Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Dbowey" has never conrtibuted anything of value to _anything_ from"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212212427.06574.00001841@mb-m15.aol.com...
Not being qualified to speak for anyone but himself,
and doing rather poorly at his attempts to avoid a tantrum,
"Dbowey" contributed nothing of value to the thread.
yes.On 13 Dec 2004 03:57:05 GMT, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> wrote:
When signals of different frequencies are mixed you get two resulting
frequencies, the sum and the difference between the two frequencies.
---
Don't you mean the sum _of_ and the difference between the two
frequencies?
not normally, but Roger's proposing something rather _ab_normal!And don't the original signals remain?
"Dbowey" has never conrtibuted anything of value to _anything_ from"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212212427.06574.00001841@mb-m15.aol.com...
Not being qualified to speak for anyone but himself,
and doing rather poorly at his attempts to avoid a tantrum,
"Dbowey" contributed nothing of value to the thread.
whkatever.. i'm so happy for you.. it still doesn't alther the factYou don't get help like that, often, and he provided something that really isn't
all that easy to go find, either. He offered without my asking and I think he's
very generous when someone shows even a little effort. And that's as much as
any of us deserve to hope for, really.
Your comment is just malicious.
sorry, roger, but I think Bob Myers is the only person here to haveSteve Evans <smevans@jif-lemon.co.mars> wrote:
And don't the original signals remain?
Yes they do, but they are of no significance in this case, the sum- or
difference-signal is what interests us after the mixing.
Yes they do, but they are of no significance in this case, the sum- or
difference-signal is what interests us after the mixing.
sorry, roger, but I think Bob Myers is the only person here to have
got it absolutely right.
thats fair enouugh, Johathan. You gotta speak as you find.In any case, he's helped at least one person I know of. Me.
The freqs from 109 MHz up to the 144 MHz ham band are all used byOn 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:
If this isn't correct, what is your plan?
There are receivers able to function with AM and FM in that frequency
range.
I have several transmitters around my house that transmit in this
range. It's an
experiment in creating an electronic proximity net. The transmitter
outputs are
5mW. What receivers do you know of (hopefully not much $$) that
will receive in
this range? Thanks.
MJ
Unless you're someplace like Escondido. LA has 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13,"Michael J." <michael_j@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:m8dkr0p6eumjurah09jlbi40k4nsoltq1s@4ax.com...
On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:
If this isn't correct, what is your plan?
There are receivers able to function with AM and FM in that frequency
range.
I have several transmitters around my house that transmit in this
range. It's an
experiment in creating an electronic proximity net. The transmitter
outputs are
5mW. What receivers do you know of (hopefully not much $$) that
will receive in
this range? Thanks.
MJ
The freqs from 109 MHz up to the 144 MHz ham band are all used by
aircraft for both navigation and communication. In the U.S.
unauthorized transmitting on these freqs is a real big NO-NO, and will
cause the FCC to jump on you like flies on dog doo-doo. If you're going
to screw around with low power RF, do it in the low part of the FM BC
band, 88 to 92 MHx, or the 82 to 88 MHZ TV channel 6 if it's not used in
your area. If TV Ch 6 is used, then Ch 5 should be free. And there is
also the band for radio control of toys somewhere in the 72 to 76 MHz
band.
Landing Systems."Michael J." <michael_j@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:m8dkr0p6eumjurah09jlbi40k4nsoltq1s@4ax.com...
On 10 Dec 2004 23:04:54 GMT, dbowey@aol.com (Dbowey) wrote:
If this isn't correct, what is your plan?
There are receivers able to function with AM and FM in that frequency
range.
I have several transmitters around my house that transmit in this
range. It's an
experiment in creating an electronic proximity net. The transmitter
outputs are
5mW. What receivers do you know of (hopefully not much $$) that
will receive in
this range? Thanks.
MJ
The freqs from 109 MHz up to the 144 MHz ham band are all used by
aircraft for both navigation and communication. In the U.S.
unauthorized transmitting on these freqs is a real big NO-NO, and will
cause the FCC to jump on you like flies on dog doo-doo. If you're going
to screw around with low power RF, do it in the low part of the FM BC
band, 88 to 92 MHx, or the 82 to 88 MHZ TV channel 6 if it's not used in
your area. If TV Ch 6 is used, then Ch 5 should be free. And there is
also the band for radio control of toys somewhere in the 72 to 76 MHz
band.
Don't forget that 75MHz is used for marker beacons on aircraft Instrument
---USA/Britain was the dominating world power in the era of electronics,
and in the era when the need for a common international language became
very strong, so english is the language of electronics and the international
language for the future.
---The language english will be reformed in this process, simplified and
cleansed from strange expressions which americans use today.
---English is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the property
of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.
Actually your wrong, you just can't admit it!In article <m30vd.32520$zx1.25261@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:
"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212115835.06125.00001102@mb-m23.aol.com...
Steve,
That is "you're" not "your." As in - you're a <Dbowey>, Steve.
I'm sure you mean well. But get a life!
Usage defines correctness, and it is in very common use!
Common use or not, the use of "you're" for "your" is *ABSOLUTELY,
TOTALLY, COMPLETELY WRONG*. It's a lovely barometer for how piss-poor
our educational system is here in the US, but it's still *WRONG*.
Don Bruder
The native english speaking world has had a strong influence for manyEnglish is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the
property of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.
I somehow doubt it. you will adopt the current state of English as
devoured by your poor and huddled masses as directed by our popular
culture. We will tell *you* what to (and how to ) think!
French used to be a contender. It appears to me that French lost groundOn 12 Dec 2004 19:46:07 GMT, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> wrote:
USA/Britain was the dominating world power in the era of electronics,
and in the era when the need for a common international language became
very strong, so english is the language of electronics and the international
language for the future.
English is the language for the future because it's already been been
so changed by other languages that it would be difficult to find
another language more readily adaptable to change yet so readily
understood everywhere in the world.
You're clueless and don't know what you're talking about."Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:
That is "you're" not "your." As in - you're a <Dbowey>, Steve.
I'm sure you mean well. But get a life!
Usage defines correctness, and it is in very common use!
The english language is still strongly dominated by people who have
english as their native language, but that will soon change.
English will become the international language, and will change in
that process. It will be simplified, and special expressions will not
work in an international environment.
Greece was the dominating world power when chemistry was founded,
and we still see greek terminology in the field of chemistry.
Rome was the dominating world power when medicine was developed,
that is why latin is the language of medicine.
USA/Britain was the dominating world power in the era of electronics,
and in the era when the need for a common international language
became
very strong, so english is the language of electronics and the
international
language for the future.
The language english will be reformed in this process, simplified and
cleansed from strange expressions which americans use today.
English is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the
property
of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.
--
Roger J.
---Steve Evans <smevans@jif-lemon.co.mars> wrote:
English is no longer the property of americans/brits, it is now the
property of the world, and we will change it to suit our purposes.
I somehow doubt it. you will adopt the current state of English as
devoured by your poor and huddled masses as directed by our popular
culture. We will tell *you* what to (and how to ) think!
The native english speaking world has had a strong influence for many
years and still does. But the number of non-english people who use
english is steadily rising, and there are 5.5 billion more people to come.
---I have seen how the situation has evolved over the last decade.
In the beginning I was very alone among loads of americans and a few
brits. Today the non-native english speaking participation in many
newsgroups is around 25 percent, and it is growing.
---I predict, based on the current tendency, that the situation will be
50/50 within 2 years, and after that the native english-speaking will be
in a quickly shrinking minority. And they will have to think about how
they speak english to be fully understood by the majority of the
participators.
---The production of movies and tv-shows was totally dominated by americans
between 1945 and now, but now we see how the rest of the world is
producing more and more programs and movies. The american dominance of
the world's media channels is quickly disappearing.
Until they activate the killfile...On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:36:15 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:
"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041212212427.06574.00001841@mb-m15.aol.com...
Not being qualified to speak for anyone but himself,
and doing rather poorly at his attempts to avoid a tantrum,
"Dbowey" contributed nothing of value to the thread.
---
Being too ignorant to realize that he isn't qualified to possess an
opinion, Clarence persists in annoying his neighbors.
---On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:37:12 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On 13 Dec 2004 03:57:05 GMT, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se> wrote:
When signals of different frequencies are mixed you get two resulting
frequencies, the sum and the difference between the two frequencies.
---
Don't you mean the sum _of_ and the difference between the two
frequencies?
yes.
And don't the original signals remain?
not normally, but Roger's proposing something rather _ab_normal!