Winter Hill BBC2 analogue QRT schedule.

The message
from Johnny B Good contains these words:

=======snip========

As soon as I've laid hands on another one of those 3 way splitters and
swapped the amp out, I'll confirm the make and model of the attic 4 way
amp and report back.

Well, I swapped that 4 way amp out (actually turned out to be exactly
what I'd surmised it to be, except for the gain, 18 db overall, 12 db
per port).

Unfortunately, I'd forgotten that I'd already used another of those
three way splitters in the basement to split the living room feed to
supply the back kitchen TV and a cheap STB which meant they both
suffered a drop of 18db on top of the existing 6db from the splitter and
this proved too much for the toppy to cope with.

I've had to revert back to the amp and the 10db pad combination to
restore 'normal service'. Unfortunately, the Toppy simply refuses to
place BBC1 and 2 at their correct LCNs (I made the mistake of retuning
whilst the amp was out of circuit). Even after a factory reset and auto
tune whether the antenna is pulled after the top channel from the
Storeton Tx has been processed or not, I still can't resolve this issue.

I tried manually selecting each individual mux and 'tuning' them one by
one (factory reset or not) and this, too, failed to resolve the issue. I
even managed to (eventually) spot that the modulator output was
defaulted to CH36 and placed it on CH69 (too close to CH35 for comfort)
but this helped not one bit.

I finally gave up in disgust after wasting an hour or so of my life.
Whether the cheap Pacific box in the back kitchen would have coped
better is an unknown since I never retuned it whilst the amp had been
substituted by the three way splitter so still works ok (it seems a
little bit more sluggish over channel changing though, perhaps a side
effect of handling 8k packets or the split NIT?).

So there it is. My experiment produced results, but not not the ones
I'd hoped for and, what's worse, a seemingly irreversable result as far
as the Toppy is concerned. I've no doubt I'll eventually resolve this
mystery but, for now, I'm giving it a rest in the hope that my
braincells manage to regroup themselves for another assault on the
problem (probably with a little help from this group

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Of course Mux B at pre DSO locations is totally unaffected, and
remains in use for BBC4, CBeebies, Parliament, 301, and BBC radio.

How crap do the BBC channels look where they're all squashed on PSB1?

Dunno, not seen for myself any PSB 1 pictures for real yet.

Remember there's 6 Mb/s more pay load on PSB 1 than on Mux 1 owing to the use
of 64QAM, so I'd imagine the net result is they look no worse (or better) than
Mux 1.

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

www.paras.org.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Mark Carver
writes
I assume that these transmitters will slowly have DVB-T2 rolled out to
them early in 2010, around the same time as the five temporary
transmissions on a 7th mux in pre DSO regions from CP, Lichfield,
Emley, Pontop, and Black H launch ?

Is it *really* Lichfield, as opposed to Sutton Coldfield? (Serious
question, not being pedantic.)

Yep, UHF Ch34 4kW ERP. I assume there's not mast space available at SC, and
what with the temporary mast currently there to enable DSO work, it's less
fuss to use Lichfield.

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

www.paras.org.uk

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Of course Mux B at pre DSO locations is totally unaffected, and remains in
use for BBC4, CBeebies, Parliament, 301, and BBC radio.

How crap do the BBC channels look where they're all squashed on PSB1?

Dunno, not seen for myself any PSB 1 pictures for real yet.

Remember there's 6 Mb/s more pay load on PSB 1 than on Mux 1 owing to the
use of 64QAM, so I'd imagine the net result is they look no worse (or
better) than Mux 1.

Yep, they still look horrible.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
"Bill" wrote in message
...


SWMBO and I were wondering if her late father, a Yorkshire man
in exile, realised it. I suppose we will never know.


Hold a seance. "We have this very important question for you . . ."

You won't get an answer, because when someone's dead, they're dead.

Blimey, I never knew that. Good job you're here Jamie, to teach us the
flaming obvious.

A lot of morons can't seem to grasp this simple fact for themselves.
You, for one, have previously stated that you believed in an afterlife.

Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have
been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? I'd
be interested.

My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their
belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.

At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally
obnoxious little prat in fact.

Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have
been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? I'd
be interested.

Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:

"Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's
close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt
predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus invulnerable
to physical attack) would develop."

....which comes pretty close.


My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their
belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.

What's with the seance references then?


At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally
obnoxious little prat in fact.

Glad I wasn't at school with you.

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have
been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me?
I'd
be interested.

Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:

"Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's
close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt
predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus invulnerable
to physical attack) would develop."

....which comes pretty close.


Surely you can see that I was playing with the idea? Saying 'it could be'
hardly equates to firm faith or belief. You didn't really think I was
turning into Doris Stokes did you?


My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their
belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.

What's with the seance references then?
Oh for goodness sake Jamie, don't you ever say anything for a laugh? When I
was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty
good way of getting the lasses into a dark room.

At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally
obnoxious little prat in fact.

Glad I wasn't at school with you.
If we had it would be fortunate if we'd been close friends, because
otherwise we would have spoilt another couple.

Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...

Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:

"Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's
close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt
predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus
invulnerable
to physical attack) would develop."

...which comes pretty close.


Surely you can see that I was playing with the idea?

You so weren't. You were being serious.


Saying 'it could be'
hardly equates to firm faith or belief. You didn't really think I was
turning into Doris Stokes did you?

You didn't really think I thought that did you?



What's with the seance references then?

Oh for goodness sake Jamie, don't you ever say anything for a laugh? When I
was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty
good way of getting the lasses into a dark room.

weirdo.


Glad I wasn't at school with you.

If we had it would be fortunate if we'd been close friends, because
otherwise we would have spoilt another couple.

huh?

On Nov 9, 3:26*pm, "jamie powell" wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

...



Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have
been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? I'd
be interested.

Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:

"Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's
close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt
predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus invulnerable
to physical attack) would develop."

...which comes pretty close.

My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their
belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.

What's with the seance references then?

At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally
obnoxious little prat in fact.

Glad I wasn't at school with you.

Ha ha ha ha haaa! Oh boy, I'm glad I wasn't at school with you. I
reckon most people on here are also glad that *they* weren't! This
group used to be a pleasant place for like-minded people, until you
decided to come along and ****ed in the whisky.

When I
was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty
good way of getting the lasses into a dark room.

weirdo.

Jamie, trying to get girls into dark rooms when you're a teenager is not
wierd.


Glad I wasn't at school with you.

If we had it would be fortunate if we'd been close friends, because
otherwise we would have spoilt another couple.

huh?

OK. When you encounter a couple in a relationship and they are both horrid
people, the saying is, 'They'd spoil another couple'. It means that if they
hadn't found each other they would between them have made two other innocent
people unhappy.

Bill