Traditional looking loft hatch?

[vicky whitworth]

I have four loft hatches in a two bedroom cottage. Four! Were they obsessed :shock: I've gone for unobtrusive. My ex-neighbour pasted a poster of a Leonardo Da Vinci portrait on hers and then overpainted it so that it looked like a fresco. It was weird and certainly not unobtrusive :roll:

 

[AMc]

Yes, Tacolneston is also our local transmitter, though I confess to not paying much attention to what's been happening with the digital changeover. But I do know that we receive a pretty good signal, even without a masthead amplifier and also through some very tall nearby trees, so you shouldn't really be having too many problems - especially as you're a bit closer to the transmitter.

Tacolneston transmitter info is here: http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=TM131958, but a quick glance didn't suggest a forthcoming power increase, though perhaps it has already happened?

Tacolneston has been broadcasting most of the Freeview muxes (read frequencies) at about 25% of the recommended power output for several years to avoid interfering with neighbouring transmitters.

The UK Free TV page is a bit messy as it remembers your postcode if you've supplied it which makes linking difficult. Buried deep in there is a way to show dates and signal strength.
Most of the Freeview strengths are "very low" today (21/11/11) but will be boosted on Wednesday at the same point we will get the FreeviewHD channels (providing your TV or set top box has a Freeview HD tuner - none of mine do yet) & lose analogue TV.

I have a low gain mast head amplifier & distribution box and get almost perfect reception - I'm hoping that the improved signal won't overload the amp and mean I have to get someone up to it to replace it with a distribution only box.

All the Tacolneston frequencies are changing on the 23rd Nov 2011 so be prepared to retune your Freeview TVs and boxes in Norfolk and Suffolk and wave goodbye to analogue TV broadcasting on Tuesday night.

Masthead amplifiers and power supplies are probably compatible with each other (certainly if you can match the manufacturer) but you can buy both as a kit which is guaranteed to work and costs barely more than the power supply alone. It's very easy to wire it all up.
http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/search/browse.jsp?N=411+2005+207782&Ntk=gensearch&Ntt=antiference&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial
http://www.screwfix.com/ also do them but I can't link - search for masthead and look for "kit" in the description.

 

[Penners]

Many thanks to FF and AMc for that very useful information. I've had another look at the antenna and I think the "lump" that I mentioned before is probably just the cable connection box. It looks a bit larger than a matchbox and sits on the horizontal main strut of the antenna itself (not the vertical mast), towards the mast end, and the cable disappears into it. I can't see any pother boxes or cable connections up there.

So it looks as though I haven't got a masthead amplifier.

However, AMc's inmformation suggests that the digital signal boost is likely to take place on Wednesday, so I shall wait until all of the changeover procedure has taken place, re-tune my Freeview box and see how things look.

Many thanks again to all the forum techies for your advice. I do hope Zebra found it useful too, as that would moderate my hijacking crime! Sorry Zebra.

 

[MdB]

Our mast head amp just has one wire in and one wire out and is about the size of a large match box.

(I'm not sure if this is our one but it is similar: http://www.mkcables.com/antiference-up2401-uhf-mast-head-amplifier-24db-gain-p-1729.html)

 

[Flyfisher]

Many thanks to FF and AMc for that very useful information. I've had another look at the antenna and I think the "lump" that I mentioned before is probably just the cable connection box. It looks a bit larger than a matchbox and sits on the horizontal main strut of the antenna itself (not the vertical mast), towards the mast end, and the cable disappears into it. I can't see any pother boxes or cable connections up there.

So it looks as though I haven't got a masthead amplifier.

Yes, based on AMc's info I'd also wait for a few days until the effect of the changes are known. It's quite likely you won't need a masthead amplifier.

Just for completeness, most of the metalwork of a TV aerial is to do with 'directing' the signal onto the actual receiving element. This element is usually a 'folded dipole' and is the oval-ish component in the following (not terribly good) photo. The aerial cable connects to this element and the terminals are protected from the weather by the small black box beneath it.

If this is what your aerial looks like then I'd agree that you don't have a masthead amplifier - and, hopefully, you won't need one.

 

[MdB]

To follow on from Flyfisher, the mast head amp is normally a 1m or so below the aerial on the main support upright.

 

[Penners]

OK, many thanks for those further comments. I don't know why I didn't do this before (well I do, actually - bone idleness), but I've now dug out the trusty telephoto lens. Here's the antenna. As you can see, the "lump" looks as though it's only a connection box. There's nothing attached to the mast below the picture except taped-on co-ax.

However, my dipole doesn't appear to be folded, doctor! Will I survive?

 

[Pford75]

Moving away from TV aerials and back to loft hatches....

I've attached a picture of our traditional loft hatch. I haven't yet experienced the snugness of fit which others refer to, but perhaps thats because i'm much younger? :wink:

 

[Penners]

Show-off! Your day will come...! :wink:

 

[MdB]

Back to aerials...

The red bit is your dipole. These are the only sections connected to the cable which comes as a surprise to many people.

The design of aerials is a form of voodoo that I don't pretend to understand and each designer has there own ideas. Your aerial doesn't have the loop (a folded dipole) but don't let that worry you, this was deliberately done - just don't ask me why...

There a very few aerials which have an amplifier built into the box on your picture, however I think it far more likely that this is just the connection box and there is no amplifier in the picture. This doesn't mean that there isn't an amplifier lower down of course.

 

[Flyfisher]

:lol:
Voodoo is a good description for aerial theory and it's certainly straying outside of my comfort zone.

My dim recollection of folded dipoles versus straight dipoles is that it has something to do with bandwidth - folded dipoles having a larger bandwidth. Since aerial dimensions are related to radio wavelengths it follows that optimum performance can only be achieved at a specific frequency, which is fine for a fixed-frequency radio link but broadcasting applications typically use a range ('band') of frequencies and any aerial becomes increasingly less effective as the frequency moves away from the centre frequency of the band in question. I think a folded dipole design attempts to extend the useable range of frequencies over which it will perform adequately - but I wouldn't bet more than a fiver on it!

All of which is a long winded way of saying I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[robgil]

In my view, 88v8's solution is a good one if you want people to walk into the room, immediately have their eye caught and say "Wow - look at your loft hatch!".

The alternative approach is to have a plain panel, set flush into a minimal frame and painted the same colour as your ceiling. Then it won't get noticed at all.

Dammit Penners!
I need to re-think my hatch.

 

[Flyfisher]

The alternative approach is to have a plain panel, set flush into a minimal frame and painted the same colour as your ceiling. Then it won't get noticed at all.

For a really unobtrusive hatch, I wonder if it would be possible to make the frame flush with the ceiling then fit the hatch in the normal way but add an additional piece of plywood to the hatch to make it exactly level with the ceiling. Just a thought.

 

[robgil]

My ceilings are 300 year old daub on lath nailed to branches, there is nothing flush about them.

 

[Keithj]

Aerials! Ah! My subject! It's not a black art, it's all very scientific. Not a lot of people know that.

If you plan to put the aerial in the attic, you should recognise that you are going to lose signal whatever the roof is made of. If it's just slates or tiles, it won't be too bad. If there's metal (such as wire mesh) it will be seriously bad and you should think "outdoor aerial".

There are many "snake oil" aerials out there - for example, huge things that look like three aerials, one pointing up a bit, one straight, one down a bit. Pointless waste of metal!

A masthead preamplifier will provide a very worthwhile improvement, and if you have only one aerial point in the house it can be powered via the coaxial cable from the downstairs socket. If you have more than one outlet, then you need a "distribution amplifier" and it gets more complex.

You need the right aerial for your location - different transmitters are on different channels (aka bands) and you need the matching aerial. The further you are from the transmitter, the better aerial you need. If the transmitter is over the horizon, it ain't going to work without a high pole to put the aerial on. There is an outstanding website, with all you could want to know - and a bit more - here.

Even more important, you need to point the aerial accurately at the transmitter. Many lazy installers just point it in the same general direction as the neighbours' aerials. This is why we get a very good picture and our neighbours don't: they are all pointing about 15 degrees away from Sudbury. Use Google Earth, find your house, find the transmitter, and get the precise bearing from you to the transmitter. Use a decent compass to point your aerial the right way! My 1943 army prismatic marching compass is perfect for the job.

Don't reuse old coaxial cable. Don't use cheapo cable - the best stuff is remarkably low in price - it's copper foil satellite cable - available from that fine supplier in Sheffield whose website I mentioned above.

If you don't know how to connect it all, get someone who does. Radio signals are cantankerous things, and don't like bad connections, mismatched aerials, and the rest.

(For the sake of simplicity I've used the popular word "aerial". Real radio amateurs like wot I am call them by their real name - "antennas". Not "antennae" - they're the things on top of ants).

 

[Zebra]

Aargh, this has all gone very much over my stripey head! Flyfisher, I like your last post, the idea about making the hatch flush with the ceiling and the same colour to make it less obtrusive, I think this is what I was thinking before I got all excited about 88v8's period elm hatch with rosehead nails! I wonder how this might be done, so that you don't even see the frame, it just looks like part of the ceiling. However Flyfisher, your previous post about folded dipoles versus straight dipoles I read three times and still none of it went into the space between my black and white ears.

 

[Flyfisher]

Aargh, this has all gone very much over my stripey head! Flyfisher, I like your last post, the idea about making the hatch flush with the ceiling and the same colour to make it less obtrusive, I think this is what I was thinking before I got all excited about 88v8's period elm hatch with rosehead nails! I wonder how this might be done, so that you don't even see the frame, it just looks like part of the ceiling.

It was just thinking-out-loud really and I confess that I've never actually seen it done, but the basic idea was to cut away the ceiling so that the hatch frame (think of a plain picture frame) could be fixed to the ceiling joists but sit flush with the ceiling itself instead of being mounted on top of the ceiling and thus protruding slightly. Robgil makes a good point about the difficulty of doing this with wonky lath & plaster but it should be easier with platerboard ceilings - which may not be too prevalent on PPUK.

Anyway, if this is possible then the hatch cover would then rest above the 'picture frame', leaving an indentation in the ceiling. This could be concealed by fixing a piece of plywood (or similar) of exactly the same thickness as the ceiling indentation to the hatch cover, thus making the hatch cover flush with the ceiling. There would be a slight gap around the added piece and the ceiling, but it should be barely visible when everything is painted the same colour.

But as I said, it was just thinking-out-loud and may not be suitable for all ceilings/joist arrangements.

(For the sake of simplicity I've used the popular word "aerial". Real radio amateurs like wot I am call them by their real name - "antennas". Not "antennae" - they're the things on top of ants).

I wasn't going to air that particular anorak but since you mention it I also have an Amateur Radio Licence buried somewhere in the filing cabinet. But it was a long time ago (a G6 callsign) and I never did master the morse test (now defunct I believe?) so I was confined to VHF and above, which suited me fine as I was happy to play with RTTY and Television transmission at the time.

 

[MdB]

The builders answer to this is to go out and buy a pl@5t1c loft hatch and fit that as they are almost flush and meet all the regs in one go.

(Before that gets me thrown out of PPUK, I hate the look of them too and I'm following this thread with interest as I have to deal with our hatch at some stage)

 

[Feltwell]

I fitted one of these in a previous house, which has a smooth faced ply as it's visible base when shut and is fully insulated. The house was from the 1920's and the closed loft hatch just didn't look right at all - so I covered it in pine T&G lining and painted it to match the ceiling, which looked a lot better. Even on a house that new it was just too smooth & perfect looking.

http://www.screwfix.com/p/zarges-uk... Loft Ladder&gclid=CMC7x4jqyawCFZJc4Qod8FpcrQ

 

[Penners]

This doesn't mean that there isn't an amplifier lower down of course.

Thanks for all that information, MdB.

I'm positive there's no amplifier lower down, because I re-routed the coax cable a while ago, so had the opportunity to see the full length of it. No boxes of any kind in evidence.