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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Simple/indoor

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]

User:Daniel Christensen#Radio mast

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

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

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

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.

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

"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]