Antenna explanation

If your OTA TV reception is bad and you currently have a Winegard or a Jack there are only a couple of possibilities. The antenna itself is faulty, you have wiring issues between the antenna and the power supply, the power supply is bad or you are too far away (or too blocked) to receive the signal.
Both the Winegard and the Jack will give you excellent reception assuming everything else is working correctly and you are within range of the signal.

Waiting anxiously for the result as my OTA tv reception sucks.

MNtundraRet wrote:
Thanks for the 2007 FCC report, Jeff.

Channels: 7, 8, and 9 would fall around 178 to 183 Megahertz. That would have included the elements sized around 50 to 30% of the largest one on a unamplified roof top antenna.

I have worried about the Jack antenna since it does not have adequate room for the proper sized element to work with smaller amplified RV antenna. I suspect the actual range for picking up these channels may be only 50% of the range for the other's.

That concerns me as well, which is why if I can ever get off my butt, will test them on the same mast; one against the other.

The LA market is a great test bed since we occupy from Ch. 7, all the way through the top of the UHF band (over 90 channels if you count all the Dots). When I did my original Batwing tests about 35 miles from Mt. Wilson, there was allot of garbage to pick through. But now that the cut-over is done and the analogs gone, my analyzer will probably be allot cleaner so I can run the same parameters with all 3 tests: Batwing only, Batwing and Wingman, and Jack all on the same mast and be able to see the minute differences easier. Since the Jack is on sale at CW, I'll probably go get one this weekend. The results ought a be interesting..

Made a uhf antenna (what you need) out of two coat hangers and a piece of pine Plans are on the net. You need a 300 to 75 ohm transformer from radio shack,,,,2 bucks and a length of 75 ohm coax. You can add an amp for farther stations. If you know a ham radio person he should be willing to to help you

trb46 wrote:
Wow, lots of "experts" out there, each with his/her own facts. Bottom line, what really matters in the batwing vs. Jack battle is what works for the user! If you buy a Jack and are happy with it, great! If you have the batwing and are happy with it, also great. Is it really worth our time to argue over the VHF-UHF-HDTV semantics so someone can walk away feeling like the winner? Life's too short to argue over something so insignificant. IMHO.

you seem to think this is a who's right debate as opposed to who is passing out incorrect or bogus information. You can look at the countless threads regarding antennas and the DTV conversion that were never carried to this extent because it was not contaminated by mis-information.

MNtundraRet wrote:
I looks like Tom used to work for our local channel 9 (who moved RF channel from 29 back to 9). We count on Tom to keep things going there since they are our FOX network and carry the Vikings football games.

Mark :B

Mark
It was actually KARE-11. Both KARE-11 and KMSP-9 are broadcasting on VHF now. I don't recall what UHF channel KMSP used prior to analog being shut down but it was never on channel 29. Channel 29 is WFTC. When the analog was shut down WFTC converted their analog channel 29 to digital.

To get back on track with antennas, the Jack antenna that I have is used in conjunction with a Winegard Sensor Pro amp. The combination works well for the most part. As I stated earlier, the Jack works poorly on VHF. It has a built in amp and you have to be careful with adding amplification. Too much amplification can be as bad as not enough. The Sensor Pro has adjustable gain and I usually set it towards the lowest setting.

Wow, lots of "experts" out there, each with his/her own facts. Bottom line, what really matters in the batwing vs. Jack battle is what works for the user! If you buy a Jack and are happy with it, great! If you have the batwing and are happy with it, also great. Is it really worth our time to argue over the VHF-UHF-HDTV semantics so someone can walk away feeling like the winner? Life's too short to argue over something so insignificant. IMHO.

Hmmm, all I wanted to do was present some information and it seems I started a holy war.

Thanks for the 2007 FCC report, Jeff.

Channels: 7, 8, and 9 would fall around 178 to 183 Megahertz. That would have included the elements sized around 50 to 30% of the largest one on a unamplified roof top antenna.

I have worried about the Jack antenna since it does not have adequate room for the proper sized element to work with smaller amplified RV antenna. I suspect the actual range for picking up these channels may be only 50% of the range for the other's.

With two amplifiers I have no problems. I would expect a second amplifier would help with the Jack if a second amplifier works on it. I am talking about transmitted RF channel, not the traditional channel shown by the station for those confused.

I looks like Tom used to work for our local channel 9 (who moved RF channel from 29 back to 9). We count on Tom to keep things going there since they are our FOX network and carry the Vikings football games.

Mark :B

camperpaul wrote:

MNtundraRet wrote:

I am quite sure that companies like Winegard could produce a higher amplified antenna but may be limited by FCC.

The only restrictions on receiving antennas are in the FAA rules
(there are references to the FAA rules in the FCC rules).

And local Zoning rules and covenants :).