Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Amplified\s+TV\s+Antenna\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Amplified\s+TV\s+Antenna\s*$/: 61 ]

Total 61 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Eric Lowell <elowell@satnetmaine.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:09:32 -0400; I'm sure that you don't mean to imply that the operation of the antenna is dependent on the type of modulation? Do you? -- Eric Lowell 48 Loon Road Wesley, ME 04686 __________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00063.html (10,875 bytes)
22. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:14:53 -0400; Even high VHF (Ch 7-13) suffers from noise and interference not present in the lower UHF channels. In addition, the propagation/allocation models were seriously flawed - many of those with high VHF; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00064.html (11,020 bytes)
23. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:16:34 -0500; Analog antennas that advertised channel 2 through 13 were broadband from the get-go. You can't get them much broader than that ..... Digital not withstanding. And "omni" is not "digital" either. Two; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00065.html (10,983 bytes)
24. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:17:02 -0400; To a degree, yes. It is that the newer DTV tuner chips perform better under multipath conditions where NTSC was very sensitive to ghosts and required a very directional antenna. With DTV, scanning do; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00066.html (11,701 bytes)
25. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:19:21 -0400; I disagree. No one in their right mind would have used an omni to receive NTSC. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailm; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00067.html (11,656 bytes)
26. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:26:01 -0500; Maybe not in Downtown New York, but out in the burbs they worked just fine. You have to match the antenna to the environment or maybe you aren't in the right mind. Don W4DNR _________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00068.html (9,333 bytes)
27. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:31:26 -0400; An omni would only work in very flat country. I have lived in the country and I have built cable TV head ends in the country and I never saw an omni until after the DTV transition. Semantics can be p; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00069.html (10,111 bytes)
28. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Kaidor" <jerry@tr2.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 21:24:12 -0700 (PDT); The actual cause of the hum/buzz problems we blame on these ** Um, the OM-1 had no green wire. Two-wire cord. You seem to have some problem with the words or sounds "ground loop" - OK, let's call it; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00070.html (10,038 bytes)
29. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 22:59:07 -0400; Interesting enough, I always said there is no such thing as a real ground. Ground loops are a serious problem, especially in research labs. The worse case of ground loop interference was sort of the; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00071.html (12,732 bytes)
30. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Adrian Flynn <adrianjamesflynn@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 23:02:35 -0400; You are listing the "Bowtie" as Only a Digital Antenna. It has been and always will be one of the best antennas ever made. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@conte; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00072.html (10,983 bytes)
31. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 23:03:22 -0400; A local TV station here in Lexington, Ky ended up preplacing their new VHF DTV transmitter and antenna with an new UHF one. The problem is that when ever customers bought antennas the stores only car; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00073.html (10,940 bytes)
32. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:06:11 -0400; I guess there are some who make an argument even when we essentially agree. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/l; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00074.html (11,636 bytes)
33. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:14:44 -0500; Take this over to antenna-discussion@antennex.com There are a couple of professors over there that can explain away your confusion. Don W4DNR _______________________________________________ Amps mail; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00075.html (10,619 bytes)
34. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:29:16 -0700; I lived and worked in Chicago at the time, was (and still am) an SBE member, knew many of the broadcast engineers. I am well aware of the facts. 73, Jim K9YC _________________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00076.html (9,906 bytes)
35. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:33:03 -0700; Of course -- it's a continuous function, not a "step" function. :) 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailm; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00077.html (9,565 bytes)
36. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 02:39:25 -0400; My experience is an antenna is an antenna is an antenna is an antenna. It makes no difference in the antenna type, they do not care whether the signal is analog or digital. there is no such thing as; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00078.html (14,664 bytes)
37. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 05:34:34 -0400; I do not see what a stroll down memory lane has to do with DTV. One has to think differently. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contes; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00080.html (16,088 bytes)
38. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 05:40:22 -0400; But the decision and implementation was among about 3 people in New York. They knew exactly what they were doing and budgets, including contingencies, were adjusted accordingly in New York. Any major; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00081.html (10,297 bytes)
39. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 03:57:30 -0700; REPLY: Not a "step" function? I disagree. I did TV repair for about 18 years back in the ;60s and '70s and I can assure you power line noise is indeed a "step" function. On warm, dry days in Southern; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00083.html (10,269 bytes)
40. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 04:01:08 -0700; REPLY: What about those hundreds of millions of portable TVs with "rabbit ears" or monopole verticals? 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting; /archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00084.html (9,434 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]