TVfool shows you getting hammered by all the bay area stations!
Anything up in the clear should be good.
(What stations are on Mission and Hamilton??? Larry's list shows
none.)
Can you give us a list of stations you get now?
How long a run of coax are you using?
If long, a mast-mount pre-amp is in order.

Aim for the weakest station you want to watch, then see how the
others are doing.
Keith
--- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "baumgrenze" <baumgrenze@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm the new kid on the block. Here are my current questions.
>
> I am in Palo Alto. A search on www.batchgeocode.com puts me at
> Latitude: 37.442104 / Longitude: -122.129052.
>
> I am currently reworking my antenna system for OTA reception on a
Sony
> Model #: KDL-32XBR6.
>
> The current state of affairs is as follows.
>
> I removed the VHF antenna from the top of my 1.25" x 9.5' tubular
> mast. I moved my Archer Model U-75R directional UHF antenna,
purchased
> in 1989, to the top of the mast. I attached a 300 ohm to 75 ohm
balun
> and 50' of RG6U cable and connected it to the TV and ran the setup.
> The mast is currently leaning against a ladder, guyed to 4 points
with
> parachute cord. The antenna is roughly pointed at Mt. Sutro. The
> reception on KQED 9.1 is great. I should be so lucky once I have set
> and guyed the mast properly. I recognize that to pull in signals
from
> Mission Peak and Mt. Hamilton I must reorient this antenna towards
the
> transmitter towers.
>
> I am considering replacing the U-75R with a Terrestrial DB-4
> non-directional antenna. Can I expect to receive good signals from
> broadcast antennae that are 114.5° (Mission Peak) and 151.26° (Mt.
> Hamilton) relative to a line-of-sight bearing on Mt. Sutro? Do I
need
> to worry about signals being reflected from the local mountain
ranges?
> Do I need to worry about Palo Alto's many trees? I have some very
tall
> ones near my house.
>
> In my rework, I removed about 6' of 1.5" tubular mast from between
the
> swivel base mount and a 1960's rotor. I discovered that it came with
> only 8 ball bearings running in an upper race and another 8 in a
lower
> race. Needless to say, the aluminum bearing race is severely by
years
> of wind rocking of the antenna system. I think I could get it to run
> again, but it hardly seems worth the effort.
>
> The mast still carries a large FM antenna, too. It is ~148" long and
> ~138" wide on its rear-most, longest element. I would like to get
this
> a bit more than 6' from my flat Eichler roof for safety reasons. I
can
> see two possible solutions:
>
> 1) Purchase 6' of schedule 40 or heavier galvanized iron pipe
threaded
> on one end. Install a pipe flange on the upper end and use this as a
> lower extension, running guy wires from holes drilled in the flange.
> The mounting end would be in a Universal Swivel Base Mount (9013)
> mounted on a 4" x 7.5" x 0.25" thick steel plate lag screwed to the
> fascia board of the upper roof. This should give me room to put my
FM
> antenna at 4' below even a DB-4 mounted on the top of the mast. It
> would allow a slip fit of 18" between the pipe and the tubular mast.
> If the pipe does not fit the swivel base, I could bore hole through
it
> an appropriate distance from the bottom to fit the swivel bolt.
>
> 2) To keep both antennae lower, I could purchase a chimney mount kit
> and mount an 8' long mast on it. The chimney in question extends up
> ~4.5' above the lower roof (~18" lower,) so roughly half of the mast
> would be between the upper and lower mounting brackets. Wouldn't
this
> make for a pretty secure mount without guy wires? I would use this
to
> mount the FM antenna. Should I be concerned that the forward-most
> element of the FM antenna would be ~18" from the mast carrying the
UHF
> antenna? It would be `behind' the UHF with respect to Mt. Sutro, off
> to the side with respect to Mission Peak, and in front with respect
to
> Mt. Hamilton. Would this make a difference?
>
> 3) The entire tar-and-gravel roof has urethane foam sheet insulation
> with an aluminum foil facing. Is this significant?
>
> Thanks,
>
> baumgrenze
>