From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

Hey Folks,

I did some googling on this and couldn't get a satisfying answer.

1. What polarization is used to transmit?

2. What polarization is used to receive?

The answer to question 2 would seem to be horizontal since that is the orientation of the antennas I've seen. But most broadcast TV antennas
are (I believe) vertical.

If I've got it right, then why do the tx/rx polarizations differ? I
would think this arrangement would lose signal.
--
Randy Yates
Embedded Linux Developer
111 West Main Street, Suite 201, Garner, NC 27529 http://www.garnerundergroundinc.com
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> wrote:

Hey Folks,

I did some googling on this and couldn't get a satisfying answer.

1. What polarization is used to transmit?

2. What polarization is used to receive?

The answer to question 2 would seem to be horizontal since that is the >orientation of the antennas I've seen. But most broadcast TV antennas
are (I believe) vertical.

If I've got it right, then why do the tx/rx polarizations differ? I
would think this arrangement would lose signal.

I was able to google up the folllowing:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizontally polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's),
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

How much this changed for the ATSC era, I'm not sure, but probably
not much, given the FCC's typically glacial pace of change.

Steve
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

spope384@gmail.com (Steve Pope) writes:

Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> wrote:

Hey Folks,

I did some googling on this and couldn't get a satisfying answer.

1. What polarization is used to transmit?

2. What polarization is used to receive?

The answer to question 2 would seem to be horizontal since that is the >>orientation of the antennas I've seen. But most broadcast TV antennas
are (I believe) vertical.

If I've got it right, then why do the tx/rx polarizations differ? I
would think this arrangement would lose signal.

I was able to google up the folllowing:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizontally polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's),
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

How much this changed for the ATSC era, I'm not sure, but probably
not much, given the FCC's typically glacial pace of change.

Steve

Hey Steve,

Great reference - thank you!

So circular at the TX and (usually) horizontal at the RX.

But as they state, transmitting circular polarization requires double
the transmit power, but for horizontally polarized antennas this extra
power is not directly utilized.

They go into some detail, if I'm reading it right, to explain that two circularly polarized antennas are better for rejecting unwanted
reflections because the reflections "have undergone a reversal of the
sense of rotation of the polarization ellipse," and so get rejected.

But what about plain old horizontally polarized antennas, which it seems
the vast majority of receivers use? I see no benefit, and a lot of
wasted power!

I am also curious to know what TX/RX polarizations are used for U.S.
commercial FM broadcast antennas.
--
Randy Yates, DSP/Embedded Firmware Developer
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> wrote:

spope384@gmail.com (Steve Pope) writes:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

Great reference - thank you!

So circular at the TX and (usually) horizontal at the RX.

But as they state, transmitting circular polarization requires double
the transmit power, but for horizontally polarized antennas this extra
power is not directly utilized. [..]

But what about plain old horizontally polarized antennas, which it seems
the vast majority of receivers use? I see no benefit, and a lot of
wasted power!

I think broadcast TV stations in those days commanded as much power
as the FCC would allow, measured in megawatts. They were the only game
in town. They didn't have to be energy efficient.

I am also curious to know what TX/RX polarizations are used for U.S. >commercial FM broadcast antennas.

Editing the above URL down to:

http://sbe.org/handbook/

leads to the entire online excerpts of this SBE handbook, which doesn't
seem to include FM Antennas.

However they note that the base publication is Whitaker, _SBE Broadcast Engineering Handbook_ . Looks like it costs about $50.

HTH

Steve
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On 4.12.19 04:28, Randy Yates wrote:

spope384@gmail.com (Steve Pope) writes:

Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> wrote:

Hey Folks,

I did some googling on this and couldn't get a satisfying answer.

1. What polarization is used to transmit?

2. What polarization is used to receive?

The answer to question 2 would seem to be horizontal since that is the
orientation of the antennas I've seen. But most broadcast TV antennas
are (I believe) vertical.

If I've got it right, then why do the tx/rx polarizations differ? I
would think this arrangement would lose signal.

I was able to google up the folllowing:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizontally
polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's),
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical
polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the
horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

How much this changed for the ATSC era, I'm not sure, but probably
not much, given the FCC's typically glacial pace of change.

Steve

Hey Steve,

Great reference - thank you!

So circular at the TX and (usually) horizontal at the RX.

But as they state, transmitting circular polarization requires double
the transmit power, but for horizontally polarized antennas this extra
power is not directly utilized.

They go into some detail, if I'm reading it right, to explain that two circularly polarized antennas are better for rejecting unwanted
reflections because the reflections "have undergone a reversal of the
sense of rotation of the polarization ellipse," and so get rejected.

But what about plain old horizontally polarized antennas, which it seems
the vast majority of receivers use? I see no benefit, and a lot of
wasted power!

I am also curious to know what TX/RX polarizations are used for U.S. commercial FM broadcast antennas.

To get the advantage of circular polarization, you'll need a circularly polarized receiving antenna e.g. a helical beam antenna (corkscrew with
a reflector) or crossed and phased linear antennas. The receiving
antenna needs have the same handedness in the twist as the transmitting antenna.
--

-TV

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 7:28:50 PM UTC-7, Randy Yates wrote:

spope384@gmail.com (Steve Pope) writes:

Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> wrote:

Hey Folks,

I did some googling on this and couldn't get a satisfying answer.

1. What polarization is used to transmit?

2. What polarization is used to receive?

The answer to question 2 would seem to be horizontal since that is the >>orientation of the antennas I've seen. But most broadcast TV antennas
are (I believe) vertical.

If I've got it right, then why do the tx/rx polarizations differ? I
would think this arrangement would lose signal.

I was able to google up the folllowing:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizontally polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's),
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

How much this changed for the ATSC era, I'm not sure, but probably
not much, given the FCC's typically glacial pace of change.

Steve

Hey Steve,

Great reference - thank you!

So circular at the TX and (usually) horizontal at the RX.

But as they state, transmitting circular polarization requires double
the transmit power, but for horizontally polarized antennas this extra
power is not directly utilized.

They go into some detail, if I'm reading it right, to explain that two circularly polarized antennas are better for rejecting unwanted
reflections because the reflections "have undergone a reversal of the
sense of rotation of the polarization ellipse," and so get rejected.

But what about plain old horizontally polarized antennas, which it seems
the vast majority of receivers use? I see no benefit, and a lot of
wasted power!

I am also curious to know what TX/RX polarizations are used for U.S. commercial FM broadcast antennas.
--
Randy Yates, DSP/Embedded Firmware Developer
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

I would think circular polarization wouldn't take more power: the transmitter is still only using one polarization; it's just that the polarization angle increases continuously. But then a horizontally-polarized antenna would only be able to receive half the power, so maybe the transmit power has to be doubled so that the horizontally-polarized rx antenna gets enough power?
Is that why the TV antennas were polarized, to filter out multipath? That makes sense. I get a visual example of this while fly-fishing; the sunlight reflecting off the creek's surface is polarized, so by wearing polarized glasses and tilting one's head a bit one can minimize the glare and see into the water. These days, though, you can minimize multipath with equalizers (or using OFDM).
That makes me wonder why they wouldn't be using polarization multiplexing these days to increase bandwidth. That is what they are doing on fiber now. The newest optical fiber modulation is DP-16QAM, where DP=Dual Polarization. At the beginning of a frame, you look at the pilot signals to do symbol/phase recovery, and in the same manner you do polarization recovery at the same time. I think the hardware just gives you two orthogonal polarizations and then you have to do a mathematical rotation of the correct angle to recover the two original data streams, so as long as the polarization changes slowly enough you can track it.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

Hi Randy.
I called my local television station and spoke to an "Engineer." He said their transmitted television signal is "horizontally polarized with a 17-degree tilt."

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

Kevin Neilson <kevin.neilson@xilinx.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 7:28:50 PM UTC-7, Randy Yates wrote:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizontally >> > polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's),
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical
polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the
horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

I would think circular polarization wouldn't take more power: the >transmitter is still only using one polarization; it's just that the >polarization angle increases continuously. But then a
horizontally-polarized antenna would only be able to receive half the
power, so maybe the transmit power has to be doubled so that the >horizontally-polarized rx antenna gets enough power?

I wasn't clear in the above -- it's that the regulator (FCC) permitted
a doubling of power if the transmission was converted from horizontal
to circular polarization.

I would guess that in at least the ~10 or so major markets TV transmitters were at or near their maximum regulatory power limit, and that the
shift to circular (with power doubling) did in fact increase the
reach to some customers.

Steve
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 2:27:03 PM UTC-7, Steve Pope wrote:

Kevin Neilson <kevin.neilson@xilinx.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 7:28:50 PM UTC-7, Randy Yates wrote:

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizontally >> > polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's),
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical
polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the
horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

I would think circular polarization wouldn't take more power: the >transmitter is still only using one polarization; it's just that the >polarization angle increases continuously. But then a >horizontally-polarized antenna would only be able to receive half the >power, so maybe the transmit power has to be doubled so that the >horizontally-polarized rx antenna gets enough power?

I wasn't clear in the above -- it's that the regulator (FCC) permitted
a doubling of power if the transmission was converted from horizontal
to circular polarization.

I would guess that in at least the ~10 or so major markets TV transmitters were at or near their maximum regulatory power limit, and that the
shift to circular (with power doubling) did in fact increase the
reach to some customers.

Steve

Circular polarization sounds better--the reflections can still be filtered out (since the reflection changes the handedness) and the horizontal orientation of the rx antenna doesn't matter. But it would probably be worse if you are transmitting circularly-polarized signals to a horizontally-polarized antenna, because the horizontally-polarized antenna won't be able to filter out the reflections.
This all makes me think of OAM: Orbital Angular Momentum modulation. It was a fad for a bit, but I haven't heard much of it for a while.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

"Richard (Rick) Lyons" <r.lyons@ieee.org> writes:

Hi Randy.
I called my local television station and spoke to an "Engineer." He said their transmitted television signal is "horizontally polarized with a 17-degree tilt."

Hey Rick,

Really?!? Well that makes more sense! Man, you're too practical!
--
Randy Yates, DSP/Embedded Firmware Developer
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 20:02:05 -0800 (PST), Kevin Neilson <kevin.neilson@xilinx.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 2:27:03 PM UTC-7, Steve Pope wrote:

Kevin Neilson <kevin.neilson@xilinx.com> wrote:
=20

On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 7:28:50 PM UTC-7, Randy Yates wrote:

=20

http://sbe.org/handbook/fundamentals/RF/RF-TV_Antennas.pdf

According to this (mostly section 5.2.2) NTSC was originaly horizont= >ally
polarized at the transmitter (for about thirty years until the 70's)= >,
thus explaining all the horizontal TV receiver antennas. FCC
then allowed an equal amount of power to be radiated with vertical
polarization, such that stations could double their power and
send a circularly polarized signal. Usually right-handed. And the
horizontally polarized receivers did not lose signal.

=20

I would think circular polarization wouldn't take more power: the
transmitter is still only using one polarization; it's just that the
polarization angle increases continuously. But then a
horizontally-polarized antenna would only be able to receive half the
power, so maybe the transmit power has to be doubled so that the
horizontally-polarized rx antenna gets enough power?

=20
I wasn't clear in the above -- it's that the regulator (FCC) permitted
a doubling of power if the transmission was converted from horizontal
to circular polarization. =20
=20
I would guess that in at least the ~10 or so major markets TV transmitter= >s=20
were at or near their maximum regulatory power limit, and that the=20
shift to circular (with power doubling) did in fact increase the
reach to some customers.
=20
Steve

Circular polarization sounds better--the reflections can still be filtered = >out (since the reflection changes the handedness) and the horizontal orient= >ation of the rx antenna doesn't matter. But it would probably be worse if = >you are transmitting circularly-polarized signals to a horizontally-polariz= >ed antenna, because the horizontally-polarized antenna won't be able to fil= >ter out the reflections.

This all makes me think of OAM: Orbital Angular Momentum modulation. It w= >as a fad for a bit, but I haven't heard much of it for a while.

A good equalizer will integrate multipath, though, and realize the
"multipath gain" from the power in the reflected signals. If a
matched circular-polarization antenna is being used, the potential 3dB
increase in rx power might be more than the multipath gain, but it
would probably depend on the environment.

Using high-gain antennas in general is sometimes a mixed bag for this
reason, too, the rx gain goes up by the increased gain of the antenna,
but potentially at a loss of the multipath gain from the paths outside
of the high-gain antenna beam. If you have no equalizer or a limited equalizer (e.g., restricted delay spread), then the high-gain antenna
may be good net gain.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in multipath even linearly
polarized signals get rotated at potentially random angles, so even if
the tx is horizontal, the rx will be getting whatever LOS horizontal
energy plus whatever randomly-rotated relfected energy. Many TV
receivers are non-LOS, (e.g., indoor), so a rabbit ear antenna will
often wind up with all kinds of wacky angles for best reception of a
particular transmitter.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:00:35 -0800 (PST), "Richard (Rick) Lyons" <r.lyons@ieee.org> wrote:

Hi Randy.
I called my local television station and spoke to an "Engineer." He said their transmitted television signal is "horizontally polarized with a 17-degree tilt."

Just redefine the axes and all is good. ;)


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 13:08:54 -0500, Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> wrote:

Hey Folks,

I did some googling on this and couldn't get a satisfying answer.

1. What polarization is used to transmit?

2. What polarization is used to receive?

The answer to question 2 would seem to be horizontal since that is the >orientation of the antennas I've seen. But most broadcast TV antennas
are (I believe) vertical.

If I've got it right, then why do the tx/rx polarizations differ? I
would think this arrangement would lose signal.
--
Randy Yates
Embedded Linux Developer
111 West Main Street, Suite 201, Garner, NC 27529 >http://www.garnerundergroundinc.com

This, from Feb 2018, sez most Tx are still horizontal. Mobile or
multipath receivers need to be able to receive whatever rotated
reflections they get in order to integrate the reflected power in the equalizer, but an outdoor LOS antenna should do fine with horizontal polarization.

https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinions/circular-elliptical-polarization-for-tv


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On 12/06/2019 02:34 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Many TV
receivers are non-LOS, (e.g., indoor), so a rabbit ear antenna will
often wind up with all kinds of wacky angles for best reception of a particular transmitter.

Thank you. I've been wondering why I have to do strange things. Wish an
root top or even in attic placement was feasible.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 22:16:40 +0000 (UTC), spope384@gmail.com (Steve
Pope) wrote:

Eric Jacobsen <theman@ericjacobsen.org> wrote:

A good equalizer will integrate multipath, though, and realize the >>"multipath gain" from the power in the reflected signals.

This reminds me of a question I've had percolating for a while now.

What is a good definition of multipath gain?

I've tended to define the multipath gain (or loss, if it is negative)
as the improvement in sensitivity, when using an optimal or agreed-upon
good equalizer, for the multipath situation relative to a non-multipath >situation, when both these two situations have the same total power
presented at the receiver's antenna or antennas.

(Side note: sensitivity should be defined with respect to an
agreed-upon performance metric.)

The pushback I've received against this definition is the "same total
power" qualifier. With this qualifier, for some systems, there is
often an multipath impairment / loss; and one can measure how well
a given equalizer algorithm is dealing with the impairment.

Without that qualifier in the definition, there can be multipath gain
nearly always, leading to general statements that multipath improves >performance.

Maybe either definition is good, but they can lead to very different
summary statements about how well a system is doing.

Steve

Yeah, like SNR, there's no universal or "best" definition.

FWIW, I just think of it as the gain realized from integrating the
multipath energy compared to not doing so.

In that sense, one definition for an LOS signal might be the ratio of
the reflected energy to the direct ray energy, which would be more
"potential" multipath gain than actual, depending on whether an
equalizer could capitalize on it or not.

Another definition might be the realized gain from turning an
equalizer on compared to not turning it on and just synchronizing on
the strongest path.

Both of those definitions should provide "gain" from multipath, or at
least when the eq doesn't hose you for whatever reason. So a
high-gain antenna reduces multipath gain by reducing the amount of
multipath energy from the directions in which it has reduced
sensitivity. It may or may not be made up for by increasing the gain
in the direction in which it is pointed, but usually in multipath
environments the antenna gain can't be relied on completely since some multipath energy will be lost (assuming the system could have
exploited it).

It's also something that isn't always quantifiable, but in some cases,
with some specific channel models that include the appropriate
directions of the rays it might be. A specific delay spread profile
might also be split into the direct and reflected portions to compute
a ratio, but it would only be good for that specific delay spread.

So, yeah, there's not gonna be complete agreement on how to quantify
it, but many will agree that it exsits and what sorts of things make
it better or worse.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.dsp

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:34:38 PM UTC-8, Eric Jacobsen wrote:

(big snip)

Another thing to keep in mind is that in multipath even linearly
polarized signals get rotated at potentially random angles, so even if
the tx is horizontal, the rx will be getting whatever LOS horizontal
energy plus whatever randomly-rotated relfected energy. Many TV
receivers are non-LOS, (e.g., indoor), so a rabbit ear antenna will
often wind up with all kinds of wacky angles for best reception of a particular transmitter.

Yes.

I suppose there is a rare case of someone a long distance from a
transmitter over ground so flat that it is LOS with no reflections.
(Though there could be reflections off neighbor's antennas.)

It happens that I can see some transmitting antennas out my living
room window, and have attic antennas pointing in that direction.

But there are other transmitters around, and some still come though.

An antenna rotator is convenient, in that one can rotate for maximum
signal, independent of actual transmitter direction.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2