Install an antenna at ground level is better? - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #1 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-23, 11:33 AM Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
Install an antenna at ground level is better?

Hi everyone,

I've read the Knowledge Base & FAQ and looked through the info for an answer, but I didn't find advice on where to put an antenna in this particular situation.

I try to help a friend who wants to install an antenna to capture the TV. She lives in St-Michel-des-Saints (Quebec). All signals in this area are very weak and 2e edge type.

The reports of TV Fool are confusing: the higher the position of the antenna, the less the signal is good. Here's TV Fool TV Signal Analysis Reports for an antenna installed at 1 foot from the ground and the other at 15 feet:

At 1 foot: TV Fool 1'

At 15 feet’s: TV Fool 15'

For example, in the case of CBFT-DT channel 19 (Montréal), the NM dB results are: 1’=-4.8; 15’=-11.8 (at 200’, it's even worse:-15.4).

What can explain these results?

Even if for me, this defies logic, is it better to position the antenna at ground level?
Roch Lafrance is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-23, 04:37 PM
DHC Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roch Lafrance View Post
What can explain these results?
Even if for me, this defies logic, is it better to position the antenna at ground level?
Hello, Roch Lafrance; welcome to the forum.

I have seen this before. The signal is stronger with the antenna lower because the reflection of the signal off the ground in front of the antenna is adding to the direct signal.

https://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/186...ml#post1334335

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

However, the software that produces the signal reports is much less accurate with 2Edge signals. You must make some tests to confirm the report results. The last time I saw the test results agree with the report was when there was water in front of the antenna that reflected the signal.

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883

Last edited by rabbit73; 2019-04-23 at 08:02 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #3 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-23, 06:04 PM
DHC Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 913
Here is the terrain profile for CBFT done by TV Fool. If you click on the callsign in your report, you will see the profile. It shows terrain interference to the signal:


If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
rabbit73 is offline  
 
post #4 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-23, 07:08 PM Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
Thank you very much rabbit73 for your answer.

I had seen the terrain profile before and I thought it would not be easy. You would have to have a tower 1000 feet high to get an LOS signal in this place.

However, we see that there is a very weak signal, but a signal is existing. Do you think this is a usable signal or does this reflection make it unusable? In other words, is it worth the energy or is it lost?

And if it's worth a try, is it better to have a low antenna, to benefit of a possible ground reflection, or the highest possible?
Roch Lafrance is offline  
post #5 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-23, 07:37 PM
DHC Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roch Lafrance View Post
I had seen the terrain profile before and I thought it would not be easy. You would have to have a tower 1000 feet high to get an LOS signal in this place.
Here is another terrain profile using different software:



Quote:
However, we see that there is a very weak signal, but a signal is existing. Do you think this is a usable signal or does this reflection make it unusable? In other words, is it worth the energy or is it lost?
Yes, it is a very weak barely usable signal. The reflection can add to the direct signal, making the sum greater than the direct signal alone. I couldn't find a coverage map for CBFT, but I did find one for CFTM, which should be similar:





Quote:
And if it's worth a try, is it better to have a low antenna, to benefit of a possible ground reflection, or the highest possible?
Try it low first, then raise it. There must be no objects in front of the antenna that would block the signal. You will need a high gain UHF antenna for CBFT like the Antennas Direct 91XG or the Solid Signal HDB91X and a preamp. You will also need a high gain VHF-High antenna for 10 and 12, like the Stellar Labs 30-2476.

I think the chance is good that it will work, but I can't give you a guarantee.

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883
rabbit73 is offline  
post #6 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-24, 08:42 AM Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
If it's a reflection of the signal, it will not be obvious. There is nothing there: it is at the end of a dirt road and surrounded by a forest. How to capture this signal?

What I understand from all of this is that under certain circumstances:

1: it may be better installing a antenna as low as possible when there is reflection of the signal;

2: the angle of the antenna should be adjusted according to the signal reflection. The story of Peter Putnam is very interesting about this: "Knife-edge refraction works so well at this location that I actually received all of the Albany DTV channels with the CS600 resting nose-down on the ground and its rear elements tilted up at a 45-degree angle against the mast!"

Quote:
You will need a high gain UHF antenna for CBFT like the Antennas Direct 91XG or the Solid Signal HDB91X and a preamp. You will also need a high gain VHF-High antenna for 10 and 12, like the Stellar Labs 30-2476.
I will do some experiments at the end of May. I will focus on two UHF channels (CBFT and CBMT) with respectively -4.8 and -5.3 dB NM. I think that an Antenna Direct DB4e (12dB gain at these frequencies) with an amplifier should be enough for testing.
Roch Lafrance is offline  
post #7 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-24, 01:59 PM
DHC Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roch Lafrance View Post
If it's a reflection of the signal, it will not be obvious. There is nothing there: it is at the end of a dirt road and surrounded by a forest. How to capture this signal?
By the emprical method, AKA trial-and-error. Do you have any kind of signal strength indicator to track improvement?



Quote:
What I understand from all of this is that under certain circumstances:

1: it may be better installing a antenna as low as possible when there is reflection of the signal;

2: the angle of the antenna should be adjusted according to the signal reflection.
The angle of the antenna should be adjusted to capture the maximum signal.
Quote:
The story of Peter Putnam is very interesting about this: "Knife-edge refraction works so well at this location that I actually received all of the Albany DTV channels with the CS600 resting nose-down on the ground and its rear elements tilted up at a 45-degree angle against the mast!"
Yes, a very interesting story by Peter Putman;
I had the link before
Then I lost it
Now I have it again, thanks to you.

It is a special case of signal enhancement by ground reflection because the ground slopes down in front of the antenna. The diffracted signal, coming down from a terrain peak, arrives much like a skywave.

Les Moxon, G6XN, describes that type of enhancement in detail in his book HF Antennas for All Locations.

Quote:
I will do some experiments at the end of May. I will focus on two UHF channels (CBFT and CBMT) with respectively -4.8 and -5.3 dB NM. I think that an Antenna Direct DB4e (12dB gain at these frequencies) with an amplifier should be enough for testing.
The DB4e was rescaled down for 14 to 51, so it should do better for 19 and 21 than most other 4-bay antennas. However, it doesn't have a tilt feature; that would be a custom mod.

Ground gain and radiation angle at VHF
https://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/gndgain/gnd_gain_eme_2002.htm

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883

Last edited by rabbit73; 2019-04-24 at 02:27 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #8 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-25, 09:45 AM Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
Thank's for the illustration of the skyline multi-path effect. Choosing a mounting site page of HDTVPrimer is very interesting.

I understand that methodical work and especially patience will be determining factors ...

Quote:
Do you have any kind of signal strength indicator to track improvement?
I planning to go there with my laptop, hauppauge USB tuner and use the hauppage signal monitor. Would there be more useful software to use for signal strength indicator?
Roch Lafrance is offline  
post #9 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-25, 01:29 PM
DHC Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: S.E. VA
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roch Lafrance View Post
I planning to go there with my laptop, hauppauge USB tuner and use the hauppage signal monitor. Would there be more useful software to use for signal strength indicator?


That sounds good, if it works. I couldn't get mine to behave. An alternative is the SiliconDust HDHR.

In addition to signal strength, signal quality, as defined by SNR and uncorrected errors, is also important. You want an SNR above 15 dB and no uncorrected errors.

Does your friend's TV have a signal monitor in the menu?

If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.
Lord Kelvin, 1883

Last edited by rabbit73; 2019-04-25 at 02:40 PM.
rabbit73 is offline  
post #10 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-25, 01:58 PM Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
Quote:
Does your friend's TV have a signal monitor in the menu?
I dont no, but i have MediaPortal on my laptop with this feature. I will plug the laptop directly on the coax (no need to go in the house each time). If i catch something, i'll do the fine tuning on the TV set.
Roch Lafrance is offline  
post #11 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-25, 09:27 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 2
Quote:
I will do some experiments at the end of May. I will focus on two UHF channels (CBFT and CBMT) with respectively -4.8 and -5.3 dB NM. I think that an Antenna Direct DB4e (12dB gain at these frequencies) with an amplifier should be enough for testing.
First post.

I found that CBFT and CBMT are rather easy to receive in Sherbrooke, QC. CBC transmitter on Mt. Royal is 363 kW omnidirectional, a lot more than CFTM at 11 kW. I can get CBMT signal with a 8-bay non-amplified antenna in the attic. Here is my TV Fool Report. I estimate CBMT should be more around 10 dB NM than -17.4 dB on the report.
cuivreux is offline  
post #12 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-26, 01:26 PM Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
Welcome Cuivreux

Quote:
I found that CBFT and CBMT are rather easy to receive in Sherbrooke, QC. CBC transmitter on Mt. Royal is 363 kW omnidirectional, a lot more than CFTM at 11 kW. I can get CBMT signal with a 8-bay non-amplified antenna in the attic. Here is my TV Fool Report. I estimate CBMT should be more around 10 dB NM than -17.4 dB on the report.
No amp with a attic antenna with a TV Fool NM at -17.4 dB? Wow! Encouraging for me. And what is the situation for CIVM 26 (TQ) at -13.3 NM?
Roch Lafrance is offline  
post #13 of 13 (permalink) Old 2019-04-26, 05:06 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 2
What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure there is an error in TV Fool database about CBFT and CBMT. In my attic I can receive any signal over a noise margin of 10 dB. CBC's transmitter is at least 30x more powerful than any other transmitters on Mt. Royal in Montreal. There is no way CBMT should be in the same power level than CFTM (TVA) or CFCF (CTV) on TV Fool Report. CBC is listed at -17.4 dB NM on my report but I would say it is closer to 10 dB in real life.

I don't get any stations from Mt. Royal other than CBC and SRC.
cuivreux is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in













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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome