Where to run the grounding wire and coax

I'm new to antennas this will be my first one so I'm asking around everywhere that I can and trying to find out how to do things correctly!

I want to use a chimney mount to mount my antenna.

The chimney is NEVER used to burn anything in it.

I have a pretty huge hole right behind my air conditioner that the guys that put it in drilled I was going to run the coax cable through there.

The shortest distance to the ground from my chimney is over the gutter though.

This link shows the back of my house

http://snack.freehomepage.com/

I just wanted to see what people with a lot of experience thought about how to run the coax cable and grounding wire on a house like mine?

Thanks

Jim

Looks like you have some building issues. The one side of the house is 12 inches higher than the other side. Do you happen to live in Pennsylvania - over some mine subsidance?

It does not look like a chimney mount would work in your situation.

Your chimney does not look tall enough to me to support the wind sheer of a television antenna, mast pole etc. Me personally, I would not use a chimney mount on any chimney less then 4 feet tall!

The proper way to ground your antenna is to use a piece of 8 gauge solid strand wire. It does not matter if it is insulated or not.

What does matter is that you have no sharp bends in the wire. Anything more than a 45* angle and chances are, the lightning will jump off the wire and into the structure.

Yes - I can see your point where you are concerned about running it over the gutter or near the downspout. Might I suggest you use 2 pieces of 12 gauge copper insulated wire and running them down the roof and down the wall and onto a copper ground stake pounded at least 3 feet into the ground and bonded to the stake with a regular copper / brass ground clamp.

You also want to put a ground block terminal outside of the house for the RG 6 and run a second piece of 12 or 14 gauge wire to the ground stake to try to minimize the amount of lightning coming into the house through the RG 6.

Thanks JB Antennaman

I think the house just looks that way on the photo...it's pretty hilly here.

I looked at some diagrams online that show the grounding rod and the ground block and I understand that part.

I'm not sure what you mean about using two pieces of wire?

I couldn't figure out how to get the wire from the antenna to the ground without making a bend in the wire at some point.

Jim

Hello jim8888,
As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with JB to some degree.

With the chimney in the middle of the roof like it is, I would say wrapping the ground wire around the gutter/fascia with tight bends is not a good idea.

As far as the size of the chimney, that really depends on how big an antenna & how tall a mast you're intending...

I think it might it be better to use a wall or gable mount on one end of the house. Where is your electric service entrance? If to the right in your photo is the garage, and that is where the service panel is, then that end would be a good location. If the elec comes in above ground keep in mind to keep the antenna 2x the mast height away from the electric. If it comes in underground then you can go right at the peak.

You should be using #8 solid ground wire, as JB states, and it should be connected to the main ground rod for your electric service. You want to ground the mast itself, and also use a grounding block for the cable as close to the entrance to the house as possible.

Run the cable to a grounding block, and bring the cable into the attic & split & drop from there. Run the ground wire down the side of the house, making a sweeping bend and come across and connect to the main ground rod as JB suggests.

Several missed points.

First, if you cannot use one strand of 8 gauge wire, for what ever reason, you can replace one 8 gauge wire with two wires of a lesser size with a equal or greater combined size.

You wouldn't want to use two 16 gauge wires for a ground for obvious reasons, mainly that lightning is millions of volts and would burn right through the wire before it ever hit the ground.

Second is the fact that you do not want to make any sharp bends in the wire and you do not want to attach it to the side of your house - like you would your coax wire.

You want the wire to be bonded to the antenna mast and to the ground and that is it.

Third, you would want the ground to NOT be connected to the main ground for the power source for your house.

The main ground for your home's electrical service is not a ground for your antenna. Electricity has a tendency to travel back into the ground - into the electronics and appliances in your home and will burn everything out faster than you could ever imagine.

Furthermore, you want your antenna as far away from the electric lines and the drop coming into the house as possible.

If you read all the posts from people who live in Florida and comes on here for advice on how to improve their VHF signals, their main complaint is the noise that disturbs the signal - when they have a lightning storm, when they use a electric appliance, when they have electric consuming devices like a electric fence near their property.

By hooking your antenna system up to the electric ground, you are making a direct connection between the television antenna and the electric device - you are trying to get away from.

Can you see my point?

A ground rod is a very cheap part of the equation, and even if you have $50 into the whole set up, is still cheaper than replacing the blower motor on your gas furnace, the computers in your home, your refrigerator, your microwave oven etc..

S
Third, you would want the ground to NOT be connected to the main ground for the power source for your house.

The proper way to ground an antenna is discussed here (scroll down): http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/basics.html JB is advocating a different grounding approach than the NEC. Building inspectors will be checking to see if you meet NEC requirements not JB's requirements....

HTH,

Rick

Not to flame anyone here, but building inspectors only comes to your house when you pay them to, or when a insurance company requests them to.

The NEC has nothing to do with antenna installations - other than if it is required by code for new home construction.

Since a Antenna carries no real power - electricity, there is no real code to go by, only what experience tells us works or doesn't work.

People too cheap or unwilling to spend money on a second ground stake - usually get's what they paid for in the long run.

I live in a company town where all the houses are the same and most all the houses are between 100 and 125 years old and none of the houses that I know of had burned down due to a lightning strike.

Most of the houses had never been hit with lightning either.

One of the reasons for that was because the town was surrounded by Coke ovens. The pollution the Coke Ovens produced, killed all the surrounding vegetation. So there were no trees in my town until about 1950 - 10 years after the coal mine and coke ovens were shut down.

However, my grandfather lived up at the end of the town, on a dead end road and at the end of the run of power lines and there was several large, tall trees in his neighborhood and his house was struck repeatedly by lighting. Maybe as many as 10 times. One time it even blew the chimney clean off the main roof and blew a 6' x 8' hole in the roof.

My grandparents had several televisions that were repeatedly struck by lightning and my dad even ran a steel pipe from the top of the roof to the ground and bonded a ground wire to the mast and could not keep lightning from striking the antenna or television.

My experience with lightning comes from years of experience and not just hearsay evidence.

I would not want to see anyone live though a ordeal of lightning striking their home and wiping out their television and every electrical appliance in the home.

One of my aunt's lived on the other side of the duplex house my grandparents lived in and she would hide under the bed when there was a electrical storm, she was terrorfied of lightning.

Here is a link from Denny's Antenna Service.

No where in their link does it say that you should attach your ground wire to the main ground for your home.

I do not understand why people are so persistent in trying to improperly connect a ground to a television antenna.

http://www.dennysantennaservice.com/1171010.html

You can also look at the Tower Talk forums - for the Single Point grounding question.

http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/towertalk/2009-September/thread.html

Denny ignores the NEC on his website. That is an error on his part. If you going to give advice, you should advise according to the NEC.

Not to flame anyone here, but building inspectors only comes to your house when you pay them to, or when a insurance company requests them to.

The NEC has nothing to do with antenna installations - other than if it is required by code for new home construction.

Since a Antenna carries no real power - electricity, there is no real code to go by, only what experience tells us works or doesn't work.

People too cheap or unwilling to spend money on a second ground stake - usually get's what they paid for in the long run.

LOL! You really need to check things out a bit more before posting JB. There are many people that drive multiple ground rods to interconnect the antenna ground and the house ground. Too cheap is just laughable! :haha:

It is not uncommon for a home buyer to request a building inspection. Failure to meet NEC code can result in loss of a sale or require correcting the ground immediately to complete a sale.

Thanks aka.Hooper JB Antennaman and ID Rick

There is a lot more to the mounting and wiring of an antenna than I first thought there would be.

Thanks so much for all the links and info. It seems there is different ways that you are supposed to ground an antenna depending on what source that you go to.

One other option that at first I just overlooked is putting an antenna in my attic.

I have a big attic that is empty that could fit a pretty big antenna.

I don't know if you can tell or not by looking at my house if that would be a bad idea or not?

Those are asphalt shingles and it's just wood under them.

Also you don't need to ground an antenna if it's in the attic right?

Jim

Jim,

Can you post a www.tvfool.com report for your location? An attic mount may be feasible (generally work best if towers are less than 30 miles away). According to the NEC, an attic mounted antenna is considered an indoor antenna and does not require special grounding. I would make sure that I used surge protectors at your tvs though...

JB Antennaman
Not to flame anyone here, but building inspectors only comes to your house when you pay them to, or when a insurance company requests them to.

And this is where the NEC comes in. If they (the insurance co) find you have things wired not to code, you're in a world of $#%&!

Here's what you want to remember about a ground - it is intended to be the path of least resistance to ground. This is where electricity wants to go - TO GROUND. And it will always take the shortest path - TO GROUND!

I'm sorry I went out tonight, bear with me...

What I'm saying is, if you have your antenna cable connected to a grounding block, and if this grounding block has a better path to ground than does the ground thru your electronic equipment, and your house wiring (say you did a better job, and went a little deeper, hit moister soil - whatever.) then you can see a potential between the grounds.

If you connect the grounds together then they have the same potential, and there is no reason for the current to take either path - because they're all connected it will just take the shortest/best path.

Multiple ground rods that are tied together are all at the same potential, and will essentially act as a single ground rod - because they're all connected.

I know, not my best moment!:D


As Rick says, post your exact address TVFool report so a determination can be made as to whether or not an attic install is feasible. (Run TVFool and post a link to it - your address will not show, so your privacy is protected.)

Building inspectors will be checking to see if you meet NEC requirements not JB's requirements....
LMAO!:lol:

Thanks IDRick and aka.Hooper

Thanks so much for helping me out guys.

I see what you mean about taking the shortest path to ground.

After reading through the info in this thread I thought it might be a good idea to look into the attic as a possible place to install the antenna. That way I do not have to worry about the grounding and coax and wind storms.

Here is my tv fool result for 23 feet that I had saved it might be about 8-10 feet lower if I put it in the attic.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8ecd80a512e1ec

Jim

Jim,

Thanks for posting your tvfool results. There are no guarantees but an attic install appears feasible to me. Your locals are located in a tight band around 156 to 167 degrees (compass heading) and most have very high signal strengths. ABC will be your greatest challenge. It has the lowest NM and is a two edge signal. I would spend my time optimizing signal strength on ABC when evaluating alternative mount locations in the attic.

Are there many trees in your neighborhood? In particular, are there trees in the south/southeast direction from your home. If there are many trees, you may lose ABC since you'll take a 4 to 6 dB hit with an attic install as well as a hit going through nearby trees. Evergreens are worse than deciduous trees.

HTH,

Rick

You still have to have a ground on your antenna in the attic.

It is not so much for protection from lightning as it is because a antenna is electrically charged and VHF is ground following and the signal inside the coax travels up and down the center conductor and up and down the outside shield.

It is not a DC polarity type thing, a antenna is AC and the ground helps with reception.

It's too bad that some fighting on here has scared you away from a outside mount. Your chances of being struck by lightning is 400 times less then that of winning the lottery.

You will loose some or all of your reception by putting your antenna in the attic - for UHF stations and you will have issues with noise from electrical appliances with VHF stations.

It's too bad that some fighting on here has scared you away from a outside mount. Your chances of being struck by lightning is 400 times less then that of winning the lottery.

You will loose some or all of your reception by putting your antenna in the attic - for UHF stations and you will have issues with noise from electrical appliances with VHF stations.

I agree and a 50% or more reduction in signal strength by having the antenna in the attic would be a deal breaker for me. You would be best advised to roof mount that antenna.

I agree and a 50% or more reduction in signal strength by having the antenna in the attic would be a deal breaker for me. You would be best advised to roof mount that antenna.

Attic mounts typically lose 3 to15 dB, depends on the attic construction. Jim has very high signal strengths for all of his locals except ABC (NM of 23 dB). Expected signal level at the antenna for ABC is NM + antenna gain - balun loss - attic loss. Assuming a 10 dB gain antenna and 6 dB attic loss, the expected signal level is (23+10-2-6 = 25 dB). Assuming he has 50 feet of cable run and 6 dB tuner, the projected margin to dropout at the tv is 25-3-6 = 16 dB. ABC should be do-able and is worth a shot if Jim wants to try it.

I will also say that I believe roof mounts are the best approach but attic mounts can and do work for many people. It's Jim's call if he wants to give it a try.

You still have to have a ground on your antenna in the attic.

It is not so much for protection from lightning as it is because a antenna is electrically charged and VHF is ground following and the signal inside the coax travels up and down the center conductor and up and down the outside shield.

I don't agree with you JB. My test DIY antennas have never been grounded during testing, yet I can receive 100% of the projected VHF signal at my antenna. If what you say is true, then I should be well below the projected VHF signal level.

Thanks IDRick JBAntennaman and Loves2Watch

The attic option is something that I didn't consider at first but it might be a possible way for me to set one up.

I did want to get ABC so that would be worth it to try to get that channel.

Another way I was thinking of is if I could just set up some sort of free standing mount outside not attached to the house.

I wouldn't have to worry about where to run the wires and being on a ladder 20 feet up to mount an eve mount and I wouldn't loose the signal strength that I would in the attic.

I have not seen mounts like this available but I have not been looking for them.

If anyone knows who sells them I would like to check out that option.

I'm not sure on this but if I did have some sort of free standing mount I would only have to ground the coax with a grounding block and grounding rod where it enters the house right?

Jim

Jim,

Here is a good reference on various mounting alternatives (see pages 8-14): http://manuals.solidsignal.com/AntInstallGuide.pdf

HTH,

Rick

JB Antennaman:
...the signal inside the coax travels up and down the center conductor and up and down the outside shield.

JB this is true when referring to 300ohm twinlead, but the physics behind a coaxial transmission line is that the signal is traveling on the center conductor and is encapsulated by the outer conductor, (shield) which is ground. Which is why coax cable isn't prone to picking up interference the way 300ohm does...

It's too bad that some fighting on here has scared you away from a outside mount.

jim8888, I agree this should not be the determining factor.
And while I agree with Loves2Watch you do lose a lot of signal strength being in the attic, I also agree with Rick that since you have strong signals to work with it is certainly worth a try. (And will save you a few bucks if it works.:))

And look at it this way, your decision need not be carved in stone: Try it in the attic, if you can't get your lowest station reliably then you move the party outdoors.

Thanks IDRick and aka.Hooper

There is so many ways to install an antenna after looking at that manual I didn't realize there were so many options.

After thinking about it I agree with you aka.Hooper I should give the attic a try and if it dose not work out then go from there.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that in my area there are only a few vhf channels and most are duplicates so I might be better off with a uhf antenna.

What do you guys think about trying out a 91XG in my attic?

Jim

Hate to belabor the point, but Rick and Hooper are spot on. The Insurance companies are always looking for an excuse not to pay claims. Lighting damage caused by a improper or lack of a grounding system, in accordance with NEC regulations, is a prime excuse.

Hi Jim,
It appears the only VHF that isn't a duplicate is WPCW 11.
A 91XG seems like more antenna than you need, given your signal strengths. The 43XG is a step down, but I also don't think they have much (if any) VHF capability.

Instead I would go with a Channel Master 4228HD, or maybe Denny's E-Z HD. I also wonder if the 4-bay version (4221) would do it for you? I think outdoors yes, in the attic I dunno...

Of course a DIY mclapp 4-bay also may be a good candidate, if you're up for it. What do you think Rick?

Good morning Hooper and Jim,

This is a bit tougher than one would think. The first five stations are very strong on the list. Two of these are high vhf (CW and PBS) and I don't see duplicates for these. Do you want these two stations Jim?

The XG-91 has several advantages:it is very directional (helps with potential multipath issues), it is tiltable (may help with acquiring diffracting signals such as ABC) and it has high gain (useful since ABC has a modest NM). I like the XG-91 for these reasons but would be concerned with tuner overload due to the very strong signals from CBS, NBC, and Fox. I agree with Hooper, the XG-43 would seem to be a good compromise since it has all the advantages of the XG-91 but is lower in gain. I have plans for a simple 2-bay that has high VHF/UHF reception capabilities (cost less than $10). The two bay could be joined to the XG-43 downlead with a UVSJ to provide PBS and CW. Links are shown below.

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=AD-43XG
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=UVSJ

A mclapp 4-bay + reflector is plenty antenna for Jim's needs but multipath can be more of an issue with 4-bays. I can send you plans if you're interested. Multipath may be a problem in your attic or it may not.... We won't know until we try. Jim, send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll send you plans for the two bay. You can build that pretty quickly and find out if multipath is an issue in your attic. The first eight stations on your list will come streaming into this two bay! :)

The EZ HD would likely acquire all your desired locals in a roof mount but IMO, ABC would be sketchy with an attic mounted EZ HD. The HBU-22 has higher gain than the EZ HD and probably is a better choice in a combo antenna. The Winegard 7694P would also work well in the attic or on the roof.

Best,

Rick

Good morning to you Rick!

Oops, I missed 13!:o

So you think a 2-bay would do it for him in the attic? Cool:cool: That's sure getting off cheaply, if he's handy!:D

Tell me rick where'd you see the gain numbers for the EZ-HD? As I recall I looked for them at Denny's but couldn't find any actual specs...

Hi Hooper,

The 2-bay will do fine for most of his stations but probably would not acquire ABC in the attic. IMO, the best attic solution is to use a xg-43 for UHF and the two bay for VHF (assuming Jim wants PBS and CW).

I don't have gain data for the EZ HD rather I compared its performance with my mclapp 4-bay. The EZ HD has similar gain with high vhf but is 6 to 7 dB lower on UHF than the mclapp. The Winegard 7000R is very similar to the EZ HD. I would expect the UHF gain estimates to be similar between the two antennas.

Take care my friend!

Rick

Boy there is always a lot of cleanup to do when ill-advised advice is given.

Boy there is always a lot of cleanup to do when ill-advised advice is given.

Ain't that the truth...

Thanks geronimo aka.Hooper IDRick jim5506 Loves2Watch

Here is a couple of things I thought of.

The way I understand it a 91xg without the 3rd segment on it is a 43xg. So if you bought a 91xg you could just take the last segment off and then you would have a 43xg and if you needed the 91xg you have it by putting that 3rd segment on.

I was looking to compare the gain of a xg43 to some of the Winegard antennas but I can't find the gain figures for all of the channels for the 43xg or the 91xg like Winegard gives for their antennas.

jim5506 and Loves2watch

I'm totally new to antennas I never owned one before other than rabbit ears. So I don't know who is giving good or bad advice. If you think I'm making a mistake with some things tell me I listen to what everyone has to say...you can PM me as well.

What happens if you overload your tuner?

Jim

One other thing about the 43xb or the 91xg.

Those two vhf channels in my area channel 11 and 13 I don't care about channel 11. As far as I know it's a religious station that has Benny Hinn on al the time and stuff like that. So I'm not into that stuff so I don't care if I get channel 11. Besides I think even though it's not listed that they repeat that channel on other stations.

Channel 13 I MIGHT want to watch sometimes. It's a public television station that always wants you to pledge money to keep them from going under. They have some ok programs I guess.

With that said I would not care at all about channel 11 and only just a little about channel 13.

I know that those antennas are a uhf only and meant for channels 14-69 antenna but wouldn't you have a shot at picking up a fairly strong channel 13 with one?

Jim

Why does EVERY thread here have to be so confusing for the OP? It only takes ONE PERSON to destroy it and it gets VERY confusing!!

Good morning Jim,

Yes, you are correct, you can easily shorten the XG-91 down to an XG-43. I do not know if this antenna will pick up a very strong ch 13... You can see modeled gain figures for the XG-91 here: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

Look for net gain not raw gain, need to scroll down some on the page. XG-91 is labeled "T" on the chart. Unfortunately, they do not show the gain data for the XG-43.


BTW, WPCW is your local CW station. It is not a religious station and has some unique shows plus reruns of some older shows. If you're interested in checking them out further, go to titantv.com. Enter your zip code and select broadcast tv. It will give you a 14 day guide + description for each OTA channel in your location. One could get a quick feel for the station by reviewing a few days on their schedule.

Thanks again IDRick

I forgot to say Thanks for the offer on the antenna plans but I'm just starting out so I want to buy a commercial antenna first and maybe later I will try to build something. But for right now I just want to buy one.

You are right about WPCW. I'm confusing it with a religious network. I have comcast cable so it's been a long time since I knew about all of the OTA stations.

On that link that compares the antennas it looks like the 91xg did really well.

I was looking and looking to try and find the gain figures for all the stations for the 91xg and 43xg like Winegard gives for it's antennas. But all I could find is the 91xg listed as I think 16.7 or something like that and the 43xg like 1 point below it.

I take it that it means an average of all the uhf stations but I'm not sure.

Jim

Antenna Direct usually reports their gain figures in dBi while other companies use dBd. AD numbers need to be reduced to be on the same scale

dBd = dBi -2.15

Jim, no problem. I originally tried a DIY antenna because my commercial antenna choice was not available locally. The DIY worked so well that I abandoned the commercial choice! Clearly people have different goals, interests and available time to play. DIY'ing has become one of my hobbies...

Just so you know, 4-bays typically do not have VHF reception. However, I use the mclapp design which do have marginal high vhf reception and work well in high signal strength areas.

Jim, can you give me a ballpark estimate of total cable run and splitters that you will use in your OTA setup? Tuner overload is a concern if you are only feeding one tv and have a short length of cable run. Holl_ands, a well respected communications engineer, recommends that the power level should not exceed -10 dBm or the tv tuner will overload. CBS, NBC, and Fox are all above that threshhold when you add in antenna gain. Cable runs and splitters lower the power level. We can get a better understanding of the potential for tuner overload if you tell us the approximate cable run length and # of splitters in your setup.

Thanks,

Rick

Afternoon gent's,

On that link that compares the antennas it looks like the 91xg did really well.

I was looking and looking to try and find the gain figures for all the stations for the 91xg and 43xg like Winegard gives for it's antennas. But all I could find is the 91xg listed as I think 16.7 or something like that and the 43xg like 1 point below it.

I take it that it means an average of all the uhf stations but I'm not sure.

Jim

Jim, I think what you're looking for you won't find - it's outside the design criteria of the 43/91XG's as they are UHF antenna designs, and probably not tested for VHF performance. Also going by the graph on Ricks link the 16.7dB gain is the peak, not the average.

The way I understand it a 91xg without the 3rd segment on it is a 43xg. So if you bought a 91xg you could just take the last segment off and then you would have a 43xg and if you needed the 91xg you have it by putting that 3rd segment on.

I think I see your plan: try it in the attic as a 43XG and if it doesn't work add the section back on to make it a 91XG once again. If it still doesn't do it for you take it outside and turn it back into a 43XG so you avoid overload. This is a good plan, however it doesn't address the lack of VHF reception on the antenna, which I think may be your biggest problem.

Hi Rick,

Just so you know, 4-bays typically do not have VHF reception. However, I use the mclapp design which do have marginal high vhf reception and work well in high signal strength areas.

I find it amazing when I scroll down that page you linked to "Using a UHF antenna for VHF" that a 4221 4-Bay is absolutely in the toilet, if you will, when a 4-Bay mclapp which is basically the same except re-tuned brings you positive gain in VHF-Hi. (As per mclapp's graph: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=96178) Actually I'd call it more than marginal, I'd say it pretty darn respectable!:)

As an aside, I also find it amazing that these commercial companies aren't re-designing these to perform as well as what someone can make themselves...



jim8888:
I'm totally new to antennas I never owned one before other than rabbit ears. So I don't know who is giving good or bad advice. If you think I'm making a mistake with some things tell me I listen to what everyone has to say...you can PM me as well.

1happyguy:
Why does EVERY thread here have to be so confusing for the OP? It only takes ONE PERSON to destroy it and it gets VERY confusing!!

There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes, and this certainly applies when choosing an antenna for a given application. Or to put it another way, opinions are like... well we all know what they're like, and everybody has one!:D

Lets fact it, there are simple questions, and then there's the big picture... When someone new wants to get a grasp on the inner workings of all this, and have an understanding of things so they can make an educated decision (as opposed to blindly following advice) it's hardly ever simple. ;)

I think it's generally a good thing though, to see different points of view - so long as the answers are clear so the person asking the questions can understand them...

As far as separating the good advice from the bad, it's usually safe to go with the majority. :D

Hi Rick,



I find it amazing when I scroll down that page you linked to "Using a UHF antenna for VHF" that a 4221 4-Bay is absolutely in the toilet, if you will, when a 4-Bay mclapp which is basically the same except re-tuned brings you positive gain in VHF-Hi. (As per mclapp's graph: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=96178) Actually I'd call it more than marginal, I'd say it pretty darn respectable!:)

As an aside, I also find it amazing that these commercial companies aren't re-designing these to perform as well as what someone can make themselves...







There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes, and this certainly applies when choosing an antenna for a given application. Or to put it another way, opinions are like... well we all know what they're like, and everybody has one!:D

Lets fact it, there are simple questions, and then there's the big picture... When someone new wants to get a grasp on the inner workings of all this, and have an understanding of things so they can make an educated decision (as opposed to blindly following advice) it's hardly ever simple. ;)

I think it's generally a good thing though, to see different points of view - so long as the answers are clear so the person asking the questions can understand them...

As far as separating the good advice from the bad, it's usually safe to go with the majority. :D

True very true!! You have to have the BIGGEST antenna and at the HIGHEST POINT!! I will you show you at my house that ISN'T TRUE!!
But, ONE may disagree!!

Thanks IDRick aka.Hooper and 1happyguy


IDRick

I was just trying to figure out how much cable I will need and taking measurements just yesterday. I want to give myself leeway in case that I need to move the antenna around in the attic. So I think I will actually need around 50 feet but I will order 60 feet just to be on the safe side or maybe 70 feet but I think 60 will be more than enough and no splitters just from the antenna to one TV.

So lets say 60 feet of coax ad no splitters...just direct from the antenna to the TV.

What happens if you do overload your tuner?


aka.Hooper


At first I was going to go with a Winegard antenna. After hearing people talk highly about the 91xg I started to consider it. Then looking at my stations and realizing that almost all of them are uhf and the 91xg is so highly rated for uhf I thought of just getting one of those.

I was looking to compare the 91xg or 43xg with some of the Winegard antennas apples to apples as much as I could for uhf performance.

Winegard gives you a guide on the spec sheet with each antenna that tells you for different channel group what the gain and beamwidth is and front to back ratio is.

The gain figures on uhf are for Winegard broken into channel 14,32,50,69....I was looking for similar gain figures for the xg91 or xg43 but I could not find anything like that or beamwith either broken down into channels.

And you are right that is what I was thinking about doing. Buying a 91xg and starting out with a 43xg by not using the last 3rd of the antenna. And if it's too weak in my attic then add the last 3rd and make it into a 93xg and see how that does. And then if that does not work go from there.

Jim

Honestly Jim I'm not sure why you're fixated on the 91XG, it's not like you really need it.

Why don't you just go for the 7694 and make it easy on yourself?
A little less gain, so less chance of overload...
A far better chance of landing your VHF's in the attic...
Maybe not quite as resistant to multipath, but more resistant than say a 4228...
If it doesn't work in the attic you can be almost certain it will outside...
And it even saves you a few bucks in the process.:)

All those in favor say aye...

Here's the TVFool again: http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...8ecd80a512e1ec

Jim,

With overload, you can completely lose reception on stations that should be receivable. If the station is received under overload conditions, signal strength increases when you move the antenna off direct aim and signal strength goes down when you move the antenna back on direct aim.

In your specific case, CBS is by far the strongest station. If you aim the antenna at say, 135 degrees, you will greatly reduce/eliminate the potential for overload from CBS and NBC.

Jim,

Just wanted to give you a hat tip! You're doing a great job in this process. You're asking good questions and weighing the various alternatives. You're doing your homework by searching the web and evaluating the suggested antennas. We gave you several alternatives earlier on. In some ways, this is a disservice because it can make things confusing.

As I see it, there are two primary questions to answer:
1) roof versus attic mount?
2) UHF only or VHF/UHF antenna?

The easiest solution is mount the antenna on the roof and use a combo Vhf/uhf antenna like the Winegard 7694 antenna. You should be able to receive all your locals with this setup. The XG-43 would give you all the UHF. Some report VHF reception, others do not so VHF stations are a ? with this antenna. The attic may work but has a lower probability than the roof.

Potential challenges:
1) Reception of ABC should be the primary focus when siting the antenna
2) Overload an issue?
3) Multipath an issue?

I believe we can reduce/eliminate potential overload as an issue by aiming the antenna off axis away from CBS and NBC. Multipath may or may not be an issue. You won't know for sure until you put an antenna up. But, you have a higher than average risk for multipath due to the nearby hills and close proximity to the broadcast towers. The XG-43 has slight advantages with multipath because it is more directional than the winegard 7694. The XG-43 also tilts which may enable you to acquire a stronger signal on ABC (a 2-edge signal to your home).

If it were me, I would go with the 7694 since I would want CW and PBS. If you don't particularly care about VHF, then you can build a good set of reasons for going with the XG-43. IMO, both are good choices, just depends on your givens and druthers....

HTH,

Rick

Great summation Rick!:)

Jim, I didn't mean to come off as curt, that wasn't my intent - sorry if it sounded that way.

And I'll second Ricks hat tip to you for doing the research and wanting the knowledge to make an educated decision. Kudos to you!

Thanks aka.Hooper and IDRick

akaHooper

That's OK! I really appreciate your input on this. I don't take offense at all when someone is showing me right from wrong or suggesting how to do something better.

At fist I planned on mounting a Winegard on my roof and the 7694 was one of my top choices mainly because it seemed to have good gain and wasn't almost 15 feet long!

But when I figured that grounding and mounting and running a coax cable from my roof might be a lot more complicated than what I originally thought and might even get me in trouble with wiring it wrong I started looking into putting it into the attic.

With the attic I don't know how much that it will affect the signal. Some seem to think it will really affect it badly others say it just reduces the range by 15 miles. I checked my attic out pretty good and unless I'm missing something it looks like it's just plywood and asphalt shingles. I can see all the nails sticking through the plywood so i guess it can't be that thick.

With that said I thought if I'm going to try out the attic I want to get a really strong antenna in case it really cuts down the signal being in the attic I might still have a workable setup. So it seemed to me that a lot of people regard the xg91 as one of the strongest antennas so I focused on that one as a first antenna to try out. I would hate to rig everything up and find out that I bought an antenna that is too weak to pick up the channels that I want.

IDRick

My hat is off to YOU for helping me out so much with trying to get a workable antenna setup!!!!!

I am really interested in this so I have been thinking about it a lot and reading as much as I can.

I really like that 7694 antenna and I was ready to buy one until I had second thoughts about putting an antenna on the roof for the reasons I was talking about above. But if I was going to mount on the roof I would buy that antenna.

I want to give the attic a shot first since it will be a fraction of the hassle.

Here is something I was wondering but I'm too new at this to really know it well. I realize that this is a question that is really tough to answer but it's one of the things I'm trying to figure out.

Lets say on a scale of 1 to 10 on the gain an antenna is able to give that the xg91 is a 10. Where would the xg43 and 7694 rank on that same scale?

I know that is a tough question I'm just looking for approximates.

The reason that I'm asking is the 7694 has the capability of getting all the uhf and vhf channels I would ever need.

I read the gain figures on it and on the xg91 and xg43 but I'm so new to this that I don't get how much more powerful they are.

What I'm looking for since I'm going to try my attic first is to make sure I get something really strong so I don't set it all up and realize it's too weak.

Now if there is not a big difference in strength between the 7694 and the xg91 or xg43 then the 7694 would be the best bet for my situation.

But if it is a big difference then then I would like to try the stronger antenna first.

Thanks again guys!


Jim

Thanks aka.Hooper and IDRick

akaHooper

That's OK! I really appreciate your input on this. I don't take offense at all when someone is showing me right from wrong or suggesting how to do something better.

At fist I planned on mounting a Winegard on my roof and the 7694 was one of my top choices mainly because it seemed to have good gain and wasn't almost 15 feet long!

But when I figured that grounding and mounting and running a coax cable from my roof might be a lot more complicated than what I originally thought and might even get me in trouble with wiring it wrong I started looking into putting it into the attic.

With the attic I don't know how much that it will affect the signal. Some seem to think it will really affect it badly others say it just reduces the range by 15 miles. I checked my attic out pretty good and unless I'm missing something it looks like it's just plywood and asphalt shingles. I can see all the nails sticking through the plywood so i guess it can't be that thick.

With that said I thought if I'm going to try out the attic I want to get a really strong antenna in case it really cuts down the signal being in the attic I might still have a workable setup. So it seemed to me that a lot of people regard the xg91 as one of the strongest antennas so I focused on that one as a first antenna to try out. I would hate to rig everything up and find out that I bought an antenna that is too weak to pick up the channels that I want.

IDRick

My hat is off to YOU for helping me out so much with trying to get a workable antenna setup!!!!!

I am really interested in this so I have been thinking about it a lot and reading as much as I can.

I really like that 7694 antenna and I was ready to buy one until I had second thoughts about putting an antenna on the roof for the reasons I was talking about above. But if I was going to mount on the roof I would buy that antenna.

I want to give the attic a shot first since it will be a fraction of the hassle.

Here is something I was wondering but I'm too new at this to really know it well. I realize that this is a question that is really tough to answer but it's one of the things I'm trying to figure out.

Lets say on a scale of 1 to 10 on the gain an antenna is able to give that the xg91 is a 10. Where would the xg43 and 7694 rank on that same scale?

I know that is a tough question I'm just looking for approximates.

The reason that I'm asking is the 7694 has the capability of getting all the uhf and vhf channels I would ever need.

I read the gain figures on it and on the xg91 and xg43 but I'm so new to this that I don't get how much more powerful they are.

What I'm looking for since I'm going to try my attic first is to make sure I get something really strong so I don't set it all up and realize it's too weak.

Now if there is not a big difference in strength between the 7694 and the xg91 or xg43 then the 7694 would be the best bet for my situation.

But if it is a big difference then then I would like to try the stronger antenna first.

Thanks again guys!


Jim
Hoopitup and me have the same setup!! We both have the XG91 and the Winegard 1713 and only live about 5 miles from each other!! We can get channel 7 and 9 with the XG91!! We both have this setup to try and get as many channels as possible!! We are in a great area for receiving baltimore and dc stations!!

Please get that antenna OUTSIDE IF POSSIBLE!!

Good Luck

T

Now if there is not a big difference in strength between the 7694 and the xg91 or xg43 then the 7694 would be the best bet for my situation.

But if it is a big difference then then I would like to try the stronger antenna first.
Jim

Jim,

I provided the gain values for both the XG-91 and Winegard 7694P in your other thread. I focused on ch 22 and 51, your two local ABC stations. The 7694P was +1dBd higher on ch 22 than the XG-91. However, the XG-91 was 3 dBd higher on ch 51. These two antennas very similar for acquiring ABC at your location. The Xg-91 is a bit more directional than the 7694P (helps with multipath) and can be tilted (useful for recieing 2-edge signals.

HTH,

Rick

Thanks 1happyguy and IDRick

I might end up with the antenna outside if things do not work out in the attic.

After reading about what people experience with the 91xg on vhf it seems hit or miss...some get the channels some don't.

Thanks for that info IDRick

I noticed that the xg91 seemed to really gain strength as it got higher in the uhf channels.

Jim

I