On 5/18/2013 9:08 AM, Charles Craft wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Wronski >> Sent: May 18, 2013 7:39 AM >> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." >> Subject: Re: [EE] Uses for stepper motors - Branch: OTA DTV >> >> On 5/18/2013 2:05 AM, IVP wrote: >>>> For a much smaller, lighter directional antenna, a stepper with direct >>>> drive might be a solution. >>> Good thought, but analogue TV is about to be turned off in NZ (OK >>> news if you're in the aluminium recovery business) so everyone will >>> have fixed dishes >> The switch to DTV is what makes TV a challenge for some people here in >> the US. The government provided vouchers for people to acquire OTA >> digital TV converter boxes at a discount. I was using cable, so didn't >> need them, but I got mine, and handed them out to people still using OTA >> TV. Now, I want one of the boxes, because a small TV that is in the >> workshop, that kept me company on late nights of programming, does not >> work with the OTA antenna. I think it is the sensitivity of the built >> in tuner, whereas the tuners in the converter boxes I've seen is very go= od. >> >> Anyhow, I don't get why NZ's analog TV turn-off will force a switch to >> fixed dishes. Here, it simply made VHF antennas obsolete. People in >> the "fringe" areas need a higher gain UHF antenna than they did with >> analog. > VHF is still needed. Two of the channels here in Minneapolis (9 and 11) w= ere > up in UHF then moved back down to their VHF channels after the analog was= turned off. > Was a pain for me. Had everything working great up in UHF then had to fin= d another > antenna that could do UHF and VHF. > > Stick your zipcode in here and it will show the digital channel and the R= F channel. > http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ > > > chuckc > > > I'm not missing anything by limiting it to UHF here in Worcester, MA. =20 The fcc.gov site is much more optimistic than the equivalent at=20 antennaweb.org Because of a hill to my east, I need to enter the exact address.=20 Antennaweb only shows me 2 very local useless channels and the distances=20 to the towers. fcc.gov shows a more optimistic 14 channels. =20 Furthermore, fcc.gov shows me the expected receive power, where=20 antennaweb just shows distance. But, I can't measure receive power, and=20 I have to interpret the results, because I'm sure my signals are coming=20 to me after bouncing off that hill to the west, and I get nothing if I=20 aim it in the prescribed direction for Boston channels. A general complaint about the whole DTV transition regards the need to=20 "map" channel assignments. The logical channel numbers have no=20 relationship to the RF channels. One might expect channel 4 to be a=20 lower frequency than channel 5, but no. Logical Channel 4-1 is assigned=20 to RF channel 30 while 5-1 is on RF 20. Plus the whole sub-channel=20 concept. If the remote didn't have up / down buttons, my 93 year old=20 dad wouldn't even bother to turn on the tv with the "4-1" sequence=20 needed to get what used to be "4". Well, they opened up more channels to auction off, and enabled the=20 broadcast TV channels to squeeze more sub channels in, so it's all good,=20 just (IMHO) implemented badly. Joe W --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .