253 replies to this topic

[GlennP]

James T Kirk, on 24 May 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Hello Readers

Sorry, yet again AlanH underlines that he is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter.
The Brisbane signal will get to Maleny very well hail rain or shine. Since AlanH is so entrenched in what he can misinterpret from the internet he has forgotten the most basic thing, what does the customer want, the customer wants Brisbane programming and so when you have a strong Brisbane signal it is there to be used.

AlanH likes going off at inexplicable unrelated tangents, here's one he prepared earlier
"The Kooralbyn residents have an a set of analog translators and will now be getting a digital set, all because the signal is so poor."
I invite the reader to see where Kooralbyn is relative to Maleny, simply silly stuff.

Remember, AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter.

James

Yes James, wish we could do something to stop him, but don't know what?

The only remote possibility of his thinking I can imagine, with that tangent is Kooralbyn is somewhere abouts, the same distance South of Mt Coot-Tha as Maleny is North, & he's making some unfounded comparison of signal strengths based loosely on distance only?

[James T Kirk]

GlennP, on 24 May 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Yes James, wish we could do something to stop him, but don't know what?

The only remote possibility of his thinking I can imagine, with that tangent is Kooralbyn is somewhere abouts, the same distance South of Mt Coot-Tha as Maleny is North, & he's making some unfounded comparison of signal strengths based loosely on distance only?

Hi GlennP

Yes well I didn't attempt to analyse it because it was simply ridiculous on all counts, especially the topography between sites is radically different.

James

[alanh]

Hills TMX18B5 retail $89 and it will receive all Brisbane programs along with WIN, 7Qld and 10 Qld from 7 km away.
Hills DY10 retail $117

He is not a customer, he is a DIYer not who had the misfortune to come across James expensive solution.

AlanH

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 24 May 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Hills TMX18B5 retail $89 and it will receive all Brisbane programs along with WIN, 7Qld and 10 Qld from 7 km away.
Hills DY10 retail $117

He is not a customer, he is a DIYer not who had the misfortune to come across James expensive solution.

AlanH

Remember, AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter......QED

[M'bozo]

Hills TMX18B5 retail $89

Oh yeah?

Post restack:

TMX18B4 SRP $89, or maybe a TMX18B4+, SRP $93. Plus extra for a centre support brace for these longer antennas, SRP $14-50.

A phased array might be a better antenna to start with anyway, if vegetation is involved. (Say a UMX34, SRP $156)*

And then a masthead amplifier might be needed. (Say a Q-Amp, SRP $106)*

*Both suggested by mySwitch incidentally, depending on the area.


Hills DY10 retail $117

Looking better already, especially when changes after the restack come into effect.

Poster is on the ground, in the area, and has had success thus far.

That has to put him ahead.


He is not a customer,

Yes he is. He bought an antenna.


he is a DIYer not who had the misfortune to come across James expensive solution.

Say what?

Reckon your solution would have ended up more expensive, Mr H.

[alanh]

Mbozo,
You have to be kidding
7 km away 15 kW 44 m above the ground.No amplifier is required
It is quite probable that he is receiving the ABC from this transmitter despite the antenna being a band 3 antenna, as he was receiving these transmitter with his old corroded antenna.
TMX18b4+ is not suitable at present because the ABC is on channel 62 which is well out of the channel range,.

Hills's recommendation was even TMX16wb $72.which is a low gain antenna.

AlanH

[nbound]

alanh, on 25 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

TMX18b4+ is not suitable at present because the ABC is on channel 62 which is well out of the channel range,.

Mbozo was refering to aerials required post restack. Post restack a Band5 antenna wont be suitable. Assuming he did aim for Bald Knob, he would likely be better off with a wideband UHF antenna that wont require replacing.

Edited by nbound, 25 May 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 25 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Mbozo,
You have to be kidding
7 km away 15 kW 44 m above the ground.No amplifier is required
It is quite probable that he is receiving the ABC from this transmitter despite the antenna being a band 3 antenna, as he was receiving these transmitter with his old corroded antenna.
TMX18b4+ is not suitable at present because the ABC is on channel 62 which is well out of the channel range,.

Hills's recommendation was even TMX16wb $72.which is a low gain antenna.

AlanH

Dear Reader

Another opportunity has arisen to demonstrate that AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter.

One of the characteristics of AlanH is the misinterpretation of information he finds on the web. In this case AlanH has gone to a website and found that the transmit antenna height at Bald Knob is 44metres and that transmitted power is 15kW (15000watts), it all sounds very reasonable to the uninitiated which of course AlanH is, but as is usual he has not understood what he has read
Since AlanH has no first hand knowledge or any connection to the industry he has overlooked several vital aspects of television transmitting antennas and what the radiated power actually means.

Television transmitting antennas do not radiate equal power in all directions unless it is designed to happen that way, the majority don't by design, they are in fact designed to send the signal where it is needed. Secondly the power figure (15kW) is misunderstood by AlanH, this number is the Effective Radiated Power maximum (ERPmax) which is the maximum power not to be exceeded in the direction of maximum radiated signal.

In the case of the Bald Knob antenna used for the ABC, it sends its maximum signal at 8 degrees east of north and the signal level sent to Maleny is 17dB lower than this northern maximum. This isn't the end of the story, the 15kW figure requires the transmitter power to achieve this will be 240watts, the ABC are using 100watts and are therefore 3.9dB lower than that needed to achieve 15000watts ERPmax and so the total signal being sent to Maleny is 17+3.9 dB lower than 15000watts ie 20.9dB lower than 15000watts which is a mere 120watts ERP, nothing like the 15kW misquoted by AlanH.

So the facts are:
The Bald Knob ABC transmitter is sending 120watts ERP to Maleny.
The Brisbane Mt Coot-tha ABC transmitter is sending 50000watts ERP to Maleny.
and of course, AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter.

James

[GlennP]

Yes James, but you know the really sad thing about Alanh's posts?
I know it's old, outdated & no longer a standard required, but Alan is/was a holder of a TVOCP & was once a TV Broadcast Engineer. Everything he sends to ACMA (& there's lots), he writes TVOCP on the bottom after his name (like a Doctor would with their qualifications). I don't know why, it doesn't make him any more special to them, I'd assume most of the AMCA engineers would be higher qualified than him. I'd say at least 90% of what he writes to ACMA is rejected/ignored just like it is here. He's a well known pest to ACMA & infamous to almost every broadcaster in Australia.

His posts here have a base & he probably means well, but time & time again, he's proven not just in theory, but in practise to be wrong, (in some cases so terribly wrong), but he refuses to concede & give the game away, as he's lost the plot.

I don't have a problem if he wants to post public accessible "facts", such as transmitter locations, channels & their frequencies & potential max. ERP's. But he should, refrain from posts giving installation advice outside his local area in WA, as he no longer understands or comprehends computer modelling, or take into account local practical (in-practise) examples as you've shown above, that differ from what publicly listed details tells him.

[James T Kirk]

Hi Glenn

You could be in any profession and get a TVOCP back then, many with this qualification have stood in front of a real transmitter only a few times in their lives and that was to get the TVOCP. That is not to say that all individuals with TVOCP's are not skilled in RF engineering, it simply means don't assume they are.

Re TV Broadcast Engineer:  Good heavens, talk about giving encouragement, please, please, please do not refer to him as a TV Broadcast Engineer, there's not a snowballs chance in hell it applies, utterly inconceivable.

Television and radio broadcast engineers who are current, retired or have long since passed on that I know and have dealt with for decades would would not make the blunders regularly inflicted on this forum by AlanH.  I have no evidence to believe this is an outdated experience issue or an aging individual issue, the man simply does not have the knowledge or experience to comment in the areas he chooses to and the moderators of this forum know less about the subject matter than him. This problem with AlanH has gone on for a very long time.

AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

James

[alanh]

So James,
Do you have a TVOCP?
Did you pass the practical?

Funny how you come out with this attack when the DBCDE, Hills and Matchmaster disagree with you!
You are yet to explain why a a high powered transmitter 70 km away is better than a medium powered transmitter only 7 km away.

AlanH

Edited by alanh, 26 May 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 26 May 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

So James, Do you have a TVOCP?
Did you pass the practical?

AlanH

Dear Reader

Opportunity knocks yet again to verify AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

Re "Do you have a TVOCP?" No.
Re "Did you pass the practical? Since I don't have a TVOCP, obviously not.

I could now guide AlanH on the relevance of TVOCP's but I'll let him respond without, more ammunition may result.

AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

James

Oops AlanH did an edit again.

Re: You are yet to explain why a a high powered transmitter 70 km away is better than a medium powered transmitter only 7 km away.
It was explained very clearly, the fact you don't understand the explanation in all its simplicity just underlines that.......
AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

Edited by James T Kirk, 26 May 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[GlennP]

Hey James, how can I get some info to you, PM's don't work?

[James T Kirk]

GlennP

Please try again, I get a few PM's from people who want to avoid AlanH interference and it was full sorry, Did a clean up so try again.

James

[alanh]

James
You never answer technical questions. You only ever hurl abuse.
You are yet to answer why there is a translator for Brisbane programs 7 km away from the site in question and why receiving a signal from 70 km away is better

AlanH

[alanh]

James,
I have never messaged you and never will.

Alanh

[alanh]

James,
Even if the directional antenna reduces the radiated power to Maleny by 17 dB your resultant power is wrong. You have to be able to correctly calculate dB as part of the TVOCP exam.
Whilst Mt Cooth-tha may be radiating 50 kW in all directions what is the field strength at 70 km? This is what the DBCDE has calculated to produce their map and the signal level is lower than from Bald Knob where there is sufficient for reliable reception.

Alanh

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 26 May 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

James
You never answer technical questions. You only ever hurl abuse.
You are yet to answer why there is a translator for Brisbane programs 7 km away from the site in question and why receiving a signal from 70 km away is better

AlanH

AlanH

This has been answered in a manner a layman can grasp, for you not to be able to speaks volumes.
AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

James

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 26 May 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

James,
I have never messaged you and never will.

Alanh

AlanH

Agreed and thankyou for small mercies.
AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

James

[James T Kirk]

alanh, on 26 May 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

James,
Even if the directional antenna reduces the radiated power to Maleny by 17 dB your resultant power is wrong. You have to be able to correctly calculate dB as part of the TVOCP exam.
Whilst Mt Cooth-tha may be radiating 50 kW in all directions what is the field strength at 70 km? This is what the DBCDE has calculated to produce their map and the signal level is lower than from Bald Knob where there is sufficient for reliable reception.

Alanh

AlanH

Exercise you great TVOCP skills and do the sums, I've given you the numbers for Bald Knob. (just adjusting my fishing line)
AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

James

[dbrmuz]

alanh, on 26 May 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

James,
I have never messaged you and never will.

Alanh

I must have missed the part where he claimed you had.

Keep up the advice though Alan,this stuff is comedy gold!

[James T Kirk]

dbrmuz, on 27 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I must have missed the part where he claimed you had.

Keep up the advice though Alan,this stuff is comedy gold!

Hi dbrmuz

Although you have absorbed some entertainment value from this it really is a sad example of what we are dealing with.

This stemmed from a reply to GlennP where I was explaining why he (GlennP) now should be able to message me and I said "I get a few PM's from people who want to avoid AlanH interference".  This prompted AlanH to respond with "I have never messaged you and never will" which sounds like AlanH understood me to be saying that he messages me, which mercifully is not the case.

It appears there is nothing, technical or otherwise that cannot be misquoted or misunderstood or misinterpreted by AlanH.

James

[nbound]

James T Kirk, on 26 May 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Exercise you great TVOCP skills and do the sums, I've given you the numbers for Bald Knob. (just adjusting my fishing line)
AlanH is a master poster, not a master of the subject matter

Very quiet here all of a sudden...

[OmgLockie]

Some good news - a new transmitter for digital tv is to be installed by December 2012 at Pt Arkwright for the digital switch-over in 2013.  AlanH, you might like to add this one to your transmitter list.  
I live at Buderim and am unable to receive local signals from Bald Knob or Dulong so had to install a 14 element yagi with mast-head amp which works most of the time for Mt Coot-tha, Brisbane.  I also have a satellite dish (ex Austar) with satellite STB and pointed at Optus D1 (160ºE) for FTA ABC and SBS for all Aus states - love this when daylight saving is on and also needed if Brisbane drops out.  
For total black-spot locations I can recommend this option which is far better than nothing or if you want the commercial channels as well you can always go for the VAST system with its officialdom and expense.  
I was concerned when I put my Buderim location into digitalready.gov.au and it came up with me having excellent reception from Dulong which is impossible from my location.   Other locations in the same street revealed the new transmitter at Pt Arkwright which will be line-of-sight to me - some joy at last!
Hope this is of some help to long-suffering Buderim residents.

[MLXXX]

This is a very late correction on alanh's behalf for post #6 of this thread. It is prompted by recent discussion in another thread:  Proposed New Digital Translators For Sydney.

alanh in the other thread, on 16 September 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Malich,

Why did you post? It is only receivers which comply with the AS which will do this. There are many others which won't.

Perhaps alanh it was to help people avoid jumping to wrong conclusions about LCN allocations over 349. Or what would be more serious, misleading others by presenting  an incorrect assumption as fact. Or what would be more serious again, presenting the incorrect assumption when at the same time taking on a position of presumed authority. There could also be present an aggravating factor of failing to consider and accept earlier correct advice when given.

As an apparent example of a combination of all of the above, namely, ignoring correct advice, making a false assumption, and presenting the false assumption as fact, with apparent authority, I refer you alanh for your consideration to the third in the following  selection of four posts, all on the same subject matter, from threads in which you were involved:

bacco|007, on 02 November 2004 - 07:58 PM, said:

All,
The Unit is in fact issuing the correct LCN for duplicated services: from OP41:

Quote

If a receiver finds two or more services with the same LCN, then the receiver will allocate the subsequently found services to the next available unallocated number in the range 350 - 399.

bacco|007, on 16 February 2006 - 06:23 PM, said:

From OP-41

If competing duplicate services (i.e. those that have the same LCN
allocated) are received from different transmitters, then a receiver that
complies with the Australian DVB-T receiver standard, AS 4933, will
place the service with the highest received quality in the correct LCN
position and the other(s) made available to the user, for example
stored at the next available unallocated number in the range 350 - 399,
unless it is intentionally duplicated by the broadcaster as indicated by
its presence in the frequency list descriptor of the NIT (see section
3.2.2), in which case it can be safely discarded.
After this allocation, in order to account for user regional viewing
preference, the choice of service competing for a common service
positioning should be user-selectable.
Table 2 provides a logical set of coverage overlap scenarios and
recommended receiver behaviour in accordance with 3.2 and 3.3
above.

alanh, on 20 January 2007 - 04:51 PM, said:

When the digital receiver cannot decode the Logical Channel Number sent by the TV transmitter it will allocate one from 350 upward.

alanh, on 06 November 2010 - 11:28 PM, said:

NOTE: LCNs of 350 -399 are reserved for when a receiver picks up more than one LCN from more than one transmitter. The subsequent LCNs are allocated to this number range.

The first post provided a correct indication in late 2004. Further refinement was provided in the second post, early in 2006. Yet a contrary, and clearly misleading, answer was promulgated by you (as self-appointed coordinator of "Get the Best Reception" threads) in early 2007. The post I have highlighted in red appeared, and still to this day appears, as post #6, early in this thread.

Edited by MLXXX, 19 September 2012 - 01:35 PM.