Outside antenna rotator question...

Page 3 of 3  

Instead of a rotator, you could add another antenna pointed to the other station, run the coax from it and the other one to a selector switch inside. My grandparents'house in upstate NY had a setup like that in the 50's-60's. Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
lp13-30 wrote:

Interesting alternative, thanks...I'll first find out if it appears the other is even accessible w/ the new antenna, then decide what to do. It looks like it would be about same $$-wise; only real potential problem I see is I'm not sure the antenna tower has the strength w/o some significant modification to handle the extra weight against the W KS winds so I might choose the rotor route for that reason alone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:12:34 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (lp13-30) wrote:

My grandparents (on a farm in east Texas) did that too. One channel (7) was in a very different direction than the others (3,6,12).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

...
Your choice, my choice is different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...

...
I think it just dawned on me the underlying difference here -- it's owing to age, most likely. While I spent my technical career on computers from the old tube- and discrete solid-state beasties "in the beginning" to today's desktops and workstations, the fact is that fundamentally I'm still a paper person as most of my generation are. I see the same dichotomy with the current students at the Community College -- everything for them seems to have to be electronic.
My answer to the two points above which are essentially like talking with/observing the students are "turn the page back" and "stick the bookmark in", respectively.
So, we geezers had those capabilities long before TIVO (or even TV) was invented... :)
As I noted in a response a little bit ago just before this struck me, you chose/prefer the electronic medium, I choose and am much more comfortable w/ the printed still for this kind of information and for my entertainment I still really prefer the mental images generated from the printed word over the direct picture of the movie screen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@UNLISTED.com wrote:

Far SW KS. Cattle are subject to suffocation in heavy snow/wind from nostrils becoming hard-packed with snow they can't get clear. This was severe blizzard conditions of high snowfall rates combined with 40-50 mph winds for a period of 24 to nearly 48 hours in some locations. Total numbers I've heard so far are about 1-2,000 head in KS, but there's fear in SE and E CO of as many as 30,000 in serious jeopardy. I've not heard hard counts as yet from there, but the Guards of both KS and CO are still helicopter-dropping hay to stranded cattle. The other serious problem now is, of course, water since most rural areas are still without power and all water here is subterranean. They can get a little by trying to eat some snow, of course, but by now it's frozen solid with some thawing and then the hard freezing over night and in many places covered by inch or more of ice so can't get sufficient water for a longer term that way.
We were in the freezing rain band for most of the duration as the front essentially stalled and didn't move more the 40-50 miles from Friday until it finally cleared here late Saturday. Even then, further north and west where the worst was continued to get snow and wind from the "backside" wraparound effect behind the low long after (like another 12 hours or more) it was already clear here. We had over 5" of precipitation of which 2" or so was freezing rain, so you can imagine what that would have amounted to in all snowfall and high winds. The NWS total precipitation radar estimates had a maximums of nearly 12" moisture when it was over. I suspect this was an over-estimate since those areas were almost all snow rather than rain, but I have heard 8" totals reported.
I don't have any specific URLs, but look for news stories on the storm(s) of last two week(s) in CO and KS. I've not looked to see what sort of coverage the Denver Post gave to the second storm that mostly bypassed them after the Christmas week bullet on the airport, but would be a start. Wichita Eagle, Hutchinson, (KS) News, Garden City and Dodge City, KS, Lamar and LaJunta (CO) are possibilities. We take the Wichita paper and they've had some coverage, but certainly not on the details of the livestock operations although do mention numbers and general problems. Not had the newest High Plains Journal, a weekly ag paper to see what their coverage is, but their site is at www.hpj.com and might be of some interest anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I'll add a lot of the suffocation also comes when the herd up and try to find shelter, they'll drift along w/ the wind and tend to head to low spots like any gulleys or washouts that may provide some windbreak. In high wind and snow that gets to belly high or deeper, it's also easy for them to get down and then they're in real trouble. It's virtually impossible for an individual to walk and stay upright in such conditions, not much easier for them. The one single large loss I mentioned was at a large feeding operation and I'm sure a lot of them were in a particular lot or two and a bunch herded together and went down.
A lot of the area, particularly E CO is open range. Most of W KS isn't actually open range, but in such wind and snow, even barbed wire fences are pretty much of no use once the snow drifts over them.
With the larger operations as here, though, there simply isn't any way possible to have cover for thousands of cattle or even feasible to try to collect them when scattered over large open range pastures. Believe me, if there were any way, they certainly would as the economic loss is sizable.
We are on the smaller end of operations running from 1-2000 head over winter on wheat pasture depending on the year and have enough space at the lots to accomodate roughly two-thirds that. Except for those on rented pasture that may be upt to 20 miles away, we can usually manage to bring most of ours into the corrals at the house if the forecast is really dire. It's these kinds of decisions that are why I'm so interested in truly localized weather -- the forecast for (and actual event) even 30 miles away for this storm was drastically different than for us.
Warning -- geezer story coming!!
The last blizzard here of this magnitude I went through personally was '57. My brother and I were jr-high/early hi-school age. With our dad we brought the cattle in off pasture to the corrals and finished the morning the snow started shortly after noon. It was snowing heavily, but no wind as we finished up unsaddling the horses, etc. out in the barn, roughly 100 yards due east of the house. Just then, the wind hit and went from near-calm to almost 60 mph in only a few minutes at most--seemed instantaneous. Could see absolutely nothing, even your hand at the end of your arm and barely able to stand leaning into the wind. Dad tied the three of us together so as to not get separated and we started off across the driveway to the house. We ended at the chicken coop, having in that time traveled farther south than west, even in our own driveway that we could have walked blind-folded from directly to the yard gate! From that point we were able to follow the yard fence and get back to the house. A few yards further south and we would have missed any other outbuildings entirely and had a very difficult time indeed in finding out precisely where we were. Could have easily been lost on own farmstead. That one lasted from that Saturday noon until late Monday before the wind abated. At that time, we saw we had drifts that nearly covered the tops of 30-ft light poles. That's about what this storm was for those in the brunt of it although from what I've heard, it was more actual snow but not quite as strong of winds.
End of geezer story... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's be careful with the geezer designation -- some of us resemble that remark.
The '48 storm kept us housebound for a week in Limon.
I understand the '46 storm was even worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Everett M. Greene wrote:

I no longer get carded or asked about senior discounts anywhere, though, including the discounts for the local high school athletic events -- about the last holdout I had, I think... :(
I'd heard of those two, both just ahead of my being old enough to recall. How bad the were here I don't know offhand. You guys typically get more snow up there than we, anyhow, but when it decides to, it can be pretty nasty most anywhere out here...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I were you, I would check on what your local stations plans are for DTV (digital television conversion). The current NTSC analog/hybrid TV system as we know it is scheduled for shutdown on Feb. 17, 2009 (This does not necessarily apply to translators, but it does apply to full power stations). You could be making a big investment for nothing. You will also need to buy a new tv or a DTV signal convertor.
Over the air reception of terrrestrial DTV signals is possible. You may need a different antenna though and the TV stations new digital transmitters may not be located at the same site as their current transmitters. Every locality will be somewhat different.
Here is a link for more info:
http://www.dtv.gov/DTV_booklet.pdf
Note that DTV does not necessarily mean HDTV (High Definition Television). The stations are allocated the channel and the bandwidth. It's up to them how they decide to use it.
Just my opinion here... With all of these changes coming in the next two years, the satellite dish doesn't sound like a bad option.
You say you can't get a clear shot of the southern sky. Are there mountains in Wichita? The look angle is pretty high and unless you have trees everywhere on your property, it should be possible in most situations to get a clear shot at the satellite.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lots of people look at the angle of the dish arm and believe that angle would have to clear the trees, but thats not true the actual angle is a lot higher
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

We're only talking $100 or so for an antenna, looks like might be maybe $200 max for the rotor w/ the IR repeater, so it's not a huge investment, certainly. If I do forego the rotor, not at all bad.
The 2009 date is still two years away and I personally kinda' doubt it will actually come to pass then, anyway, but whatever is available then to deal with it will undoubtedly be better and cheaper and less of a risk then than now. I think it highly unlikely the locations of the translators will change (as in zero probability -- they cover the area now and there are now other sizable population centers other than where they currently are and overall the area population is declining, not increasing, except for a few counties.
...

I think it just as good an option to wait and see what actually transpires. (Best laid plans, and all... :) )

:) There are the Wichita Mountains, but that's different... :)
We're actually 250 miles roughly from Wichita itself, but that's where the main stations for the translators are located. And, yes, it's pretty non-mountainous. I used to tell folks in TN our definition of a hill was couldn't see car coming down the road, and a BIG hill was couldn't see a combine. :) It's actually slightly closer straight-line distance to Denver and/or Amarillo than Wichita.
That isn't exactly what I said -- what I said was the current antenna mounting location didn't have clear access which is a different limitation. I'm not particularly interested in moving the antenna tower at present and have an aversion against mounting stuff on the house and the pumphouse which would be a convenient location for power and orientation is far enough from the house (at least until perhaps new technology might eliminate it) would need additional equipment plus the effort of burying feed line, etc., as I don't want any more overhead wires that it just isn't an effort I want to invest in at least at the present time...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:32:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:

Some may care that that law has no effect on cable and satellite, just (terrestrial) broadcasts.

Probably only if your existing antenna doesn't get UHF, which is needed for most new stations.

True, although they ARE digital, and still much better than the analog broadcasts.

I know someone with the dish mounted on the front of the house, looking over it. This avoids the problems of the tall trees in the back (south) yard.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wouldn't exactly say no effect. The standards for tv set reception are changing, regardless of whether your signal comes from antenna, satellite dish, or cable. The NTSC method of delivery over what has been known as VHS CH 2-13 is going away. The UHF band 14-83 is being allocated to the new DTV Transmitters. Currently, cable and satellite boxes use these frequencies (primarily CH3 or CH4) to output a RF signal to many NTSC TV sets. (In some cases, the more modern sets receive baseband NTSC video and seperate (stereo) audio. The new demodulated TV signals will be all digital and the sets will be all digital.
Certain cable and satellite companies may elect to keep current equipment and provide you with a convertor box. In many cases, you might be able to keep your existing TV set or DVR. It's too early for them to announce their plans just yet, but you can also expect a push from them to get you to upgraded technology.
Low cost convertors are predicted to be available. Most people will probably wind up buying a new TV set if they want to receive all channels + new features. The big manufactuers are already licking their chops! Imagine a nation of 300 million people changing to a new TV system with a specific day deadline.
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:35:35 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:

No direct effect, and what effect there is will be delayed. Often by several years.
Also, cable companies will be getting much of their stuff from satellite, which isn't directly effected by the law either.

Doesn't that apply only to OTA broadcasts?
BTW, one of the ATSC stations around here broadcasts on channel 10 right now. Maybe that's temporary.

Sometimes necessary, but should be avoided when possible because of the lower quality. This should become less common with time, since newer sets usually have A/V inputs but not because of the law.

There's no need for a converter box (when you didn't already need one) unless they (the cable company) changed their equipment.

Probably so, it's just that the law doesn't require them to.

Most of those that can afford it. There are those who can't.

Which has already been put off several times. Why would you be so sure it won't be again?

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
congress passed a law giving most people a free converter....
the old saying goes, dont mess with tv or beer, keep the voters happy.
the turn of if and when it occurs will have minimal effect on most folks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I thought that was "up to" a specific amount, so the converter is free only if any are sold for that amount or less.

Note that if a converter is required, this won't me minimal. However it will in many (most?) cases, since a lot of people won't need converters (maybe they're watching cable).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Lloyd wrote:

most folks have a tv somewhere thats not on sat or cable even when they are customers of those providers

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As well as those on cable/sat, TVs they can easily stop using.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.