Audio Precision System One Dual Domani Measuirement Systems

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

David Looser wrote:

According to the history books the US entered WW2 because it was attacked by
the Japanese. It seems that Michael A. Terrell thinks that Japan is in
Europe.

The US was already active in the war, but not officially. US volunter pilots
were flying missions against both Japan and Germany. THe US was providing
equipment and supplies on a "lend lease" program that allowed them to do it
for free, without violating the official neutrality polices.

US ships were acting as "human shields" to shipping convoys in hope that
a U-Boat would miss their target and hit one, allowing the US to enter into
the war.

Bear in mind that although Roosevelt was pro-war, a lot of people in the US
supported Hitler or wanted to remain neutral. He was just waiting for
an excuse to enter the war.

It was just a matter of time, and a fortunate one. If Japan had not attacked
on Dec 7, 1941 and the US did not enter the war until 1943 or 1944, it would
not of gone the way it did.

Looking back in hindsight, it would have been very likely that if Europe was
not invaded in 1994, by 1946 the Luftwaffe would of had a jet engine
bomber that was undetectable until 20 miles of the coast, able to
fly to New York and an atomic bomb to drop from it.

There was a Discovery Channel show where they built a mock up of the design,
you can find it on the internet.

But you are right, the history books, as least as everyone remembers them
says that the US entered the war because the Japanese attacked.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Looking back in hindsight, it would have been very likely that if Europe was
not invaded in 1994, by 1946 the Luftwaffe would of had a jet engine
bomber that was undetectable until 20 miles of the coast, able to
fly to New York and an atomic bomb to drop from it.

Serves me right for not having my morning coffee BEFORE I type anything.

It should say 1944 not 1994.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

 

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:32:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a fool on Usenet?
The US National Electrical Code is online. It goes into great detail
about what can and can not be done. Read it, and see if you can learn
anything.

Ahem... the posting to which you reply to deals with UK ring
circuits.
Frankly, anyone who recommmends the practice of wiring as employed in
the US, is having a laugh.
American wiring plus wooden houses... jeez.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjivuv7.l3e.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Ron wrote:

Obviously water boiled with AC is far superior to water boiled with DC.
Alternating current jiggles the molecules up more.

Nothing beats the taste of tea made from water boiled over an old
fashioned
wood fire.

I'm not that much into water that smells of smoke.

Perhaps you are talking about a new fashioned wood fire that is built in a
stove, and thus the smoke is separated from the water.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"J G Miller" <miller@yoyRG> wrote in message
news:jgui65$45m$1@dont-email.me...

All because of the perceived need to produce weapons of mutual
annihilation.

While most of this pollution happened during the cold war, the place was
originally built to deal with Japan and Germany. In that was, the perceived
need was to build weapons of asymmetrical annihilation before the other guys
did.

In the judgment of history, Einstein vastly underestimated the morality of
the atomic scientists that remained in Germany or at least their ability to
resist Hitler. I don't think that anybody in the west had much of a clue
about what the atomic scientists of Japan could do.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8fVXQXLtZ5MPFwQ0@jasper.org.uk...

In article <9phf7mF8q3U1@mid.individual.net>, David Looser
david.looser@btinternet.com> writes


According to the history books the US entered WW2 because it was attacked
by
the Japanese. It seems that Michael A. Terrell thinks that Japan is in
Europe.

Wouldn't surprise me, seeing the average American's knowledge of
geography. A very insular country.

The average American's knowledge of geography is not that bad.

IME Europeans vastly underestimate the size of the US. Merely keeping track
of it is equivalent to keeping track of Europe and a big chunk of Asia.

I remember working with a French guy who flew from France to San Diego. His
reaction to the experience was that the flight from Europe to New York was
about the same as his flight from New York to Texas (Dallas), and then he
was only about half way to San Diego. The distances don't quite support his
perceptions, but the flight times including waiting for flights, baggage and
the like, do.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Terry Casey" <k.type@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.299dc4ab8a5fc2bb989717@news.eternal-september.org...

In article <slrnjj79lb.k6p.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>, gsm@mendelson.com
says...

snip

Looking back in hindsight, it would have been very likely that if Europe
was
not invaded in 1994, by 1946 the Luftwaffe would of had a jet engine
bomber that was undetectable until 20 miles of the coast, able to
fly to New York and an atomic bomb to drop from it.


Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, there was also a super bomber based on conventional technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

"The most promising proposals were based on conventional principles of
aircraft design and would have yielded aircraft very similar in
configuration and capability to the Allied heavy bombers of the day..."

IOW, all they had to do is build something between the B17 and the B29.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ac2dnQjyq4C-Z6_SnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Peter Larsen" <digilyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f2eedb7$0$56792$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
Ron wrote:

Surely you remember analogue TV Arny, it's when we had five channels
of rubbish, now we have 900 channels and it's still rubbish

What's TV?

Something that can actually be enjoyable, useful and even a bit
educational,
managed well.

A capacious 2 channel DVR is a big help.

An internet ready BluRay is better. A lot of free TV via the
internet including classic movies, comedy and Sci-Fi.

We have the hardware for both. After experiencing a hands-on unfettered
comparison of the two for about a year, we kept the DVR and terminated the
Internet service for the BluRay, but kept the stream of rental BD discs.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Terry Casey wrote:

Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, it was a "stealth" airplane.

According to the show, the troops found an experimental stealth airplane
in a hangar in France in the spring of 1945. It had crashed durng a test
flight in February, killing the pilot, but had been restored.

The airplane and parts (possibly for others) were broght back to the US and
stored in a warehouse. Airplane technicains were allowed to
come in and take measurments for a short time.

They then went back to their factory and built a model of it which was used
to test it for it's ability to be detected by 1945 vintage radar. It was
good enough that had it flown, it would not have been detected until
20 miles off the coast of England or the US.

The film also re-enacted a meeting between the head of the Luftwaffe and
the designers of the airplane (which was reliably documented) that they were
told to produce a stealth bomber which could reach New York from (occupied)
France.

At the time of the meeting, it was expected that Germany would have an
atomic bomb in time for a 1946 flight.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090625-hitlers-stealth-fighter-plane.html>


Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjj4j7v.ap9.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

I don't know how well UK sets worked in the 1960's, but US TV sets were
not capable of receiving adjcent channels at one time, so they were not
used. For example, channel 2 was used in New York City, while the nearest
channel 3 station was in Philadelphia, 90 miles away and too far to be
received without a large antenna.

US analog TV's improved greatly and were generally happy with adjacent
channels for maybe the last 20 years of their lives.

http://www.jneuhaus.com/fccindex/cablech.html

shows cable channels on 6-7 MHz intervals. Adjacent numbered channels were
used all the time.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5uKdnYd-DdKDYK_SnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

I don't know how well UK sets worked in the 1960's, but US TV sets were
not capable of receiving adjcent channels at one time, so they were not
used. For example, channel 2 was used in New York City, while the nearest
channel 3 station was in Philadelphia, 90 miles away and too far to be
received without a large antenna.

Those '60s TVs worked fine on CATV, with no open channels.

CATV in those days often involved "Cable Converter Boxes" which used the TV
as an IF strip.

Even sets from the '50s work well that way.

IME, the early 50s TVs were better made than their sequels in the late 50s
and 60s. The picture tubes and sweep circuits got larger but the RF, IF and
video circuits were "simplified".

Early CATV was simply 12 VHF channels
deilivered to the TV at 0 dBm to +5 dBm.

Some super cheap sets with a
single IF stage and no RF stage didn't work well, but they were the
floor sweepings of the industry and intended for markets where there was
only one or two stations.

I don't know of any TVs with only 1 IF stage for video.

'Madman' Earl Muntz made some real crap.

Even his stripped-back products had 3 (6AU6) video IF stages. If memory
serves, they may have had only 1 IF stage for sound, but with intercarrier
sound, that's not a fair comparison.

By the late 60s a number of mainstream manufacturers were building sets that
were influenced by Muntz.

 

[David Looser]

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:V8BtYuL$+6MPFwHx@jasper.org.uk...

In article <oZadnRjt097lNa7SnZ2dnUVZ8kWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Andy
Burns <usenet.aug2009@adslpipe.co.uk> writes

No, the phases are *NOT* brown, black & black, they are brown, black and
grey - with blue as neutral.

I refer you to the photo I posted a link to elsewhere.

You seem to think that your photos prove something, they do not beyond what

colours were used in one Spanish installation. If you want to know what the
harmonised colours actually are go and read the documents!

David.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <9pi35fFvnbU1@mid.individual.net>, David Looser
<david.looser@btinternet.com> writes

You seem to think that your photos prove something,

Yes, they prove that the installation was done with brown/black/black.
You seemed to have difficulty believing me, which is why I posted a
photo.

You said in an earlier post "I guess the installers simply didn't have
any grey cable" which means you thought the cables were single,
individual cables. I merely pointed out that they were not, but were in
in an armoured outer jacket.

I'm fine that the harmonised colours are brown/black/grey, just saying
that I know of installations - note the plural - where they are not.

Take a chill pill, ffs.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

 

[Terry Casey]

In article <WsWdnYS5l85uTK7SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
arnyk@cocmast.net says...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjj4j7v.ap9.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

I don't know how well UK sets worked in the 1960's, but US TV sets were
not capable of receiving adjcent channels at one time, so they were not
used. For example, channel 2 was used in New York City, while the nearest
channel 3 station was in Philadelphia, 90 miles away and too far to be
received without a large antenna.

US analog TV's improved greatly and were generally happy with adjacent
channels for maybe the last 20 years of their lives.

http://www.jneuhaus.com/fccindex/cablech.html

shows cable channels on 6-7 MHz intervals. Adjacent numbered channels were
used all the time.

A couple of questions regarding that list:

Why is the HRC channel spacing offset[1] by 300Hz - 6.0003MHz instead of
6MHz?

Why are the IRC channels offset from broadcast channels (where they
exist) by 12.5kHz?

[1] UK cable systems mostly use HRC at 8MHz spacing but this is
sometimes varied by a carefully calculated amount so that one block of
UHF channels coincides almost exactly with the broadcast frequencies.
This is done on systems with a by-pass facility to allow a few channels
- usually the local off-airs - to be fed directly to the TV giving the
subscriber direct access from the TV without needing an aerial.

Obviously this block of channels has to be chosen so as not to conflict
with local transmitters, so the offset will vary from system to system
and can't be fixed as in the US table

--

Terry

 

[Terry Casey]

In article <MPG.299df03b2699ac4898971b@news.eternal-september.org>,
k.type@example.invalid says...

[1] UK cable systems mostly use HRC at 8MHz spacing but this is
sometimes varied by a carefully calculated amount so that one block of
UHF channels coincides almost exactly with the broadcast frequencies.
This is done on systems with a by-pass facility to allow a few channels
- usually the local off-airs - to be fed directly to the TV giving the
subscriber direct access from the TV without needing an aerial.

Obviously this block of channels has to be chosen so as not to conflict
with local transmitters, so the offset will vary from system to system
and can't be fixed as in the US table

In case it isn't clear, I should have pointed out that normal cable
reception is via a set top box and, of course, I was referring to
analogue systems ...


--

Terry

 

[Terry Casey]

In article <slrnjj7fn9.rlf.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>, gsm@mendelson.com
says...

Terry Casey wrote:

Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, it was a "stealth" airplane.

According to the show, the troops found an experimental stealth airplane
in a hangar in France in the spring of 1945. It had crashed durng a test
flight in February, killing the pilot, but had been restored.

The airplane and parts (possibly for others) were broght back to the US and
stored in a warehouse. Airplane technicains were allowed to
come in and take measurments for a short time.

They then went back to their factory and built a model of it which was used
to test it for it's ability to be detected by 1945 vintage radar. It was
good enough that had it flown, it would not have been detected until
20 miles off the coast of England or the US.

The film also re-enacted a meeting between the head of the Luftwaffe and
the designers of the airplane (which was reliably documented) that they were
told to produce a stealth bomber which could reach New York from (occupied)
France.

At the time of the meeting, it was expected that Germany would have an
atomic bomb in time for a 1946 flight.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090625-hitlers-stealth-fighter-plane.html

Very interesting link. Thank you.

--

Terry

 

[Terry Casey]

In article <XLCdnRmoqsfsUa7SnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
arnyk@cocmast.net says...

"Terry Casey" <k.type@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.299dc4ab8a5fc2bb989717@news.eternal-september.org...
In article <slrnjj79lb.k6p.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>, gsm@mendelson.com
says...

snip

Looking back in hindsight, it would have been very likely that if Europe
was
not invaded in 1994, by 1946 the Luftwaffe would of had a jet engine
bomber that was undetectable until 20 miles of the coast, able to
fly to New York and an atomic bomb to drop from it.


Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, there was also a super bomber based on conventional technology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

"The most promising proposals were based on conventional principles of
aircraft design and would have yielded aircraft very similar in
configuration and capability to the Allied heavy bombers of the day..."

Which conflicts with the idea of a stealth bomber ...

--

Terry

 

[David Looser]

"Terry Casey" <k.type@example.invalid> wrote

The version of events I described is the one that has been quoted for
over 40 years but I only became aware of that bulletin a couple of
months ago ...

Was it a recording you saw - or a film made at the time?

What I actually saw was a DVD, copied from a video tape. My understanding is
that someone at Kingswood Warren decided to record this "first programme"
off-air, but that the tape then lay forgotten for many years until it was
rediscovered a few years ago. I also understand that the DVD I saw was a
direct copy from the original off-air tape. It's clear from the picture
quality that this was a video-tape recording, not a film telerecording.

It was rather a pathetic attempt which should be filed in the "it would
have been better if they hadn't bothered" category.

I don't know what the viewers (if there were any left!) made of it at
the time but, when I saw the film it generated some laughter - possibly
out of pity - from some of the audience.

I entirely agree. Its the most appallingly amateurish thing imaginable. I

particularly like the fact that there is total silence for the first minute
or so and then, at the end of the bulletin, the newsreader says that the
bulletin will be repeated in one minute's time as "I gather nobody could
hear me". So the loss of sound was at the transmitting end. I guess the BBC
were too embarrassed to admit that this news bulletin was actually broadcast
and were quite happy to have the myth that BBC2 only started the next day
gain currency!

David.

 

[David Looser]

"Mike Tomlinson" <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8KVHVXNs59MPFwRA@jasper.org.uk...

In article <9pi35fFvnbU1@mid.individual.net>, David Looser
david.looser@btinternet.com> writes

You seem to think that your photos prove something,

Yes, they prove that the installation was done with brown/black/black.
You seemed to have difficulty believing me, which is why I posted a
photo.

I never for one second doubted that you had seen installations done in

brown, black, black. So there was no need to post photos to prove that you
had.

All I said was that the harmonised colours are, and always have been, brown,
black, grey. A fact which you have seemed reluctant to accept.

I'm fine that the harmonised colours are brown/black/grey, just saying
that I know of installations - note the plural - where they are not.

Its entirely possible that brown, black, black was in use in parts of Europe

before the EU-wide harmonised colours were introduced. But they've never
been used here.

Take a chill pill, ffs.

You too

David.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjj7fn9.rlf.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Terry Casey wrote:

Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

No, it was a "stealth" airplane.

According to the show, the troops found an experimental stealth airplane
in a hangar in France in the spring of 1945. It had crashed durng a test
flight in February, killing the pilot, but had been restored.

The airplane and parts (possibly for others) were broght back to the US
and
stored in a warehouse. Airplane technicains were allowed to
come in and take measurments for a short time.

They then went back to their factory and built a model of it which was
used
to test it for it's ability to be detected by 1945 vintage radar. It was
good enough that had it flown, it would not have been detected until
20 miles off the coast of England or the US.

The film also re-enacted a meeting between the head of the Luftwaffe and
the designers of the airplane (which was reliably documented) that they
were
told to produce a stealth bomber which could reach New York from
(occupied)
France.

At the time of the meeting, it was expected that Germany would have an
atomic bomb in time for a 1946 flight.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090625-hitlers-stealth-fighter-plane.html

One point - this Nazi development (never a practical tool of war) was a
fighter not a bomber. Even in more modern times developing a stealth bomber
was far more difficult and there was a delay of many years between the
first stealth fighter and the first stealth bomber.