A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Why don't we use..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 17, 08:04 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,879
Default Why don't we use..

Rhombic antennas here? At Huff they should be relatively small and have
rising gain with rising frequency. I made one once for uhf and it worked
very well, though it needed to be terminated by a resistor to make it
single directional, and seemed to have a lobe either above or below the
horizontal, but then I'm no aerial tech.
I did have a Helical one as well but the bloody wildlife broke the plastic
helix stiffener booms.
It had one problem in that off to the side it still seemed to get vertical
polarised signals a bit too much.


There have been many aerials made over the years, including the stacked
dipole and reflector kind of course.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old May 18th 17, 10:00 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Why don't we use..

On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:04:20 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
Rhombic antennas here? At Huff they should be relatively small and have
rising gain with rising frequency. I made one once for uhf and it worked
very well, though it needed to be terminated by a resistor to make it
single directional, and seemed to have a lobe either above or below the
horizontal, but then I'm no aerial tech.
I did have a Helical one as well but the bloody wildlife broke the plastic
helix stiffener booms.
It had one problem in that off to the side it still seemed to get vertical
polarised signals a bit too much.


There have been many aerials made over the years, including the stacked
dipole and reflector kind of course.


So how does the bog standard telescopic that used to come on a lot of portables
manage to do such a reasonable job then? I had an old Sony trinitron and tbh
sometimes the reception was better on the telescopic than via the roof
antenna on rainy days. Admittedly you had to waggle it around and find the
sweet spot, but even so, it did a good job.

--
Spud


  #4  
Old May 18th 17, 05:39 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,879
Default Why don't we use..

Yes it defies logic. I think for the same reason back in the days of 405
lines my old granny used a few bits of broken Hornby 00 rail track as an
aerial, laid on top of her pelmet. However if you went to the toilet
upstairs, Poor old Perry Coomo used to be a double act.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message news
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:04:20 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
Rhombic antennas here? At Huff they should be relatively small and have
rising gain with rising frequency. I made one once for uhf and it worked
very well, though it needed to be terminated by a resistor to make it
single directional, and seemed to have a lobe either above or below the
horizontal, but then I'm no aerial tech.
I did have a Helical one as well but the bloody wildlife broke the
plastic
helix stiffener booms.
It had one problem in that off to the side it still seemed to get
vertical
polarised signals a bit too much.


There have been many aerials made over the years, including the stacked
dipole and reflector kind of course.


So how does the bog standard telescopic that used to come on a lot of
portables
manage to do such a reasonable job then? I had an old Sony trinitron and
tbh
sometimes the reception was better on the telescopic than via the roof
antenna on rainy days. Admittedly you had to waggle it around and find the
sweet spot, but even so, it did a good job.

--
Spud




  #6  
Old May 18th 17, 06:31 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,977
Default Why don't we use..

On 18/05/2017 17:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes it defies logic.



No it doesn't.

Bill

  #7  
Old May 18th 17, 09:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Why don't we use..

On Thu, 18 May 2017 18:31:18 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

On 18/05/2017 17:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes it defies logic.



No it doesn't.

Bill


Ghosting follows fuzzy logic.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.