Home Page link

Is my TV digital?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 7 of 11       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Is my TV digital? Chris 01-10-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by w_tom on January 13, 2008, 8:08 pm
> I'm not going to get into this argument again - it was fought long &
> hard many times before. All I'm saying is that theory is one thing
> and experience is another. As to cable input, the shield is grounded
> but the center conductor is not. Any induced voltage on the center
> conductor goes into the tv's tuner section before it finds a path to
> ground.

First, your conclusion contradicts what industry professional say -
including an inline amp as sacrificial protection.

Second, your amp solution (as others noted) does nothing if a surge
is on either conductor.

Third, one with experience learned by doing this stuff decades ago -
me. Your 'theory only' of using an amp as a protector comes from no
practical experience, from denying how electricity works, and from
ignoring science as well published even in industry application notes.
(Electrical knowledge also would not have asked if the inline amp was
digital.)

If you believed an earthed coax shield was insufficient, then
experience would have obtained well proven products from an industry
benchmark - Polyphaser. Your experience was unaware of highly
regarded products from Polyphaser - an industry benchmark? I thought
you said you knew this stuff?

Fourth, is the building properly grounded? Proper earthing only for
human safety, or earthing enhanced for appliance protection? Does
every wire in every cable make a 'less than 10 foot' connection to the
same (single point) earthing electrode? If not, then earthing is not
sufficient.

Fifth, a major difference exists between installing equipment verses
learning why damage occurs. If earthing was sufficient, then you were
not suffering electronics damage and not suffering 1" sparks inside
the kitchen. 1" or 2" sparks inside a kitchen means one corrects an
earthing defect. Those 1" sparks exist when you ignore an obvious
earthing defect.

Your reply implies that you will ignore what professional say.
Fine. This post demonstrates for others why you suffered repeat
damage; what happens when one refuses to learn from and correct a
defect. Posted only for the benefit of others. Three TVs and you
still ignored the problem? 1" sparks in the kitchen and you call that
acceptable?

Routine is to have direct lightning strikes without damage.
Otherwise telco service would be lost periodically for five days while
telco replaces their computer. Telcos suffer typically 100 surges
during every thunderstorm - and no damage. That means no 1" sparks
inside the building. If damage does occur, a human locates and
corrects the earthing defect - as Orange County FL did:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Their facilities also were properly grounded. How did Orange
County eliminate unacceptable damage? "Properly grounded" earthing
system was upgraded to eliminate surge damage. 1" sparks inside a
building due to lightning means a defective earthing system, which
also explains three damaged TVs.

Lightning is not facetious - except where science is ignored.
Reasons for damage are so well understood that damage is considered a
human failure. When lightning does something unexpected, then a human
learns from his mistake. Another human failure is to suffer damage
three times and still not fix the defective earthing.

Posted by bud-- on January 14, 2008, 12:00 pm
w_tom wrote:
>> I didn't say a strike, I said a surge.
>> I've lost 3 tv's at a different location fromlightningsurges
>> (nearby but not direct strike) coming into the tuner section via
>> CATV.
>
> Third, protection is defined in another post on 11 January 2008 in
> the newsgroup newsguy.general entitled "Lightning Strikes" at:
> http://tinyurl.com/22race
> Everything in that post defines what provides TV protection.

Direct strikes to a house are very uncommon and lightning rods are
seldom cost-effective. The post has minimal information relevant to
Red's cable TV.

Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
And one from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

>
> Fourth, you have assumed lightning surge entered on cable. Then what
> is the outgoing path to earth? Any properly installed cable first
> connects to earth ground before rising up to enter the building.
> Connected to earth means a surge will not seek earth ground,
> destructively, via the TV. What is the incoming surge path? What
> good is a 'sacrificial' amp when cable should already dump the
> incoming surge to earth before entering the building?

As Red points out, a cable entry ground block only grounds the shield,
leaving the center conductor unprotected. The IEEE guide notes that the
voltage between cable center conductor and sheath is then limited by the
breakdown of F-connectors which is typically 2-4,000V. The guide notes
that connected equipment can be damaged at those voltages

A plug-in suppressor, with the cable going through the suppressor, will
clamp the voltage.

Or a ground block that clamps the voltage could be used. These must be
grounded to the common ground point at entry (as below) to be effective.

>
> Fifth, surges typically enter from wires located highest on poles -
> AC electric. Incoming on AC electric, into TV, and out to earth
> ground via tuner and cable. Protection means the incoming wire should
> be earthed before entering the building. That is what one properly
> earthed 'whole house' protector does. Earthed to the same electrode
> that cable TV wire connects.

Not just to the same electrode. The IEEE guide has an example of too
long a ‘ground’ wire from a cable entry ground block to the earthing
wire at the power service starting pdf page 40. The distance to the
common bonding point for power, cable, phone is critical, not the
distance to the grounding electrode. The author of the NIST guide, has
written “the impedance of the grounding system to ‘true earth’ is far
less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts
of the grounding system.” If the entry protector for phone or cable is
distant from the power service a short connection is not possible. In
that case, the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the
equipment is to use” a plug-in suppressors with power plus cable and/or
phone going through the suppressor.

According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
The 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide are for TV/related
equipment with cable connection, and a computer with phone connection.

A cable amp should eliminate the hazard from high voltage on the center
conductor, but would not necessarily eliminate problems with power and
cable ground references being at high voltage with respect to each other.

A power service surge suppressor is a real good idea, but will provide
no protection from the 2 problems above.

--
bud--

Posted by on January 11, 2008, 3:49 pm
There are many digital circuits on most electronic equipment.

High Definition is one of those digital circuits.

Your 2004 TV is not HDTV capable. The antenna amp is fine.

Posted by Twayne on January 11, 2008, 7:59 pm
tnom@mucks.net wrote:
> There are many digital circuits on most electronic equipment.
>
> High Definition is one of those digital circuits.

Actually, High Def has nothing to do with whether the cktry is digital
or not. A set can have ALL digital components in it but still only be
capable of managing analog TV signals. It's the TV signal that becomes
digital for HDTV, so the set requires a tuner which is capable of
receiving and handling digital signals. And it will of course, use
digital components; it'd be a bear to design an analog digital TV signal
receiver<G>.

>
> Your 2004 TV is not HDTV capable. The antenna amp is fine.

Well, it's definitely unlikely, that's for sure. As someone mentioned
though, the converter boxes to convert digital signals to analog signals
will shortly be plentiful and at reasonable prices.
Currently used antenna systems etc., should all work fine for
digital signals as they are all in the same UHF bands as used today with
only a few remaining in the VHF band. So if you currently can receive
UHF you'll be fine for digital TV signals. I mention this only because
I'm starting already to see some ads hyping special antenna systems for
the "new" HDTV switch; those are ripoffs for the most part. I've also
seen converter boxes already hyped for as much as $299; a clear ripoff.

Just for clarification, DTV and HDTV are technically two different
animals too. If you have HDTV then you have a DTV but if you have a DTV
it will receive HDTV signals but might not display in the expected wide
screen formats and not with high definition. However, a DTV can still
at least receive the digital signal formats as a rule.

Usually if an older set is really HDTV capable, it will have two
separate antenna input jacks which connect to two separate tuners, one
analog, the other DTV. If a set does not have a digital signal tuner,
then it can not receive HDTV.



Posted by on January 11, 2008, 10:11 pm
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:59:55 GMT, "Twayne"

>tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>> There are many digital circuits on most electronic equipment.
>>
>> High Definition is one of those digital circuits.
>
>Actually, High Def has nothing to do with whether the cktry is digital
>or not. A set can have ALL digital components in it but still only be
>capable of managing analog TV signals. It's the TV signal that becomes
>digital for HDTV, so the set requires a tuner which is capable of
>receiving and handling digital signals. And it will of course, use
>digital components; it'd be a bear to design an analog digital TV signal
>receiver<G>.

So a tuner that can handle a HD broadcast signal isn't digital?
That's news to me.

Page 7 of 11       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Digital TV January 23, 2008, 7:33 pm
Digital TV question October 15, 2007, 9:46 am
Problem with digital thermostat March 19, 2006, 2:41 am
Re: resetting digital air conditioner May 11, 2006, 11:55 am
Convert a Digital Line to a PBX? July 5, 2006, 3:59 pm
Yet another digital thermostat question! October 26, 2006, 10:56 pm
Digital thermostat operation November 23, 2007, 5:51 pm
Re: What the gubamint didn't tell you about digital converters April 30, 2008, 11:08 am
Re: What the gubamint didn't tell you about digital converters April 30, 2008, 12:27 pm
Re: What the gubamint didn't tell you about digital converters May 14, 2008, 3:08 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap