How severe is your weather? The 5' tripod and a 10' mast section would be a bit of over build for an ANT-751 in mild parts of the country. The same holding a larger HD769X series is not over-built IMO.

Here in the northwest, we get 100 MPH storms once every 10 to 20 years. I won't guaranty my antenna and mast will survive the next big one. I have made it through a couple of 50 to 60 MPH storms though.

Coax next to ground wire is not a problem.

I have used dielectric grease, also sold as tune-up grease. Auto parts stores sell it for use on spark plug boots and bulb sockets. I have heard of reports of signal loss, though I have not had such experience. My primary objective is to fill the weather boot with grease, not the connector.

A splitter rated for 5 to 900 MHz is enough bandwidth. Splitters are inexpensive. Home Depot sells Ideal brand last I looked and their return policy is as liberal as one could hope for. If you are not sure of the serviceability of your existing splitter, substitute a new one. The Ideal branded units are rated 5 to 1000 MHz, more than enough bandwidth. (No need to spend extra money on satellite system splitters with 2+ GHz ratings.)

FWIW: Channel 2 starts at 54 MHz, channel 69 ends at 806 MHz.

@Groundurmast--We have hurricanes here every 4 years or so. It depends on how direct of a hit we get. I am a good bit north of the gulf though. It could get bad I guess, but I've been blessed for the past 5 years.

Does any sealant or grease need to be applied to the antenna terminals at the balun?

10-4 on everything else.

Thanks

Just a word of CAUTION. Your pix #006 of the antenna is close,, too close , to your power line !!!!!!!!

Dielectric grease on the antenna terminals at the balun won't hurt. It won't last more than a few months though.

Corrosion and time will happen.

Esteban is right. If at all possible, avoid a mounting location that has hazzards within the fall radius of the mast used.

I'm not trying to revive this old thread. However, I haven't been on this site in a while and I apparently forgot to thank you all for your helpful input. I finally got my setup (old house) squared away. I also apologize if I came off as an ass at any point. That was a long time ago and I definitely understand read more; post less.

I will soon be asking for your help with an antenna report for my grandparents. They're getting older and I'm going to try to save them some money. One day I'll also do one for my new house, but my grandparents have asked for help. I will take and be grateful for any advice you give me.

Thank you.

We do appreciate a "thank you," but we need to hear how it worked out to know if out advice was accurate.
Apology not necessary. The more details you give about your location, the better our advice.
Please start a new thread for that location, and include a TVFool signal report. The new database for signal reports has some errors, often with missing channels, but it's a good start.

Well, after my last post, I made a mast out of 2 sections of chain link fence top rail bolted together. It was supported by a brick paver buried 2 feet under ground and a bracket on the eave. It put the antenna at about 18 ft. I located the mast on the back side of my old house near the south east corner to be far enough from the power line. I grounded it to the house main ground rod with 10 ga. bare copper wire.

It worked well enough on 2 sets. However, channel 10 (WALA) was hit or miss. My wife had to have that channel, so I disconnected one set as she didn't want to spend anymore money on it. Even then it would go in and out. Every other channel worked great.

I still think it was mainly due to lack of elevation and blocked signal. I also had multipath due to a nearby airport. Perhaps more mast height or a larger antenna would have pulled it off.

Will do.

Thank you for the details.
I agree, but an inexpensive preamp or distribution might have helped.
I don't remember seeing that before in this thread. What airport is that?

I can't comment any further about WALA other than to say the ANT751 doesn't have much gain on VHF-High, because your original signal report is no longer on the TVFool server.

True.


I thought I mentioned it. Perhaps not. Mobile Regional Airport and the U S Coast Guard Aviation Training Center.

Here you go:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...60ed98363ee7ee

You did, in your first post, but I missed it.
It looks like you were in the flight path:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...1&d=1511729011

Thank you for the signal report. The latest TVFool database, date code 201711011344, has some channels missing, and other errors:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...2&d=1511729961

This is a report from RabbitEars.info:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...3&d=1511730489

This is from the FCC DTV Reception Maps site:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...4&d=1511731803

A first glance at your signal report would seem to indicate that the RCA ANT751 would have been sufficient for WALA if a preamp had been used. But closer examination would show:

1. There were objects in the signal path; the report assumes the antenna is in the clear
2. The antenna doesn't have as much gain for VHF-High channel 9 as it has for UHF channels. An antenna with more VHF-High gain was needed
3. The hill in front of the antenna was blocking the direct signal

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...5&d=1511740595

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...6&d=1511741641

Tower Guy gave you good advice. He is a TV station engineer, but you didn't know that then.
Trust your own intuition more often.

rabbit73
 

Wow! That is amazing work. Did you do it all with Google maps? Oh yeah. Planes flew right over my house all the time. Yep, I should have listened to him. Tower Guy, my hat is off to you, sir.

When the signal is skimming the terrain surface, small changes in antenna height can make a dramatic change in the signal strength.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...7&d=1511743608

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...8&d=1511743646

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.p...9&d=1511743758

Wow. So 7 more feet and a preamp or the larger antenna and a preamp and I would have been ok.

Well, maybe. The computer simulation is only accurate to about a football field size as far as location is concerned. The apparent accuracy is greater than the actual accuracy. It's still trial-and-error, because there will be hot spots and cold spots at a location when the signals are diffracted by terrain obstacles.