Is this any good?

On 1/16/2019 7:11 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"silverslimer" wrote

| You'd be surprised. I live in Montreal and every Canadian station is
| on UHF so they're particularly easy to get wherever you live on the
| island or outside. Even the American channels are fairly easy to get
| as long as you know where to point the antenna. However, ABC out of
| Burlington, Vermont which broadcasts four stations from the same
| antenna (ABC, Quest, Laff and Grit) uses VHF-Lo which requires an
| additional attachment to most antennas being sold or one of those old,
| metallic antennas pointed in the right direction.

I have a brother in NH who I think still uses a giant
rooftop antenna with a motor, to get Providence, VT,
or Canada. They don't have cable. (Or cellphone signals.)
Which seems to be much more common than most urban
people realize.

We used to have one VHF station in Boston, but now I
think they're all UHF. Though I don't really know the reason.

Maybe that's a case for finding old rabbit ears that handle
both. We have two TVs. One's using the newer "plate"
style UHF antenna. One uses old rabbit ears with a UHF ring.
Both pick up about 45 stations. Though I should note that at
least half of those are Spanish, religious, shopping, or spend
most of their time showing commercials for vaginal mesh
implant lawsuits.

I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.


Long story short, I found that multipath was a bigger problem
than absolute signal strength. I had variable attenuators
in each signal path and found that by reducing signal
strength and antenna direction very carefully for each channel
I could get reception. Plug your antenna into a spectrum
analyzer. The flatter the top of the "bart's head display"
the easier it is to receive.

On 1/16/2019 7:55 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

We used to have one VHF station in Boston, but now I
think they're all UHF. Though I don't really know the reason.

Big business wants more spectrum so they can sell you redundant
services. The US government wants to sell that spectrum.
Follow the money...

digital tv, although according to the fcc, there are still vhf stations.


I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/millenn...g-hack-to-get-
free-tv-the-antenna-1501686958
Millennials Unearth an Amazing Hack to Get Free TV: the Antenna
...
³I was just kind of surprised that this is technology that exists,²
says Mr. Sisco, 28 years old. ³It¹s been awesome. It doesn¹t log out
and it doesn¹t skip.²
...
Carlos Villalobos, 21, who was selling tube-shaped digital antennas
at a swap meet in San Diego recently, says customers often ask if his
$20 to $25 products are legal. ³They don¹t trust me when I say that
these are actually free local channels,² he says.
...
Almost a third of Americans (29%) are unaware local TV is available
free, according to a June survey by the National Association of
Broadcasters, an industry trade group.

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:


BTW, most rabbit ears have adjustable length. Short works best for
higher channels and long for lower channels. 7 is near the middle.

they were designed to be used fully extended.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:29:53 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 01/16/2019 11:36 AM, Paul wrote:
Mayayana wrote:

* I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

In some countries, your government cares enough to provide
web information on the topic. I suppose this is for countries
where more people are rural or outside the range a lot of people
here would be dealing with.

https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-R...antenna-system


I tried to find coverage maps for TV in Canada, and Google wasn't
coughing them up (they used to be available). I wanted a map so I
could make fun of our coverage. We seem to care little on the topic
now. During the digital transition, our government provided $0 to
TV stations to pay for new equipment. And the coverage we have today
reflects that. That's also why they allowed a station with a
channel 6 analog transmitter, to transition to DTV using the
same channel 6 transmitter.

*******

The information I can find on those plastic (fractal) antenna
panels suggest an urban user would likely be pleased with
one, and see enough performance to conclude "it works". Without
it performing miracles for reception. It would make a decent
placebo (i.e. just as good as the rabbit ears I slap on my
distribution here in the house). You need to have some sort
of exposed wire, as just leaving the 75 ohm coaxial connector
on the TV set open to the air, won't couple in enough signal.

In terms of material cost, you can see these fractal samples are cheap
to make. To me, it seems unlikely such a design would match 75
ohms on its own. Maybe the balanced to unbalanced transformer (balun)
is located elsewhere. The impedance of antennas even changes with
frequency, which means an "exact" match at one frequency is a less
than exact match at others. TV is pretty tolerant of that
mismatch (the match doesn't have to be perfect).

https://i.postimg.cc/SKJg5Fjz/cheap-...a-business.jpg

They could also put the fractal panel inside the TV set itself,
but that wouldn't be flexible enough in terms of positioning. There
could be an OTA TV station at an inconvenient location, that
would require rotating the TV set in the living room for best
results. I don't think TV buyers would like that. But making
people pay for a panel separately, is also naughty. As the antenna
panel could be made for $5 and thrown into the box as an accessory.

** Paul

Back in the 1960 to 1968 period I installed a 25 foot guyed mast on the
peak of my 30 foot 2 1/2 story house, T the top of which I installed a
Channel Master rotator and a Channel Master 12 element Yagi antennae
with which I was able to receive 5 VHF channels, The furthest being
Pembina, North Dakota, 75 miles away, a 4 channel amplifier splitter fed
3 TV sets, one of which was a Heathkit 21 inch colour set which I
assembled. Back then the cabling was all 300 ohm twin lead, later
upgraded to 75 ohm RG59 Coax.
The Whole rooftop installation was a major 1 man only job as I had no
one to help, the roof was 45 degree pitch and wooden shingles, kinda
scary at times.

The thing we do to get television reception. You say that you got 5
VHF channels but how many were available at the time in total?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:59:21 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 1/16/19 9:11 AM, Mayayana wrote:

[snip]

I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

Also, "HD" and "Digital" have nothing to do with antennas.

Yeah, I always found it funny how manufacturers started adding HD to
their model numbers as if the old, 1960s antennas wouldn't be able to
get those same television signals. If the station emits in 1080i, 480i
or 4K, any antenna will receive the signal as it is sent regardless of
how old it is.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:11:27 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"silverslimer" wrote

| You'd be surprised. I live in Montreal and every Canadian station is
| on UHF so they're particularly easy to get wherever you live on the
| island or outside. Even the American channels are fairly easy to get
| as long as you know where to point the antenna. However, ABC out of
| Burlington, Vermont which broadcasts four stations from the same
| antenna (ABC, Quest, Laff and Grit) uses VHF-Lo which requires an
| additional attachment to most antennas being sold or one of those old,
| metallic antennas pointed in the right direction.

I have a brother in NH who I think still uses a giant
rooftop antenna with a motor, to get Providence, VT,
or Canada. They don't have cable. (Or cellphone signals.)
Which seems to be much more common than most urban
people realize.

I doubt that he'd get much in terms of Canadian channels out of NH to
be honest. Not that it's worth it anyway. Most Canadian channels just
broadcast American content. There are some decent Canadian content
like Bad Blood but not everyone in the US would be interested since
you create the same kind of content with more gratuitous violence.

We used to have one VHF station in Boston, but now I
think they're all UHF. Though I don't really know the reason.

I believe it has something to do with interference but I'm truly not
sure. It's my hypothesis only because the reason I've been given for
Burlington, Vermont's ABC signal not reaching me had something to do
with its _real_ broadcasting frequency being too close to that of a
local station. In other words, if you get a TV channel at say 57.1, it
doesn't mean it's actually located at that frequency and might truly
be at 19. As a result, if another one is broadcasting at 17, it might
cut the channel broadcasting at 19.

Maybe that's a case for finding old rabbit ears that handle
both. We have two TVs. One's using the newer "plate"
style UHF antenna. One uses old rabbit ears with a UHF ring.
Both pick up about 45 stations. Though I should note that at
least half of those are Spanish, religious, shopping, or spend
most of their time showing commercials for vaginal mesh
implant lawsuits.

Oh, nobody claimed that OTA signals were any good. I believe someone
here said that the broadcasters make sure to put the worst of their
content on the general stations to entice people to get the specialty
ones. In my case, it has only discouraged me from watching TV
altogether.

I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

I'm not sure why they would consider OTA television to be so amazing.
After all, radio isn't.

On 01/16/2019 2:51 PM, silverslimer wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:29:53 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 01/16/2019 11:36 AM, Paul wrote:
Mayayana wrote:

Â* I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

In some countries, your government cares enough to provide
web information on the topic. I suppose this is for countries
where more people are rural or outside the range a lot of people
here would be dealing with.

https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-R...antenna-system


I tried to find coverage maps for TV in Canada, and Google wasn't
coughing them up (they used to be available). I wanted a map so I
could make fun of our coverage. We seem to care little on the topic
now. During the digital transition, our government provided $0 to
TV stations to pay for new equipment. And the coverage we have today
reflects that. That's also why they allowed a station with a
channel 6 analog transmitter, to transition to DTV using the
same channel 6 transmitter.

*******

The information I can find on those plastic (fractal) antenna
panels suggest an urban user would likely be pleased with
one, and see enough performance to conclude "it works". Without
it performing miracles for reception. It would make a decent
placebo (i.e. just as good as the rabbit ears I slap on my
distribution here in the house). You need to have some sort
of exposed wire, as just leaving the 75 ohm coaxial connector
on the TV set open to the air, won't couple in enough signal.

In terms of material cost, you can see these fractal samples are cheap
to make. To me, it seems unlikely such a design would match 75
ohms on its own. Maybe the balanced to unbalanced transformer (balun)
is located elsewhere. The impedance of antennas even changes with
frequency, which means an "exact" match at one frequency is a less
than exact match at others. TV is pretty tolerant of that
mismatch (the match doesn't have to be perfect).

https://i.postimg.cc/SKJg5Fjz/cheap-...a-business.jpg

They could also put the fractal panel inside the TV set itself,
but that wouldn't be flexible enough in terms of positioning. There
could be an OTA TV station at an inconvenient location, that
would require rotating the TV set in the living room for best
results. I don't think TV buyers would like that. But making
people pay for a panel separately, is also naughty. As the antenna
panel could be made for $5 and thrown into the box as an accessory.

Â*Â* Paul

Back in the 1960 to 1968 period I installed a 25 foot guyed mast on the
peak of my 30 foot 2 1/2 story house, T the top of which I installed a
Channel Master rotator and a Channel Master 12 element Yagi antennae
with which I was able to receive 5 VHF channels, The furthest being
Pembina, North Dakota, 75 miles away, a 4 channel amplifier splitter fed
3 TV sets, one of which was a Heathkit 21 inch colour set which I
assembled. Back then the cabling was all 300 ohm twin lead, later
upgraded to 75 ohm RG59 Coax.
The Whole rooftop installation was a major 1 man only job as I had no
one to help, the roof was 45 degree pitch and wooden shingles, kinda
scary at times.

The thing we do to get television reception. You say that you got 5
VHF channels but how many were available at the time in total?


6 available in that area, 2 or 3 about 100 miles away, I could not
receive them with my setup.
Now on cable I get about 200 channels and barely watch any except for news.

Rene

"silverslimer" wrote

| Oh, nobody claimed that OTA signals were any good. I believe someone
| here said that the broadcasters make sure to put the worst of their
| content on the general stations to entice people to get the specialty
| ones. In my case, it has only discouraged me from watching TV
| altogether.
|

Actually I often find the little stations are more interesting.
I don't watch nearly as much as I once did. Mostly it's DVDs
from the library or from Netflix, and occasionally PBS.

When I do watch, I might find an old movie on the minor
stations while I pretty much just pass by the major networks.
All the shows seem to be incoherent plots involving young,
beautiful 20-somethings, usually wearing skintight suits and
beating each other up with karate. Cops, vampires, zombie
fighters... who knows. There's rarely a plot. Or it's a team of cops
hunting child molesters or psychos. Even PBS has gone downhill.
Crap soap operas from Britain, lukewarm pop concerts from
30 years ago, bland science documentaries that are mostly
just special effects or "drama" with young, attractive scientists.

("Gary and Susan were unable to get into the tomb yesterday
because the winds were so strong that their Egyptian digging
crew couldn't work. Right now they're having breakfast and
checking the weather report. Will they be able to get into the
tomb before their visa runs out? If not, it will be 6 months of
work wasted."

Then in the last 3 minutes we find out what was in the tomb.

Or it's the obnoxious carnival barker, Neil deGrasse Tyson, with
his endless special effects. They probably think he's a big success,
reasoning that 100 people who watch for the special effects is
more "educational" than 30 viewers who are actually interested
in science.)

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 01/16/2019 11:36 AM, Paul wrote:
Mayayana wrote:

I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

In some countries, your government cares enough to provide
web information on the topic. I suppose this is for countries
where more people are rural or outside the range a lot of people
here would be dealing with.

https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-R...antenna-system


I tried to find coverage maps for TV in Canada, and Google wasn't
coughing them up (they used to be available). I wanted a map so I
could make fun of our coverage. We seem to care little on the topic
now. During the digital transition, our government provided $0 to
TV stations to pay for new equipment. And the coverage we have today
reflects that. That's also why they allowed a station with a
channel 6 analog transmitter, to transition to DTV using the
same channel 6 transmitter.

*******

The information I can find on those plastic (fractal) antenna
panels suggest an urban user would likely be pleased with
one, and see enough performance to conclude "it works". Without
it performing miracles for reception. It would make a decent
placebo (i.e. just as good as the rabbit ears I slap on my
distribution here in the house). You need to have some sort
of exposed wire, as just leaving the 75 ohm coaxial connector
on the TV set open to the air, won't couple in enough signal.

In terms of material cost, you can see these fractal samples are cheap
to make. To me, it seems unlikely such a design would match 75
ohms on its own. Maybe the balanced to unbalanced transformer (balun)
is located elsewhere. The impedance of antennas even changes with
frequency, which means an "exact" match at one frequency is a less
than exact match at others. TV is pretty tolerant of that
mismatch (the match doesn't have to be perfect).

https://i.postimg.cc/SKJg5Fjz/cheap-...a-business.jpg

They could also put the fractal panel inside the TV set itself,
but that wouldn't be flexible enough in terms of positioning. There
could be an OTA TV station at an inconvenient location, that
would require rotating the TV set in the living room for best
results. I don't think TV buyers would like that. But making
people pay for a panel separately, is also naughty. As the antenna
panel could be made for $5 and thrown into the box as an accessory.

Paul

Back in the 1960 to 1968 period I installed a 25 foot guyed mast on the
peak of my 30 foot 2 1/2 story house, T the top of which I installed a
Channel Master rotator and a Channel Master 12 element Yagi antennae
with which I was able to receive 5 VHF channels, The furthest being
Pembina, North Dakota, 75 miles away, a 4 channel amplifier splitter fed
3 TV sets, one of which was a Heathkit 21 inch colour set which I
assembled. Back then the cabling was all 300 ohm twin lead, later
upgraded to 75 ohm RG59 Coax.
The Whole rooftop installation was a major 1 man only job as I had no
one to help, the roof was 45 degree pitch and wooden shingles, kinda
scary at times.

Rene


It's only scary when you start to slip.

Paul

On 01/16/2019 3:49 PM, Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 01/16/2019 11:36 AM, Paul wrote:
Mayayana wrote:

Â* I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.

In some countries, your government cares enough to provide
web information on the topic. I suppose this is for countries
where more people are rural or outside the range a lot of people
here would be dealing with.

https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-R...antenna-system


I tried to find coverage maps for TV in Canada, and Google wasn't
coughing them up (they used to be available). I wanted a map so I
could make fun of our coverage. We seem to care little on the topic
now. During the digital transition, our government provided $0 to
TV stations to pay for new equipment. And the coverage we have today
reflects that. That's also why they allowed a station with a
channel 6 analog transmitter, to transition to DTV using the
same channel 6 transmitter.

*******

The information I can find on those plastic (fractal) antenna
panels suggest an urban user would likely be pleased with
one, and see enough performance to conclude "it works". Without
it performing miracles for reception. It would make a decent
placebo (i.e. just as good as the rabbit ears I slap on my
distribution here in the house). You need to have some sort
of exposed wire, as just leaving the 75 ohm coaxial connector
on the TV set open to the air, won't couple in enough signal.

In terms of material cost, you can see these fractal samples are cheap
to make. To me, it seems unlikely such a design would match 75
ohms on its own. Maybe the balanced to unbalanced transformer (balun)
is located elsewhere. The impedance of antennas even changes with
frequency, which means an "exact" match at one frequency is a less
than exact match at others. TV is pretty tolerant of that
mismatch (the match doesn't have to be perfect).

https://i.postimg.cc/SKJg5Fjz/cheap-...a-business.jpg

They could also put the fractal panel inside the TV set itself,
but that wouldn't be flexible enough in terms of positioning. There
could be an OTA TV station at an inconvenient location, that
would require rotating the TV set in the living room for best
results. I don't think TV buyers would like that. But making
people pay for a panel separately, is also naughty. As the antenna
panel could be made for $5 and thrown into the box as an accessory.

Â*Â*Â* Paul

Back in the 1960 to 1968 period I installed a 25 foot guyed mast on
the peak of my 30 foot 2 1/2 story house, T the top of which I
installed a Channel Master rotator and a Channel Master 12 element
Yagi antennae with which I was able to receive 5 VHF channels, The
furthest being Pembina, North Dakota, 75 miles away, a 4 channel
amplifier splitter fed 3 TV sets, one of which was a Heathkit 21 inch
colour set which I assembled. Back then the cabling was all 300 ohm
twin lead, later upgraded to 75 ohm RG59 Coax.
The Whole rooftop installation was a major 1 man only job as I had no
one to help, the roof was 45 degree pitch and wooden shingles, kinda
scary at times.

Rene


It's only scary when you start to slip.

Â*Â* Paul

Or when you sit down with your back against the chimney to take a little
break because you worked all night on the night shift and need a little
rest and suddenly wake up laying on the roof against the chimney.
Boy that one sure woke me up.

Rene

silverslimer wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:55:43 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

We used to have one VHF station in Boston, but now I
think they're all UHF. Though I don't really know the reason.
digital tv, although according to the fcc, there are still vhf stations.


I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/millenn...g-hack-to-get-
free-tv-the-antenna-1501686958
Millennials Unearth an Amazing Hack to Get Free TV: the Antenna
...
³I was just kind of surprised that this is technology that exists,²
says Mr. Sisco, 28 years old. ³It¹s been awesome. It doesn¹t log out
and it doesn¹t skip.²
...
Carlos Villalobos, 21, who was selling tube-shaped digital antennas
at a swap meet in San Diego recently, says customers often ask if his
$20 to $25 products are legal. ³They don¹t trust me when I say that
these are actually free local channels,² he says.
...
Almost a third of Americans (29%) are unaware local TV is available
free, according to a June survey by the National Association of
Broadcasters, an industry trade group.

In this day and age something something

Can't you say anything without slipping into script ?

I think the topic was TV reception. But I can't be sure.

You can enter your ZIP or Postal Code here (US/Can) to
see a map of what's available at your location.

http://www.tvfool.com/index.php?opti...pper&Itemid=29

Paul

silverslimer wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:59:21 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 1/16/19 9:11 AM, Mayayana wrote:

[snip]

I've also seen ads on TV for these new antennae. I found
it somewhat comical. In the few short years that TV antennae
have become rare, apparently it's developed that most people
don't know what they are. So now they're marketed as an
amazing new technology to be sold to cordcutters.
Also, "HD" and "Digital" have nothing to do with antennas.

Yeah, I always found it funny how manufacturers started adding HD to
their model numbers as if the old, 1960s antennas wouldn't be able to
get those same television signals. If the station emits in 1080i, 480i
or 4K, any antenna will receive the signal as it is sent regardless of
how old it is.

The encoding contained in the packets, doesn't materially
affect the spectrum occupied. The quality can drop on a
multiplex of course. If you jam four subchannels into
a single 6MHz carrier, the quality has to drop somehow.

Apparently, the left half of the display here is 6MHz
of NTSC analog TV. While the right half of the display
is 6MHz of DTV encoded signal. You can have analog and
digital stations on the air at the same time. The right
hand section is encoded in 256QAM. Not that the instrument
preparing this display, knows that (as it's a spectrum
analyzer and doesn't decode the TV signal for you).

http://www.n2prise.org/Photo7/DSCW0075.JPG

( http://www.n2prise.org/analog01.htm )

The packets that come out of the right-hand chunk of
spectrum, are "already compressed" video packets. Those
packets can be written to a disk drive without further
compression. So that recording broadcast TV doesn't
need a lot of compute power. If you view the TV signal
in video form, that requires decoding the signal to
display it. A video card decoder could do that almost
for free.

If you were to decode that signal with a Pentium 4,
plus your video card didn't have a hardware scaler to
make a full-screen image, it could chew up practically
one P4 core to present the image and audio. Doing that
"without skips" in the old days, would have been a bit
tougher.

Paul

nospam wrote:
In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:


BTW, most rabbit ears have adjustable length. Short works best for
higher channels and long for lower channels. 7 is near the middle.

they were designed to be used fully extended.

They work better with UHF if you shorten them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_antenna#Indoor

"For best reception the rods should be adjusted to be
a little less than 1/4 wavelength at the frequency of
the television channel being received."

If you were trying to pick up VHF 2 or VHF 3, then
you might do better with the thing fully extended.

And not all rabbit ears have exactly the same length.
I have one, with more telescoping sections, that supports
slightly longer max extension. The cheesiest rabbit ears
I've got are only three segments.

Paul

In article , Paul
wrote:

BTW, most rabbit ears have adjustable length. Short works best for
higher channels and long for lower channels. 7 is near the middle.

they were designed to be used fully extended.

They work better with UHF if you shorten them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_antenna#Indoor

they weren't designed for uhf. that's what the loop was for.

note the caption on the photo in your link,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televi...ile:Rabbit-ear
s_dipole_antenna_with_UHF_loop_20090204.jpg
Very common "rabbit ears" indoor antenna. This model also has a loop
antenna for UHF reception.

On 16/01/2019 03:08, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:23:01 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 15/01/2019 22:56, Paul wrote:
Big Al wrote:
On 1/15/19 3:21 PM, Paul wrote:
The antenna I built here, someone wrote an "optimizer" that
adjusted antenna elements and evaluated performance each time
OT.Â* But what the hell do you do for a living?Â*Â* Not complaining as
your replies are very chocked full of info.Â*Â*Â* PCs, now antennas
and more I've seen.

Al

I'm a retired EE.

But with a bit of a science background.

Â*Â*Â* Paul
???Â* https://ee.co.ukÂ* ???

The wheels are turning, eh? Find a website that looks like a good fit,
(that one is not), find a 'rogues gallery' photo, find someone in the
photo named Paul, ask Paul "Is THIS you?", then go on a fishing
expedition from there. The life of a stalker is not an easy one.

I'm ducking down behind my console now, so he can't see me.

Â*Â* Paul

:-) So far, AFAICT, you've never provided me with questionable
information or guidance.

You have therefore never been on my radar (unlike Char Jackson, a woman
who lies. :-( )

--
David B.