Multiple AU9 Dishes

[CliffV]

I have a situation similar to one talked about elsewhere but seems a little simpler than other posts, so I thought I'd bounce the idea around here to make sure.

I'd like to run two AU9 dishes (because of trees). One dish would handle only the 99/101 satellites. The other would handle the 103/110/119 satellites. This seems straight forward. Can't I simply run the two 99/101 lines from my Zinwell WB68 to one AU9 and the two 103/110/119 lines to the other AU9?

Would this work?

Would I run into power problems? Seems I'm running the same number of LNBs as if I had only one AU9. If I would have power problems, would a Zinwell WB616 solve them since it is a powered multiswitch?

[veryoldschool]

I have a situation similar to one talked about elsewhere but seems a little simpler than other posts, so I thought I'd bounce the idea around here to make sure.

I'd like to run two AU9 dishes (because of trees). One dish would handle only the 99/101 satellites. The other would handle the 103/110/119 satellites. This seems straight forward. Can't I simply run the two 99/101 lines from my Zinwell WB68 to one AU9 and the two 103/110/119 lines to the other AU9?

Would this work?

Would I run into power problems? Seems I'm running the same number of LNBs as if I had only one AU9. If I would have power problems, would a Zinwell WB616 solve them since it is a powered multiswitch?
If you can get a line of site, it should work. If power was the problem, then a Sonora Locker would solve that.
"But" 99 & 101 [OK] aren't very far from the 103 [so?] if you can get 103 through 119, why two dishes?

[litzdog911]

I'm pretty sure that your idea will not work. We were unsuccessful trying that approach with two AT9's where it's actually possible to split the 110/119 and 99/101/103 LNB assemblies.

Review the information here if you haven't already ....
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=62223&highlight=dish+trees

Let us know how your idea works out.

[veryoldschool]

I'm pretty sure that your idea will not work. We were unsuccessful trying that approach with two AT9's where it's actually possible to split the 110/119 and 99/101/103 LNB assemblies.

Review the information here if you haven't already ....
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=62223&highlight=dish+trees

Let us know how your idea works out.
Looking at the four coax feeds and what's on each, it seems the way the OP was looking at it would work. The difference was splitting the 99 and 103 to each dish. If you look at the coax feeds, it should work as they are carried on separate coax.
Now what you would get by "lopping off" 101 & 99 from the 103 through 119 sweep, doesn't sound too useful.
Voltages & control signals seem to fit a two AU9 multi-switch setup from a WB68. FWIW

[texasbrit]

Looking at the four coax feeds and what's on each, it seems the way the OP was looking at it would work. The difference was splitting the 99 and 103 to each dish. If you look at the coax feeds, it should work as they are carried on separate coax.
Now what you would get by "lopping off" 101 & 99 from the 103 through 119 sweep, doesn't sound too useful.
Voltages & control signals seem to fit a two AU9 multi-switch setup from a WB68. FWIW


having one AU9 with 99 and 101 and another with 103/110/119 should work fine, two cables from each dish to the correct pair of inputs on a WB68. The WB68 will not know it is connected to two dishes.
Any other combination is probably impossible to do.

[TriggerDeems]

having one AU9 with 99 and 101 and another with 103/110/119 should work fine, two cables from each dish to the correct pair of inputs on a WB68. The WB68 will not know it is connected to two dishes.
Any other combination is probably impossible to do.

It makes sense, since as I understand it, the 99 and 101 are selected by having the 22 kHz tone OFF (so this would deconflict from the other dish) and the 103/110/119 are selected with 22kHz tone ON. So I don't think you could split the 99/101/103 from the 110/119, but you can probably do it the way you want.

PS: I think :lol:

[veryoldschool]

I think the real question would be not whether is would function, but what real gain one would have [for hard line of sight locations] with only 99 & 101 trimmed off the "fan" of SATs. Now if the 110 or the 119 could be made to work, it would seem to be much more useful as then the viewing slot would be significantly narrower than just the few degrees of the 99 & 101 SATs.
Look at it this way:
One SAT has a two degree angle of view [OK].
The other has a 16 degree of view, instead of 20 degrees [how much is gained?]
Now if 99-103 on one SAT [four degrees]
and 110 & 119 on another SAT [nine degrees], you would have something that could be of great use for narrow viewing slots. This is the combo that has yet to get working.

[CliffV]

OK, thanks for the confirmation.

I'm actually looking at several possible solutions. I had my tree guy out last week to do some pretty drastic triming and increased my signal strength a little. But still my signal on 99 averages about 68 and my signal on 101 averages around 70. My signal on 103/110/119 are all fine.

I have a narrow path through my trees. If a plant my dish too far West in that path, I'll lose the 119 satellite. But such a dish should get a much better shot at the 99/101 satellites. I'd then use the old dish to continue getting the 103/110/119 satellites.

I'm going to have D* replace my LNB assembly before I resort to a second dish. I've got some evidence that might help.

[carl6]

In Bellevue, a reading of 68 on the 99 satellite is just about right. There are no spot beams on 99 that point to Bellevue. I get exactly the same reading here in Seattle. So you don't appear to have a problem with 99.

However, you should certainly have a MUCH better signal on 101 (unless you are using an H20 receiver, in which case 70 is probably just fine).

Now if you have 99, 103, 110 and 119 good, I'm not sure why 101 would be bad other than imperfect dish alignment. It probably isn't a line of sight issue.

Carl

[texasbrit]

In Bellevue, a reading of 68 on the 99 satellite is just about right. There are no spot beams on 99 that point to Bellevue. I get exactly the same reading here in Seattle. So you don't appear to have a problem with 99.

However, you should certainly have a MUCH better signal on 101 (unless you are using an H20 receiver, in which case 70 is probably just fine).

Now if you have 99, 103, 110 and 119 good, I'm not sure why 101 would be bad other than imperfect dish alignment. It probably isn't a line of sight issue.

Carl

Agree with Carl. If your HD locals are not coming from 99 then the signal strengths are not relevant, and you won't know for certain if you have a 99 problem until DirecTV11 starts transmitting national HD channels some time in 2008. If Carl is getting the same reading as you in Seattle that indicates you do not have a 99 problem.

[CliffV]

Interesting.

Here's some history. Originally I lost 101 on all the odd transponders as described in . Even after I got those transponders back, I've had channels breaking up.

I had a tech come out. He basically re-aligned the dish then said I had a serious tree problem. So I had my trees trimmed. I don't remember seeing any channel breakup after I got the trees trimmed, but Iwant to ensure I have the best signal possible before we enter the rainy season.

Here's my current signal strength on 101 as shown on my RCA DVR-40:

61,66,55,0,56,76,57,74
60,66,55,0,63,79,55,80
57,94,58,0,62,80,58,78
61,0,56,93,60,77,53,76

So transponder 18 and 28 are really good but others like transponder 3 are really bad.

Thoughts?

[CliffV]

In the previous post, the thread I was referencing was http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=89367

[carl6]

Interesting.

Here's some history. Originally I lost 101 on all the odd transponders as described in . Even after I got those transponders back, I've had channels breaking up.

I had a tech come out. He basically re-aligned the dish then said I had a serious tree problem. So I had my trees trimmed. I don't remember seeing any channel breakup after I got the trees trimmed, but Iwant to ensure I have the best signal possible before we enter the rainy season.

Here's my current signal strength on 101 as shown on my RCA DVR-40:

61,66,55,0,56,76,57,74
60,66,55,0,63,79,55,80
57,94,58,0,62,80,58,78
61,0,56,93,60,77,53,76

So transponder 18 and 28 are really good but others like transponder 3 are really bad.

Thoughts?

Those are not good readings. You either have (a) a bad LNB assembly, (b) poor alignment, (c) trees or something else blocking, or (d) a bad receiver.

The one transponder you can get on 99 with a signal of around 68, and that you are getting 103 okay, really suggests the alignment is good. I'm not sure you coudl mis-align an AU9 to where you could get 99 and 103, and not get 101. Maybe, but I doubt it.

That leaves signal blockage as the most likely cause. There could be just enough of a branch sticking up someplace that 99 and 103 are coming around either side, with 101 being right in the middle of the blockage. Possible anyway.

The next most likely cause would be the LNB aseembly itself. Then least likely in my mind would be the receiver.

Carl

[veryoldschool]

Those are not good readings. You either have (a) a bad LNB assembly, (b) poor alignment, (c) trees or something else blocking, or (d) a bad receiver.

The one transponder you can get on 99 with a signal of around 68, and that you are getting 103 okay, really suggests the alignment is good. I'm not sure you coudl mis-align an AU9 to where you could get 99 and 103, and not get 101. Maybe, but I doubt it.

That leaves signal blockage as the most likely cause. There could be just enough of a branch sticking up someplace that 99 and 103 are coming around either side, with 101 being right in the middle of the blockage. Possible anyway.

The next most likely cause would be the LNB aseembly itself. Then least likely in my mind would be the receiver.

Carl
My thinking too.
The top of a pine tree in just the wrong place/spot.

[CliffV]

Those are not good readings. You either have (a) a bad LNB assembly, (b) poor alignment, (c) trees or something else blocking, or (d) a bad receiver.


That was my thought.

I've ruled out a bad receiver because all of my receivers behave the same way.

I think the alignment is good since I had similar results both before and after a recent alignment.

I can't trim the offending tree any more. But the tree is certainly shorter and thinner than it was last year when I was getting better signal than this.

I'll try the replacing the LNB assembly as my next attempt.

[CliffV]

Here’s a status update. I’m all up and running. Here are the steps I had to go through:


I replaced the LNB with one I got from ebay. (I got a complete slimline dish for less than the cost of a service call.) There was no change in signal strength.
I chopped down one offending tree (Katsura). I got a minor improvement in signal strength, but just a couple of points.
I still have trees to the East (Douglas Fir) and the West (Hemlock) of my dish sightline. But these are huge second growth trees that I can’t take out.
So, I tried installing the second slimline dish 11 feet to the West of the
original one. That did the trick. The second dish is only used to get the 99 and 101 satellites.

Here are my new signal strengths:

Satellite 101:
1-8: 82 81 82 0 82 91 81 89
9-16: 85 84 82 0 85 93 82 92
17-24: 83 99 83 0 85 94 83 93
25-32: 84 0 81 99 87 89 80 92

Satellite 99:
1-6: 0 95 0 93 0 0

I don't ever remember getting signals this strong before.

I did learn (from www.lyngsat-address.com) that my HD locals are indeed coming from 99. So, I’m certainly happy about the signal strength increase there.

I’ve attached two photos. The first shows the two dishes side-by-side. The second is from a point standing between the two dishes and pointed at the satellites. The Katsura tree would have been front and center in this picture. You can see the Douglas Fir and Hemlock trees on the edge of the photo.

Thanks for all the help.

[litzdog911]

How did you combine the signals from the two dishes?

[CliffV]

How did you combine the signals from the two dishes?

I took two lines from one dish into the 99/101 inputs of my Zinwell WB68. I took two lines from the other dish into the 103/110/119 inputs of my Zinwell WB68.

That's it.

[HDTVFanAtic]

I’ve attached two photos. The first shows the two dishes side-by-side. The second is from a point standing between the two dishes and pointed at the satellites. The Katsura tree would have been front and center in this picture. You can see the Douglas Fir and Hemlock trees on the edge of the photo.



This is where I am confused.

Even though you have 2 dishes, they should both be aimed at the same place, with the same elevation, azimuth and skew. .

I am glad it works for you - and agree I see no reason why it wouldn't - however, You're two dishes aren't close if I go by that photo.

Thus, I wonder how well your first dish was aligned in the first place.

[veryoldschool]

This is working because the field of view is only four degrees less than what is needed for one dish.
In most cases I'd think there would be a location that would be 4 degrees wider.
Now if there ever was a way to use two dishes for locations with just 10 degrees of view, instead of the 20 needed, then that would be very useful for limited view locations.

[CliffV]

however, You're two dishes aren't close if I go by that photo.

Thus, I wonder how well your first dish was aligned in the first place.

The photo wasn't taken from directly in front of the dishes. So they appear to be aligned differently in the photos. They are indeed aligned the same.

Since I knew I'd have to re-align the dishes at several times along my journey, I got an Acutrac 22 Pro so that I could align often. So, I realigned 1) right after the tech did, 2) right after I had the tree trimed, and 3) right after I removed the tree. None of these alignments got me much, but I was in practice for when I had to align the new dish.:)

[CliffV]

This is working because the field of view is only four degrees less than what is needed for one dish.
In most cases I'd think there would be a location that would be 4 degrees wider.
Now if there ever was a way to use two dishes for locations with just 10 degrees of view, instead of the 20 needed, then that would be very useful for limited view locations.

Indeed, too bad D* didn't design it so that 99/101/103 were on one pair of wires and 110/119 were on the other pair. But I understand why they didn't.

My wife is amazingly supportive of my efforts. But it is sorta strange having a "dish farm" in my front yard. The only channels I get off of 110/119 are the MPEG-2 HD channels. I'm hoping that D* converts those to be MPEG-4 channels on one of the Ka satellites and then I'll be able to ditch the old dish, run all lines to the new dish, and simply receive 99/101/103.