Assessing OTA capability for NYC market in Northwest NJ (08827) - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
  • 1 Post By Trip in VA
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 Old 06-13-2019, 10:33 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Assessing OTA capability for NYC market in Northwest NJ (08827)

I'm very seriously considering ending our DirecTV service in favor of a combination of OTA and Amazon Fire TV through the Amazon recast (a DVR which allows you to capture OTA broadcasts)-the question is what kind of OTA reception we will get. We are in Northwestern NJ (08827) about 50 miles from the transmission towers in NYC sitting at about 750' elevation, but just to our east there are a bunch of 800-900' peaks in line with the towers. I'm curious as to how these may affect reception. I was planning on mounting the antenna to a mast on the chimney which would put it about 40' AGL. I am not at all opposed to a very large deep fringe type of antenna such as a Winegard HD8200U which I'm hoping would negate any issues that terrain and/or tree canopy might cause. Here is the link to my TVFool report:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...903818abaec636

The channels we care the most about are the major NYC stations (WCBS2, WNBC4, WNYW5, WABC7) and the PBS stations (WNJB8 and WNJT43)-everything else that we watch will come through Amazon Fire TV.
Swamp_Yankee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 Old 06-13-2019, 07:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Although still useful, TVFool isn't keeping up with latest Channel changes. The fol. "TV STUDY" Search includes latest info....note that CBS (on Ch33) and NBC (on Ch36) and esp. ABC (on Hi-VHF Ch7) will be difficult to receive, even with Hi-Gain Antennas for Hi-VHF and UHF Bands (Lo-VHF Ch2-6 would NOT be needed). And you will need a Rotator and a Pre-Amp for UHF (and MAYBe also Hi-VHF, depending on how many drops you have):
https://www.rabbitears.info/search.p...pe=dBm&height=

In Jun/Jul 2019 [Phase 4], the "Northeast" Group of TV Stations will reshuffle many of their Channel assignments, culminating in a final shutdown of Ch38-52 on 2Aug2019. New Channel assignments, as well as the Phased Implementation Schedule is found here:
https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-in...ition-schedule
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/fi...northeast.xlsx

TV STUDY for the reshuffled Channel (and different Power) Assignments shows that FOX (on Ch25) "should" finally be receivable. Small increase in Signal Margin "should" slightly improve reception for ABC (on Hi-VHF Ch7) and CBS (on Ch33)....but NBC will no longer be received [unless they reach a "Sharing" Agreement with a Channel you CAN receive....which is very likely when they roll-out ATSC 3.0 beginning next year. [Note that Antenna for Lo-VHF Ch2-6 would still NOT be needed]:
https://www.rabbitears.info/search.p...pe=dBm&height=

So you don't "need" the Huge W-G HD-8200 and will get Same Performance as the W-G HD-7698, a Combo for Hi-VHF+UHF:
http://manuals.solidsignal.com/HD8200U_Specs.pdf
https://manuals.solidsignal.com/HD7698_Specs.pdf

PS: HD-7698/8200 may have the highest (known) Gain on Ch7 among commercial Antennas, but they have about 2.5 dB lower Gain on Ch33+36 than (say) the CM4228HD 8-Bay UHF Antenna. If you have problems receiving those Channels, you could upgrade by adding (say) CM4228HD using A-D's VHF/UHF Combiner. BTW: You would not need to mount HD7698 on the Rotator, just the CM4228HD:


Last edited by holl_ands; 06-13-2019 at 07:47 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #3 of 17 Old 06-14-2019, 06:38 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 16,481
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1424 Post(s)
Liked: 535
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Your report, interestingly, looks more optimistic for the Philadelphia stations than New York. Are you determined to watch the New York signals, or would the network affiliated stations from Philadelphia be acceptable?


I'm wondering if you aimed a VHF antenna at New York and a UHF antenna at Philadelphia, if you wouldn't get WABC (ABC) and WNJB (PBS), but also KYW (CBS), WCAU (NBC), and WTXF (FOX). (I'm not clear if it's reporting the WABC facility on 1WTC, which was never built, or the one on ESB, which is operating. If it's reporting the 1WTC facility, then it's being optimistic.)



- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 17 Old 06-14-2019, 01:21 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
Your report, interestingly, looks more optimistic for the Philadelphia stations than New York. Are you determined to watch the New York signals, or would the network affiliated stations from Philadelphia be acceptable?

I'm wondering if you aimed a VHF antenna at New York and a UHF antenna at Philadelphia, if you wouldn't get WABC (ABC) and WNJB (PBS), but also KYW (CBS), WCAU (NBC), and WTXF (FOX). (I'm not clear if it's reporting the WABC facility on 1WTC, which was never built, or the one on ESB, which is operating. If it's reporting the 1WTC facility, then it's being optimistic.)
Thanks for the suggestion-that very well may be the way to go as the topography is a great deal more favorable. From our location it is a straight shot over the flatlands and gently rolling hills of Hunterdon and Bucks Counties and into the Delaware River Valley and south to Philadelphia. I think I might go with holl_ands' suggestions on antenna combo and try what you're suggesting.
Swamp_Yankee is offline  
post #5 of 17 Old 06-14-2019, 03:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rabbit73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 3,173
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 355
I agree with Trip; Philadelphia would be better than NYC.

This is an image of your TVFool report:



This report from rabbitears.info should have a more accurate list of channels:



The channels with the gray numbers have shut down their transmitter and sold their license; some are a guest on another channel.

WPVI is on VHF-Low channel 6, which requires an antenna with very wide elements for reliable reception.

There will be a lot of changes in the Philadelphia channels from UHF Repack by the FCC:

https://www.rabbitears.info/market.p...&callsign=wpvi

This is the Repack plan for Philadelphia:
https://www.rabbitears.info/repackch...=&lss=&status=

Most of the changes will be during Phase 4, 6-22-2019 to 8-2-2019.
https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-in...ition-schedule
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Swamp_YankeeAVSreportRE.JPG
Views:	69
Size:	203.7 KB
ID:	2579978   Click image for larger version

Name:	Swamp_YankeeAVSreport.JPG
Views:	62
Size:	187.7 KB
ID:	2579984  

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
www.megalithia.com/elect/aerialsite/dttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 06-14-2019 at 05:29 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #6 of 17 Old 06-14-2019, 05:43 PM
Member
 
Brian in CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Fairfield, Conn.
Posts: 121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Swamp Yankee, I got out my USGS maps to see your topographic situation. With all that high ground so close to your east, I figure the NYC TV stations are going to be hard to get. Your town is in a terrain low point, and in the ATSC 1.0 era, that means difficult reception. I agree with the other respondents that Philly is your best bet for reception. Unfortunately, also at 50 miles, this is going to be a challenge too. Good luck.
Brian in CT is offline  
post #7 of 17 Old 06-14-2019, 05:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Note that TVFool lists WPVI (ABC, Ch6 from Philly) as being the 2nd strongest station with NM=28.4 dB.

OTOH: RabbitEars lists WPVI as the 27th strongest station with NM=6.78 dB (and after repack 21st with NM=8.46 dB)....a Huge discrepancy vs TVFool. And perhaps there is something else being included in the calculation....such as the 16-17 dB Stronger Adjacent Channel Interference from 91.9 and 92.7 MHz FM Stations. [Ch7 also has 4.4 dB Antenna Gain Advantage over Ch6....and significantly lower Man-Made Noise levels....NOT included in above calculations.]

So I don't KNOW which one to believe. IF TVFool is correct, then the HD8200 would be a better choice than HD7698 that I recommended above.

FYI: Following the technical links in TVFool and RabbitEars, I see that they both assumed WABC (Ch7) was coming from ESB. Also note that ATSC 1.0 broadcasts are expected to continue from ESB with new ATSC 3.0 coming from the higher Stick on 1WTC....with yet another reshuffling of JUST the Network to Channel Assignments as they try to share both ATSC 1.0 and 3.0 Channels....

Last edited by holl_ands; 06-14-2019 at 06:21 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #8 of 17 Old 06-14-2019, 07:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rabbit73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 3,173
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 355
IIRC, I think Trip might have said something about a TVStudy Report including a correction factor to compensate for the higher noise levels on VHF-High and VHF-Low.


Also, I don't have the OP's exact address or coordinates. The rabbitears.info report location is based on his TVFool report. I could be off, but I think I'm pretty close. I did ask him for his exact address and antenna coordinates by PM to protect his identity on another forum, but never received them.


Whatever it actually is, Swamp_Yankee will have to make some tests because he is in the trees.

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
www.megalithia.com/elect/aerialsite/dttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 06-14-2019 at 07:12 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #9 of 17 Old 06-16-2019, 03:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 16,481
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1424 Post(s)
Liked: 535
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post
Note that TVFool lists WPVI (ABC, Ch6 from Philly) as being the 2nd strongest station with NM=28.4 dB.

OTOH: RabbitEars lists WPVI as the 27th strongest station with NM=6.78 dB (and after repack 21st with NM=8.46 dB)....a Huge discrepancy vs TVFool. And perhaps there is something else being included in the calculation....
Low-VHF stations have a 13 dB correction factor relative to UHF stations to account for noise.

- Trip
rabbit73 likes this.

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #10 of 17 Old 06-16-2019, 05:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
I am aware that due to reported reception problems, FCC allowed (some??? many??? nearly all???) VHF DTV Stations to increase their original ERP assignments....but I don't recall it being anywhere near as high as 13 dB....can you cite a reference, incl Lo-VHF vs Hi-VHF???


In original as well as 6Feb2004 Update to OET-69 they stipulated Coverage Areas by fol. Field Strengths: 28 dBu (Ch2-6), 36 dBu (Ch7-13) and for UHF a sliding scale: 41 dBu - 20*Log[615/Freq(MHz)]....so 2.3 dB lower ERP on Ch14 than Ch38 and 2.7 dB higher ERP on Ch51:
https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf

And adopted fol. "Planning Factors":
Code:
 Table 3
Planning Factors for DTV Reception
Planning Factor Symbol                  Low VHF High VHF  UHF
Geometric mean frequency (MHz)       F     69     194     615
Dipole factor (dBm-dBu)              Kd  -111.8  -120.8  -130.8
Dipole factor adjustment             Ka  none    none    see text
Thermal noise (dBm)                  Nt  -106.2  -106.2  -106.2
Antenna Gain (dBd)                   G      4       6      10
Downlead line loss (dB)              L      1       2       4
System noise figure (dB)             Ns    10      10       7
Required Carrier to Noise ratio (dB) C/N   15      15      15
Although perhaps SOME receiving systems fall within these guidelines, it is NOT very representative of what people in the Suburban and Rural locations are using. All too often a simple Dipole (e.g. A-D VHF Antenna Kit with 0 dBd Gain) is all that some people are using....which is oftentimes no where near what is needed....although they generally use it with a moderate to High Gain UHF Antenna [up to 12-15 dBd, increasing with frequency]. Or at the other extreme, a BIG Ch2-69 COMBO (e.g. W-G HD-8200 with 5-6.7 dBd on Ch2-6 and 10.4-12.6 dBd on Ch7-13....PS: same as HD7698). And oftentimes a PREAMP for (at least) the UHF Antenna.

So from a "typical" Antenna [Lo-VHF <0 to 4-7 dBd, Hi-VHF~0 or 10-12 dBd, UHF~10-13 dBd] and Total System Noise Figure [typ. 3-5 dB with Preamp] perspective, UHF can have a HUGE advantage vs VHF, presuming that ERP is allocated per FCC Planning Factors [Lower Freqs naturally have lower ERP's due to Lower Propagation Loss on Lower Freqs].

Last edited by holl_ands; 06-16-2019 at 06:05 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #11 of 17 Old 06-16-2019, 06:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 16,481
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1424 Post(s)
Liked: 535
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
The citation is that UHF is 41 dBu, and 28 dBu is 13 dB away from it. Rather than come up with a correction factor, I just use the UHF values for all bands so I don't have to do any math to it.

I'm pretty sure the 13 dB correction isn't enough to counteract the noise, either. Same for the 5 dB adjustment on high-VHF.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #12 of 17 Old 06-16-2019, 06:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
The BIGGEST factor explaining why Higher Freqs get Higher ERP's is the difference in Free Space Loss at the different Frequencies. Fol. calculations are for 100 km LOS with 0 dBd = 2.15 dBi TX and RX Antennas:
https://www.everythingrf.com/rf-calc...oss-calculator

Ch2, Lfs (57 MHz) = 103.3 dB
Ch6, Lfs (85 MHz) = 106.8 dB
Lfs (Lo-VHF Avg) = 105.1 dB

Ch7, Lfs (177 MHz) = 113.1 dB
Ch13, Lfs (213 MHz) = 114.7 dB
Lfs (Hi-VHF Avg) = 113.7 dB

Ch14, Lfs (477 MHz) = 121.6 dB
Ch51, Lfs (695 MHz) = 123.9 dB
Lfs (UHF Avg) = 125.0 dB

So on the AVERAGE, Lfs in UHF Band is about 9.4 dB higher than in Hi-VHF Band and 18.2 dB higher than in Lo-VHF Band. And on the AVERAGE, Hi-Band is about 8.9 dB higher Lfs than Lo-Band.

So your claim that UHF requires about 13 dB higher ERP than the ENTIRE Ch2-13 VHF Band is only off by a couple dB (depending on how you define "Average"....but it's WAY too much generalization for my taste....


Which remains unanswered by how much Lo and Hi-VHF Band Stations were allowed to increase their ERP vs original allocations per OET-69. [Add of course, it's a whole new ballgame of complex computerized algorithms for the on-going Repack...which I am not even TRYING to understand].

Last edited by holl_ands; 06-16-2019 at 06:46 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #13 of 17 Old 06-17-2019, 10:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rabbit73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 3,173
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Planning Factors Noise Sources



In FCC OET BULLETIN No. 69, the planning factors shown in Table 3 make an allowance
for the Thermal Noise Floor, but there is no allowance for Man-made and Galactic noise.
This was acceptable for NTSC because "sparkles" in the picture could be tolerated, but it is
not acceptable for DTV reception because the increase in errors causes a loss of signal.

Extract from

DTV Coverage and Service Prediction, Measurement and Performance Indices
Oded Bendov, John F.X. Browne, Charles W. Rhodes, Yiyan Wu, and Pierre Bouchard

IV. RECEIVER/ANTENNA MODEL FOR COVERAGE PLANNING
A realistic receiver model should be based on proper characterization of the total noise level.
The power levels of these sources have been quantified [7] and the results, modified for US
channel width, are shown in Figure 8. With outdoor antennas, and especially in the Low-VHF
range, Man-made and Galactic sources are the predominant contributors of noise and far
exceed the noise power generated within the receiver.

At present, the only assumed source of noise power is thermal noise at room temperature.
What Figure 8 shows is that the combination of Man-made and Galactic noise power may
easily account for a loss of 10-20 dB of SNR margin at Low-VHF frequencies.

V. MINIMUM SIGNAL LEVEL
Recent reports on field testing in the US [8, 9] and Brazil [10] have demonstrated that the
minimum decodable signal levels are well above those assumed in the planning factors. In
the UHF band, that field strength level is near 50 dBu compared with the specified value of
41 dBu. For VHF channel 2, the minimum field strength at which the DTV signal is decodable,
is at least 40 dBu compared with the specified value of 28 dBu.

End of Extract



Using 41 dBu for all three TV bands in the TVStudy report is a realistic attempt to allow for other noise sources that affect reception which the OET ignored because of their bias from NTSC days. They are assuming an outdoor antenna at 30 feet. The noise problem is even worse with an indoor antenna.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Planning Factors for DTV  Reception Table 3.JPG
Views:	54
Size:	96.9 KB
ID:	2581116   Click image for larger version

Name:	Field Strengths for DTV Stations.JPG
Views:	42
Size:	57.1 KB
ID:	2581118  

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
www.megalithia.com/elect/aerialsite/dttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 06-17-2019 at 12:44 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #14 of 17 Old 06-17-2019, 11:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
I still can't believe that FCC totally IGNORED the Man-Made Noise Levels when initially allocating DTV ERP Levels, which are important in Hi-VHF and esp. Lo-VHF Band....which they KNEW existed but apparently didn't know HOW to QUANTIFY the problem (in dB's). Note that the Man-Made Noise Levels are HUGE in VHF (esp Lo-VHF) Bands with WIDE variances depending on Location, Location, Location...and negligible in UHF Band: [After which they applied a "fudge factor", for which I have NOT YET seen a clear "Definition".]


Above Fa curves indicate how many dB the indicated Noise is ABOVE Thermal Noise Floor (kTB).

Bear in mind that way back in 1960's and 1974 update when CCIR/ITU measurements were being conducted, Impulse Noise from CARS and Arc Welders in "Business" environment was [primarily???] what was being measured....and DTV was known to have a high resistance to Impulse Noise under about 100-uS (compared to DVB-T in fol. chart). As I recall, in 1974 Impulse Noise Suppression in Cars (via Resistive High Tension Wires) was just being introduced, so TODAY, Cars "should" be of only minor significance compared to the NEW THREATS from LCD/LED/Fluorescent Lights and Dimmers. [BTW: Many years ago Taiwan did a country-wide recall of all Arc Welders to backfit an EMI/RFI Suppression Kit....although FCC regs should be holding the line in the USA.] Although it's been a year since I last did a literature search, I have NOT seen any reports on Man-Made Noise Levels in TODAY'S environment:

From Brazil SET/ABERT Test Report [see pg66 of 282]:
http://set.org.br/tecnologia/testing.pdf


BTW: Galactic Noise (which is highest towards the Center of the Milky Way (i.e. Sagittarius A*) is SWAMPED by Man-Made Noise.....and FWIW, Antenna Pattern would reduce received Galactic Noise....except for those Antennas (e.g. Simple VHF Dipole) that have minimal overhead suppression:
Man Made Noise Level (Fa) Above Thermal Noise From CCIR 322 (1990), based on ITS Measurements in 1974 using Vertical Monopole...with even more detail in fol. ITU reference:
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r...4-S!!PDF-E.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...eDXe_NyeTv7EqU [Explains CCIR 322 data orig. from 1960's]


Last edited by holl_ands; 06-17-2019 at 12:26 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #15 of 17 Old 06-17-2019, 12:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rabbit73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 3,173
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked: 355
I see a frequency dependent antenna factor, but I see no "Fudge Factor" for noise applied by OET; Dr. Bendov seems to agree. He was way smarter than I will ever be.

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
www.megalithia.com/elect/aerialsite/dttpoorman.html

Last edited by rabbit73; 06-17-2019 at 01:04 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #16 of 17 Old 06-17-2019, 01:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
PS: I haven't found much info re PULSE WIDTH of EMI from Car Ignition Systems. Fol. article indicates that there is an initial Very High Voltage spike that appears to be a bit under 100-us, followed by a Spark Duration of several millisec's (depends on L-R Time Constant)....so the WORST EMI would be a bit under 100-us (may or may NOT be degrading 8VSB, depending on Pulse Width)...followed by lower level EMI for 1-2 msec:
http://autoditex.com/page/secondary-ignition-33-1.html
https://www.autoserviceprofessional....agnostics-tips

Perhaps someone with an Spectrum Analyzer [with O-Scope, i.e. 0-Hz feature) can use a VHF Antenna to actually measure EMI levels and Pulse Widths for both conventional Distributor [perhaps both breaker point and points free types] and modern Coil-On-Plug designs which don't have long High Tension Plug Wires to radiate EMI....it would be interesting to see how much we've improved Ignition Noise in the last 50-years [despite the use of Fiberglass vs Metal Hoods aka "Bonnets"].....and of course Diesel Engines don't even HAVE an Ignition System....

Last edited by holl_ands; 06-22-2019 at 04:37 AM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #17 of 17 Old 06-18-2019, 05:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 933 Post(s)
Liked: 506
In TVFool and RabbitEars TV Study reports discussed earlier, they BOTH assumed ERP of 34 kW....but with widely different reception predictions as I discussed earlier.

Usr statmanmi reports that KPVI (ABC onCh6) was granted an STA (Station Temporary Authority) last week to increase ERP to 56 kW, which is about a 2.2 dB improvement [not sure WHEN they will execute the STA].
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hd...l#post58192858

The new Coverage Map was an attachment....with 08827 [East of Allentown] clearly well within those signal contours:
https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/da...5feef6e976447a

SO, MIGHT only need an CM4228HD with A-D VHF/UHF Combiner with DIY Ch6 Circular or Square Loop [higher Gain than a Dipole....does NOT need to be on ROTATOR]....unless you want to upgrade to HD8200, which "should" also receive Ch2 & Ch3:
https://imageevent.com/holl_ands/loops/vhfloop
IF you find you need it: DIY Alternatives for even higher Gain Ch6 Antenna....caution, some are quite TALL:
https://imageevent.com/holl_ands/loops


FYI: I do NOT recommend using Stellar-Labs 30-2460 4-El FD-Yagi to receive adjacent Ch6....using K6STI's Dimensions, I modeled it in 4nec2 from which fol. EVAL Results were found....excessive Gain Loss across Ch6 and Excessive SWR. Old A-C FM6 has same problems on Ch6:
https://www.amazon.com/OUTDOOR-ANTEN.../dp/B00NRHAV2K [Stellar Labs 4-El FM Yagi]

Code:
FM, 4-Elem. Folded Dipole Yagi, 4nec2 by holl_ands, 18Jun2019
S-L 30-2460 Dimensions from K6STI: ham-radio.com/k7sti/stellar.htm

Input file : FM_4El_FD_Yagi_Stellar-Labs.nec
Freq sweeps: [(75, 1, 36)]
Autosegmentation: NO

         --- Gain ---              -- Ratios -- -- Impedance --
   Freq    Raw    Net   SWR BeamW    F/R    F/B    Real    Imag  AGT  corr
==========================================================================
Ch5
   76.0   0.55  -4.55 10.85  81.6  -3.43  -3.43  270.81 -851.91 1.00  0.00
   77.0   0.40  -4.46 10.13  80.1  -3.83  -3.83  241.49 -769.91 1.00  0.00
   78.0   0.29  -4.34  9.51  78.0  -4.21  -4.21  215.67 -696.91 1.00  0.00
   79.0   0.28  -4.15  8.98  74.8  -4.51  -4.51  192.32 -630.56 1.00  0.00
   80.0   0.47  -3.78  8.52  70.6  -4.61  -4.61  170.84 -568.81 1.00  0.00
   81.0   0.99  -3.09  8.10  66.4  -4.37  -4.37  151.12 -509.83 1.00  0.00
   82.0   1.94  -1.95  7.66  63.2  -3.61  -3.61  133.62 -452.06 1.00  0.00

Ch6:
   82.0   1.94  -1.95  7.66  63.2  -3.61  -3.61  133.62 -452.06 1.00  0.00
   83.0   3.24  -0.40  7.11  61.6  -2.34  -2.34  119.42 -394.45 1.00  0.00
   84.0   4.66   1.37  6.38  61.6  -0.64  -0.64  110.00 -336.84 1.00 -0.00
   85.0   5.92   3.12  5.43  62.2   1.35   1.35  106.74 -280.21 1.00 -0.00
   86.0   6.81   4.61  4.42  63.2   3.48   3.48  110.08 -226.47 1.00 -0.00
   87.0   7.33   5.72  3.51  64.1   5.69   5.69  119.10 -177.63 1.00 -0.00
   88.0   7.55   6.43  2.82  65.1   7.88   7.88  131.83 -134.83 1.00 -0.00

FM:
   88.0   7.55   6.43  2.82  65.1   7.88   7.88  131.83 -134.83 1.00 -0.00
   89.0   7.61   6.86  2.33  65.6   9.99   9.99  146.15  -98.02 1.00 -0.00
   90.0   7.58   7.07  1.99  66.1  11.83  11.83  160.41  -66.28 1.00 -0.00
   91.0   7.51   7.16  1.77  66.4  13.20  13.20  173.73  -38.35 1.00 -0.00
   92.0   7.44   7.19  1.62  66.6  13.90  13.90  185.81  -13.04 1.00 -0.00
   93.0   7.37   7.18  1.53  66.8  13.96  13.96  196.70   10.59 1.00 -0.00
   94.0   7.32   7.15  1.48  66.8  13.60  13.60  206.65   33.25 1.00 -0.00
   95.0   7.29   7.13  1.48  66.6  13.04  13.04  215.98   55.42 1.00 -0.00
   96.0   7.27   7.09  1.51  66.5  12.42  12.42  224.98   77.44 1.00 -0.00
   97.0   7.26   7.05  1.56  66.3  11.80  11.80  233.98   99.55 1.00 -0.00
   98.0   7.27   7.01  1.64  66.1  11.23  11.23  243.25  121.94 1.00 -0.00
   99.0   7.29   6.97  1.73  65.7  10.70  10.70  253.10  144.72 1.00 -0.00
  100.0   7.32   6.93  1.83  65.4  10.22  10.22  263.82  167.97 1.00 -0.00
  101.0   7.36   6.90  1.93  64.9   9.78   9.78  275.75  191.73 1.00 -0.00
  102.0   7.40   6.85  2.05  64.4   9.36   9.36  289.27  215.98 1.00 -0.00
  103.0   7.45   6.81  2.17  63.9   8.99   8.99  304.81  240.62 1.00 -0.00
  104.0   7.50   6.77  2.30  63.3   8.66   8.66  322.86  265.40 1.00 -0.00
  105.0   7.55   6.73  2.42  62.7   8.35   8.35  343.97  289.90 1.00 -0.00
  106.0   7.59   6.68  2.54  62.2   8.08   8.08  368.73  313.36 1.00 -0.00
  107.0   7.64   6.66  2.64  61.5   7.87   7.87  397.68  334.57 1.00 -0.00
  108.0   7.68   6.64  2.72  60.9   7.70   7.70  431.04  351.65 1.00 -0.00

Beyond FM:
  109.0   7.73   6.65  2.77  60.1   7.63   7.63  468.32  361.80 1.00 -0.00
  110.0   7.79   6.70  2.78  59.3   7.66   7.66  507.36  361.21 1.00 -0.00
Press any key to continue . . .

Last edited by holl_ands; 06-18-2019 at 06:51 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off