Audio Precision System One Dual Domani Measuirement Systems

[Terry Casey]

In article <v9WLymSSVYNPFwID@soft255.demon.co.uk>,
G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk says...

In message <MPG.299dc4ab8a5fc2bb989717@news.eternal-september.org>,
Terry Casey <k.type@example.invalid> writes:
[]
Not a bomber - it would have been the A10 rocket.

The A10 was a prosed development of the A4 rocket that was the basis
for the V2 bombs that fell on London (as opposed to the jet engined V1
flying bomb known colloquially as the 'doodlebug' - I think the US term
is buzz-bomb).

To bring this back 'on course' - at least, for uk.tech.broadcast readers
- the A10 rocket is mentioned in this historic article:

http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/1945ww_oct_305-308.html

And there was a film - 1970s I think - very loosely based on it. If I
saw it now, I'd probably cringe at all sorts of errors in it, but I
remember enjoying it _as a film_, then. I think it might have been
"Operation Crossbow" - CBA to check.

1965, I think you'll find. The rocket in the film was supposed to be a
successor to the V2 and I'm sure that it is referred to as the V3 in the
film although, as I later found out, the V3 was a multi-barrelled high
velocity cannon, the site of which I've since visited.

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

--

Terry

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3f-dnSXGvO8VoanSnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"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.


The BluRay was a one time investment of $80. Since I already have
broadband, there is no monthly fee. No need for a credit card, or trips
to one of the few remaining video stores, or to try to find something
worth watching in a 'Redbox'.

If you are obtaining current movies for just the cost of broadband, then you
are not paying the usual fees for viewing copyrighted materials. The
morality of that is up to you, but its not a fair comparison.

What morality? Sony owns the copyrights for the movies that they run
on 'Crackle'. I never said I was watching 'current movies'. On the
extremly rare chance that something cmes out I'll eiter watch it at a
theater, or buy the disk. Thre have been two 'current movies' in the
last 12 years that I wanted to see.

In the US the usual fee for obtaining a fairly current movie over broadband
is about $5 each. Netflix over broadband is more like $9 per month, but the
catalog is severely limited, both in terms of movies and also TV shows.

Not everyone is addicted to the latest Hollywood drivel. I 'watch'
about 10-15 hours a week and a lot of that is local news. When I do
watch more, it's when I'm too ill to do aything else.

Redbox is the price/performance winner around here, and their nearest
machine is within easy driving or biking distance.

Good for you. The nearest Redbox is about three miles, but I've
never seen a title I wanted to watch.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <dbadnR-QhNwICanSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes

Terry Casey wrote:

In article <h8udnVY0wLPRoqnSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...

David Looser wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ac2dnQvyq4BzZ6_SnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

hwh wrote:
On 2/5/12 7:04 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
But you've got to remember that this is the country that
405-line
going for, I think, longer after 625 started than it had been going
before that.

Erm, 405 started before the war and was alone until 1964? Then it
continued for another 20 years?

Someone said the last two years of 405 line signals were
generated by an
unusal
method, I think the word they used was "endearing". What was it?

BTW, the BBC shut down TV broadcasts in for World War II, and resumed
them at the exact point in the same broadcast after the war.


That's very easy to do with film. I should know. I loaded and ran
truckloads of 16 mm film on a pair of RCA TP66 projectors in the '70s.

I'm sure it is, but as we've already established that the "exact point in
the same broadcast" bit isn't true its not relevant.

The myth that the engineers simply ceased transmission half-way through a
programme and left the station like a sort of Mary Celeste has been
widespread, but it is a myth. In fact there was an orderly shut
and the
film in the machines would have been rewound and put into storage
before the
staff left. It would have been 35mm film (the BBC didn't have
facilities for
transmitting from 16mm film pre-war) and thus on nitrate stock.
putting
it into proper storage would have constituted a fire hazard and been in
contravention of fire regulations.


It still would have been no problem to load and start it at exactly
the same frame, if they had wanted to.

All hypothetical. As David said earlier, it is a myth that transmission
was cut in the middle of the cartoon. Station logs exist that say
different.

Another myth is that the Television Service resumed in 1946 with the
same cartoon. It didn't!

The cartoon WAS repeated that day - but it wasn't the first programme.


Does it matter? Were you alive to see it, and in their service
area? I wasn't and I wasn't. I was a TV broadcast engineer at three US
TV stations from the early '70s to the late '80s. I started with
monochrome and film, and ended up with 1" Sony color VTRS & RCA TK46A
cameras feeding a 5 MW EIRP antenna 1700+ feet AAT.

I'm sure that that the point being made was that despite all that had
happened to Britain since 1939, we were now picking up the pieces,
continuing where we had left off, and getting back to business as usual.
Even if it didn't quite happen as reported, there is no doubt that the
popular version of the story would have been good for moral.

Or an attempt to raise the moral of the citizens after VE day?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In message <JcKdnXOEqKFKW6jSnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes

Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <dbadnR-QhNwICanSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes

Terry Casey wrote:

In article <h8udnVY0wLPRoqnSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...

David Looser wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ac2dnQvyq4BzZ6_SnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

hwh wrote:
On 2/5/12 7:04 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
But you've got to remember that this is the country that
405-line
going for, I think, longer after 625 started than it had
going
before that.

Erm, 405 started before the war and was alone until 1964? Then it
continued for another 20 years?

Someone said the last two years of 405 line signals were
generated by an
unusal
method, I think the word they used was "endearing". What was it?

BTW, the BBC shut down TV broadcasts in for World War II,

them at the exact point in the same broadcast after the war.


That's very easy to do with film. I should know. I loaded and ran
truckloads of 16 mm film on a pair of RCA TP66 projectors in
the '70s.

I'm sure it is, but as we've already established that the
point in
the same broadcast" bit isn't true its not relevant.

The myth that the engineers simply ceased transmission
half-way through a
programme and left the station like a sort of Mary Celeste has been
widespread, but it is a myth. In fact there was an orderly shut
and the
film in the machines would have been rewound and put into storage
before the
staff left. It would have been 35mm film (the BBC didn't have
facilities for
transmitting from 16mm film pre-war) and thus on nitrate stock.
putting
it into proper storage would have constituted a fire hazard
been in
contravention of fire regulations.


It still would have been no problem to load and start it at exactly
the same frame, if they had wanted to.

All hypothetical. As David said earlier, it is a myth that transmission
was cut in the middle of the cartoon. Station logs exist that say
different.

Another myth is that the Television Service resumed in 1946 with the
same cartoon. It didn't!

The cartoon WAS repeated that day - but it wasn't the first programme.


Does it matter? Were you alive to see it, and in their service
area? I wasn't and I wasn't. I was a TV broadcast engineer at three US
TV stations from the early '70s to the late '80s. I started with
monochrome and film, and ended up with 1" Sony color VTRS & RCA TK46A
cameras feeding a 5 MW EIRP antenna 1700+ feet AAT.

I'm sure that that the point being made was that despite all that had
happened to Britain since 1939, we were now picking up the pieces,
continuing where we had left off, and getting back to business as usual.
Even if it didn't quite happen as reported, there is no doubt that the
popular version of the story would have been good for moral.


Or an attempt to raise the moral of the citizens after VE day?

The word, of course, should have been 'morale'. I'm sure that, even

during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

TV broadcasting didn't resume until 1946 - a year after VE Day.

After the war, it took a long time for life in Britain to get back
normal. We were constantly being reminded of austerity and deprivation.
For example, lots of things were rationed, and de-rationing didn't begin
until 1948. I believe that certain things which has escaped rationing
during the war were actually rationed after it ended. I remember sweets
coming 'off the ration' in 1953. Meat was the last, in 1954. In 1951, we
had the Festival of Britain, which was intended to boost both morale and
the economy, and a lavish coronation in 1953.

I expect that the resumption of the TV service with a Mickey Mouse
cartoon also helped to cheer us up - even though, at the time, it would
only be seen by a handful of people in the London area. It could be that
the urban legend which followed was actually more effective than the
broadcast itself.
--
Ian

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Morality" refers to correct behavior -- not just sexual behavior.

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:42:41 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyRG>
wrote:

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:57:40h +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I'm sure that, even during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

Actually, and not surprisingly, you will find that morals in the
UKofGB&NI deteroriated badly during the war.

In Ipswich in 1943, an increasing number of complaints were received
about air raid shelters being used for “immoral purposes".

I don't suppose they were any good for much else. And since when was
sex immoral?

d

 

[David Looser]

"Don Pearce" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4f377eee.93333104@news.eternal-september.org...

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:42:41 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyRG
wrote:

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:57:40h +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I'm sure that, even during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

Actually, and not surprisingly, you will find that morals in the
UKofGB&NI deteroriated badly during the war.

In Ipswich in 1943, an increasing number of complaints were received
about air raid shelters being used for â?oimmoral purposes".

I don't suppose they were any good for much else. And since when was
sex immoral?

Indeed, I was going to ask J G Miller what he meant by "morals". Its

certainly the case that both World Wars created significant social change
including liberating women from many of the social restrictions that they
had previously suffered from. If J G Miller thinks that giving women more
independence equates to "morals deteriorating badly" then maybe he has a
point!

David.
..

 

[Ian Jackson]

In message <jh5up1$6nq$4@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <miller@yoyRG>
writes

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:57:40h +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I'm sure that, even during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

Actually, and not surprisingly, you will find that morals in the
UKofGB&NI deteroriated badly during the war.

In Ipswich in 1943, an increasing number of complaints were received
about air raid shelters being used for “immoral purposes".

And, where still accessible, they probably also continued to be used for
immoral purposes for a long time after the war. And pillboxes.
--
Ian

 

[Terry Casey]

In article <jh5up1$6nq$4@dont-email.me>, miller@yoyRG says...

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:57:40h +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I'm sure that, even during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

Actually, and not surprisingly, you will find that morals in the
UKofGB&NI deteroriated badly during the war.

In Ipswich in 1943, an increasing number of complaints were received
about air raid shelters being used for ?immoral purposes".

Perhaps Ian forgot the smiley when he wrote that? ;-)

--

Terry

 

[Ron]

On 11/02/2012 14:53, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <jh5up1$6nq$4@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <miller@yoyRG
writes
On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:57:40h +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I'm sure that, even during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

Actually, and not surprisingly, you will find that morals in the
UKofGB&NI deteroriated badly during the war.

In Ipswich in 1943, an increasing number of complaints were received
about air raid shelters being used for “immoral purposes".

And, where still accessible, they probably also continued to be used for
immoral purposes for a long time after the war. And pillboxes.

Certainly into the 60's erm... oops!

Ron

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Jackson wrote:

The word, of course, should have been 'morale'. I'm sure that, even
during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

After a week of not sleeping more than a few hours a nght, I really
don't care about an ocassional typo. Try it sometime, laying in bed in
pain all night and never going to sleep.

TV broadcasting didn't resume until 1946 - a year after VE Day.

After the war, it took a long time for life in Britain to get back
normal. We were constantly being reminded of austerity and deprivation.
For example, lots of things were rationed, and de-rationing didn't begin
until 1948. I believe that certain things which has escaped rationing
during the war were actually rationed after it ended. I remember sweets
coming 'off the ration' in 1953. Meat was the last, in 1954. In 1951, we
had the Festival of Britain, which was intended to boost both morale and
the economy, and a lavish coronation in 1953.

I expect that the resumption of the TV service with a Mickey Mouse
cartoon also helped to cheer us up - even though, at the time, it would
only be seen by a handful of people in the London area. It could be that
the urban legend which followed was actually more effective than the
broadcast itself.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 08:57:40h +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

I'm sure that, even during the war, British morals remained impeccable!

Actually, and not surprisingly, you will find that morals in the
UKofGB&NI deteroriated badly during the war.

In Ipswich in 1943, an increasing number of complaints were received
about air raid shelters being used for “immoral purposes".

 

[David Looser]

"J G Miller" <miller@yoyRG> wrote in message
news:jh63tt$79e$6@dont-email.me...

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 14:53:06h +0000,
David Looser propagated this red herring:

If J G Miller thinks that giving women more independence equates
to "morals deteriorating badly" then maybe he has a point!

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Your attempt at linking two totally unrelated issues is nothing
less than disingenuous and ill-considered.

There are *far* from being unrelated! A sexual act takes two, and usually
one is a woman. The social effect of WW2 gave women the freedom to engage in
such sexual behaviour as well as many other freedoms.

It is your attempt to deny the link that is "disingenuous and
ill-considered".

David.

 

[J G Miller]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:15:48 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Morality" refers to correct behavior -- not just sexual behavior.

Indeed so, and there was a marked increase in behavior which was not
correct during WW2, eg the black market.

 

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 14:53:06h +0000,
David Looser propagated this red herring:

If J G Miller thinks that giving women more independence equates
to "morals deteriorating badly" then maybe he has a point!

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Your attempt at linking two totally unrelated issues is nothing
less than disingenuous and ill-considered.

 

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, February 11th, 2012, at 15:08:19h +0000, Terry Casey wrote:

Perhaps Ian forgot the smiley when he wrote that? ;-)

Or maybe he was confusing morals and morale?

 

[David Looser]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote

IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

You were privy to the deliberations of the Japanese government? I'm
impressed!

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and
atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.

An awful lot of "ifs" there!

As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how
many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20
years?

The US threw enormous recourses at building an atomic bomb, recourses that

Germany simply didn't have in 1944. They didn't have the recourses to build
a transatlantic stealth bomber either. The fighter (which of course never
saw action) was no more than a concept demonstrator, it didn't have the
range to reach the UK let alone the US, nor did it have the load-carrying
capability to carry an atomic bomb. How long would it have taken Germany,
already coming under serious pressure from the Red Army and seriously short
of fuel, materials and manpower to develop both?

David.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjj8625.n6o.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:

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.


How big a bomber and how unpractical a tool of war is a fighter sized
airplane that can't be seen until you are 20 miles off the coast and it's
carrying an atomic bomb?

Given the lack of effectiveness of bomb sighting and delivery in those days,
you needed a lot of big bombers to do any strategic damage at all.

The distance from the coast to London is 92 miles so it needs to go 112
miles to drop the bomb directly on London. If it was travelling 100 mph,
that would take enough time for it to be noticed and if a fighter got
lucky,
it would be shot down visually.

I thought we were talking about Germany bombing the US.

We were, but you had said that a single small airplane would not be a
practical tool of war, and I was refuting that. IMHO a single stealth
airplane, seeming appearing out of nowhere 10 minutes from London
with an atomic bomb would have been a very practical tool of war.

Especially if the US public was led to believe that there was another
one headed for the east coast of the US, for example New York City,
Boston, Washington DC, etc.

Or if there were two such airplanes, one hitting New York from Europe
and one hitting L.A. from "Japan" (not directly, obviously), that would
have been the end of the war.

IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.

As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20 years?

Geoff.


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

 

[Ken]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:48:09 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyRG>
wrote:

With the switch off of analog TV, all TV transmissions in Germany
are now on UHF channels. In Western Europe, only Danmark and
Letzebuerg have transmitters with DVB-t on VHF Band III.

Sweden use DVB-T2 on VHF Band III in some areas for HDTV.
http://www.dvb.org/about_dvb/dvb_worldwide/sweden/

 

[John Williamson]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.

While we're correcting spelling that's "have had", not "of had". <Grin

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?

"Would have", or "would've" if we're being informal.

Isn't there a usenet rule that when you start correcting grammar or
spelling errors, you always make at least one of you own?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.