In article ,
Gordon H wrote:

I assume that you mean that it requires more signal strength?
My digital 32" TV takes much less power than the old 24" analogue TV!

Eh? Most of the power needed by a television is to drive the screen,
then the sound and then the reception. If, as is likely, the 32" is
a flat-screen and the 24" a CRT, that is all the explanation needed.
Even if not, it is improvements in THAT area that make the difference,
not the reception.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message
, Dave
Hill writes
On Dec 11, 11:08*am, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:38:23 +0000, Gordon H

If it's difficult to get a solid TV signal it may be just a bad area.
I have a friend who only just gets the digital TV pictures, and when she
told me I pointed out that every house on her row has an aerial mounted
on a taller than usual pole.
I suppose satellite is the best solution.

If there isn't a hill in the way.
Martin-

We are aprox 3 miles from the main transmiter, have a new ariel and
still have problems, I'm told that it could be that the signal is to
strong, I'v now turned the ariel to one of the local booster masts and
it's better but still not a patch on what we had in the "Old days"
with analogue.
And remember that digital uses a lot more electricity.
David Hill

I assume that you mean that it requires more signal strength?
My digital 32" TV takes much less power than the old 24" analogue TV!

Sometimes one or two digital channels start to fragment, but generally
the signal strength is pretty good on most channels.

Have you explored the menu via CHANNELS to see what the signal strength
looks like? Otherwise a dealer you can trust could measure it for
you at the aerial plug.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:46:44 +0000, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 10/12/2010 22:55, Bob Hobden wrote:
Now that is another problem, so many pests/diseases are now untreatable
for the amateur grower it is becoming a serious problem in itself. Yet
the Government say they are encouraging allotments and the growing of
food by citizens, the two things simply do not compute.
I have a book on pests and disease written in 1997 and most of the
remedies in it are now banned for our use despite not being considered
dangerous, just a case of too costly to test for amateur use, so no
DEFRA number, so can't be sold to the public.
If professionals can still use a chemical why not an amateur?

'elf&safety, no doubt...

I was once told that the "real" reason why certain chemicals could
only be used by a licenced professional was that the licenced
professional would have various insurances in place (apparently
checked during the licensing process) so that if there was a problem
the costs of dealing with it could be recovered. A private individual
would probably not have the resources to pay for the clean up. The
person who told me that also said that in his experience private
individuals usually took more care with chemicals than the
professionals and, in any given situation, would probably use less
chemicals than the professional anyway.

Reminds me of a house I nearly bought some years ago. My surveyor
turned me off it by saying the electrical wiring was potentially
lethal. Turned out that the house had been rewired about 6 months
previously by "professionals" from the local "Electricity Board".

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:38:14 +0000, Alan wrote:

In message ,
Janet wrote
or, that your new aerial is too high-gain for such proximity to the
transmitter , overloading your receiver. A smaller weaker aerial might
be the answer.

Or an inline attenuator - 99p incl postage
http://www.beststuff.co.uk/coaxial_accessories.htm
6dB TV Attenuator.
9dB TV Attenuator.

The digital TV receiver electronics use more than analogue TV, but an
LCD display uses less than a cathode ray tube, so overall the power
usage is lower

The transmitter power is also much lower

uk.tech.digital-tv is thatataway --------
--
Phil Cook

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:30:34 +0000, Gordon H wrote:

In message
, Dave
Hill writes
On Dec 11, 11:08*am, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:38:23 +0000, Gordon H

If it's difficult to get a solid TV signal it may be just a bad area.
I have a friend who only just gets the digital TV pictures, and when she
told me I pointed out that every house on her row has an aerial mounted
on a taller than usual pole.
I suppose satellite is the best solution.

If there isn't a hill in the way.
Martin-

We are aprox 3 miles from the main transmiter, have a new ariel and
still have problems, I'm told that it could be that the signal is to
strong, I'v now turned the ariel to one of the local booster masts and
it's better but still not a patch on what we had in the "Old days"
with analogue.
And remember that digital uses a lot more electricity.
David Hill

Digital uses less electricity to transmit and modern receiving kit is also
more efficient.

I assume that you mean that it requires more signal strength?
My digital 32" TV takes much less power than the old 24" analogue TV!

I think you are confusing power consumed with ability to produce a picture
from a signal strength.

In any case analogue provides a watchable picture from a very weak signal.
It just gets snowier. With digital once you fall off the edge of the cliff
that is it.

Sometimes one or two digital channels start to fragment, but generally
the signal strength is pretty good on most channels.

Have you explored the menu via CHANNELS to see what the signal strength
looks like?

Signal quality is far more important than strength with digital.

If you are only 3 miles from the transmitter you may well need an
attenuator or a better view of the transmitter for the aerial. Digital can
handle multi-path better than analogue but there comes a point where it
gets too confused.
--
Phil Cook

In message , Jake
wrote
Daft thing is that the building society surveyor said the place was
fine as security for the mortgage I wanted.

All they are interested in is the value of the house if you default on
the mortgage.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:36:49 +0000, Alan
wrote:

In message , Jake
wrote
Daft thing is that the building society surveyor said the place was
fine as security for the mortgage I wanted.

All they are interested in is the value of the house if you default on
the mortgage.

I know. That's what's so daft in this situation - if I'd connected an
electric cooker to the cooker point the chances are that the place
would have burnt down to the ground as a result of an electrical
overheat (maybe with me asleep in it!!!).

I wonder how many people (particularly the younger first timers)
accept the mortgage survey as indicating the property is ok.

The point is the so-called professionals (be they sparkies or weed
sprayers) are not necessarily the bees knees! On one of the business
estates I manage we had a problem with street lights going off
intermittently. I got a contractor to dig down to find the problem.
Found domestic type "twin and earth" had been used to connect the
lights. Totally illegal but installed by so called professionals.

On 09/12/2010 21:35, Mike Lyle wrote:
Spider wrote:
[...]

I believe that the "30min construction" slot was created to give we
gardeners a taste of that longed-for "cheap build-it slot" that Geoff
Hamilton always did so well and somehow made relevant. It's a shame
it misfired.

They could bring in the wonderful Rico Daniels, the Salvager from Quest
(47 on my Freeview). He's a hoot. He'd make a clever flower container
out of truck axles, telegraph poles, and a discarded field gun. But I
doubt if he's much of a gardener...

Can't say I've ever seen him at work. Sounds intriguing, though. I
think he'd need to be a gardener, so I don't think he's got the job.



I am sorry they're shortening the programme, though. With so many
different specialities and diversifications within gardening, a longer
programme would make more sense ... or perhaps these specialities
could make extra programmes. I won't hold my breath though.

I still can't rid myself of the impression that TV people don't like
gardening, and don't /really/ believe that anybody else does. I wonder
if they should forget the basic channels and send it over to BBC4, where
they could do a full-length serious job.


It's certainly a possibility, but I don't see Beeb 1 giving GW up, even
if they don't really value it. What would be really nice is an entire
gardening channel so all types of gardener would be catered for. They
could even do a 'snail-on-the-wall' programme in a new-build garden :~).

--
Spider
from high ground in SE London
gardening on clay

In message , writes
In article ,
Gordon H wrote:

I assume that you mean that it requires more signal strength?
My digital 32" TV takes much less power than the old 24" analogue TV!

Eh? Most of the power needed by a television is to drive the screen,
then the sound and then the reception. If, as is likely, the 32" is
a flat-screen and the 24" a CRT, that is all the explanation needed.
Even if not, it is improvements in THAT area that make the difference,
not the reception.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Err, I knew that, but I was replying to Dave who said:

"And remember that digital uses a lot more electricity".

An unstable signal has nothing to do with whether digital uses more
electricity.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Phil Cook
writes
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:30:34 +0000, Gordon H wrote:

Sometimes one or two digital channels start to fragment, but generally
the signal strength is pretty good on most channels.

Have you explored the menu via CHANNELS to see what the signal strength
looks like?

Signal quality is far more important than strength with digital.

Maybe, but the signal strength is down on the channels I sometimes have
problems with, I will check the quality as well, next time it happens.

If you are only 3 miles from the transmitter you may well need an
attenuator or a better view of the transmitter for the aerial. Digital can
handle multi-path better than analogue but there comes a point where it
gets too confused.

I have a set of attenuators somewhere, from the days when I used to try
to D/F jammers on Amateur Radio repeaters.

I wonder whereabouts Dave lives? It would be easy enough to stick
various values in to see what happens.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message ,
Janet writes
In article ,
says...

Reminds me of a house I nearly bought some years ago. My surveyor
turned me off it by saying the electrical wiring was potentially
lethal. Turned out that the house had been rewired about 6 months
previously by "professionals" from the local "Electricity Board".

Did you also check the surveyor's "professional" credentials ? :-)
Janet

My close friend was a senior BS surveyor, and if he was unsure about the
electric wiring of a property his report would recommend a specialist
inspection.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Jake
writes

I'm particularly careful with electricians these days. I've rewired
two houses in the past, getting my work passed by the tester who had
to connect the tails to the meter, but am now "incapable" of doing
anything serious because of "Part P" regulations. When I had a new
kitchen fitted at home I got a "Part P" qualified fitter do the
electrical work. Subsequently, having identified problems (which I
couldn't correct as I'm not Part P qualified), I got another
electrician to put the botch job right (and got the first electrician
to pay).

That's not correct.

You can do 'Part P' notifiable works, you just need to put in a building
regs application for them.

Or do what lots of people do I imagine and ignore it all. Building
control have limited powers - they have 12 months to take action over
breach of building regs, and really aren't bothered about joe blogs the
diy-er.

It might come up when selling the house, but people buy houses all the
time with dodgy aspects. If they are bothered, an electrical inspection
could be done, or a 1-200 quid spent on an insurance policy.
--
Chris French

In article ,
chris French wrote:
In message , Jake
writes

I'm particularly careful with electricians these days. I've rewired
two houses in the past, getting my work passed by the tester who had
to connect the tails to the meter, but am now "incapable" of doing
anything serious because of "Part P" regulations. When I had a new
kitchen fitted at home I got a "Part P" qualified fitter do the
electrical work. Subsequently, having identified problems (which I
couldn't correct as I'm not Part P qualified), I got another
electrician to put the botch job right (and got the first electrician
to pay).

That's not correct.

You can do 'Part P' notifiable works, you just need to put in a building
regs application for them.

For which you will be charged on the order of 250 pounds. Per job.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Hi Derek,

Monty never was or ever will be a cultivator of the soil, he is just someone who talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

As I understand it he was a salesman who suddenly became a gardening expert when he found a niche for himself!

Remember the fiasco with the growing of potatoes in bins experiment, the bins were not even the same size. Now if he was so knowledgeable about cultivating the soil why did he not see the problem, simple answer was that he did not recognise that there was a problem!!!

This guy is just a con man who makes a living out of television convincing other people that he knows what he is talking about!!!!

uriel13

"uriel13" wrote


'Derek Wrote:
Monty Don is returning to the helm of Gardeners' World, almost
three
years after a stroke forced him to leave the show.


The 55-year-old will replace Toby Buckland, who was informed by BBC
bosses yesterday that his contract will not be renewed. Buckland was
said to be "devastated" by the decision.

Alys Fowler, another Gardeners' World regular, is also leaving the
programme, the BBC announced. Carol Klein and Joe Swift will return
for the new series alongside Rachel de Thame.

From todays Telegraph



Monty never was or ever will be a cultivator of the soil, he is just
someone who talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

As I understand it he was a salesman who suddenly became a gardening
expert when he found a niche for himself!

Remember the fiasco with the growing of potatoes in bins experiment, the
bins were not even the same size. Now if he was so knowledgeable about
cultivating the soil why did he not see the problem, simple answer was
that he did not recognise that there was a problem!!!

This guy is just a con man who makes a living out of television
convincing other people that he knows what he is talking about!!!!

Not sure about that but thinking about it, I used to record GW every Friday
religiously but on Monty's watch I stopped bothering, I had been watching
the latest GW again but now that's gone again. Personally I think the BBC
was beginning to get it about right but now have scrapped it for another
blank sheet approach with an "old" presenter.
Never a good idea to go back but we will see after a few episodes.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden