We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.

So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?

On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>
> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
> the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
> fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
> above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
> would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
>

Depends entirely on your distance from the transmitter and
what, if any obstructions like massive oak trees are between
you and said transmitter.

Your TV should have a system menu that shows the signal
strength and quality for whatever location you choose.

The former can be under 50 and still give a perfect
picture, so just experiment.

Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
best option, short of above the roof line.

On 13 Nov 2022, Andrew wrote

> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
>> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I
>> ever expected it to but has it's off days depending what is
>> happening outside.
>>
>> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount
>> it in the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside
>> on top of a fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could
>> have it about 8 feet above ground, would the latter likely
>> provide good enough results? It would have to be an improvement
>> over the current one, surely?
>>
>
> Depends entirely on your distance from the transmitter and
> what, if any obstructions like massive oak trees are between
> you and said transmitter.
>
> Your TV should have a system menu that shows the signal
> strength and quality for whatever location you choose.
>
> The former can be under 50 and still give a perfect
> picture, so just experiment.
>
> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
> best option, short of above the roof line.

I'd agree with Bill -- I had great success with a loft-mounted aerial
at our previous house, after having slightly dodgy reception from a
ground-level indoor aerial.

(It helped that I had a clear sight-line to the Hannington
transmitter from the roof of that house; I recall someone remarking
that from that location, I could probably pick up a signal with
cutlery.)

--
Cheers, Harvey

On 13/11/2022 13:44, Andrew wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
>> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
>> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>>
>> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
>> the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
>> fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
>> above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
>> would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
>>
>
> Depends entirely on your distance from the transmitter and
> what, if any obstructions like massive oak trees are between
> you and said transmitter.
>
> Your TV should have a system menu that shows the signal
> strength and quality for whatever location you choose.
>
> The former can be under 50 and still give a perfect
> picture, so just experiment.
>
> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
> best option, short of above the roof line.

One for Bill

https://goo.gl/maps/829kYwifTsS4mhU17

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 13:00:53 +0000, R D S <rsandr@yahoo.com> wrote:

>We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
>expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>
>So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
>the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
>fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
>above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
>would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?

There are so many variables in this scenario that an accurate answer
is impossible and depends entirely on factors beyond your knowledge to
report here accurately enough. Trial and error is ultimately your
friend here.

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 13:45:05 UTC, Andrew wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
> > We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> > expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.

> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
> best option, short of above the roof line.
Certainly not. It isn't always the case that signal improves with height. All height does is overcome obstructions. There might not be an obstruction. There might be clear line-of-sight at all heights down to zero. There are no strange ground effects with UHF once the aerial is about 2m above the earth. Many times I've mounted aerials low down in order that the signal path will be UNDER dense foliage or in one case a railway bridge.
Bill

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 15:31:26 UTC, ARW wrote:
>
> One for Bill
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/829kYwifTsS4mhU17
Let's hope the loft it's looking through isn't foil lined.
Bill

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 17:30:02 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> There are so many variables in this scenario that an accurate answer
> is impossible and depends entirely on factors beyond your knowledge to
> report here accurately enough. Trial and error is ultimately your
> friend here.
Absolutely. Although someone like me who has a special organ that can see RF would know at a glance what would work and what wouldn't...
Bill

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 13:00:57 UTC, R D S wrote:
> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>
> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
> the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
> fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
> above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
> would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?

Height isn't everything, but it is the biggest factor when comparing otherwise unknown scenarios. Getting it as high as practical is the place to start. A small tv lets you try it before fixing it.

Well, its pretty low. Things that might affect it are neighbours on the
other side of the fence, Foliage growth in the summer etc.
The first thing to do is find a good wall which will allow it to face the
right way, then mount it there pointing the thing at the transmitter. From
what you suggest, you must have a good signal at your location. So assuming
you know what transmitter is the one your are using, and know the polarity
of the signal it should be no issue, but please read Wiki articles on the
best coax and how to prevent ingress of water at the insulator. Be prepared
for most of local birds to sit on it and crap on it though!

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"R D S" <rsandr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tkqpq5$1esct$2@dont-email.me...
> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>
> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in the
> loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a fairly
> rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet above
> ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It would have
> to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
>

You would need a bit more gain in the aerial for a loft mount, and in my
experience without some kind of signal strength meter its hard to get the
direction right.
Also when it rains you do get a loss in the loft, depending on what sort of
material and moss is on the roof.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andrew" <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:tkqscs$1l30$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
>> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
>> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>>
>> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in the
>> loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a fairly
>> rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet above
>> ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It would
>> have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
>>
>
> Depends entirely on your distance from the transmitter and
> what, if any obstructions like massive oak trees are between
> you and said transmitter.
>
> Your TV should have a system menu that shows the signal
> strength and quality for whatever location you choose.
>
> The former can be under 50 and still give a perfect
> picture, so just experiment.
>
> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
> best option, short of above the roof line.

Well, back in the analogue days, Hannington was very good for coverage. I
live in the catchment area of Crystal Palace and yet Hannington with a good
high gain aerial on the roof had almost as good a signal.

You might also have a choice of transmitters to try as well. Some people try
to get a main transmitter as they can carry the smaller stations in some
cases.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"HVS" <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XnsAF4E9C8533467whhvans@88.198.57.247...
> On 13 Nov 2022, Andrew wrote
>
>> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
>>> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I
>>> ever expected it to but has it's off days depending what is
>>> happening outside.
>>>
>>> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount
>>> it in the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside
>>> on top of a fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could
>>> have it about 8 feet above ground, would the latter likely
>>> provide good enough results? It would have to be an improvement
>>> over the current one, surely?
>>>
>>
>> Depends entirely on your distance from the transmitter and
>> what, if any obstructions like massive oak trees are between
>> you and said transmitter.
>>
>> Your TV should have a system menu that shows the signal
>> strength and quality for whatever location you choose.
>>
>> The former can be under 50 and still give a perfect
>> picture, so just experiment.
>>
>> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
>> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
>> best option, short of above the roof line.
>
> I'd agree with Bill -- I had great success with a loft-mounted aerial
> at our previous house, after having slightly dodgy reception from a
> ground-level indoor aerial.
>
> (It helped that I had a clear sight-line to the Hannington
> transmitter from the roof of that house; I recall someone remarking
> that from that location, I could probably pick up a signal with
> cutlery.)
>
> --
> Cheers, Harvey
>

A building in the way can often be good if the wanted signal is from the
other direction of course. It was amazing how much crud you get from an
aerial on top of a chimney on the top of a hill.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"wrights...@f2s.com" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:4111e21f-196c-4622-b1d6-b66de4b3f7ban@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 13:45:05 UTC, Andrew wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
> > We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> > expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening
> > outside.

> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
> best option, short of above the roof line.
Certainly not. It isn't always the case that signal improves with height.
All height does is overcome obstructions. There might not be an obstruction.
There might be clear line-of-sight at all heights down to zero. There are no
strange ground effects with UHF once the aerial is about 2m above the earth.
Many times I've mounted aerials low down in order that the signal path will
be UNDER dense foliage or in one case a railway bridge.
Bill

Its not so much a special organ, more a grasp of the topology of an area
backed up by maps with elevation markers and also where the tall buildings
and trees are. Down here in Tolworth, there are a whole lot of people who
get better reception pointing their aerials at the huge Tolworth Tower than
in the direction of the transmitter. Its all to do with reflections I'm
told. Similarly people living close to the railway embankment can get
flutter which makes some channels go blocky while it passes.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"wrights...@f2s.com" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:af51341a-f779-4915-ab0a-db9f60dffa2en@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 17:30:02 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> There are so many variables in this scenario that an accurate answer
>> is impossible and depends entirely on factors beyond your knowledge to
>> report here accurately enough. Trial and error is ultimately your
>> friend here.
> Absolutely. Although someone like me who has a special organ that can see
> RF would know at a glance what would work and what wouldn't...
> Bill

On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>
> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
> the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
> fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
> above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
> would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
>
It would but a loft one is better, A lot depends on your exact
location.What you want is a clear line of sight to the transmitter
without any trees or hills in the way.
Unless you have that the aerial quality wont be the primary issue -
multipath will

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 13/11/2022 19:22, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 13:45:05 UTC, Andrew wrote:
>> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
>>> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
>>> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>
>> Bill will no doubt be along and say "mount it as
>> high as possible", so up in the loft might be the
>> best option, short of above the roof line.
> Certainly not. It isn't always the case that signal improves with height. All height does is overcome obstructions. There might not be an obstruction. There might be clear line-of-sight at all heights down to zero. There are no strange ground effects with UHF once the aerial is about 2m above the earth. Many times I've mounted aerials low down in order that the signal path will be UNDER dense foliage or in one case a railway bridge.

Isn't there a problem with the curvature of the Earth unless you are
*very* close?

--
Max Demian

On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 01:02:31 UTC, Animal wrote:

> Height isn't everything, but it is the biggest factor when comparing otherwise unknown scenarios. Getting it as high as practical is the place to start. A small tv lets you try it before fixing it.

Unnecessary height is bad.
Bill

On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 10:03:17 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Its not so much a special organ, more a grasp of the topology of an area
> backed up by maps with elevation markers and also where the tall buildings
> and trees are.

No. Don't need maps and all that. It's intuition. The special organ compares the site with all the ones it's seen in 45 years of vary varied installation work and somehow just seems to know.
Bill

On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 12:10:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
> > We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
> > expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
> >
> > So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
> > the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
> > fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
> > above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
> > would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
> >
> It would but a loft one is better,

A loft one is LIKELY to be better. But I have removed loft aerials and replaced them with aerials mounted lower down on the side of the building and got vastly improved results. Loft aerials are always at a 6dB or much more disadvantage due to the screening of the roof. If there's clear LOS down to ground level a low aerial will work better than one in the loft. There's also the fact that a wall mounted aerial or one mounted anywhere lower than the building can benefit from the screening effect of the building. It's quite common to put the aerial on the back wall of the house if multipath or CCI is coming from the front direction.

Bill

On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 12:10:21 UTC, Max Demian wrote:

> Isn't there a problem with the curvature of the Earth unless you are
> *very* close?

No, it's insignificant at any reasonable distance because the tx is usually so high. Hills are much more of an issue.

Bill

In article <f940568f-e7ad-4ae9-ab5c-b916463ea391n@googlegroups.com>,
wrights...@f2s.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 12:10:21 UTC, Max Demian wrote:

> > Isn't there a problem with the curvature of the Earth unless you are
> > *very* close?

> No, it's insignificant at any reasonable distance because the tx is
> usually so high. Hills are much more of an issue.

> Bill

and tall buildings. I recall one new transmitter being planned from a map.
Nobody knew the hospital between the tx and part of the target service area
was 8 storeys high.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

After a night out at the Toby Jug, they probably wouldn't
be aware of a 'snowy' TV picture :-)

Andrew

On 14/11/2022 10:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Its not so much a special organ, more a grasp of the topology of an area
> backed up by maps with elevation markers and also where the tall buildings
> and trees are. Down here in Tolworth, there are a whole lot of people who
> get better reception pointing their aerials at the huge Tolworth Tower than
> in the direction of the transmitter. Its all to do with reflections I'm
> told. Similarly people living close to the railway embankment can get
> flutter which makes some channels go blocky while it passes.
> Brian
>

On 14/11/2022 15:43, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2022 at 12:10:11 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/11/2022 13:00, R D S wrote:
>>> We've an indoor Freeview aerial which TBH works better than I ever
>>> expected it to but has it's off days depending what is happening outside.
>>>
>>> So I've bought a proper one. Cabling is such that I could mount it in
>>> the loft with a bit of a faff, or easier would be outside on top of a
>>> fairly rigid fence where with the bracket I could have it about 8 feet
>>> above ground, would the latter likely provide good enough results? It
>>> would have to be an improvement over the current one, surely?
>>>
>> It would but a loft one is better,
>
> A loft one is LIKELY to be better. But I have removed loft aerials and replaced them with aerials mounted lower down on the side of the building and got vastly improved results. Loft aerials are always at a 6dB or much more disadvantage due to the screening of the roof. If there's clear LOS down to ground level a low aerial will work better than one in the loft.

Until the kids use it to tie a swing rope to :-(