Thank you; now I understand a bit better. When you meant North American TV you wrote terrestrial TV instead. Naîve of me to suppose you would use the word that meant what you were trying to say. Forgive me; I'm a follower of Mark Twain, who once wrote "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug." But actually I was uncertain whether NTSC and PAL were still in use anywhere. I still don't know. The only non-terrestrial TV I ever knew about was sent from the Moon by Apollo crews. I watched in awe when it was retransmitted via terrestrial (North American, NTSC) TV.
As for power cost comparisons between UHF and VHF TV, I understand you to say that, to achieve an equal footprint, one must run higher power than on VHF. I didn't know that, but have no reason to doubt it, and your explanation in terms of noise makes sense and is probably correct. Thanks for teaching. But first I had translate your use of noise to the standard engineering term spectral noise density, sometimes written noise spectral density with the same meaning. The second usage seems more precise to me but is a bit less common.
When, in your discussion of Channel 11, you refer to "the CW" I have no clue what you are talking about. That's not clearly enough expressed for old EEs like me.
Incidentally, you wrote "since you ask" but if you read it again you may see that I didn't ask. Careful reading is as important as careful writing, if communication is to be clear.
Cheers! Maybe we can talk about this stuff over a pizza some time. I'll buy. It'll be fun, because each of us knows stuff the other doesn't know.
__________________
-- Carl
|