Purely for your enjoyment, here are some pictures I dont think I've posted 
on here.


http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1308/bodge1uk0.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/943/bodge2lj1.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7893/bodge3ph7.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4620/dsc00003uj9.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9909/dscf2430mo6.jpg

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:53 +0100, "Carpy"  wrote:

>Purely for your enjoyment, here are some pictures I dont think I've posted 
>on here.
>

>
>http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/943/bodge2lj1.jpg
>
Surely this one is a piss take.  This must be a set up.  You're taking
the piss aren't you?

Marky P.

"Marky P"  wrote in message 
news:qulq649596t5gjuplplge4s35p328ds9i0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:53 +0100, "Carpy"  wrote:
>
>>Purely for your enjoyment, here are some pictures I dont think I've posted
>>on here.
>>
>
>>
>>http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/943/bodge2lj1.jpg
>>
> Surely this one is a piss take.  This must be a set up.  You're taking
> the piss aren't you?

I've seen it done. Remember that if there's a really obvious common-sense 
right way and a perverse awkward counter-intuitive wrong way, a proportion 
of humanity will always choose the latter method.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

> I've seen it done. Remember that if there's a really obvious common-sense 
> right way and a perverse awkward counter-intuitive wrong way, a proportion 
> of humanity will always choose the latter method.

I had a prospective father-in-law who wired up a new wall light by stuffing 
Live, Neutral, and Earth into the same terminal on its connection choc-block.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

"Marky P"  wrote in message 
news:qulq649596t5gjuplplge4s35p328ds9i0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:53 +0100, "Carpy"  wrote:
>
>>Purely for your enjoyment, here are some pictures I dont think I've posted
>>on here.
>>
>
>>
>>http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/943/bodge2lj1.jpg
>>
> Surely this one is a piss take.  This must be a set up.  You're taking
> the piss aren't you?
>
> Marky P.
>

I couldn't believe it either at first. All the home owner could tell me, was 
that "it was installed by some indians several years ago". I asked him 
whether his TV had ever worked properly and he said "not really" but he had 
been told this was a poor reception area so he lived with it. It is pretty 
incredible but he believed what he was told. The first photo is the same 
aerial by the way, exactly as found. Note the 2 cable ties and bracket made 
from tin foil.

I had a quick test with a TCX10A and all the muxes were coming in at almost 
+10dBmV. Definitely a poor signal area then...........

I remember years ago when I was quite fresh and untainted, I came across an 
aerial which had about 6 cables connected directly to the dipole. I've never 
seen that one repeated and have always wished I snapped a photo before I 
took it down.

These days though, I'm so accustomed to finding these nasty bodges (on a 
daily basis) that it's really only the worst offenders who I get the camera 
out for, like this example.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6d5t9gF110anU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> I've seen it done. Remember that if there's a really obvious common-sense 
>> right way and a perverse awkward counter-intuitive wrong way, a 
>> proportion of humanity will always choose the latter method.
>
> I had a prospective father-in-law who wired up a new wall light by 
> stuffing Live, Neutral, and Earth into the same terminal on its connection 
> choc-block.

So you called off the wedding, obviously. Don't want dodgy genes in the 
clan.

When I was about 12 I used to help my dad fix aerials and install tellys, 
and quite often the latter meant making a connection to the pendant lamp, 
since many houses didn't have wall sockets. This was my job, and on one 
occasion the customer snatched the cable, insulating tape, and screwdriver 
from my young hands, growling something about not having kids messing with 
the electrics, and did the job himself. The result was a bang and a flash 
and no lights until we changed the fuse.

Bill

In article , Marky P
 scribeth thus
>On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:53 +0100, "Carpy"  wrote:
>
>>Purely for your enjoyment, here are some pictures I dont think I've posted 
>>on here.
>>
>
>>
>>http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/943/bodge2lj1.jpg
>>
>Surely this one is a piss take.  This must be a set up.  You're taking
>the piss aren't you?
>
>Marky P.
>

Can't see why it should be. Give the average householder a bit of cable
and a TV aerial and they may well do that or something similar!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

> I couldn't believe it either at first. All the home owner could tell me, 
> was that "it was installed by some indians several years ago". I asked him 
> whether his TV had ever worked properly and he said "not really" but he 
> had been told this was a poor reception area so he lived with it. It is 
> pretty incredible but he believed what he was told. The first photo is the 
> same aerial by the way, exactly as found. Note the 2 cable ties and 
> bracket made from tin foil.

Are they sure it was Indians? Looks more like cowboys to 
me.............................I'll get me coat.

In message Eh+imMDsIfbIFwxK@bancom.co.uk,
tony sayer  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> In article , Marky P
>  scribeth thus
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:53 +0100, "Carpy" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Purely for your enjoyment, here are some pictures I dont think I've
>>> posted on here.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/943/bodge2lj1.jpg
>>>
>> Surely this one is a piss take.  This must be a set up.  You're
>> taking the piss aren't you?
>>
>> Marky P.
>>
>
> Can't see why it should be. Give the average householder a bit of
> cable and a TV aerial and they may well do that or something
> similar!..

Ok,

So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of making that 
connection (I assume that the cable shielding should be connected somewhere 
for a start...)??


-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In article <leCdnfhQusjXgfPVnZ2dnUVZ8v3inZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Doctor D
 wrote:
> > I couldn't believe it either at first. All the home owner could tell
> > me, was that "it was installed by some indians several years ago". I
> > asked him whether his TV had ever worked properly and he said "not
> > really" but he had been told this was a poor reception area so he
> > lived with it. It is pretty incredible but he believed what he was
> > told. The first photo is the same aerial by the way, exactly as found.
> > Note the 2 cable ties and bracket made from tin foil.

> Are they sure it was Indians? Looks more like cowboys to
> me.............................I'll get me coat. 

I've seen a van marked "You've tried the Cowboys - now use the Indians" -
but I can't remember where.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On 04/07/2008 in message  ChrisM 
wrote:

>So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of making that 
>connection (I assume that the cable shielding should be connected 
>somewhere for a start...)??

Thank goodness somebody had the guts to ask. When we have an answer I'll 
creep out under cover of darkness and connect my aerial properly :-)

-- 
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they 
will stop making it

In message , Jeff Gaines 
 wrote
>On 04/07/2008 in message  
>ChrisM wrote:
>
>>So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of making 
>>that connection (I assume that the cable shielding should be connected 
>>somewhere for a start...)??
>
>Thank goodness somebody had the guts to ask. When we have an answer 
>I'll creep out under cover of darkness and connect my aerial properly 
>:-)
>

I didn't realise the top came off of that plastic box stuck on the 
aerial
-- 
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

In article , Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of making that 
> >connection (I assume that the cable shielding should be connected 
> >somewhere for a start...)??
> 
> Thank goodness somebody had the guts to ask. When we have an answer I'll 
> creep out under cover of darkness and connect my aerial properly :-)

I didn't notice at first glance either, but look carefully - that's simply a 
fixing bolt that physically holds part of the aerial together, and is not an 
electrical connection at all. The electrical connections are the ones either 
side of it. You'd think somebody installing aerials would realise you have to 
make a connection to the dipole itself and not the supporting metalwork. And, 
yes, you're right, both conductors have to be connected. Even I know that.

Rod.

In message , 
Roderick Stewart  wrote
>In article , Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> >So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of making that 
>> >connection (I assume that the cable shielding should be connected 
>> >somewhere for a start...)??
>>
>> Thank goodness somebody had the guts to ask. When we have an answer I'll 
>> creep out under cover of darkness and connect my aerial properly :-)
>
>I didn't notice at first glance either, but look carefully - that's simply a
>fixing bolt that physically holds part of the aerial together, and is not an
>electrical connection at all. The electrical connections are the ones either
>side of it.

No they are just the screws holding on the dipole :)

As aerials often come without instructions how does the DIY installer 
know that the centre wire of the coax goes to the right hand connector 
and the screen to the left hand connector. Get these the wrong way 
around and the signal level will be reduced :)


-- 
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

charles wrote:
>I've seen a van marked "You've tried the Cowboys - now use the Indians" -
>but I can't remember where.

Rings a bell from som comedy on the telly?
-- 
Paul Matthews                          
paul@cattytown.me.uk
http://www.hepcats.co.uk

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 19:42:36 +0100, Alan 
wrote:

>In message , 
>Roderick Stewart  wrote
>>In article , Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> >So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of making that 
>>> >connection (I assume that the cable shielding should be connected 
>>> >somewhere for a start...)??
>>>
>>> Thank goodness somebody had the guts to ask. When we have an answer I'll 
>>> creep out under cover of darkness and connect my aerial properly :-)
>>
>>I didn't notice at first glance either, but look carefully - that's simply a
>>fixing bolt that physically holds part of the aerial together, and is not an
>>electrical connection at all. The electrical connections are the ones either
>>side of it.
>
>No they are just the screws holding on the dipole :)
>
>As aerials often come without instructions how does the DIY installer 
>know that the centre wire of the coax goes to the right hand connector 
>and the screen to the left hand connector. Get these the wrong way 
>around and the signal level will be reduced :)

Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)

Marky P.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P 
wrote:

>>>I didn't notice at first glance either, but look carefully - that's simply a
>>>fixing bolt that physically holds part of the aerial together, and is not an
>>>electrical connection at all. The electrical connections are the ones either
>>>side of it.
>>
>>No they are just the screws holding on the dipole :)
>>
>>As aerials often come without instructions how does the DIY installer 
>>know that the centre wire of the coax goes to the right hand connector 
>>and the screen to the left hand connector. Get these the wrong way 
>>around and the signal level will be reduced :)
> 
> Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)

Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside down.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
news:slrng7053p.2si.abuse@news.pr.network...
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P 
> 
>> Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)
>
> Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside 
> down.

That's an easy fix. No need to get the ladders out. Just turn the telly 
upside down.

Bill

In article ,
   Bill Wright  wrote:

> "Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
> news:slrng7053p.2si.abuse@news.pr.network...
> > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P 
> > 
> >> Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)
> >
> > Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside 
> > down.

> That's an easy fix. No need to get the ladders out. Just turn the telly 
> upside down.

To complicated.  Just swap over the u-links.

To explain.  When I first went to work at BBC TVC, the video circuit from
Riverside Studios was on a balanced pair.  One evening, when I came to
accept the studio line up signal, I was puzzled to find the video waveform
upside down (syncs at the top, peak white at the bottom).  Someone had
reversed the U-links on the patch panel (for my benefit).

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In message , Paul Matthews 
 writes
>charles wrote:
>>I've seen a van marked "You've tried the Cowboys - now use the Indians" -
>>but I can't remember where.
>
>Rings a bell from som comedy on the telly?
Got one round here or used to have.. Think they were carpet fitters or 
plumbers...

-- 
Clint Sharp

Bill Wright wrote:
> "Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
> news:slrng7053p.2si.abuse@news.pr.network...
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P 
>> 
>>> Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)
>> Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside 
>> down.
> 
> That's an easy fix. No need to get the ladders out. Just turn the telly 
> upside down.
> 
> Bill 
> 
> 
That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the 
right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils 
being designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.

But on the other hand, will be fine on a Black and White TV.

Glenn...

In message nTm6oNAc8mbIFwmc@amac.f2s.com,
Alan  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> In message
> , Roderick
> Stewart  wrote
>> In article , Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> So to a total Aerial numpty, what would be the correct way of
>>>> making that connection (I assume that the cable shielding should
>>>> be connected somewhere for a start...)??
>>>
>>> Thank goodness somebody had the guts to ask. When we have an answer
>>> I'll creep out under cover of darkness and connect my aerial
>>> properly :-)
>>
>> I didn't notice at first glance either, but look carefully - that's
>> simply a fixing bolt that physically holds part of the aerial
>> together, and is not an electrical connection at all. The electrical
>> connections are the ones either side of it.
>
> No they are just the screws holding on the dipole :)
>
> As aerials often come without instructions how does the DIY installer
> know that the centre wire of the coax goes to the right hand connector
> and the screen to the left hand connector. Get these the wrong way
> around and the signal level will be reduced :)

While these witty rispotes are very amusing, I'm still confused as to what 
exactly is so shockingly wrong with that connection. Is 'Mr Stewart' 
incorrect in his assertion that the coax should have been connected to the 
screws either side of the central one, or is 'Alan' just messin' (as 
indicated by the smilies...)
Assuming it IS the screws either side, DOES it matter which way round they 
are connected, and if so, how can you tell which is which??

Thanks.  :-)


-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

On 07/07/2008 in message <n9adnd63dfiUv-_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet> 
Glenn Millar wrote:

>Bill Wright wrote:
>>"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message  
>>news:slrng7053p.2si.abuse@news.pr.network...
>>>On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P  
>>>
>>>>Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)
>>>Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside  
>>>down.
>>
>>That's an easy fix. No need to get the ladders out. Just turn the telly  
>>upside down.
>>
>>Bill
>That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the 
>right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils being 
>designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.
>
>But on the other hand, will be fine on a Black and White TV.
>
>Glenn...

Or perhaps it would become a white and black TV :-)

-- 
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

In message n9adnd63dfiUv-_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet,
Glenn Millar  Proclaimed from the tallest 
tower:


> That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the
> right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils
> being designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.
>

I think he was joking...??


-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"ChrisM"  wrote in message 
news:Prudnc0oGIwWqe_VnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@bt.com...
> While these witty rispotes are very amusing, I'm still confused as to what 
> exactly is so shockingly wrong with that connection. Is 'Mr Stewart' 
> incorrect in his assertion that the coax should have been connected to the 
> screws either side of the central one, or is 'Alan' just messin' (as 
> indicated by the smilies...)
> Assuming it IS the screws either side, DOES it matter which way round they 
> are connected, and if so, how can you tell which is which??

The picture looks to me like it is the screws either side to which the cable 
should be connected.
Normally either way round would work equally well. Screen to one, core to 
the other.

-- 

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

ChrisM wrote:
> In message n9adnd63dfiUv-_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet,
> Glenn Millar  Proclaimed from the tallest 
> tower:
> 
> 
>> That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the
>> right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils
>> being designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.
>>
> 
> I think he was joking...??
> 
> 
I know....

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:07:55 +0100, "Brian Gregory [UK]"
 wrote:

>"ChrisM"  wrote in message 
>news:Prudnc0oGIwWqe_VnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@bt.com...
>> While these witty rispotes are very amusing, I'm still confused as to what 
>> exactly is so shockingly wrong with that connection. Is 'Mr Stewart' 
>> incorrect in his assertion that the coax should have been connected to the 
>> screws either side of the central one, or is 'Alan' just messin' (as 
>> indicated by the smilies...)
>> Assuming it IS the screws either side, DOES it matter which way round they 
>> are connected, and if so, how can you tell which is which??
>
>The picture looks to me like it is the screws either side to which the cable 
>should be connected.
>Normally either way round would work equally well. Screen to one, core to 
>the other.

Yes, the screws either side of that central nut are for the coax
wires.  There is usually a groove in the plastic under those screws
where the wire goes, so it's pretty obvious to any 'installer' whatt
those screws are for.  The central nut just holds the junction box and
dipole to the main beam.  And no, it doesn't matter which way round
the braid/core goes.

Marky P on the 1 & 3.

In article , Marky P
 wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:07:55 +0100, "Brian Gregory [UK]" 
> wrote:

> >"ChrisM"  wrote in message
> >news:Prudnc0oGIwWqe_VnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@bt.com...
> >> While these witty rispotes are very amusing, I'm still confused as to
> >> what exactly is so shockingly wrong with that connection. Is 'Mr
> >> Stewart' incorrect in his assertion that the coax should have been
> >> connected to the screws either side of the central one, or is 'Alan'
> >> just messin' (as indicated by the smilies...) Assuming it IS the
> >> screws either side, DOES it matter which way round they are
> >> connected, and if so, how can you tell which is which??
> >
> >The picture looks to me like it is the screws either side to which the
> >cable should be connected. Normally either way round would work equally
> >well. Screen to one, core to the other.

> Yes, the screws either side of that central nut are for the coax wires. 
> There is usually a groove in the plastic under those screws where the
> wire goes, so it's pretty obvious to any 'installer' whatt those screws
> are for.  The central nut just holds the junction box and dipole to the
> main beam.  And no, it doesn't matter which way round the braid/core goes.

It would if it were mounted VP. "Inner Uppermost" in that situation.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Glenn Millar"  wrote in message 
news:n9adnd63dfiUv-_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> "Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
>> news:slrng7053p.2si.abuse@news.pr.network...
>>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P 
>>> 
>>>> Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)
>>> Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside 
>>> down.
>>
>> That's an easy fix. No need to get the ladders out. Just turn the telly 
>> upside down.
>>
>> Bill
> That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the 
> right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils being 
> designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.

Don't I know it. Many years ago I was entrusted to fit the stands on several 
new colour sets. It seemed to me that the logical way to proceed was to turn 
the sets upside down, fit the stands, then turn the whole thing the right 
way up. This I did, but the colours were all wrong on the sets. I crept off.

Bill

"ChrisM"  wrote in message 
news:lqidnbMbiu4SpO_VnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@bt.com...
> In message n9adnd63dfiUv-_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet,
> Glenn Millar  Proclaimed from the tallest 
> tower:
>
>
>> That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the
>> right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils
>> being designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.
>>
>
> I think he was joking...??

No I wasn't. It's just common sense.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright
 scribeth thus
>
>"Glenn Millar"  wrote in message 
>news:n9adnd63dfiUv-_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>> "Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message 
>>> news:slrng7053p.2si.abuse@news.pr.network...
>>>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:35:59 +0100, Marky P 
>>>> 
>>>>> Not only that, but your TV picture will be back to front :-)
>>>> Only if it's horizontally polarised. If vertical, then it'll be upside 
>>>> down.
>>>
>>> That's an easy fix. No need to get the ladders out. Just turn the telly 
>>> upside down.
>>>
>>> Bill
>> That may work on a LCD or Plasma Bill, but a CRT Bill needs to be the 
>> right way up or the colours will be distorted due to the scan coils being 
>> designed with the affects of the earth's magnetic field in mind.
>
>Don't I know it. Many years ago I was entrusted to fit the stands on several 
>new colour sets. It seemed to me that the logical way to proceed was to turn 
>the sets upside down, fit the stands, then turn the whole thing the right 
>way up. This I did, but the colours were all wrong on the sets. I crept off.
>
>Bill 
>
>
We used to do that on Phillips G8 chassis sets with no problems at
all!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:07:08 +0100, charles
 wrote:

>In article , Marky P
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:07:55 +0100, "Brian Gregory [UK]" 
>> wrote:
>
>> >"ChrisM"  wrote in message
>> >news:Prudnc0oGIwWqe_VnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@bt.com...
>> >> While these witty rispotes are very amusing, I'm still confused as to
>> >> what exactly is so shockingly wrong with that connection. Is 'Mr
>> >> Stewart' incorrect in his assertion that the coax should have been
>> >> connected to the screws either side of the central one, or is 'Alan'
>> >> just messin' (as indicated by the smilies...) Assuming it IS the
>> >> screws either side, DOES it matter which way round they are
>> >> connected, and if so, how can you tell which is which??
>> >
>> >The picture looks to me like it is the screws either side to which the
>> >cable should be connected. Normally either way round would work equally
>> >well. Screen to one, core to the other.
>
>> Yes, the screws either side of that central nut are for the coax wires. 
>> There is usually a groove in the plastic under those screws where the
>> wire goes, so it's pretty obvious to any 'installer' whatt those screws
>> are for.  The central nut just holds the junction box and dipole to the
>> main beam.  And no, it doesn't matter which way round the braid/core goes.
>
>It would if it were mounted VP. "Inner Uppermost" in that situation.

Actually, I don't think Bill reckons it makes any difference even with
vertical pol.

Marky P.

In article ,
   Marky P  wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:07:08 +0100, charles
>  wrote:

> >> Yes, the screws either side of that central nut are for the coax
> >> wires. There is usually a groove in the plastic under those screws
> >> where the wire goes, so it's pretty obvious to any 'installer' whatt
> >> those screws are for.  The central nut just holds the junction box and
> >> dipole to the main beam.  And no, it doesn't matter which way round
> >> the braid/core goes.
> >
> >It would if it were mounted VP. "Inner Uppermost" in that situation.

> Actually, I don't think Bill reckons it makes any difference even with
> vertical pol.

I've measured that it does, so there.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Marky P"  wrote in message 
news:l01a7450gln9jdn07kvrv4lpmg7fhcaph5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:07:08 +0100, charles
>>It would if it were mounted VP. "Inner Uppermost" in that situation.
>
> Actually, I don't think Bill reckons it makes any difference even with
> vertical pol.

I think it goes back to the VHF days, when a vertical dipole 9ft long could 
have its bottom end quite close to the ground. I would have thought that it 
wouldn't make any difference with a UHF aerial mounted clear of any 
obstructions.

Bill

In article ,
   Bill Wright  wrote:

> "Marky P"  wrote in message 
> news:l01a7450gln9jdn07kvrv4lpmg7fhcaph5@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:07:08 +0100, charles
> >>It would if it were mounted VP. "Inner Uppermost" in that situation.
> >
> > Actually, I don't think Bill reckons it makes any difference even with
> > vertical pol.

> I think it goes back to the VHF days, when a vertical dipole 9ft long
> could have its bottom end quite close to the ground. I would have
> thought that it wouldn't make any difference with a UHF aerial mounted
> clear of any obstructions.


it's not that, Bill. If the braid side is on the top, the active half of
the dipole is underneath an earthed one.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:

> it's not that, Bill. If the braid side is on the top, the active half of
> the dipole is underneath an earthed one.

"Earthed" isn't a terribly meaningful concept with something that's 
several wavelengths up in the air.  The "earthing" path via the outer 
surface of the outer conductor of the coax, being many wavelengths long, 
will have a arbitrarily high impedance (dependent on the exact 
electrical length at any particular frequency) and of course also acts 
as an antenna itself, further complicating the picture.  Bill is right 
here, or rather the connection polarity is likely to some difference but 
which way up is better will be as good as random.

For predictability you need a balun, of course...

-- 
Andy

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:4fbc58a8accharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   Bill Wright  wrote:
>
>> "Marky P"  wrote in message
>> news:l01a7450gln9jdn07kvrv4lpmg7fhcaph5@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:07:08 +0100, charles
>> >>It would if it were mounted VP. "Inner Uppermost" in that situation.
>> >
>> > Actually, I don't think Bill reckons it makes any difference even with
>> > vertical pol.
>
>> I think it goes back to the VHF days, when a vertical dipole 9ft long
>> could have its bottom end quite close to the ground. I would have
>> thought that it wouldn't make any difference with a UHF aerial mounted
>> clear of any obstructions.
>
>
> it's not that, Bill. If the braid side is on the top, the active half of
> the dipole is underneath an earthed one.

The thing is electrically balanced. The voltages and currents in each half 
are identical. Of course if we're talking about a dipole with no balun 
things might, in practice, be different. I was always brought up to put the 
'inner to the top', but frankly for a UHF aerial up in the clear with 
nothing to screen it I don't think you'd ever notice a difference. At one 
time, if you used an Anti TC18 for VP and mounted it with the elements on 
the side of the boom farthest from the mast the inner core would have to 
connect to the lower half.

I have to say that even aerials with baluns will be more affected by a hand 
on one half of the dipole than the other, which makes me wonder if some 
baluns are smoke and mirror jobs.

Bill

"Andy Wade"  wrote in message 
news:6dknj0F349gfU1@mid.individual.net...
> charles wrote:
>
>> it's not that, Bill. If the braid side is on the top, the active half of
>> the dipole is underneath an earthed one.
>
> "Earthed" isn't a terribly meaningful concept with something that's 
> several wavelengths up in the air.

It's strange how this discussion has brought back an ancient memory. I 
remember my dad fixing a weak signal problem by rotating a single dipole 
(for ch2) by 180deg in the wall bracket. This was on a gable end of a 
bungalow and the bottom end of the dipole would be quite close to the 
ground. Amazing, but I could take you to the house!

Another similar memory was when we couldn't get rid of the ghosting. We 
tried the dipole in several locations and finally decided that the customer 
would have to pay for an 'H' on the chimney. As a temporary measure Dad laid 
the dipole on the stairs, where it produced a reasonable picture. The 
customer decided to leave the aerial where it was to save the cost of the 
'H'!

You know, these memories must have been from the pre-ITV era, so I would 
only be six. Anyone else here been aerial rigging for 54 years?

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

> You know, these memories must have been from the pre-ITV era, so I would 
> only be six. Anyone else here been aerial rigging for 54 years?

I didn't realise that they used to send youngsters up the outside of 
chimneys in those days, and not just the inside ?

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6dltkbF37ma9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> You know, these memories must have been from the pre-ITV era, so I would 
>> only be six. Anyone else here been aerial rigging for 54 years?
>
> I didn't realise that they used to send youngsters up the outside of 
> chimneys in those days, and not just the inside ?

Oh yes.

Bill