Audio Precision System One Dual Domani Measuirement Systems

[Terry Casey]

In article <slrnjjf7kv.9dq.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>, gsm@mendelson.com
says...

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944 ...

Is that what it says in American history books?

I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...

--

Terry

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

David Looser wrote:

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

Oh, come on. I said IMHO, and it was exactly that, an opionon of someone
born after the war, commenting in 2012 what they did in 1945.

An awful lot of "ifs" there!

Yes, that's why it's speculaton.

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?

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.

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?

Geoff.



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

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Terry Casey wrote:

I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...

I know, I was wondering if anyone was actually paying attention.

Geoff.


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

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyRG>
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d

 

[William Sommerwerck]

There is a story (of questionable validity) that work on atomic weapons was
halted, because they were based on "Jewish" science.

 

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^

^^

have


According to the NOVA program "Hitler and the Bomb"

<http://www.pbs.ORG/wgbh/nova/military/nazis-and-the-bomb.html>

"This was not because the country lacked the scientists,
resources, or will, but rather because its leaders
did not really try."

According to "Hitler's Bomb" by Rainer Karlsch published in March 2005,
the NSDAP regime did succeed in creating a dirty bomb but lacked
the pure grade uranium required for a true atomic bomb.

<http://www.smh.com.SU/news/World/Hitler-won-atomic-bomb-race-but-couldnt-drop-it/2005/03/04/1109700677446.html>

 

[UnsteadyKen]

Don Pearce wrote...

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

I call it phonetic writing, it seems to be more common these days, they

have never seen the written phrase so write what they think people are
saying.
The country is going to the dogs.
Our local paper does a "man in the street" item where they ask passers
by their opinions on local issues: They recently asked "do you use the
new library?"
http://www.the-neighbourhood.com/projects/corby-cube
Of the five people interviewed, one responded yes, he particularly
liked military books, one said he didn't read much and prefered to
watch DVD's but he had been to see the library and the other three said
they hadn't read a book since they left school and had never been near
the place.

I'm a member of the local Free Cycle group and people regularly offer
or ask for chests and sets of draws. One lady offered an otterman; he
was in good condition apparently, and on one memorable occasion
somebody was trying to get rid of a big red poof.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

 

[J G Miller]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:27:59 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of

 

[David Looser]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjjf7kv.9dq.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

David Looser wrote:

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

Oh, come on. I said IMHO, and it was exactly that, an opionon of someone
born after the war, commenting in 2012 what they did in 1945.

OK

An awful lot of "ifs" there!

Yes, that's why it's speculaton.


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?

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.

Just because they were years ahead in rocket science doesn't mean they were
years ahead in everything. For example they had nothing to compare with the
British "Ultra" code-breaking operation. Also they lagged behind the allies
with Radar. When it comes to nuclear science, many of their best scientists
left the country in the late pre-war period either because they were Jewish
or because they were unwilling to work for the Nazis. These scientists then
lent their expertise to the Manhattan project. The US atomic bomb
development effort was greatly aided by the contribution of scientists from
Germany or from countries occupied by Germany.

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?

Allied invasion!

Would have done about what? By 1944 the Red Army was on a roll which Germany
was unable to stop. Had there been no D-day landing then in my view the
Soviets would simply have gone on to occupy the whole of Germany, and
probably Italy and all the countries occupied by Germany as well.
Whether they would have been able to set up puppet communist regimes in them
(and keep them all in order) they way they just about managed in Eastern
Europe is another matter entirely.

David.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

J G Miller wrote:

It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of

A lot (which I was taught not use) of things have changed in the last 50
years and English has mutated. In my case, I don't really care, I try to
use what I remember is proper grammar, but sometimes I am behind the times
or fail.

You can imagine my shock the first time I read that someone was gifted a
blender and other modernizations that have occured in the last decade.

But, sometimes I am just being a wise guy because on the internet no one
notices, and one can break the rules, such as starting a sentence with but.

On that note on a local mailing list, someone asked:

"Many people have been recomending me to study to become a technical
writer. Does anyone know anything about it? Is there a demand in Israel?
Whats the pay like? How advanced does my English have to be?"

I wrote back "Your English is not good enough."

He never even said thank you.

Geoff.



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

 

[Chris Morriss]

In message <4f37be32.5682866@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
<spam@spam.com> writes

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyRG
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d

Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]
--
Chris Morriss

 

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <pTScPWC7s$NPFwaH@oroboros.demon.co.uk>, Chris Morriss wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

It's also an indication that the person is a visual or aural thinker and
does not think in words.

A very common trait of creative people.

Geoff.


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

 

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:47:39 +0000, Chris Morriss
<crsm@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In message <4f37be32.5682866@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
spam@spam.com> writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:23:57 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <miller@yoyRG
wrote:

On Sunday, February 12th, 2012, at 11:14:03h +0000,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have

Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

Never mind what it sounds like. Does it make any sense?

d

 

On Feb 9, 4:59 am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:

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.

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided, but they wanted us
in it, badly. So the Japanese-who were brutish toward other Asians but
knew enough not to F with us and had no designs on our turf-were
systematically goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor. It worked well.

We should have stayed out of that stinking war, in which I lost
relatives on both sides. The international bankers and their proxies
should have been allowed to take their medicine and we'd be done with
it.

Most of the men in my family were warriors. I stayed out of the
military, to my mixed regret now.

 

On Feb 9, 11:43 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:

"Terry Casey" <k.t...@example.invalid> wrote in message

news:MPG.299df240b6e0754998971e@news.eternal-september.org...









In article <XLCdnRmoqsfsUa7SnZ2dnUVZ_rSdn...@giganews.com>,
ar...@cocmast.net says...

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

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was miserable
as well.

The TBO of the first production German turbojet engine, the Junkers
Jumo 004, was 25 hours. I don't recall specific fuel economy but it
was not terribly worse than second generation axial flow turbojets,
such as the GE J-47 that powered the B-47 and many fighters. One of
which flew over my house a couple of weeks ago-a great noise. Since a
jet sortie of this magnitude would have been a twelve hour flight, it
would have worked.

The Jumo 004 was a very advanced engine, all considered, and with
better hot section materials and a later fuel control system would
have been a credible engine fifteen or twenty years later. Even today
it would be an interesting project, if "interesting" would finance a
high six/low seven figure sum. Hey, it would create employment, unlike
the supposedly shovel ready projects of the imbecilic leadership we
have today.

A better plan for the Germans would have been a B-36 scale aircraft
powered by another Junkers project, the opposed piston diesels which
could make maximum use of turbocharging and thus fly at an altitude
the US had nothing to intercept it with, neither AAA, anti aircraft
missiles nor fighters. Specially modified B-36 aircraft, it is now
forgotten, were capable of reaching altitudes equaling the first
generation U-2s, I think the record was something like 66,300 feet.

 

On Feb 9, 2:18 pm, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnjj86cf.n6o.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had
service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was
miserable
as well.

According to the wikipedia entry (quoted in an earlier post), it had the
speed to make it from Paris to New York in about 6-7 hours.

The jet engines would not of gotten you to New York and back, but it would
of gotten an atomic bomb to New York, which is what was intended.

All this is pure speculation. The "flying wing" jet fighter flew test
flights, but crashed killing it's pilot. It was a second copy (that never
flew) that was "liberated" to the USA after the war. None of the other
designs for an "Amerika Bomber" made it off the drawing board. How long
would it have taken to develop any design to the point that it could make
the trans-Atlantic flight? How long would it have taken the Nazis to develop
an atomic bomb, bearing in mind that Germany had ceased all work leading to
one back in '42?

David.

The Germans had the intellectual capacity to build nuclear weapons but
not the industrial capacity to do so.

The United States had more manufacturing capacity in 1944 than the
rest of the world combined. It had real estate to spare on which to
build plants, population to work at them, and none of it was subject
to bombardment as were most other combatants. And the Manhattan
Project was above all else a manufacturing project. It was the
equivalent of a modest sovereign nation unto itself, and like later
efforts like the Skunk Works, it was shielded from external
kibbitzing.

The "Amerika-Bomber" was no more a realistic project than the Ford
Nucleon car or the Starship Enterprise of Star Trek. The Hortens had
had some success with flying wing aircraft, but there are a lot of
reasons why no one builds them today, aside from a few stealth designs
that will be obsolete with future radar developments which are
inevitable. But the engines were not the issue. They'd have taken a
Luftwaffe crew there and back if they had enough fuel.

The Germans pretty well gave up nuclear work when they themselves
realized this. Most of the General Staff and the smarter commanders
knew by 1943 loss was inevitable: a negotiated peace was the best they
were going to do, and for that to happen Hitler had to die. Hitler was
quite insane by then, and the General Staff never trusted or respected
him anyway.

 

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.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frqurncies.  He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
shit there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

rrusston@hotmail.com wrote:

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.

He loved 'Reflex circuits' where a single tube was used at multiple
frequencies. He was stingy as hell about bypass capacitors and
shielding, as well.

Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
shit there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


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

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <PJqdnbTYOb_SAKXSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes:

rrusston@hotmail.com wrote:
[]
Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
shit there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

Is that the reflexing someone mentioned, or just a general term for

cheap circuit techniques? I'm not familiar with the name, but (a) I'm in
UK (b) I'm not in the trade.

In a similar vein (though OT for UTB), Amstrad put actually useful - as
opposed to just gaming - computing into many homes and small businesses
where there would not have been any otherwise, especially with his PCW
(personal computer Word processor) series that included a printer. The
machines were often derided by others but provided computing - with
printing, so therefore actually of some use - at a low price. (In UK, in
I think about the early '80s.)

I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


Was it purely that they were deaf? If so, would they have been one of

the few cases where an external preamp (in the room, not masthead) was
actually useful (or were the noise figures of external preamps pretty
bad then)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a
profound truth may well be another profound truth. -Niels Bohr, physicist
(1885-1962)