).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:53:37 -0400 Lee wrote:

| Bishoop wrote:
|
| Doesn't the converter box require AC power?
|
| Yes and I use my UPS to power it of which I have 3 so between
| the car battery and the UPS and the converter I should be able
| to keep up with storm news! (hopefully)

If you are using cable, and the cable goes out because all their amplifiers
in your area are without power and have run down their batteries, then your
OTA reception (or maybe satellite) is what you have to count on.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Lee wrote:
Richard C. wrote:

Not to the millions of us who use it!

Why pay for TV?
=======================

Hi Richard

I have DTV and believe it or not I spend more time
watching local TV channels than all of those other
provided by DTV. Sure makes a man think!

Lee


I'm pretty much the opposite, as most of my TV time is allocated to
programs *not* available from standard network broadcasters. With very
few exceptions, there aren't many OTA programs I care for.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:14:43 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:44:58 -0400 Rog' wrote:
| | "Bert Hyman" wrote:
| | "Rog'" wrote:
| | Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or satellite,
| | and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized converter for
| | our analog-TV's? Maybe just in case someone blows up our
| | cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
| |
| | Does your cable or satellite service give you all the digital
| | sub-channels that are available from your local stations OTA?
| | Can you receive your local channels from your satellite service at no
| | extra charge?
| | If your cable service does provide all the digital subchannels, do you
| | have to rent a digital converter from them in order to see them?
| |
| | Hmmm. Food for thought.
| | I suspect that local OTA stations will only get one spot each from
| | these service providers. However, Cox is, at least, promising to
| | analog support three years. "The signal will be down-converted
| | from its digital format, enabling customers to receive digital
| | broadcast programming in an analog format."
|
| What they _should_ get is 19.39 mbps of bandwidth. A cable system that uses
| QAM256 is twice that, so this means even with that much bandwidth, the cable
| system only needs to use half the spectrum for each OTA station as before in
| analog. Even with a requirement of the full 19.39 mbps, both come out ahead
| in the deal.
|
| If you cable system isn't providing every subchannel of every OTA station,
| then call them up and tell them you have a hammer.
|
|
|
| "The Hammer of Justice all over this land"
| -- Pete Seeger

You did see this, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101702359.html

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote in :

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:30:20 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:30:53 -0400 Bishoop
| wrote:
|
| | "Lee" wrote in message
| | . ..
| | Rog' wrote:
| | Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or
| | satellite, and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized
| | converter for our analog-TV's? Maybe just in case someone blows
| | up our cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
| |
| | How about losing your power and you drag out your battery TV that
| | you plugged into the car to check on the storm? I keep one just
| | for that reason as I live in Florida.
| |
| | L e e
| |
| | Doesn't the converter box require AC power?
|
| The one I saw in Walmart requires DC. I presume they provide an
| adaptor to convert the AC to DC.
|
| Or you could wait until the government changes AC over to DC.
|
|
|
| Kewl! I've been waiting for the opportunity to use my new v2.0
| jumper cables from the car to power the house. It may sound kinda
| kludgey, but I'm ready for an upgrade.

Those jumper cables may not be UL listed for the voltages involved :-)

There are a lot of things that could be better about the way
electricity is delivered to homes (maybe changing to DC is one of
them). But it is simply not practical to make the change because so
many things are not ready. One such change I propose is increasing
the voltage. It would be more efficient in most circumstances. We
know how to keep it safe, now. And for a great many things, it's not
hard to make them "240 ready". Virtually every computer already is,
for example. DC, OTOH, would be a lot harder, even though we do have
the technology to step DC down from distribution voltages (2kV to
35kV) to delivery voltages (100V to 600V).

conversion losses would be too high.
BTW,distribution voltages run as high as 100s of thousands of volts.
I believe there are a few megavolt lines,too.

Still, had Edison
prevailed in having DC everywhere, while we might have had many
difficulties through the 1900's, we might well be better off now (for
example an electronic ballast can run a fluorescent light using DC
when designed for that purpose).


every small appliance in your house would need replacing.
Anything with a small motor;they generally cannot be rewired for 240v.
you would need new wall-warts for other items.

Transmission of DC power is far more difficult.

BTW,I took apart a failed compact fluorsecent and the electronic ballast
first rectifies the incoming AC to DC.(using a voltage doubler,too.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Why pay for TV?
=======================



Because there's lot's of good stuff on DirecTV, and NOTHING on broadcast.

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:14:43 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:44:58 -0400 Rog' wrote:
| | "Bert Hyman" wrote:
| | "Rog'" wrote:
| | Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or satellite,
| | and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized converter for
| | our analog-TV's? Maybe just in case someone blows up our
| | cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
| |
| | Does your cable or satellite service give you all the digital
| | sub-channels that are available from your local stations OTA?
| | Can you receive your local channels from your satellite service at no
| | extra charge?
| | If your cable service does provide all the digital subchannels, do you
| | have to rent a digital converter from them in order to see them?
| |
| | Hmmm. Food for thought.
| | I suspect that local OTA stations will only get one spot each from
| | these service providers. However, Cox is, at least, promising to
| | analog support three years. "The signal will be down-converted
| | from its digital format, enabling customers to receive digital
| | broadcast programming in an analog format."
|
| What they _should_ get is 19.39 mbps of bandwidth. A cable system that uses
| QAM256 is twice that, so this means even with that much bandwidth, the cable
| system only needs to use half the spectrum for each OTA station as before in
| analog. Even with a requirement of the full 19.39 mbps, both come out ahead
| in the deal.
|
| If you cable system isn't providing every subchannel of every OTA station,
| then call them up and tell them you have a hammer.
|
|
|
| "The Hammer of Justice all over this land"
| -- Pete Seeger

You did see this, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101702359.html



Yeah, I heard about that and you know what? I can't blame her for her
frustration and wanting to retaliate. I can't know if I'd use the same
method, but if she made her point and thought it was all worth it, then
I'd say if there's a next time, use a bigger hammer.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:30:20 -0500 Jer wrote:
| wrote:
| On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:30:53 -0400 Bishoop wrote:
|
| | "Lee" wrote in message
| | . ..
| | Rog' wrote:
| | Is there any reason for those of us who rely on cable or satellite,
| | and expect that we always will, to buy a subsidized converter for
| | our analog-TV's? Maybe just in case someone blows up our
| | cable-headquarters and takes out the satellites?
| |
| | How about losing your power and you drag out your battery TV that you
| | plugged into the car to check on the storm? I keep one just for that
| | reason as I live in Florida.
| |
| | L e e
| |
| | Doesn't the converter box require AC power?
|
| The one I saw in Walmart requires DC. I presume they provide an adaptor to
| convert the AC to DC.
|
| Or you could wait until the government changes AC over to DC.
|
|
|
| Kewl! I've been waiting for the opportunity to use my new v2.0 jumper
| cables from the car to power the house. It may sound kinda kludgey, but
| I'm ready for an upgrade.

Those jumper cables may not be UL listed for the voltages involved :-)

There are a lot of things that could be better about the way electricity is
delivered to homes (maybe changing to DC is one of them). But it is simply
not practical to make the change because so many things are not ready. One
such change I propose is increasing the voltage. It would be more efficient
in most circumstances. We know how to keep it safe, now. And for a great
many things, it's not hard to make them "240 ready". Virtually every computer
already is, for example. DC, OTOH, would be a lot harder, even though we do
have the technology to step DC down from distribution voltages (2kV to 35kV)
to delivery voltages (100V to 600V). Still, had Edison prevailed in having
DC everywhere, while we might have had many difficulties through the 1900's,
we might well be better off now (for example an electronic ballast can run a
fluorescent light using DC when designed for that purpose).



There are a number of consumer appliances that actually use DC
internally, and wouldn't require much effort to use DC as a source.
However, I think transmission line losses would be way beyond tolerances
for a DC power grid. But our biggest problem would be lightning
surges... our plug-in suppressors would have to completely re-invented
so they'd still work. :P

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

NewMan wrote:

Why pay for TV?
=======================


Because there's lot's of good stuff on DirecTV, and NOTHING on broadcast.


There's plenty of stuff on broadcast TV. My issue is whether it
qualifies as entertainment, and for me, most of it don't.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:35:21 -0500, Jer wrote:


There are a number of consumer appliances that actually use DC
internally, and wouldn't require much effort to use DC as a source.
However, I think transmission line losses would be way beyond tolerances
for a DC power grid. But our biggest problem would be lightning
surges... our plug-in suppressors would have to completely re-invented
so they'd still work. :P

The Wizard of Menlo Park (Thomas A Edison) original lighting power
distribution system was D.C. The bus conductors were copper bars imbedded in a
wooden trough filled with tar, buried under the street.

Power loss was great, making the radical invention by Tesla, The AC
transformer (and Motor) that allowed high voltage distribution the natural
replacement for city sized distribution.

History goes backwards here ;-)