Here is another case of lower = better:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/186-...ml#post1289804
Quote:
Originally Posted by balm
majortom,
my only chance at decent reception for my 2nd edge channels with any of my antennas (now 4), is at 12-15 ft high, go higher and i lose all reception,
TVFool actually predicted this, but i didnt beleive it at first
|
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/186-...ml#post1289804
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit73
We have been conditioned to think that "higher is better" for antennas, but in some cases lower is better.
Based on your comments about your location, I found one that seems to fit which gave the following NM values (using the interactive map feature) for different heights:
WVNY NM:
5 ft, +0.6
6 ft, +6.4
7 ft, +6.1
8 ft, +5.8
9 ft, +5.6
10 ft, +5.3
13 ft, +4.8
15 ft, +4.5
20 ft, +4.0
30 ft, +3.2
40 ft, +2.8
50 ft, +2.4
100 ft, +1.7
|
tvfool report now:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...dfaf56cb924fc9
CJOH analog 8 is now digital on 13.
WVNY terrain profile:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...dALLTV%26n%3d9
He had a lot of factors working against him:
1. Weak WVNY signal in the presence of another local VHF-High channel (analog 8) that was much stronger
2. Co-channel interference from a local channel also on 13
3. Reduced ERP from WVNY because of its directional transmitting antenna
4. Curvature of the earth blocking the WVNY signal 88.4 miles away
5. Terrain interference from hills
