A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Lower frequency usage



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 3rd 17, 05:23 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,516
Default Lower frequency usage

How is it that we do not use the lower frequencies we used to use for tv,
for tv again? Even one multiplex is better than none. OK so the aerials are
big, and perhaps propogation is a bit of an issue at times, but much of band
1 seems to be empty now. Perhaps use it for fm instead?

I've yet to see any kind of enthusiasm for moving over to dab en masse by
fm stations.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #4  
Old April 4th 17, 11:45 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default Lower frequency usage

On 04/04/2017 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, Only part of band 1, there is a lot of vacant bandwidth down there.



Band I is hopeless for TV Broadcasting, huge aerials, and far too
susceptible to lift reception. The entire civilised world have abandoned
its use for telly ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #5  
Old April 4th 17, 12:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Jackson[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Lower frequency usage

In message , Mark Carver
writes
On 04/04/2017 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, Only part of band 1, there is a lot of vacant bandwidth down there.



Band I is hopeless for TV Broadcasting, huge aerials, and far too
susceptible to lift reception. The entire civilised world have
abandoned its use for telly ?

Indeed. A lot of Europe (and probably elsewhere) had abandoned TV Band 1
well before digital came along.

Aerial size is a problem - not just for TV, but also for portable and
mobile applications. The best use is probably for short-range stuff.
That said, interference could still be a problem. I had a 27MHz mouse
(2, car boot, FCC/CETP CB channel 15, I think) that occasionally used
to do its own thing - and I suspect that interference was the cause.



--
Ian
  #6  
Old April 4th 17, 03:13 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Chris Youlden[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Lower frequency usage

On 04/04/2017 12:45, Mark Carver wrote:
On 04/04/2017 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, Only part of band 1, there is a lot of vacant bandwidth down there.



Band I is hopeless for TV Broadcasting, huge aerials, and far too
susceptible to lift reception. The entire civilised world have abandoned
its use for telly ?



Not entirely...

http://405-line.tv/?page_id=127

--

Chris
  #7  
Old April 4th 17, 04:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,020
Default Lower frequency usage

On 04/04/2017 16:13, Chris Youlden wrote:
On 04/04/2017 12:45, Mark Carver wrote:
On 04/04/2017 09:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, Only part of band 1, there is a lot of vacant bandwidth down there.



Band I is hopeless for TV Broadcasting, huge aerials, and far too
susceptible to lift reception. The entire civilised world have abandoned
its use for telly ?



Not entirely...

http://405-line.tv/?page_id=127

If I had known they were going to bring it back, I wouldn't have
scrapped my 405 line TV, which was working perfectly until the
transmissions ceased. :-(

Jim

  #8  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,183
Default Lower frequency usage

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:23:01 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

How is it that we do not use the lower frequencies we used to use for tv,
for tv again? Even one multiplex is better than none. OK so the aerials are
big, and perhaps propogation is a bit of an issue at times, but much of band
1 seems to be empty now. Perhaps use it for fm instead?

I've yet to see any kind of enthusiasm for moving over to dab en masse by
fm stations.
Brian


I was having a meal with a friend last night, who is having some
issues with noisy neighbours. He was suggesting that 20 Hz frequency
though inaudible can induce projectile vomiting . His idea is to
install a frequency generator to wage war on the neigbours.

Any merit in this?
  #9  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,008
Default Lower frequency usage

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:23:01 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

How is it that we do not use the lower frequencies we used to use for tv,
for tv again? Even one multiplex is better than none. OK so the aerials
are
big, and perhaps propogation is a bit of an issue at times, but much of
band
1 seems to be empty now. Perhaps use it for fm instead?

I've yet to see any kind of enthusiasm for moving over to dab en masse by
fm stations.
Brian


I was having a meal with a friend last night, who is having some
issues with noisy neighbours. He was suggesting that 20 Hz frequency
though inaudible can induce projectile vomiting . His idea is to
install a frequency generator to wage war on the neigbours.


And if that doesn't work, try using "brown waves" which are subsonic waves
which are alleged (though without proof) to cause similar problems at the
other end, hence the adjective "brown" :-)

  #10  
Old April 22nd 17, 03:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,020
Default Lower frequency usage

On 22/04/2017 15:48, Scott wrote:

I was having a meal with a friend last night, who is having some
issues with noisy neighbours. He was suggesting that 20 Hz frequency
though inaudible can induce projectile vomiting . His idea is to
install a frequency generator to wage war on the neigbours.

Any merit in this?


I have not heard 20 Hz associated with vomiting before.
However I have heard of 14 Hz being associated with high levels of anxiety.

Jim

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.