Author Topic: For the countries which need Radio and TV licenses. How TV Detector Vans work...  (Read 11014 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: us
well any technology would seem alien to a culture that still connects it's house wiring up with wire nuts!

So what's wrong with using wire nuts?
I use 'em all the time. They're safe and legal (at least everywhere here in the US).
I am ambivalent toward them actually, but theres zero need for domestic wiring to have random connections and splices, it is just bodgery. (Unless the US wiring materials fixtures have no or inadequate facilities for making propper internal connections in fittings?)

Agree that "random connections and splices" are questionable at best, dangerous at worst.

But you have to admit that there are times when extra connections are needed, as when a bunch of hots/neutrals/grounds have to be tied together, and inside a tight junction box, wire nuts are appropriate for this.

Quote
Most of the problems caused with domestic wiring is perpetrated by unqualified and ignorant homeowner fixes that go wrong.

Tell me about it. Used to work as a handyman, and I saw lots of nearly unbelievable stuff.
But some of it was done by licensed electricians, which is even worse.


BTW, it's "its" for a possessive, not "it's". Very common mistake.

Quote
If you would really like to troll my posts, please feel free to take the piss out of the fact that I struggled with dyslexia and I can rightfully claim English is my second language.

OK, exemption happily granted.
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb
I tried to explain this to some of the other posters, but to no avail.

Thank you, effort appreciated.
I am aware of all of that, though simply put I was pointing out the power claim for the transmitter site can not be multiplied by the number of channels. It seems an odd thing to want to do... it's not as if anyone is trying to sell something such as the HiFi industry trying to flog amplifiers by claiming inflated power output figures.

X
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb

But you have to admit that there are times when extra connections are needed, as when a bunch of hots/neutrals/grounds have to be tied together, and inside a tight junction box, wire nuts are appropriate for this.


I can't really comment on the materials available in the US, but my home was rewired to then current regulations there are no splices... power sockets were radials, spurs were included, lighting in a couple of rooms have multiple luminaries... no added connections made in junction boxes or otherwise... have to? No I don't agree, but thats my experience with locally available materials, and mandated methods.

YMMV as they say.

X
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb

So the only questions are whether someone thought such vans were a useful tool in either enforcement or market survey and if so, how widely was it used.  These aren't questions which can be answered by technical means.  Finances and emotion are heavily involved.

I think the case is that it was known evasion of the licence fee was rife, and the technical detection method was developed on beurocratic mandate.

What transpired was the fact that most effective enforcement is by a visible presence and making an example of a few cases, so just a method similar to policing criminal activity.

So the MO would be a visit by the "detector van" (real or bogus as you prefer to believe, they were highly visible) later the area would be swept again, usually during the evening when people would be watching their sets, (Not much TV was transmitted day times in the UK anyway until the 1980s), and dwellings selected from a list of those with no licence would be "investigated", if in a community, there were say 2,000 homes and one household was "prosecuted", the effect was that sales of licences to most of the other evaders would normally follow.

As for the equipped vehicles, there were as I'd said previously, very few, from what I understand ten at most in the whole of the UK, most of the street patrols were just vehicles for the transportation of the enforcement officers.

I think market research was carried out by companies who did representative polls, and was mostly of interest to the independent commercial providers to claim population coverage to advertisers.

X

 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7862
  • Country: au
I tried to explain this to some of the other posters, but to no avail.

Thank you, effort appreciated.
I am aware of all of that, though simply put I was pointing out the power claim for the transmitter site can not be multiplied by the number of channels. It seems an odd thing to want to do... it's not as if anyone is trying to sell something such as the HiFi industry trying to flog amplifiers by claiming inflated power output figures.

X

They should never quote the total power put out by all the discrete transmitters as it is a meaningless statistic for analog TV.
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4949
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
But you have to admit that there are times when extra connections are needed, as when a bunch of hots/neutrals/grounds have to be tied together, and inside a tight junction box, wire nuts are appropriate for this.

Never, ever   :palm:

Bloody Septics and their wirenuts... those things are a dangerous abomination, use a sodding Wago type ffs!
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Xena E

Online themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3297
  • Country: gb
Quote
lighting in a couple of rooms have multiple luminaries... no added connections made in junction boxes or otherwise... have to? No I don't agree
wot about that must have fitting from john lewis,that only has a piddle bit of 2 way terminal block and no room to hide the 3 x  1.5mm2 t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb
Quote
lighting in a couple of rooms have multiple luminaries... no added connections made in junction boxes or otherwise... have to? No I don't agree
wot about that must have fitting from john lewis,that only has a piddle bit of 2 way terminal block and no room to hide the 3 x  1.5mm2 t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose

I know what you mean, but... if it can't be accessed then, no way.

With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried  boxes with connections... personally I'd be asking...has that JL must have crap even made to any real recognised standards? If it could be mounted on a flush pattress or conduit box, I'd perhaps be fine with that.

I'm paranoid, and even pendant luminaries I use at home are in Clix... (and it's on 1mm²).

I know there's a lot of shite prior art out there and private customers wanting XYZ that contractors have to deal with, but do it for me personally or in my professional capacity and I'm having their balls on my mantle as a trophy...
X
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4949
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Quote
lighting in a couple of rooms have multiple luminaries... no added connections made in junction boxes or otherwise... have to? No I don't agree
wot about that must have fitting from john lewis,that only has a piddle bit of 2 way terminal block and no room to hide the 3 x  1.5mm2 t+e's that lived a comfortable life in the existing ceiling rose

I know what you mean, but... if it can't be accessed then, no way.

With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried  boxes with connections... personally I'd be asking...has that JL must have crap even made to any real recognised standards? If it could be mounted on a flush pattress or conduit box, I'd perhaps be fine with that.

I'm paranoid, and even pendant luminaries I use at home are in Clix... (and it's on 1mm²).

I know there's a lot of shite prior art out there and private customers wanting XYZ that contractors have to deal with, but do it for me personally or in my professional capacity and I'm having their balls on my mantle as a trophy...
X

If you really have to, then you should fit the JB directly above the luminaire, or as close as possible. Wago type connectors also must be in an enclosure, Wiska boxes even come with them already in (single insulated wires must never be used outside of containment).

Some "architectural lighting" has stupidly tiny cable entry/termination methodology, and I have no problem telling our designers when I think the ones they have specced are shit. They don't always listen, of course...
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: us
With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried  boxes with connections...

Dunno about the UK, but here in the US "buried" junction boxes are strictly forbidden. All junction boxes must be accessible with a removable cover plate.

BTW, I will continue to use wire nuts when extra connections are needed within a box, as I know how to use them correctly and safely (make sure all wires are correctly stripped, make sure the connection is tightly-enough twisted and contained within the nut).

I've read about some shortcomings with Wago connections having to do with the spring connectors in them.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2025, 07:21:23 pm by Analog Kid »
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2687
  • Country: fi
Three possibilities, twist, screw and spring.
Twist is clearly best for connection but possibly worst for insulation, and clearly worst for stability of operation accuracy.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: us
Three possibilities, twist, screw and spring.
Twist is clearly best for connection but possibly worst for insulation, and clearly worst for stability of operation accuracy.

How so?
Not contradicting you, just curious to know more.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2687
  • Country: fi
It's how the system can stand aging.
Like when you screw multicore under a screw, first it's just fine.
Same with hood, it's worse later, but not necessary the connection.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: us
Hood???
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb
With all due respect to someone who would make a safe connection... just no buried  boxes with connections...

I've read about some shortcomings with Wago connections having to do with the spring connectors in them.

At no point did you read that I was promoting Wago.

I don't like added connectors, full stop. However if I had to specify that a connection was used, it would have to be something that is to a relevant local standard.

Whenever a Septic, hears someone critical of the wire nut connector, they start to attack Wago? I'm always puzzled why.

Wago have ratings that shouldn't be exceeded, and can be a failure point but where applicable are an OK option, they don't fracture the wire if removed, and don't leave damaged ends on the conductors.

Were you aware that the ability to periodic electrial testing is sometimes required on the mains wiring of UK residential property?

Wire nuts are not "to code" as you would say, and if you were renting a property to someone, it would fail the instalation testing if any were found in use, basically at a minimum, the installation has to be subjected to the test at each change of tenancy.

Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden, but so is a lot of things people still do, the point is mute because it isn't necessary, and shouldn't and doesn't have to be be done. Many of the problems associated with UK private properties electrical systems are caused where unskilled owner occupiers have modified their own installation, (also illegal unless a qualified test and inspection has been carried out afterwards), or where old systems have fallen into disrepair, and power carrying joints have become loose and overheated.
 
The employment of a general factotum/handyman to do electrical wiring without proper qualifications is to share responsibility for any problems that arise, and people who work on electrical, gas, or class 1 combustion heating systems without suitable up to date qualifications, regardless of blame, are risking imprisonment.

X
 

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb
It's how the system can stand aging.
Like when you screw multicore under a screw, first it's just fine.
Same with hood, it's worse later, but not necessary the connection.

It's down to the cold flow of the conductor and whether the connector can maintain grip.

It is about the only criteria that wire nuts are actually adequate, the worst are poorly made off  plain screw terminals. They need particular care, and re-tightening after a period to guarantee security...

X
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden [...]

Not quite true.  It is forbidden to bury unencapsulated Wagos, but you can bury Wagos in a Wagobox under your floor.  They are classified as maintenance free connections when installed correctly.  What you can't do is just bury them in plaster in the wall, they need to be in a Wagobox, and most sparks would recommend putting those behind the socket or a blanking plate for inspection purposes, but that's not a strict requirement since around 2012 I believe.
 

Offline Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: us
Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden [...]

Not quite true.  It is forbidden to bury unencapsulated Wagos, but you can bury Wagos in a Wagobox under your floor.  They are classified as maintenance free connections when installed correctly.  What you can't do is just bury them in plaster in the wall, they need to be in a Wagobox, and most sparks would recommend putting those behind the socket or a blanking plate for inspection purposes, but that's not a strict requirement since around 2012 I believe.

I assume you're writing about the UK?
So far as I know, it's not allowed here in the US.
However, Wagos are new to me, so maybe what you describe is permitted here as well.
 

Offline Analog Kid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1282
  • Country: us
The employment of a general factotum/handyman to do electrical wiring without proper qualifications is to share responsibility for any problems that arise, and people who work on electrical, gas, or class 1 combustion heating systems without suitable up to date qualifications, regardless of blame, are risking imprisonment.

The situation is much the same here in the US.
I know because I worked for several years as a handyman who did electrical work without a license, but with a code book and knowledge thereof.
I informed all my clients beforehand of this. And my work was limited to residential wiring.

There are sanctions against working without a license in the case of problems or injury here as well, though imprisonment wouldn't be in the cards. However, you could get a pretty nasty slap on the wrist, as well as a fine.
 

Offline special_K

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 46
  • Country: gb

An interesting and enjoyable, well constructed red herring fallacy, congratulations.

All hinged around the fact that ultimately the technology proved to be of little real value, and under your argument therefore didn't exist because of some mocked up museum exhibits.

I don't suppose it matters to any company or organisation that they are given a contract to develop a system that then proves more use as a deterent.

Something that was expensive to develop that is of very limited use ... that never happens in world of public funded projects does it?

Anyway, as I said, we choose to what we want to believe.


For example, here you choose to believe I wrote something I didn't. In fact I wrote the opposite - I acknowledged that there is technology that can detect radio recievers in a general sense.

What I said was that there is zero proof that there was actually a fleet of vans driving around using it regularly.

I further pointed out that the vans GPO donated to museums have never actually had any such technology in them. They were not vans "mocked up" to give to museums, they are vans which were really used by the GPO to drive around and pester people who hadn't a TV license.

It's just that they did not need any tech in the van to do that job. And when they did need a van full of tech (to catch radio pirates, for example), they did not glue ghostbusters stuff on their roofs.

I am looking forward to the explaination of how a 500kW transmitter that broadcasts 4 channels is equal to 2MW because 4 × 500kW is 2MW, of course it is! But a 500kW transmitter is a 500kW transmitter how ever many channels it supports.

Best regards.
Xena.


Ah, I see the problem now, you think there was just one transmitter and all four UHF channels were going through it, sharing 500kW.

Your mistake.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7862
  • Country: au

An interesting and enjoyable, well constructed red herring fallacy, congratulations.

All hinged around the fact that ultimately the technology proved to be of little real value, and under your argument therefore didn't exist because of some mocked up museum exhibits.

I don't suppose it matters to any company or organisation that they are given a contract to develop a system that then proves more use as a deterent.

Something that was expensive to develop that is of very limited use ... that never happens in world of public funded projects does it?

Anyway, as I said, we choose to what we want to believe.


For example, here you choose to believe I wrote something I didn't. In fact I wrote the opposite - I acknowledged that there is technology that can detect radio recievers in a general sense.

What I said was that there is zero proof that there was actually a fleet of vans driving around using it regularly.

I further pointed out that the vans GPO donated to museums have never actually had any such technology in them. They were not vans "mocked up" to give to museums, they are vans which were really used by the GPO to drive around and pester people who hadn't a TV license.

It's just that they did not need any tech in the van to do that job. And when they did need a van full of tech (to catch radio pirates, for example), they did not glue ghostbusters stuff on their roofs.

I am looking forward to the explaination of how a 500kW transmitter that broadcasts 4 channels is equal to 2MW because 4 × 500kW is 2MW, of course it is! But a 500kW transmitter is a 500kW transmitter how ever many channels it supports.

Best regards.
Xena.


Ah, I see the problem now, you think there was just one transmitter and all four UHF channels were going through it, sharing 500kW.

Your mistake.

If there are four discrete transmitters the  transmitters are always discrete, so you can say "That installation has four 500kW transmitters", which is not the same thing as "A 2MW installation", which infers that there is one transmitter capable of 2MW.

It is a terminology thing. People involved in Broadcasting will always "pick you up" on it.

If you further read my answer to Xena, you will learn that a "500kW" transmission is most often with TV & FM Broadcasting, a 50kW transmitter feeding a "gain antenna" with an effective Isotropic gain of 10 times (10dB), so to the receivers it looks like 500kW being transmitted through an (imaginary) "Isotropic antenna".
Googling will probably find a lot of information about EIRP.
 
The following users thanked this post: Xena E

Offline Xena E

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: gb

An interesting and enjoyable, well constructed red herring fallacy, congratulations.

All hinged around the fact that ultimately the technology proved to be of little real value, and under your argument therefore didn't exist because of some mocked up museum exhibits.

I don't suppose it matters to any company or organisation that they are given a contract to develop a system that then proves more use as a deterent.

Something that was expensive to develop that is of very limited use ... that never happens in world of public funded projects does it?

Anyway, as I said, we choose to what we want to believe.

For example, here you choose to believe I wrote something I didn't. In fact I wrote the opposite - I acknowledged that there is technology that can detect radio recievers in a general sense.

What I said was that there is zero proof that there was actually a fleet of vans driving around using it regularly.

I further pointed out that the vans GPO donated to museums have never actually had any such technology in them. They were not vans "mocked up" to give to museums, they are vans which were really used by the GPO to drive around and pester people who hadn't a TV license.

It's just that they did not need any tech in the van to do that job. And when they did need a van full of tech (to catch radio pirates, for example), they did not glue ghostbusters stuff on their roofs.

We've been over this and I had said we should believe  what we like, all I maintain is that the GPO was contracted to produce the technology and were no doubt paid to do so, it's a thing that happens, a need is perceived for a system or product, then if it fails to prove useful in the intended way it doesn’t negate its existence, the vans were mostly just transport for the agents who knocked on the doors and snooped through windows.  I didn't disagree that the high profile effect of the vans, whether as I stated the very few equiped ones or not, had the most effect in frightening licence dodgers into buying one. Just the same effect as you seeing a marked police car will make you slow down when you're speeding past the local school, no?

I am looking forward to the explaination of how a 500kW transmitter that broadcasts 4 channels is equal to 2MW because 4 × 500kW is 2MW, of course it is! But a 500kW transmitter is a 500kW transmitter how ever many channels it supports.

Best regards.
Xena.

Ah, I see the problem now, you think there was just one transmitter and all four UHF channels were going through it, sharing 500kW.

Your mistake.

That is NOT what I said. The transmitter site that you referenced in the days of four channel TV was 500kW, the PA for each of those channels was less, I did not claim that the transmitter site used 1 PA to transmit all analog channels, however it is possible to do that with digital transmissions and your example site now supports 600kW of television output, split into a number of individual multiplex PA stages, BUT NOT ONE FOR EACH CHANNEL.

Not my mistake, yours... 1000kW up the mast was the single highest transmitter power on any site in the UK.

Now fcuk off and make up a Wikipedia entry to prove me wrong.

X
« Last Edit: January 17, 2025, 01:59:31 am by Xena E »
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8306
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
CWACS (Car-based Warning and Control System)? ;D
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2687
  • Country: fi
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Buried and inaccessible connections in domestic property is forbidden [...]

Not quite true.  It is forbidden to bury unencapsulated Wagos, but you can bury Wagos in a Wagobox under your floor.  They are classified as maintenance free connections when installed correctly.  What you can't do is just bury them in plaster in the wall, they need to be in a Wagobox, and most sparks would recommend putting those behind the socket or a blanking plate for inspection purposes, but that's not a strict requirement since around 2012 I believe.

I assume you're writing about the UK?
So far as I know, it's not allowed here in the US.
However, Wagos are new to me, so maybe what you describe is permitted here as well.

Yes, I only know about UK electrical code. 
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf