Slashdot Mirror


Hobbyists Create GPLed DIY Super TV Antenna

Freshly Exhumed writes "Retired and hobbyist antenna engineers working together in the Digital Home forums have taken an obscure 1950s UHF TV antenna called the Hoverman [PDF] and subjected the design to modern software-based computer modeling in hopes of optimizing its middling performance. The result: the new Gray-Hoverman antenna is more powerful than similar commercially manufactured consumer antennas in every category, sometimes by whopping amounts. Best thing yet: they've released the design, diagrams, and schematics under the GPLv3 so that we can roll our own! Quoth one of the testers, a former U.S. Government antenna engineer: 'Boy, this antenna is hot... This antenna is a vast, and I mean REALLY VAST improvement over anything I have used.' The home thread of the Gray-Hoverman development gives the background of their great work."

22 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Renewed niche for broadcast TV? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just a few years ago I thought broadcast TV and "rabbit ears" were pretty much gone forever. Now, broadcast TV is often the best quality high-def signal available. What makes broadcast relevant again is having the Internet to compliment it. With cable TV you get something like 120 channels, which is both too many to flip through, yet not enough to get whatever you want whenever you want it. I think a great combination in the future will be Broadcast TV for shows with huge audiences (like football and network news) plus Internet for pre-recorded stuff people want on demand.

    1. Re:Renewed niche for broadcast TV? by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      What makes broadcast relevant again is having the Internet to compliment it.

      The Internet loves to compliment things. Why yesterday, it was complimenting me on how well I was using its bandwidth.

    2. Re:Renewed niche for broadcast TV? by darjen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Personally, I don't even bother paying for cable TV anymore. I have an early gen hdtv (at least 3 years old) that I use with a cheapo Radio Shack HD antenna. Gets me all the local HD channels. Before that I was paying an arm and a leg for HDTV from Time Warner. I also downgraded my internet to first tier, so now I pay only $15/month for that. Huge difference and great pictures. If I really want to watch something I can download it, but usually Netflix fills the gap for me. The time you speak of in the future is pretty much here for me.

  2. Bandwidth by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

    The main reason the original Hoverman died out was that the bandwidth was not enough to cover the UHF (Ch 14-83) spectrum. This new variant appears to mainly improve on it by shifting its limited bandwidth down. The difference nowadays is that with the 700 and 800 Mhz bands removed from the spectrum used for TV, the basic Hoverman design DOES have the bandwidth to cover it, at least starting next year for "in-core" channels in the US.

    1. Re:Bandwidth by More_Cowbell · · Score: 5, Funny

      the basic Hoverman design DOES have the bandwidth to cover it
      However, the server TFA is on does NOT have the bandwidth to cover slashdot.
      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    2. Re:Bandwidth by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gotta cater to the masses who aren't going to RTFA anyway :-). I remember some excitement about the design over on the lumenlab antenna thread; I don't know if these are the same guys. I do wonder, though, if a 4-bay bowtie might still be king if you just widened it a bit to move the peak down some. The Gray-Hoverman design is probably easier for the DIYer to fabricate, as it avoids the crossed phasing lines the 4-bay bowtie has.

    3. Re:Bandwidth by WoTG · · Score: 4, Informative

      The good old coral cache seems to fallen out of favour around Slashdot... but it still works, about as well as it ever did:

      http://www.digitalhome.ca.nyud.net:8090/ota/superantenna/

  3. model a better server by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they should do some software-based computer modeling of their webserver...

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  4. Re:How is this different than what hams have done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a specific variation of the Hoverman antenna. The first original achievement is the specific design, which would be enough justification for an article on its own. I'm not an expert on the history of antenna design so I can't vouch for that.

    The second and more important achievement is that the designers tried to verify the design of this antenna analytically using relatively new methods. The computational power needed to do this didn't emerge until after this kind of small antenna was no longer in vogue. As you probably know, about half of what hams say about antennas and interference is "black magic." The kind of hands-on techie who turns into a ham tends to be more like MacGuyver and less like Bertrand Russell.

    Why would the existence of antenna design as a discipline imply that no new designs are possible?

  5. Wireless TV! by frieza79 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, this new concept of wireless TV might just take off!

  6. Re:UHF going away? by GiMP · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are auctioning off the frequencies used by 18 UTF channels, leaving 38. Most HDTV programming is delivered by UTF.

  7. Re:I want that job! by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

    For years, the aliens that land in Area 51 have had to make do with cheap, low-grade bobble antennae sticking out of their heads, which is very disconcerting when they run for Congress. The job of a Government antenna engineer is to design antenna that better blend in with the Congressmen's hairstyles, pointed ears, etc. This is why you don't see them any more.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  8. I'm sorry... by cloakable · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but this is obviously impossible. Nobody creates something new, then gives it away for free, that's why we need copyrights.

    Or could that tired old argument just possibly be wrong?

    --
    No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
  9. The article by davidwr · · Score: 4, Informative
    Since it's heavily slashdotted, here is The Gray-Hoverman Antenna For UHF Television Reception as plain text

    Performance and Designs, Schematics, and Diagrams to follow as they become available.

    Gray-Hoverman Antenna | Performance | Designs, Schematics, And Diagrams | Join the Digital Forum Discussion

    The Gray-Hoverman Antenna For UHF Television Reception
    March 13, 2008

    This project is dedicated to Doyt R. Hoverman (b.1913), the man who created and did the early work on the Hoverman antenna at a time when antenna modeling programs did not exist. His work would have been entirely created and improved by field testing, trial and error, and with a great amount of calculation without the benefit of electronic devices. Without his efforts, our work would not have been. Doyt Hoverman passed away in December, 1989 at Van Wert, Ohio, USA.
    First, A Bit About The Original Hoverman Antenna
    Doyt R. Hoverman's original design for a television antenna was granted US patents #2918672 on 22 Dec 1959 and #3148371 on 8 Sept 1964, which expired in 1979 and 1984 respectively. To view them, click on this link and then simply enter the patent number mentioned above to retrieve each.

    In his patent applications, Hoverman describes two designs with 4 rod reflectors, full wavelength and co-linear half-wavelength reflectors, with the second design using the following specifications:

    * Driven array = 56" dual segments with 8 subsections of 7" (same as the first design)
    * Reflector spacing = 3.5"
    * Full Wavelength Reflectors:
    o Top and bottom = 29"
    o The two middle = 24"
    * Half Wavelength Co-Linear Reflectors
    o Top and bottom = 14"
    o The two middle = 10"

    The above dimensions are for reception of UHF channels ranging from 14 to 35, as claimed in the patent. He gives design equations for shifting the range, and suggests 35-58 and 58-83, although the range 58-83 is not applicable now as UHF TV channels in North America only go to 69, and after 2009 will only go to 51.

    The original Hoverman antenna design did not have a reflector and used a driven array of 56" segments with eight zig-zag 7" sub-elements. The original patent # 2918672 claimed UHF and VHF reception. The modeling results did not find any positive net gain for VHF Low channels 2-6 nor for VHF High channels 7-13.

    There is very little information available anywhere on the Hoverman antenna. The only reference to any commercially manufactured Hoverman antennas seems to be in the article (PDF) The Hoverman, VUD Sept 1982, which mentioned a 4 bay Hoverman made by AntennaCraft named the model G-1483 and which was also made for Radio Shack as the model 15-1627, seen in this photo courtesy of tvlurker:

    Radio Shack Hoverman

    Some of these commercially manufactured Hoverman variants used 7 pairs of collinear rod reflectors. Judging from the AntennaCraft and Radio Shack websites and many Internet searches those Hoverman models do not seem to be currently in manufacture, although it seems that old stock of the AntennaCraft Super-G 1483 is or was available from SummitSource.com.

    Recent Research On The Hoverman
    Canadian antenna buff Autofils, speculating in an online discussion of Build It Yourself Antennas on the Digital Home web site in early 2008 on the possibility of experimenting with the old Hoverman Antenna design, sought out old sparks, another Canadian antenna enthusiast, who used 4NEC2 computer antenna modelling software to model the original Hoverman design. His research showed that the Hoverman had p

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:The article by Bobartig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. I was going to build to TONIGHT. I have to the tools, and I'm good with DIY projects and tinkering, but I don't know much about antennas. I don't know what metal to use for this, or how this connects to a piece of coax to plug into a tuner. It looks extremely simple, but some critical pieces are missing.

      --
      This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
    2. Re:The article by phil+reed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty much any stiff metal rod or wire will work for the elements. Use whatever's handy. Any metallic screen material will work for the backplane; try window screen or chickenwire. You connect to the center points with 300 ohm twinlead TV wire, then use a standard antenna-to-coax converter (both available at RatShack).

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    3. Re:The article by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Soldering is nice because it gives you a more reliable connection. Loose connections blowing in the wind are going to cause visible problems. An unsoldered connection of oxidized wire can actually act as a diode and create interference problems.

      The models are obviously made with wire. You have some leeway on cross-section. Clothes-hangar wire might work :-) Solid copper somewhere between 12 and 18 gauge is easier to work and has the mechanical stiffness you will need.

      Regarding your CB tweaking, there are a few things that can make a big change, but it is very easy to decieve yourself, too. Stereo tweakers are notorious for that.

      Bruce

  10. Re:Antennas rule by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's amusing, (and not in a funny-haha sense, but more in a funny-smell sense), is all the new antennas out there advertising that they're somehow "digital" antennas as if the mode affects antenna performance. I suppose they *could* be optimized for the smaller bandwidth somehow, but that's not how they're being advertised. It's not as if your 17 element beam on the roof is going to suddenly start working worse than an indoor loop-antenna.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  11. Re:UHF going away? by Megane · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually it's 37 UHF channels, because channel 37 is reserved for radio astronomy. And 2-13 are still available, but 2-6 are not very good for ATSC. So that leaves 44-49 channels.

    However, unlike NTSC, ATSC tolerates broadcasting on adjacent channels (other than the gaps at 4-5, 6-7, and 13-14), and is more tolerant of distant stations on the same channel, so it uses the spectrum more efficiently. In the past, you could have no more than 35 channels in any given market, and now you can have at least 40.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  12. Re:on that topic... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not just download whatever you want to watch? Granted, I watch little television (usually just "Human Giant", "Lost" and "Prison Break"), but I can generally get a torrent for them from Mininova or The Pirate Bay. Maybe we should rejoice that with the Internet people are no longer slaves to the idiot box, and while we all want some mindless entertainment TV isn't worth going through too much effort for.

    Why not just download whatever you want to watch? Well, one reason might be that it is technically illegal...
  13. Re:on that topic... by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having been in the ISP field I have seen too many DMCA notices to not say - watch out for torrents. You can still get served simply because your IP is of the torrents in use.

    With that said, I'd suggest a good usenet service - avoid giganews - and a usenet tracker like newzbin.com. You can even SSL usenet nowadays. Safer, easier, and pretty darn easy. Of course, this is /., so you should already know about the wonders of usenet...

  14. Re:Next up: The open source buggy whip! by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe you've noticed that over the air TV broadcasts are essentially coming to an end in a few years?

    Actually, I've noticed exactly the opposite.

    * Many more homes will be able to receive an OTA signal, that previously could not.
    * Digital broadcasts will offer perfect reception, eliminating much of the need for cable/sat.
    * OTA HDTV will offer the highest quality picture anyone can get.
    * OTA ATSC offers the potential for more TV channels than an expensive subscription service (50*6 = 300), in addition to other informational services.
    * Rising prices and horrendous support will push people away from cable/satellite.
    * Proprietary STBs and feet-dragging on CableCard will push even more people away from cable/sat.
    * DVR technology will eliminate the need for syndication, and there the business model for 90% of cable/satellite networks will fail.
    * The quality of original programming on cable/satellite networks has dropped SEVERELY, anyhow.
    * Pop-up ads on cable/sat networks (largely not found on broadcast) will push even more people away.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant