PRIVATE Bc CONFIDENTIAL

. RESEARCH DEI'ARTMENT Report Uo.K.085/3 Serial No.195l/6 SOUTH HAMPSHIRE AJllD ISLE OF VlIGHT TELEVISION SITE TESTSg FINAL REPORT

Inves'tigation by Field strength Seotion.

Report written by G.I. Ross.

April, 1951. REP~, J!TO. ,K. 085h..

Serial No. 1951!~

COllTE1TTS

• •• Page 1 • Summary ••• • • 0 ...... • 0 • 11 I. General ...... ·.. • •• 1. 11. Transmissions and Measuring Techni!lue 11 1. 11 2. Ill. Results • 0 0 • 0 • ·.. tI 2. 111.1 General •• .. . • •• ·.. 11 2 & 3. 111.2 Comparison of sites .0 ·.. ·.. IV. Area Ceverage of South Hants and Sites in Relation to Existing 11 4. and Proposed Transmitters •• 0 • • • 11 V. Conclusions. ... 4'· 11 5 & 6. TABLE I ••• .. . o 0 ~o ...... APPENDIX I. Re-Radiation of the Shornhill Signal by Bartley Mast •• , " 7. APPENDIX 11. Position of Sites ••• ... " 8. PRIVATE AlTD CONFIDENTIAL - -~,

Figures 1 - 4.' Report No. K~085/3 April, 1951.

SOUTH HAMPS]IIRE ill IS}:ftl OF WIGHT TELEVISlbl~ SERVICE SITE TESTS& FINAL REPORT

Summary Three television site tests have been carried out in the Isle of Wight ... South Hampshire area. Of these sites, one was looated on the mainland and two were on the island. Interim reports Nos. K.085 and K.085/2 isS'Ued in December 1950 and January 1951 respectively presented the results of two of the sites - one at Shornhill, South Hampshire (near~he B.BoC. station at Bartley) and one at Ruwridge Farm, Cal bourn~, Isle of Wight. ' '

Since these reports were issued a seoond site on the Island (Elm Copse f ) has been tested and thi's report oollates the results of all three sites and disousses their relative merits. It is reoommended that the stationbe'built on the Rowridge Farm Site.

1. GENERAL,

It is proposed that the station on the seleoted site will' ' radiate a horizontally polarised signal on a frequency of 56.75 MC/So It will radiate a peak white power of 5 kW from an aerial, having a gain of 3 db. (relative to a half-wave dipole) on a 750' mas,t. All servioe area oontourmaps and 'field strengths quoted in ,this report refr:-r to this specifioation. A note on nEe-radiation of ,the Shornhill signal by Bartley mast" is given in Appendix I. Details of the ·three sites tested are given in Appendix: II.

11. TRANSMISSION AND MEASURING TECHNIQUE

As in earlier site tests, use was ma.de ;ofa balloon to carry the transmitting aerial to a height of 600 feet above ground level. When weather conditions precluded balloon flying, use was made o·f an aerial on the top of a 110 ft. mast. The ballt~ol., aerial radiated 18 watts while the mast aerial radiated 300 watts but all measuremvnts have been corrected to comply With the transmission condi tiors· , specified in the previous paragraph.' Al though both balloon. and' mast' aerials radiated a vertioally polarised signal the field strength fer a hO:ri.zontally polarised transmission would be substantially the s~me f;1.S that measured. The field strength for a 750 ft. mast was -2 found by extrapolation of balloon height versus field strength curvE'S, the field strength being meas1L.'ed at selected points in the service area.

Ali e;ignalswere .received on an. end fed dipole elevated 15 ft. above gro'und level buti:ihe field strengtlis quoted have been corrected for a~ aerial at 30 ft. above ground lev.el.

A complete account 'of the transmitting and measuring technique will be found in Research Report No. K.076/2.

Ill. RESULTS

IU.l General

The results of the three sites are shown in the fo~m of service 'area bontour maps i1;1 Figs. 1, 2 and 3.' In addit~on, the maximum, m~an and minimum field strength in the more important towns is shown in tabular form under a separate heading for each si te in Table 'I.

The field. strengths indic1?_ted on the' service aren map&. of Figs. I and 2 are only average figures and the actual field strength at any giv~n point may vary over a range of ~ 10 db. from the value shown. The figures also show the limits of inter­ ference for co-channf:ll operation with Kirk 0.' Shotts .... the latter radiating a vertically polarased signal while the proposed station' radiates a, horizontally polarised signnl. ,., The interference limits have been estimated from the latest availnble data on long distance propag8,.tionon frequencies of the order concerned. Tho limits define t:te. perimeter within Which the field strength of the proposed transmitter would be 35 db. above the interfering field from Kirk 0 1 Shotts for at least 95% of the daily trnnsmission time on 90% of the days of the year.

III.2 Oomparison of Sites

The se,rvice nrea contour map for the Shornhill site is shown in Fig.l nnd the first three columns of Table I show the field st'rength in tl.,1e more importnnt towns. Referring to 'l'alle I, it will be seen that the industrial oentre of ?ortsmouth (1.42 mV/m) is very poorly served, while Southnmpton (31 mV /m), a torm of comparnble size ,viII htwe a field fftrength about six times in excess of thatoonsider~d necessary for an adequate servi6e. Th~s faot in itself indicates that Sho'rnhillis not a sui tp:.ble site for the proposed transmitter. The Bournemouth area, with an n.verage field strength of 1.4 mV/m, is rat::':'er poorly s-orved. Bog-nor (0 .. 47 mV/m) f':.nd Li ttlehampton (0.41 mV /m) get a fnir serv~ce, but viorthing and , Brighton; two highly populated areas, would get a totally inadoqunte signal of the order of 0.1 mV/m. Dorchester (0 .. 24 mV/m) and Weymouth (0.3 mV/m), two towns with no prospect of a service from elsewhere, will also get a poor service. On the otherhan~ the service in Winchester and Salisbury is' much better o:;han that Predicted on Map T86~

From the foregoing it was concluded that Shornhill is not a suitable site for the proposed transmitter, and that" a site on the.Isle of Wight would give ,better results.

Rowridge Farm, the first site tested on the island, is higher • and better situated in relation to the densely populated areas under consideration. Referring tu Table I again it will be seen that a transmitter located here will improve the service in these areas. Southampton (7.3' mV/m) and Portsmouth (5.0 mV /m) have a 1st class service, while the field strength in Bournemouth is 3.3 mV/m ... an

improvement of 3 db. over that available from Shornhill. The 0 residential areas of Brighton (0~42 mV/m) and Worthing (0.5 mV/m) will get a foair servioe, but in those parts s:ubject to industrial and heavy igni tion interferenoe, the service wioll be poor. The field strength in Sal::'sbury (0,,91 mV/m), while less than that from Shornhill, is, nevertheless, almost adequate for a town Qf its oharacter. It is of interest to note that the field strengthOin WiHchester (2.37mV/m) is slightly greater than that from ShoriiliilI (2.25 mV/m) although the distance from Rowridge is twice as great as t hat from Shornhill. It is probable that this can be aooounted for by the fact that Winchester in relation to Shprnhill" lies immediatQly behind a 350 feet hill while the path from Rowridge lies along the River It'chen valley.

From the data and" re suI ts discussed it was considered that a tra'1smittQI' located at Row-ridge would give the best" service to the area under consideration. There were, however, a number of • di.fficul ties in the" way of building a l'!tation here. As a precaution, - therf'fore, a second site on the island, Elm Copse, was selected ::md the fieldstrongth measured in the most populated areas only. The service area oontours are shown in Fig.3, but it mustO be stressed , they are very sketchy on e~ooount of the lirr.i "';ed data available. From the tabulated rest:..lts, however, it will 'be seen that, with the exception of Christchurch (5.2 mV/m) and Bournemouth (4.1 mV/m) the field strength is~ess than that from R('wridg'3 si to. The difference in field strength is greatest in the more' distant towns"

e.g.Shaftosbury O.41mV/m compared with 0.81 mV/m, and DorcJ.lester 0 0.45 mV/m comparod with 0.13°mV/m. The field strength in Portsmouth,

3 .. 4 mV /m, is insufficient to provide als~ ol<"ss service, "" 0 "'4-

IV~ Coverage of Sou,ji..h Rants and Isle of Wight Sites in " ~lation to Existine; and Pro;eosed Tre.nsmi tters_o

The map on Fig.4 ahowa the 0.25 mV/m contour of the, three $i tes under oon'siderati6n in relation to the ourresponding oontoura for Alexandra. Palace, Sutton Ooldfield, Wenvoe (st. Nioholas) an~ South Devon. Oonsidering Shornhill and Rowridge only" the area enolosed by the 0.25 mV/m oontour is almoat identioal for both sites (Rowridge '4570 aquare miles and Shornhi'll 4760 square miles). It muatbe remembered, however, that the tabulated results show, with one or two exoeptions, that the highly populated areas reoeive a better service from Rowridge, and these 0.25mV/m ~ontour maps ,ahould be used only to oonsider the general ooverage of a station

in relation to other stations 0 The area enclosed by the 0.25, mV /m oontour ,for Elm Oopse cannot be assessed with any acouracycm ' aC,oount of the sketchiness of the contour, but it is evidently considerably less than that of the other sites. Th~ map shows parts ,of Wiltshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershi:)7e,and Buckinghamshire. as having a field strength of less than 0.25 mV/m from any of the four surrounding stations ° Wi th one or two, exceptions, however, ind!lstrial interference 'in this area will be 'slight and experience indicates that a viewer should get a reaso:'l.able service from, one or other of the four stations, precisely which station will depend largely upon the intervening country between the,viewer and the transmitter. Such reception would, of course, be subject to normal tropospheric fading from the "local" station seleoted in addition to ,that caused by 00- ohannel working.

Kent and Sussex is another area where reception will be poor, an~ in the former the viewer has no alternative station to Alexandra Palace. 'The prOVision of a service for this area is now,under consideration, for a large part of it may be covered by the new London Television Station. Discussion of ' its potential:­ ities is, however, "beyond the scope of this, ':'eport.

V. OONOLUS~

09JllpaTing the, Shornhill and Rowridge sites, the onJ,y towns of importance torocei ve a better service from Shornhi:'1 are Salisbury and Southampton. This feature, howovar, .is" of 11 ttle importance since the fiold these tovms recei vs from Rovn-ldge is adequate. The overall sorvic'e area of eaoh site is the same. The Elm Oopse site serves a mucn smaller area and with,one,or two exceptions the field st~0ngth in the populated areas,is less than that from Rowridgo ..

From the foregoing it is c9ncluded that a transmitter located at Rowridge will provide the best service in the area under ocnsiderationo -5-

T A :B I E I Sheet I

is H 0 R IT H ILL! ROW RID G E ELM C 0 P S E ~ ,T 0 W N Ma:x:. Me an Min Max. Mean l'iiin, Max. Mean Min. I =~.-..;;;;;;;..:.;::--- I Southampton 156 316.0 31.5 7.3 2.2 22 6 • 3=4-ice-= Portsmouth 4.0 1..42 0 .. 7 17.2 5.0 1.5 14.5 3.4 1.7 :Bournemouth 4.7 2.2 0 .. 43 11.7, 3.3 1.0 13,,5 4.1 1.2 Salisbury 10.5 4.2. 1.7 1.9 0.91 0.35 2.3 0.7 0.28 Winchester 5.3 2 .. 25 0.68 4.1 2.37 0.41 7.2 1.1 0 .. 51

Aldershot 0.36 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.41 0.14 Alton 1.0 0.6' 0.5 0.8 0.53 0.3- Andover 5.0 1.75 0.85 1.4 0.68 0.3

Br,i.ghton 2.7 0.42<0.12 Boscombe 5 .. 5 2.1 0.6 11.3 4.8 1.6 10 .. 0 4.1 1.8 Branksome 2 .. 6 ,1.3 0.43 4.8 2.0 0.74 . 4,4 1.7 0.66 :Dasingstoke 1.33 0.3 <0.2 0.66 0.35 <0.12 B1andford 1.6 0.6 0.33 2.3 0.83 0.37 1.15 0 .. 42 0.2 Bognor 0.8 0 .. 47 0.34 1.6 1.0 0 .. 34 O:~94 0.64 ' 0.,36

Chichester 1.16 0.64 0.32 2.4 1.75 0.58 1.1 , IoW 22 -5.2 1.2 Christchurch) . . i 2.7 2.0 1~67- 2.3 \ 1.8 Southbourne ) I I

Devizes ' 0.44 0 .... 27 <0.2 1'\ \ 1.82 ,0•. 73 "0.42 0.8 '0.45 0,24 I Dorohe s'te r 0.6 0.24' 0.19 ,,,,', \ I i F~reham 3.0 2.0 1.0 6.3 2.6 i I Farnborough 0.8 o •.n 0.3 0.26 <0.14,

Farnham 1.0 0.64 -- 0.51 , \

Frorne 0.67 0.3 0.16,I . Gos-port ! 10.0 '5~2 1~9 Hazt erne re 0 .. 95 0.52 0.28 0.94 0.32 0.131 Havant 0.8 0 .. 68 0.52 9.5 7.7 4·3 I Hungerford 0.41 0.29 0.22 0.38 0.24 <0.141 " Hove 1.4 ,0.48 <0.14 Horsham 0.67 0.32 <0.13 1 uttlehampton '0.5 0.41 0.28 0.77-( Lewes 0.23 0.2 <0.2

______---' ______. ___._. _____.__ • ______, ._. ____ .....I1- ______._.______.... _ " .... - .. - .\.

. '. I TABLE I Sheet s. , . , ' -- .- i S H 0 R N H ILL R o W R I DG E I E'L M C o P S E I -,- 1 T,O W N Ma:x:. , Mean -1an..- Max. Mean Min. ~..!..- Mean Min. Marlborough 0.4 0.24, <0.14 Midhurst 0~56 ' 0.35 0.24 2.1 1.0 0.41 - Newhaven 0.34 0.14 <0.14 Newport, IoW 4.3 1.25 0.54 ,'. New ,1dresforc 2.65 1.76 1.4 1.2 0.61 0.35 Newbury 1.0 0.44 003 0.4 0.16 <0.14 ' 0.8 I Petersfie1d 1.1 0.54 2.6 1.6 0.43 • Poole 1.06 0.'6 0.35 2·5 '1.0 0.6 2.8 0.95 0.48 Parks tone ;1~7 0.65 0.45 8.9 1.68 0 .. 6. 8.3 1.35 0.68

Reading '. , 0 .. 65 0.23 <0.14 " Romsey 50 36 24 4.5 2.2 1.4 I 3 .. 5 2.1 1.4 , IoW 6.7 3 .. 3 0.83 I,

.. She pt on , ' . M,allet 0.14 0.09 ,<0.09 , Swan age 3.2 0.73 0.42, 11.3 ,2.55 1.3 - ,IoW 2.5 0.9 0.5 ,IoW 2.4 0 .. 53 0.,24 Sherborne 0.48 0.,31 <0.2 0.44 0.27 0.19 0.24 0.16 <0.14 Shaftesbury 2.0 0.9 0.4 3 .. 5, 0.81 0.27 - 0 .• 41 - ,IoW 3.9 0.5 <0.2

'. ' Westbury 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 Weyr.nouth 0 .. 65 0.3 <0.2 0.84 0.35 <0.2 W~rthing - <0.23 1.4 0.5 <.:0.23 Wimborne - , Minster 3.4 0.68 0.38 305 1.6 0.65 2.6 1.0 0048 Win<:} ant on 1.2 0.24 0.16 0.32 0.16 <0.14 I 1 Yeovi1 0.52 0.24 <0.2 0.54 0.27 <0.2 6 .. 32 0,.2 <0.2 I Yarmouth ,IoW 22.0 12.6 5.0 ! ! I, ,! 1, '. i ! 1 - 7 .....

A P ~ END I X I

RE-RADIATION OF THE SHORl'f'.dILL SIGNAL BY J3ARTLEY MAST

The close proximity of' the Shornhi11 site to the 250 ft. mast radiator at J3artley made it desirable to carry out pulse radiation tests to determine whether theJ3artle'y mast re-radiate,d the Shornhill signal. The distance bet'wee,n' the sites 1.s 1.700 les , therefore the time difference at the receiVer between the direct ro1d indirect signals will very, depending on the position of the reoeiver relative to the sites, from 0 - 18 Ilsecs. The field strength incident, at the top of the 250 ft. mast being of a high order, a. high intensity delayed signal re-radiated by the mast would cause a fixed echo image on a televis,ion reoeiver screen.

In order to determine the relative amplitude of this re-radiated Signal at a receiving pOint,'1 .. 5 kW pu,lses were radiated from both horizontal and vertical dipoles on top of the 110 ft. mast. The pulse (1 Ilsec) was observed on a oathode ray'tube screen in a field strength van.

The results of these tests proved beyond doubt that the re-radiated fixed echo vpuld interfere with reception in only the smallest degree. Extensive tests were carried out around the J3artley site and in the Southampton and Salisbury areas and only by calculation of the delay time at any particular site was it possible occasionally to identify the J3artley re-radiated pulse from those caused by local 're-radiators. For example, at Southampton Docks four echoes of time delay 1, 2, 3 and 5 Ilsec. wore received, their respective amplitudes relative to the direct signal being -20, ~24, -21 and ~20 db. resppctively. In this area of Southa~pton the general noise level was -34 dbe relative to the direct signal and the calculated time delay of :Bartley echo 11 Ilsecs q, therefore it can be said that the re-ra~iated signal from :Bartley was at least 34 db. less than the direct signal. In the centre of Southampton the amplitude of echoes relative to the direct signal for delays of 1, 2 and 3 ~Beoso varied from +3 db. to ....:t5 db. while, from 10 - 20 I1S0CS. echoes ~30 db~ '±12 db. were' so numerous that it was impossible to determine which, if any, corresponded to the :Bartley mast. The faotis that the - re-radiated :Bartloy pulse was identified wit}:>'oertainty only when the reoeiving site was within 2 miles of :Bartley, in which case the maximum relative amplitude was -10 db. The conclusion dra\1n from these ob~ervation~ is that the fixed echo signal from :Bartley mast is inSignificant compared with local 're-radiated eohoes, except when reoeived very near :Bartley. - 8 -

A P PEN D I X II

POSITIONS OF SITES

Shornhillg .5! miles vmWSouthampton L;titude 500 56' 09" N. Longitude 010 32' 00" w. :Nat. Grid Re~. 4l/327i52

Rowridge: Rowri dge FarTI). .,3-~ nii le s WSYl Newport ,1. O. W. Lati tude 50,0 40' 35" N. Longitude 010 22' 0011 .w. Nat. Grid Ref. 40/447865

Elm Copse~ 5 miles due West Newport, loO.W. . I LaU tude 500 41' 36 11 N. Longi tude 010 24' 13" w• . Nat. Grid Ref. 40/421885 e ISSlV-2 \l1.MALVI!~" ~R""'ORU • bALOOC,", t (SI i4·3·5f LLANDo"tt~V ,",UTQN • aUIHI10W • III CHIIL.TIfNHAM • AOSI " • ",lil! 11 TFO.RO f)GLOUC.1!5TI!~ MONMOVTf4 "e.li~CA"e"NN y .... 11'.·" •

APPROXIMAtE FIELD STRENGTH CONTOURS AT

~CALf!, t: 1,000,000 30FT. A.G.L. FOR 5kWo RADIATED 750 FTo MAST. I~ 1!"4 .. l'$H Mlll!S TO ONI( INt.H !i 10

J-----lr------~--'-'--.--.. '" ,--... - BBC SOUTH HAMPSHIRE' & ISLE OF WIGHT---~~?I~~C:-T DEPT TELEVISION SERVICE 'SITE TESTS. ~~AP'~~ K4Q§?L~ ------~------~.~~~~--~~-~~~~~~ , Issue . . . 8"NI8U~Y f .bAlOOCt<. 14·)-5f

I.UTON • DUIH/l0W CHISI.:TINHAM) • e HtrllTFORO f)GLOU'l!STI!:~ G) MONMOVTti WIT... " . ·~ST.AL\3AN~ (!) e

• RAIiNTWOOO eU:j1<. .A81!~OAAI TIE:r.,U~V • .. WIII'HAQI(

IiIRI:lTOL $

o MAl os 1"014 E

t: 1('. ,. "" AN N.t, • TOHB~IDQe;:

---- ~r---MINltiil!:"'D LYNTON

STH ....• OLTOtl

TlVI!~TON • . • •.:t1ARO·

I \ I SOURKI!MOUTH, I . ., ' ..... '$...... ---'.. FS CONTOURS}-MEASURED ~~~--- SHOWN THUS --ESTIMATED

/ INTERFERENCE .LlMIT FIG.·2 KIRK 0' SHOTTS VPj' ROWRIDGE SITE ROWRIDGE H~····· '. ., APPROXIMATE FIELD STRENGTH CONTOURS AT

30Ft A.G.L. FOR 5 kW RADIATED 750FT.- MAST ·.$~AL.If. 1: l,ooo.ooo 3db AERIAL GAIN. 56·75 Mc/s. I. I!t.cGt.ISH MILes TO ONI" IN~H \ .. Q!:::==~st ".. ~lto=====;==a.O~~~~3tO======430~5e ; . ; .. ~~O I

.,.-----t------.---.--...... --...... _...... _,..-...... -_ ...... ---'-" ... ~ .. - ...... -.. -.--.------.:---..;--.-----..------..,..--~---~-...... ------t SOUTH HAMPSHIRE· &, ISLE OF WIGHT RES::;O~~ ,DEPT .TELEVISION SERVICE SITE· TESTS. 'S.g~5n ISSUE t • bALOOC" • I4AI.:HI:~!l 14- 3, S4

lU~ON Cl

• HOSS

MOM""ovtf.l

WATf'"ORO . e'b""'-""" '.'---', • ) • IU!£N1WOOO _/ "'tlT11 UIlV • ,• WA'HAQII

• SWINDON

eRI5TOL $'

CAN.TI!'ABlIRYO oNAlOSTOtCE • "E'51"i;RHAM

, •RS:OtHI.L e lOtH!"H>lDli

el!lRtOGWATtll'l . . TAUNTO .... STlUIlOLTOIt \!) I.EWES

,TIVI!RTON • ,• ':1"1"'10

.•

INTERFERENCE LIMIT, KI RK .0' SHOTTS VP } ••••• ,FIG.3 ELM H~ ELM COPSE S,ITE APPROXIMATE FIELD STRENGTH CONTOURS AT

30FT. -A.G.L. FOR 5 kW. RADIATED 750 Ft MAST .sCALE, t: 1,000,000 t. EN,,!..I!!H MILes TO ONI: INC'.H AERIAL GAIN Mc/s. ~ 10 :(0 30 40 !i,O 3db 56·15 , If' , .

I (ESTIMATE0 I ! ----·---~~R HAM~HIRE &IS~OF-W-I-GH-T~~~~~~-·-8_E-f~-£-~_H~O~~! BBC TELEVISION SERVICE SITE TESTS. AI"O KFJi~T?~ _ I "'''... OltD .eALaOCK - ...... '0" 16·3,51 ~...... • . I.LAlllDOVOY .' .. - ...... ---:c?S"",V/", 1'------1. . - __ _ I..I.I1'ON e.R.coN .-­-,. 0·25mV/m' FROM' • • DUIIIIVIOW SUTTON COLOF

A&lf"G"¥rlllN Y.

~~ I"I"G .

• .•Tf'CmD ''Ii<' )""'''': ....,.-\ j ./.' • 1I1t1"TWOOD /' + A.P. .,,~- 4S Mc/s I DO" .5\111'NDOH

WENVOE • • W'NQ~ • ...'STOL altlOGI'MO +. ".0 _OO~~lI..'!~uc:_"' • 35kW 3db • .• ", , \ ...... _ "t"".u~ •. _ .8ATH L'" ~-" . - ,<:;.00', , , •• 7'D.v,us . .." ..J.------.... ~ • ." ,.. "" __ ,.... ,T ...... - i .• ' ". . I MDliILL "" . ". . ",0",-" tI' " .. DOVrlR • • - ~;' i .W~""'I"TIR I W.LI..t,: / / " , I / I / " 0 _ , , / I .. • I ,' .. lr. J, ,a"LI~"uRY. I / .w~~7~ u .. - . ,/" I • I "'IDHUIUiT TIIIUNTOft 0 ./ SHArT'~BURY I . ! · Y~OVI~,' - ./.ISHORNHILL_+ I I SITE I .ltl"'.WOOO •CHARD ,, I FS CONTOURS}-··-MEASURED SHOWN 'THUS --ESTIMATED'

SOUTH DEVON 51-7S Mc/s 5 kW AERIAL GAIN;: 3db FIG.4 . ° AT 200 AND -7db FROM S·T03S°E,OFN, 5kW 3db {-.'~ .. - ROWRIDGE- O'2SmV/M F.S.CONTOURS 56'75Mc/s ---- SHORNHILL I } AS FIGS. I TO~3,. ----- ELM COPSE "CALli. 1: ',000,000 . ' . ,. _"'GUSH MILlS TO 0f0I1f IN~H . 0t:=.==5.·t ,!... t~o======~a.o~~~'SO==-=====4~0 ! ! , ...... ?~

BBC SOUTH HAMPSHIRE & . ISLE OF "WIGHT TELEVISION SERVICE S.ITE TESTS.