tony sayer writes
Sorry I don't know of a rigger in that area but you could e-mail bill
Wright at www.wrightsaerials.co.uk and if HE doesn't know then no one
will!. He's based in Yorkshire but travels almost all over the country,
I suggest you mail him for advice.

I have done just that - thanks for the tip.
--
Nic

Don Pearce writes
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:56:09 +0100, Nicolas Hodges
wrote:

Paul Hopkins writes
Seven years ago I paid £40 to install an aerial; I supplied the aerial,
fixing kit and co-ax cable. He had the ladders. So perhaps the quoted
price is not too bad.

I've since seen the same thing listed including aerial and full
installation for £65...

Last August, Hi-world did a piece on aerials, a copy may be available from
their subscriptions department. They suggested a Antiferance 3 element VHF
aerial and an All-rounder dipole ( the round element) it all depends on
transmitters.

In this piece, they listed: www.cai.co.uk - trade body for installing
aerials , www.maplin.co.uk and www.maxview.co.uk (links not tested).

www.cai.org.uk

They led me to Banbury Aerials:

http://www.banburyaerials.co.uk/


I looked at their web site, and the first picture on the gallery page
looks like a mechanically unsound installation. I may be maligning
them, but I would have thought that simple leverage would have that
antenna ripped off the building in the first high wind.

Any real installer here care to comment?

Having just been looking through Bill Wright's Rogue's Gallery - really
frightening some of it - this photo you've pointed out looks rather
familiar... So that is CAI accreditation? No thanks.

I've emailed Bill Wright to see if he has a local recommendation. Having
read through the Rogue's Gallery I can see he will point me in the right
direction if he can.
--
Nic

Hi,

In message , Don Pearce
writes

I looked at their web site, and the first picture on the gallery page
looks like a mechanically unsound installation. I may be maligning
them, but I would have thought that simple leverage would have that
antenna ripped off the building in the first high wind.

I thought the same, but looking more closely I think it's a trick of
the photo - at first glance I thought the aerial was supported by the
guttering bracket, but now I'm not so sure. I think the aerial supports
may not be visible.

Either way, it's not a great advert for an installer!


Any real installer here care to comment?

That counts me out (too scared of heights).

For some real horror stories, the 'rogues gallery' at Wright's is worth
a look. http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/roguesgalleryview.html. As Tony
pointed out, there are some proper cowboys in the trade.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:21:16 +0100, Glenn Booth
wrote:

I thought the same, but looking more closely I think it's a trick of
the photo - at first glance I thought the aerial was supported by the
guttering bracket, but now I'm not so sure. I think the aerial supports
may not be visible.

Either way, it's not a great advert for an installer!

I've just had a much closer look, and yes, what appears to be the
antenna bracket is in fact just the guttering support. The antenna is
nowhere near the guttering - it is fixed to some other part of the
roof in the background. So maybe it is OK, and maybe it isn't - we
can't see.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Paul Hopkins wrote:
Last August, Hi-world did a piece on aerials, a copy may be available
from their subscriptions department. They suggested a Antiferance 3
element VHF aerial and an All-rounder dipole ( the round element) it all
depends on transmitters.

Those round things may have made sense if you needed an omni in the days
when VHF transmissions were only horizontally polarized, but these days
all are vertical or mixed for mobile reception, so a vertical dipole is
better.


I use a home-made vertical dipole in the loft with the feeder taking a
few turns around a ferrite ring to act as a balun before feeding
standard 75R co-ax, and it works very well here by the river Trent just
west of Nottingham.

I do get lots of multi-path when an aircraft on its approach into the
East Midlands Airport flies over though!

The home made dipole is based on some cut-to-length copper-plated steel
aerial rods (tapered tubes) from Anchor Surplus (or rather, Anchor
Supplies as it now is), with the central insulating and mounting section
based on glass-fibre extrusions from my local B&Q DIY depot.
--
Chris Morriss

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Paul Hopkins
wrote:
Last August, Hi-world did a piece on aerials, a copy may be available
from their subscriptions department. They suggested a Antiferance 3
element VHF aerial and an All-rounder dipole ( the round element) it
all depends on transmitters.

Those round things may have made sense if you needed an omni in the days
when VHF transmissions were only horizontally polarized, but these days
all are vertical or mixed for mobile reception, so a vertical dipole is
better.

Maybe I am out of date. However I had thought that the VHF/FM transmissions
were 45deg slant or circular. Hence either vertical or horizontal might do
in a good area. The advantage of vertical is that it gives 'omni' in the
horizontal plane.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Paul Hopkins
wrote:
Last August, Hi-world did a piece on aerials, a copy may be available
from their subscriptions department. They suggested a Antiferance 3
element VHF aerial and an All-rounder dipole ( the round element) it
all depends on transmitters.

Those round things may have made sense if you needed an omni in the days
when VHF transmissions were only horizontally polarized, but these days
all are vertical or mixed for mobile reception, so a vertical dipole is
better.

Maybe I am out of date. However I had thought that the VHF/FM transmissions
were 45deg slant or circular. Hence either vertical or horizontal might do
in a good area. The advantage of vertical is that it gives 'omni' in the
horizontal plane.


Yes it does for reception. For quite some while now most all BBC main
systems have radiated Mixed i.e. Vertical and Horizontal components.

A few of the smaller commercial stations use vertical only, and IIRC
somewhere in the country there is a station that still is Horizontal
only!.

Mike Browns excellent Transmitter gallery site has a bit on this...

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/wrotham/mixedpol.asp


and more about various types of transmission system aerials.

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/features/recognition/vhf-fm.asp
--
Tony Sayer

Bancom Communications Ltd U.K. Tel+44 1223 566577 Fax+44 1223 566588

P.O. Box 280, Cambridge, England, CB2 2DY E-Mail

"Don Pearce"

wrote
I looked at their web site, and the first picture on the gallery page
looks like a mechanically unsound installation. I may be maligning
them, but I would have thought that simple leverage would have that
antenna ripped off the building in the first high wind.

Any real installer here care to comment?


Looks like a cowboy job. Should have fitted the bracket to the brickwork