Social Feed
hi,
I just got my complete satellite equip. set up and after a bunch of tries and moves to diff locations around the property I cant get my signal quality up past 42%(signal strength is at 92%).Now my reciever box says its sees around 35 transponders and I can get around 87 paid channels but not one free channel or a single radio channel. Im located in northeast PA so I was trying to align to galaxy 18 & 19 along with amc 21, once again i get a list of 30 some transponders it sees off those 3 satellites but not one free channel? Im really new to satellite equipment so any help would be greatly appreciated, it feels like im close to the finish but not sure what to do...lol
My equip: Slim line dtv dish, a DV3 S2 reciever box, Dual Output KU Band LNB High Gain Universal Ku Band Twin Output Hd LNB Lnbf Two Output LNB, and top of the line satellite cable.(everything was just bought around X-mas this year)
Thanks for your time,
Shawn
I just got my complete satellite equip. set up and after a bunch of tries and moves to diff locations around the property I cant get my signal quality up past 42%(signal strength is at 92%).Now my reciever box says its sees around 35 transponders and I can get around 87 paid channels but not one free channel or a single radio channel. Im located in northeast PA so I was trying to align to galaxy 18 & 19 along with amc 21, once again i get a list of 30 some transponders it sees off those 3 satellites but not one free channel? Im really new to satellite equipment so any help would be greatly appreciated, it feels like im close to the finish but not sure what to do...lol
My equip: Slim line dtv dish, a DV3 S2 reciever box, Dual Output KU Band LNB High Gain Universal Ku Band Twin Output Hd LNB Lnbf Two Output LNB, and top of the line satellite cable.(everything was just bought around X-mas this year)
Thanks for your time,
Shawn
45 Replies
·
10653 views
A
Alas, satsig is not accurate; I tested that.
Also Parabola Calculator 2.0 for offset dishes (using Paul Wade's method) is not accurate, as it pre-assumes bottom at vertex. A slight difference there causes abberations for the focal point. (For PF dishes I believe this calculator is OK, though!)
Parabola6 is highly accurate for focal point calculations of paraboloid dishes, though. And gives a nice drawing of the results.
However I find the depth measurement of that calculator rather difficult; I find the measuring procedure that I wrote above simpler, and by using the top/bottom spots again I think you get more accuracy in the input measures.
So I made a calculator that can use three different types of input values:
- center point input values, such as mine and Parabola6's;
- deepest point input values, such as Parabola Calculator 2.0 (but without the incorrectness of the unnecessary preassumption of bottom at vertex). I have noticed it is very hard to find the exact deepest point, though;
- LNBfeedhorn point input values, when you know the feedhorn position is accurate (simple method, to find the effective focal distance of offset dishes, for e.g. multifeedcalculations).
If a dish is wider than high, but it is still paraboloid in form (to reduce impact from neighbouring satellites), with the water method you can still find the "effective width", and do the calculations.
If a dish is wider than high, and it is a multifeed dish, it is usually parabolic in the vertical sense, and circular in the horizontal sense. That is also the case with toroidal dishes.
I have a calculation method for those dishes in my mind, needing also the water method. And it would not be a proper 'calculation', but a step by step algoritm (by repeated steps, algoritm in the original sense, I believe?), to come very very near the true value.
But that calculation is still on my 'to do' list, for somewhere in the future, and the method is still untested...
Example of calculation of my triax-115 with the 'dish-center' method is added.
Also the other calculation methods, and needed inputs, are shown.
greetz,
A33
Also Parabola Calculator 2.0 for offset dishes (using Paul Wade's method) is not accurate, as it pre-assumes bottom at vertex. A slight difference there causes abberations for the focal point. (For PF dishes I believe this calculator is OK, though!)
Parabola6 is highly accurate for focal point calculations of paraboloid dishes, though. And gives a nice drawing of the results.
However I find the depth measurement of that calculator rather difficult; I find the measuring procedure that I wrote above simpler, and by using the top/bottom spots again I think you get more accuracy in the input measures.
So I made a calculator that can use three different types of input values:
- center point input values, such as mine and Parabola6's;
- deepest point input values, such as Parabola Calculator 2.0 (but without the incorrectness of the unnecessary preassumption of bottom at vertex). I have noticed it is very hard to find the exact deepest point, though;
- LNBfeedhorn point input values, when you know the feedhorn position is accurate (simple method, to find the effective focal distance of offset dishes, for e.g. multifeedcalculations).
If a dish is wider than high, but it is still paraboloid in form (to reduce impact from neighbouring satellites), with the water method you can still find the "effective width", and do the calculations.
If a dish is wider than high, and it is a multifeed dish, it is usually parabolic in the vertical sense, and circular in the horizontal sense. That is also the case with toroidal dishes.
I have a calculation method for those dishes in my mind, needing also the water method. And it would not be a proper 'calculation', but a step by step algoritm (by repeated steps, algoritm in the original sense, I believe?), to come very very near the true value.
But that calculation is still on my 'to do' list, for somewhere in the future, and the method is still untested...
Example of calculation of my triax-115 with the 'dish-center' method is added.
Also the other calculation methods, and needed inputs, are shown.
greetz,
A33
B
very interesting, i'll have to take a closer look at those methods. By "to or bottom" to "Center of dish", am I understanding correctly that you mean the distance in straight line from the top to the point that is equidistant to top/bottom edges and equidistant to left/right edges but also right on the surface of the dish (hence the slightly higher value than half the top-to-bottom value)? If that is correct, isn't that more sensitive to slight measurement errors than measuring the depth against a straight edge going across the dish? (I have not done the math, just wondering though)Alas, satsig is not accurate; I tested that.
Also Parabola Calculator 2.0 for offset dishes (using Paul Wade's method) is not accurate, as it pre-assumes bottom at vertex. A slight difference there causes abberations for the focal point. (For PF dishes I believe this calculator is OK, though!)
Parabola6 is highly accurate for focal point calculations of paraboloid dishes, though. And gives a nice drawing of the results.
However I find the depth measurement of that calculator rather difficult; I find the measuring procedure that I wrote above simpler, and by using the top/bottom spots again I think you get more accuracy in the input measures.
So I made a calculator that can use three different types of input values:
- center point input values, such as mine and Parabola6's;
- deepest point input values, such as Parabola Calculator 2.0 (but without the incorrectness of the unnecessary preassumption of bottom at vertex). I have noticed it is very hard to find the exact deepest point, though;
- LNBfeedhorn point input values, when you know the feedhorn position is accurate (simple method, to find the effective focal distance of offset dishes, for e.g. multifeedcalculations).
If a dish is wider than high, but it is still paraboloid in form (to reduce impact from neighbouring satellites), with the water method you can still find the "effective width", and do the calculations.
If a dish is wider than high, and it is a multifeed dish, it is usually parabolic in the vertical sense, and circular in the horizontal sense. That is also the case with toroidal dishes.
I have a calculation method for those dishes in my mind, needing also the water method. And it would not be a proper 'calculation', but a step by step algoritm (by repeated steps, algoritm in the original sense, I believe?), to come very very near the true value.
But that calculation is still on my 'to do' list, for somewhere in the future, and the method is still untested...
Example of calculation of my triax-115 with the 'dish-center' method is added.
Also the other calculation methods, and needed inputs, are shown.
View attachment 137571
greetz,
A33
A
Just remembered:
I made a drawing with indication of the points, used in the calculator, couple of months ago.
See here:
greetz,
A33
I made a drawing with indication of the points, used in the calculator, couple of months ago.
See here:
greetz,
A33
A
I've just tested that, and you were totally right!
Adding 0.1 cm (so 1 millimeter) to the distance of top to center, gives dish depth of 9.15 cm (instead of 8.5), and moves the focal point 4.5 cm towards the vertex!
So I was totally wrong there!
I guess I should delete my method D from the calculator.
Measuring depth itself is the far better way there!
I also tried adding a 1 mm error in method A (in the triangle: top - deepest point - bottom); the effect there seems much less bad; though the error affects both the offset angle and the focal distance in that calculation method.
But maybe, when there is no sound and easy way of finding the exact deepest point of an offset dish, method A, B and C should disappear anyway. Nice mathematical exercition, but very 'unpractical' in reality.
So, I'm curious if methods F and G can remain?
I started off with these methods, trying whether the effective focal distance (distance F-G, needed for multifeed-calculations) could be calculated from the top and bottom string length (together with dish hight). A bit to my surprise, these three input data were sufficient to calculate ALL parabolic dish specs for an (offset) dish.
I'll have to compare now for these two methods, which one is most sensitive to measuring errors; or that both (F and G) can remain.
For the calculation method I have in my mind for a multifeed dish: That can be done on the basis of method E.
So no problem there, that will remain on my to-do list.
greetz,
A33
I've just tested that, and you were totally right!
Adding 0.1 cm (so 1 millimeter) to the distance of top to center, gives dish depth of 9.15 cm (instead of 8.5), and moves the focal point 4.5 cm towards the vertex!
So I was totally wrong there!
I guess I should delete my method D from the calculator.
Measuring depth itself is the far better way there!
I also tried adding a 1 mm error in method A (in the triangle: top - deepest point - bottom); the effect there seems much less bad; though the error affects both the offset angle and the focal distance in that calculation method.
But maybe, when there is no sound and easy way of finding the exact deepest point of an offset dish, method A, B and C should disappear anyway. Nice mathematical exercition, but very 'unpractical' in reality.
So, I'm curious if methods F and G can remain?
I started off with these methods, trying whether the effective focal distance (distance F-G, needed for multifeed-calculations) could be calculated from the top and bottom string length (together with dish hight). A bit to my surprise, these three input data were sufficient to calculate ALL parabolic dish specs for an (offset) dish.
I'll have to compare now for these two methods, which one is most sensitive to measuring errors; or that both (F and G) can remain.
For the calculation method I have in my mind for a multifeed dish: That can be done on the basis of method E.
So no problem there, that will remain on my to-do list.
greetz,
A33
Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Apple has finally released their Apple TV 4K with built-in Siri and a microphone so it can respond to your queries even if you don't have the remote. It also increases in price, to $299. I had been planning on updating my current Apple TV 4K streamers, but that's $600 for the two of them, and that's a pass at this point.
At $299, it had better come with 256 GB of Storage, Gigabit (or better) Ethernet, the latest HDMI tech and standards, and one year of free Apple One. But it probably won't…
At $299, it had better come with 256 GB of Storage, Gigabit (or better) Ethernet, the latest HDMI tech and standards, and one year of free Apple One. But it probably won't…
Apple TV 4K
Apple TV 4K. New Siri AI and hands-free control. Stunning picture and immersive HomePod surround sound. Works with your Apple and smart home devices.
www.apple.com
14 Replies
·
166 views
S
. apple's been making money off of software and not hardware for a while
they all do that anyways.. ever notice your cell phone slows down when you come up for an upgrade..
. apple's been making money off of software and not hardware for a while
The new curated multiview is now live.
While on many of the sports channels and non sports channels there is a multi view option button. It will pull up a side bar with many different multi view options.
While on many of the sports channels and non sports channels there is a multi view option button. It will pull up a side bar with many different multi view options.
3 Replies
·
151 views
Supporting Founder
Really excited for this season with Kentucky having a new coach and some really exciting recruits. Probably won't last long, but here's hoping this season is great.
141 Replies
·
1340 views
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
This thread is a place to discuss the 4K events that appear on channel 540. We are getting, at this point, one college football game a week. Let's hope there is more coming.
1931 Replies
·
298837 views
Hmmm, I'm not seeing anything like those events in our Hopper 3 guide for tonight or Saturday.
I went into the Tools menu and requested a Guide Update. I'll try looking at it after the update completes.
edit — I now have the 148-01 4KFox events for Saturday, but not anything for 148-02 or 148-03 which don't even show as available channels. I do have 148-04 4KUSA.
As I recall you have the Flex package. Do you sub to multisport? -02 is FS1 and -03 is ESPN. -01 is Fox so you would get that if you sub to locals.Hmmm, I'm not seeing anything like those events in our Hopper 3 guide for tonight or Saturday.
I went into the Tools menu and requested a Guide Update. I'll try looking at it after the update completes.
edit — I now have the 148-01 4KFox events for Saturday, but not anything for 148-02 or 148-03 which don't even show as available channels. I do have 148-04 4KUSA.
TWiT Tech Podcast Network
Time for another AWESOME video from the TWIT Network!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87N42NxLPC0
Direct YouTube Link - 8 U.S. States Sue OpenAI Over Safety Concerns With Younger Users
TWIT's Website
TWIT Live Feed
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87N42NxLPC0
Direct YouTube Link - 8 U.S. States Sue OpenAI Over Safety Concerns With Younger Users
TWIT's Website
TWIT Live Feed
0 Replies
·
7 views
Pub Member / Supporter
On Tuesday, I recorded the first episodes of the new season's NCIS shows on CBS (Dish provided, not OTA). The new New York series and Origins will both do Auto Skip, but the original, now season 24 does not. What's stranger, when I do a search for NCIS, Origins and New York show the current recording and the next episode it will record, but the original show only shows the current recording and some other channel showing the very first episode of season one. It makes no sense. When I set up the timers, I was able to use search for Origins and New York, but for the original, I had to scroll ahead in the guide until last Tuesday when the show was airing. Then set the timer from there. You can see its timer type is DVR where the other two are Seek. What am I missing?
Thanks!
Thanks!
20 Replies
·
382 views
Pub Member / Supporter
Cutting Edge
I created this thread on the original Edgecutter Cutting Edge Forums site. It's simply a place for those to review the latest software available for those using Windows 10 and Windows 11. To date it has received 112,559 views. I have been asked by staff to continue this thread here.
520 Replies
·
47170 views
To each there own but I've found that Windows can't do much more than Linux can. Can't have everything.
For niche use cases, yes I agree. Kali for ethical hacking and security testing, and running a Cacti server for network monitoring are the two things I have experience in. Plus thousands and thousands of other things, but for every day use I just can't see it. The owner of the GMRS repeater that I pay to access is changing the Tx DPL tones tomorrow, while Chirp is available on Linux, the software to program my MXT500 is not.To each there own but I've found that Windows can't do much more than Linux can. Can't have everything.
I run Fedora and Ubuntu in VMWare, honestly I don't care much for the UI of either of them and I don't feel like spending days/weeks to customize the UI to make it look Windows-like when I could just use Windows. The cartoonish dock at the bottom of the screen reminds me of Apple products.
As I said above, and, FWIW, I run Win11 Pro and Arch on separate 250 GB NVME drives, using F8 to select which I boot to, with a 1TB SSD for storage, accessible to both OSs and a third formatted Nvme I want to use to learn Kali. It was much faster to setup Arch than it was to strip down Windows. Windows still takes much longer to boot.
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Hard getting used to the new younger Gibbs, Mark Harmons son had the right look but I understand he didn't want the role.
Still I'm enjoying, pretty good job with Franks.
Still I'm enjoying, pretty good job with Franks.
66 Replies
·
4209 views
Pub Member / Supporter
0 Replies
·
17 views