Audio Precision System One Dual Domani Measuirement Systems

[Michael A. Terrell]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

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.

A reflex circuit would use the same tube to amplify signals at
different frequencies, like an IF amp and an audio amp by using tuned
circuits to separate the signals. It worked, within reason, but was
touchy. Muntz's habit of removing bypass caps from working designs made
the layout of the point to point wiring quite critical.

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 used some Commodore 64 equipment for video test generators &
character generators in CATV and while building a commercial TV
station. The baseband video was better than the $60,000 Metrodata
graphics system at the CATV headend, and the video test patterns allowed
me to repair and align the video stages in a 30 year old RCA 25 KW UHF
TV transmitter.

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)?

If they could have afforded a decent TV amp in the '50s or '60s, they
could have bought a better tv for less than the amp & the Muntz TV.


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

 

[David Looser]

<rrusston@hotmail.com> wrote

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided,

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

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.

An interesting claim. Who do you claim was "goading" the Japanese? And what
evidence do you have to back it up?

David.

 

[David Looser]

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

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

"He" wouldn't have had the choice. It was the British government that
declared war, not the King. Its entirely true that Edward VIII was at odds
with the Government, and the Wallace Simpson affair gave them the excuse
they needed to get rid of him. But he wouldn't have been able to stop
Britain declaring war even had he still been the King in 1939.

If Germany had kept its nonagression pact with the Soviet Union, and been
satisifed with Europe, there may not have been a "world" war.

That seems to me to be the biggest "if" all. It seems that the invasion of

the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate aim all along, the other invasions:
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc. were just "warm-ups" for the main event.
..

David.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

David Looser wrote:

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

FDR was pro-war (or anti-NAZI, depending upon your point of view).

The US had large anti-war (pro-peace) and fascist (pro-Nazi), and
isolationist (do what you want, just don't do it here) populations.
Combined they were enough to prevent him from joining the war.

The fact that the Japanese attacked the US, and (by accident) the attack
was a surprise gave FDR the excuse he needed.

So while it would of been likely that the US did not enter the war in 1941
if there was no attack on Pearl Harbor, eventually Roosevelt would have found
a way, or an attack would of happened.

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

If Germany had kept its nonagression pact with the Soviet Union, and been
satisifed with Europe, there may not have been a "world" war.

Not likely, but a long train of "ifs" that were possible.


Geoff.

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

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrnjjhpv2.7a9.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

The marriage bit was a red herring. It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

Assuming that support did exist, then one can easily (at least I can)
speculate that he would of not declared war on Germany until they
attacked the UK.

Didn't the UK sign a non-agression pact with Germany over the Studetenland in
September of 1938?

With a King and Parliment supporting the fascists, how far could
Germany have gone without the UK declaring war?

Geoff.


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

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

David Looser wrote:

That seems to me to be the biggest "if" all. It seems that the invasion of
the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate aim all along, the other invasions:
Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc. were just "warm-ups" for the main event.

Of course it's a big if, but assuming that after Germany occupied continental
Europe to the Soviet Union, with no one attacking them, it's not impossible.

If, as I said in a previous post, there was enough fascist support in the
UK to leave Germany alone and the Soviet Union kept to their nonagression
pact, Hitler may have been satisfied with what he had.

I'm sure he had many reasons to attack the Soviet Union, IMHO one of them
was to reduce the capability of the UK and the US by diverting supplies
from the US to the Soviet Union.

Bear in mind that the Soviet Union lost over 20 million citizens during the
war, and I think that faced with a loss of that size, even Stalin would
of sat on his hands, as it were, if he could have avoided it.

Geoff.

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

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrnjjhvl2.e9r.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He
would have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't
allowed to marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he
could influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

The marriage bit was a red herring. It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

It was no red herring. The Church of England in those days had a great
deal of influence. And a future king was simply not allowed to marry a
divorcee. Even after WW2, a princess was banned from marrying one too -
and there was little chance of her ever becoming queen. Things are
different now.

BTW, simply because someone is a fascist doesn't mean to say he'll support
each and every other one in a different country. Any more than a communist
does.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[J G Miller]

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 11:09:38h +0000, David Looser wrote:

It seems that the invasion of the Soviet Union was Hitler's ultimate
aim all along, the other invasions: Czechoslovakia, Poland, France etc.
were just "warm-ups" for the main event.

My understanding was that the most important strategic reason for the
eastward invasion was to take hold of the oil refineries and wells
in Grozny and Baku which were needed to keep the German
industrial-military complex going and of course to deny these
supplies to the USSR which was dependent upon them.

 

[David Looser]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjjhvl2.e9r.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

The marriage bit was a red herring.

Your understanding of the British constitution appears to be extremely weak.

The "marriage issue" was no red herring, it was a genuine constitutional
issue. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the Church
banned the re-marriage of divorcees.

It was the cleaned up for the public
version of getting rid of him because he was a fascist. If he was not
deposed, it would have meant that there was sufficient support for the
fascists in the UK to keep him in power.

How do you work that one out? Deposing a King is a very unlikely event, and
its *not* happening would have proved nothing about support for the fascists
in the UK.

Assuming that support did exist, then one can easily (at least I can)
speculate that he would of not declared war on Germany until they
attacked the UK.

Again you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that it was *his*

choice whether to declare war or not. It was not, that choice lay with the
government. Had Edward VIII still been King in 1939 he'd have been told in
no uncertain terms to keep his views to himself and play the role of
national fugurehead as the government directed.

Didn't the UK sign a non-agression pact with Germany over the Studetenland
in
September of 1938?

Yes, Chamberlain's famous "bit of paper" which applied only to the
Sudetenland; Chamberlain naively thought that Hitler would be satisfied with
that, history shows how misguided Chamberlain was. Britain also had a much
more significant military pact with Poland which was unaffected by the "bit
of paper".

With a King and Parliment supporting the fascists, how far could
Germany have gone without the UK declaring war?

Eh! where does this "and Parliament" bit come from? What makes you think

parliament would ever have supported the fascists?

David.

 

[Mortimer]

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9pt7d5FglvU1@mid.individual.net...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjjhvl2.e9r.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...

The marriage bit was a red herring.

Your understanding of the British constitution appears to be extremely
weak.

The "marriage issue" was no red herring, it was a genuine constitutional
issue. The monarch is the head of the Church of England, and the Church
banned the re-marriage of divorcees.

It says a lot about attitudes at the time that people kicked up such as
stink about it. What would have happened if the King had said "bugger the
constitution: I *will* marry Wallace and I *will* remain King" - what
sanction (other than generating a lot of hot air) could the Government and
the Church of England have taken against him. OK, so he'd have got a lot of
people's back up, but maybe he could have toughed that out. Maybe if he had,
he might have forced the Church of England to accept marriage to a divorcee
and to change their stuffy attitude. But I believe that religion should very
much be a servant, not a master - anyone who says "I want to do it but it's
against my religion" has, by definition, chosen the wrong religion to
follow: I'd respect someone much more if they said "I don't want to do it
because it's against my religion".

I'm not saying that he should have remained King. Given his Nazi sympathies,
he would have been a political embarrassment if he'd remained on the throne
right up to the declaration of war. And that is the real reason (IMHO) that
he should have been coerced to step down. The fact that he was a superficial
wastrel didn't help his cause! However the marriage-to-a-divorcee issue,
while evidently very important to some people, is utterly irrelevant as far
as I'm concerned as long as he doesn't commit bigamy - ie make damn sure the
divorce is legal! In other words, the end result was probably correct but it
was justified on a very specious excuse.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Terry Casey" <k.type@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.29a1bad1341b0d66989732@news.eternal-september.org...

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?

No. Our history books say that beaches were assaulted by Americans, British,
and Canadian armies that also included Australian soldiers. More
specifically the American First Army and the British Second Army.

 

[Arny Krueger]

<rrusston@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a849d0e-6ed4-4ae1-aa16-dd2a29a7ded7@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

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.

My dad, being an incorrigible cheapskate bought one that we used for at
least a decade.

It did well enough on the 3 US and 1 Canadian station in the Detroit area,
but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a local
university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

 

[J G Miller]

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 19:14:19h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a
local university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

Was WTVS actually *started* by Wayne State University though?


From <http://www.dptv.ORG/aboutus/history.shtml>

QUOTE

Detroit Public Television (DPTV) began broadcasting in 1955 as
WTVS Channel 56, a non-commercial, educational TV station licensed
to the Detroit Educational Television Foundation.

UNQUOTE


From <http://media.wayne.EDU/2011/03/25/wayne-state-university-and-detroit-public-tv>

QUOTE

In the 1950s and 1960s, Wayne State's University Television *co-produced*
educational, entertainment, and public affairs programs with DPTV.

UNQOTE

 

[Arny Krueger]

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

On Monday, February 13th, 2012, at 19:14:19h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

but did not do so well on the UHF station that was started up by a
local university, even with a UHF converter with extra amplification.

Was WTVS actually *started* by Wayne State University though?


From <http://www.dptv.ORG/aboutus/history.shtml

QUOTE

Detroit Public Television (DPTV) began broadcasting in 1955 as
WTVS Channel 56, a non-commercial, educational TV station licensed
to the Detroit Educational Television Foundation.

UNQUOTE


From
http://media.wayne.EDU/2011/03/25/wayne-state-university-and-detroit-public-tv

QUOTE

In the 1950s and 1960s, Wayne State's University Television *co-produced*
educational, entertainment, and public affairs programs with DPTV.

UNQOTE

I have no information that seriously conflicts with published authorities. I
was just working off of memories of the day.

 

[Ron]

On 14/02/2012 14:37, Arny Krueger wrote:

I have no information that seriously conflicts with published authorities. I
was just working off of memories of the day.

'which' seriously conflicts
'From' memories of the day

You are welcome
Ron

 

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 09:37:48h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

I have no information that seriously conflicts with published
authorities. I was just working off of memories of the day.

Well the fact that a lot of the early programs were co-productions
with Wayne State would tend to suggest to viewers that WTVS was
started by the Wayne State it-self.

I was not able to find anything else on the web of the history
of WTVS and I wonder if some of the first board members of
Detroit Public Television were perhaps linked to WSU.

On the radio dial, as you know, WSU owns and operates WDET,
but in fact WSU did not start the station. It was originally
WUAW and started and operated by the UAW in 1948 who sold it
to WSU for USD 1 in 1952. This is the reason why WDET, although
a public station, operates on a commercial frequency 101,9 MHz
and not in the reserved public broadcasting sub-band.

So perhaps unlike other larger and more prosperous universities,
WSU did not have the resources to launch a radio station its-self
and the even higher startup costs of a TV station were just out of
the question?

Maybe you could make some inquiries with local historians?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 09:37:48h -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

? I have no information that seriously conflicts with published
? authorities. I was just working off of memories of the day.

Well the fact that a lot of the early programs were co-productions
with Wayne State would tend to suggest to viewers that WTVS was
started by the Wayne State it-self.

I was not able to find anything else on the web of the history
of WTVS and I wonder if some of the first board members of
Detroit Public Television were perhaps linked to WSU.

On the radio dial, as you know, WSU owns and operates WDET,
but in fact WSU did not start the station. It was originally
WUAW and started and operated by the UAW in 1948 who sold it
to WSU for USD 1 in 1952. This is the reason why WDET, although
a public station, operates on a commercial frequency 101,9 MHz
and not in the reserved public broadcasting sub-band.

So perhaps unlike other larger and more prosperous universities,
WSU did not have the resources to launch a radio station its-self
and the even higher startup costs of a TV station were just out of
the question?

Maybe you could make some inquiries with local historians?

Have you dug through the FCC broadcast database? There is a wealth
of data availible if you have the time to look for it.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 11:42:42h -0500,
Michael A. Terrell asked:

? Have you dug through the FCC broadcast database?

No, but a quick check now in the ownership database records
pulls up the oldest record available as being from 1979,

?http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=11068?

and this only shows the applicant name Detroit Educational
Television Foundation, with no details of the managing committee.

My question related to 1955 and whether any of the management
committe of DETF were in fact from, or affliated to, Wayne State University.

All FCC records are supposed to be there, somewhere. Someone dug out
early records on WLW a while back. Has the station always had the same
call letters?


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

 

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 11:42:42h -0500,
Michael A. Terrell asked:

Have you dug through the FCC broadcast database?

No, but a quick check now in the ownership database records
pulls up the oldest record available as being from 1979,

<http://licensing.fcc.GOV/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?Application_id=11068>

and this only shows the applicant name Detroit Educational
Television Foundation, with no details of the managing committee.

My question related to 1955 and whether any of the management
committe of DETF were in fact from, or affliated to, Wayne State University.