Talk:Television antenna

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Simple/indoor[edit]

The Simple indoor section does not properly interpret the source. Two conductors that nearly touch, and have a feed line attached between the two conductors, is considered one element, not two. Since, in the case of rabbit ears, each "ear" is roughly a quarter-wave, they combine to form one half-wave element. Also, in the US televisions are always horizontally polarized at the transmitter, which is why outdoor antennas are always horizontally polarized; the results are much better for line-of-sight distances when the polarization matches. Due to reflection, the polarization can be disturbed, which is why experimenting with the angle of rabbit ears sometimes improves reception.

Quarter wave antennas are only used for vertically polarized signals. They electrically act like half wave, but the ground underneath them serves as a virtual element to make up the other half of the antenna. A conductive surface other than the ground can serve the same purpose, such as the body of a car for FM and public safety radios. (FM broadcasts have mixed polarization so they can be received by either horizontal or vertical antennas.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Hey, are TV antennas ever the whole wavelength? If so, would they be even better/more efficient? And according to you, the source must be LYING becuase it says quite straightforward that the quarter/half issue is one thing that makes aerials better. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, main broadcast aerials are horizontally polarized and relays vertically polarized. What happens in the US does not reflect what happens in the rest of the world. 51kwad (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel Christensen#Radio mast[edit]

There is my telvision antenna. So I am not just a "talker". Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerials Suitable For XX Distance From The TX[edit]

I feel this advice is potentially very misleading indeed, so much so I am thinking of removing it. Line of sight is far more important than distance from the TX, and arguably elevation of the receiving site is just as important. This table of signal level readings tells the tale quite well : [1] A good article on signal strength is here : [2] --JustinSmith (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main info page[edit]

I changed to frequency range for TV stations in the US.

Now that the digital conversion has taken place, TV stations now use up to channel 51 (698 MHz) at the high end as the cahnnels that were in the 700 MHz range are now being used for public safety - homeland security uses. Here's the link to the FCC's website

[3] Kielhofer 23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a frequency is used by one service does not always mean it is not used by other services. I have edited the article and provided a reference to the FCC's table of frequency of allocations. Inspection will show that while regular TV broadcasting stops at 698 MHz, low power TV still has allocations to 806 MHz. Since viewers of low power TV will need antennas, and in some cases, very good antennas, the wider frequency range should be mentioned. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flat panel antenna[edit]

please add information on flat panel antennas, aren't these based on fractal patterns? 15.219.153.81 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section about the types of antennas.[edit]

There was a section about the different types of antennas. Someone else had tagged it as unreferenced, and questioned if the correct technical terms should have been used. I've removed the whole section as it was seriously flawed technically. Drkirkby (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loft aerials[edit]

"One layer of asphalt shingles, roof felt, and a plywood roof deck is considered to attenuate the signal to about half."

Absolute tripe! I just fitted a half length log periodic aerial in our loft and signal strength and quality are virtually unaffected as compared with the roof aerial. 51kwad (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bit[edit]

High gain indoor television antennae have a phased array flexible circuit printed onto transparent thin polymer film. These indoor antenna can, in some cases, have as much gain as an outdoor antenna and perform best when wall or window mounted using clear adhesive tape.^{[citation needed]}

A little too controversial without refs. A single longitudinal point along the travel of a wave cannot constitute a "phased array" anyway no?

Wrong information.[edit]

Says most common antenna is the Dipole. That may have been true previous to the 1990's. Not true anymore! --2605:6000:3D11:3200:5B4:A9B9:47E6:4714 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind; I moved your comment to the bottom of the Talk page, as new sections are always added at the bottom (see WP:BOTTOMPOST). Also to make your section title "== Wrong information ==" display correctly, it needs to be put on its own line, without any other text. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION[edit]

A NUMBER OF HOUSES HERE SEEM TO HAVE NEW TELEVISION ANTENNAS INSTALLED

IS THIS LEGAL?

SURELY THEY HAVE NO USE AFTER THE DIGITAL SWITCH OVER

86.171.248.126 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The world is a very big place; we can't tell what laws apply in your neighborhood. In my city, thre are at least four or five over-the-air broadcasters with digital signals. There would be no point to switching to digital broadcasting if no-one was watching it. Television antennas serve as an alternative to cable or Internet subscription services; in many places, over-the-air TV is supported by advertising and so has no monthly charge associated with it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The digital switch-over requires an antenna if you want to receive the digital over-the-air broadcasts. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are antennae made of?[edit]

Does an antenna need to be made of a particular type of metal or metal alloy? Are some metals better than others? I can see nothing about this in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The antenna elements just need to be good electrical conductors. Television antennas are usually made of aluminum tubing. That probably could be mentioned in the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think that probably should be mentioned, and quite early on. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Why don't you add a sentence or so on that to the article? Here's a supporting source that mentions aluminum tubing.--Chetvorno^TALK 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Octaves?[edit]

This article has a WP link to "octaves", but the target talks about musical octaves. I tried to mark this as "unclear" but I couldn't find the right template. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]