Audio Precision System One Dual Domani Measuirement Systems

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 12:41:25h -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

All FCC records are supposed to be there, somewhere.

Supposed.

Using the search facility at

<http://www.fcc.gov/data/search-gallery>

returns no record before 1979 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System – Application Search Results

and no record before 2001 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System – Ownership Report Search

Has the station always had the same call letters?

To the best of my knowledge since it went on air in 1955, it
has always been WTVS

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, at 12:41:25h -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

? All FCC records are supposed to be there, somewhere.

Supposed.

Using the search facility at

?http://www.fcc.gov/data/search-gallery?

returns no record before 1979 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System – Application Search Results

and no record before 2001 under the item

Consolidated Public Database System – Ownership Report Search

? Has the station always had the same call letters?

To the best of my knowledge since it went on air in 1955, it
has always been WTVS

I used to have no problem finding old records, but it looks like they
have 'downsized' the database. I can't even find the TV station I built
in Destin, Florida. That was around 1989m on Ch 58 with the call of
WMRX.


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

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <E_Gdnfu87IcTUaXSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> writes:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[Muntz TVs]
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.


But if they'd already got the Muntz TV?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Intelligence isn't complete without the full picture and the full picture is
all about doubt. Otherwise, you go the way of George Bush. - baroness Eliza
Manningham-Buller (former head of MI5), Radio Times 3-9 September 2011.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <slrnjjhpv2.7a9.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>, Geoffrey S.
Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> writes:
[]

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.

I love "Studentenland" (-:! ["It's those damn students making trouble
again!"]

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.
[]

Accompanied by several "would of"s - but, puzzlingly, not entirely:
there are at least two "would have"s as well.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

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

But if they'd already got the Muntz TV?

Then P.T. Barnum was right.


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

 

[Johny B Good]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:28:20 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article
2a205b71-1531-4680-bc65-37db0eb10880@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
rrusston@hotmail.com> wrote:
n Britain one may readily obtain a "site transformer" which will
give what is advertised as 110 volt balanced power. I haven't been
there in 20+ years, can any Brits tell me if that's really true or if
120, or more, or less, is actually common? They are used for electric
drills and whatnot outdoors. Vintage US gear works fine at 110, but
mostly not current stuff.

110 volt via an isolating transformer is used on building sites etc for
all power tools. Purely for safety reasons.

Just for completeness ( I know I'm very late to this party but it's an
important point), Those 110v transformers produce a bi-phase supply of
55-0-55 Vac. The two lives provide the 110v but the shock hazard wrt
grounding is reduced to a mere 55v which is merely very unpleasant in the
wet if the user happens to provide a path to earth.


--
Regards JB Good

 

[Brian Gaff]

Its about what you can get from a ringing phone line.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Johny B Good" <invalid@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
newsp.waogdlbfkd9x7s@fred...

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:28:20 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article
2a205b71-1531-4680-bc65-37db0eb10880@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
rrusston@hotmail.com> wrote:
n Britain one may readily obtain a "site transformer" which will
give what is advertised as 110 volt balanced power. I haven't been
there in 20+ years, can any Brits tell me if that's really true or if
120, or more, or less, is actually common? They are used for electric
drills and whatnot outdoors. Vintage US gear works fine at 110, but
mostly not current stuff.

110 volt via an isolating transformer is used on building sites etc for
all power tools. Purely for safety reasons.


Just for completeness ( I know I'm very late to this party but it's an
important point), Those 110v transformers produce a bi-phase supply of
55-0-55 Vac. The two lives provide the 110v but the shock hazard wrt
grounding is reduced to a mere 55v which is merely very unpleasant in the
wet if the user happens to provide a path to earth.


--
Regards JB Good

 

[Randy Yates]

"Johny B Good" <invalid@ntlworld.com> writes:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:28:20 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article
2a205b71-1531-4680-bc65-37db0eb10880@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
rrusston@hotmail.com> wrote:
n Britain one may readily obtain a "site transformer" which will
give what is advertised as 110 volt balanced power. I haven't been
there in 20+ years, can any Brits tell me if that's really true or if
120, or more, or less, is actually common? They are used for electric
drills and whatnot outdoors. Vintage US gear works fine at 110, but
mostly not current stuff.

110 volt via an isolating transformer is used on building sites etc for
all power tools. Purely for safety reasons.


Just for completeness ( I know I'm very late to this party but it's
an important point), Those 110v transformers produce a bi-phase supply
of 55-0-55 Vac. The two lives provide the 110v but the shock hazard
wrt grounding is reduced to a mere 55v which is merely very unpleasant
in the wet if the user happens to provide a path to earth.

Wrong. It's about current. Here's an excerpt from OSHA:


Below 1 milliampere Generally not perceptible
1 milliampere Faint tingle
5 milliamperes Slight shock felt; not painful but
disturbing. Average individual can
let go. Strong involuntary reactions
can lead to other injuries.
625 milliamperes (women) Painful shock, loss of muscular
control*
930 milliamperes (men) The freezing current or let-go
range.* Individual cannot let go,
but can be thrown away from the
circuit if extensor muscles are
stimulated.
50150 milliamperes Extreme pain, respiratory arrest,
severe muscular contractions.
Death is possible.
1,0004,300 milliamperes Rhythmic pumping action of
the heart ceases. Muscular
contraction and nerve damage
occur; death likely.
10,000 milliamperes Cardiac arrest, severe burns; death
probable
--
Randy Yates
DSP/Firmware Engineer
919-577-9882 (H)
919-720-2916 (C)

 

[Randy Yates]

Sorry, a lot of that paste below was gibberish. Here's
the link:

osha.gov/Publications/osha3075.pdf

--Randy

Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> writes:

"Johny B Good" <invalid@ntlworld.com> writes:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:28:20 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article
2a205b71-1531-4680-bc65-37db0eb10880@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
rrusston@hotmail.com> wrote:
n Britain one may readily obtain a "site transformer" which will
give what is advertised as 110 volt balanced power. I haven't been
there in 20+ years, can any Brits tell me if that's really true or if
120, or more, or less, is actually common? They are used for electric
drills and whatnot outdoors. Vintage US gear works fine at 110, but
mostly not current stuff.

110 volt via an isolating transformer is used on building sites etc for
all power tools. Purely for safety reasons.


Just for completeness ( I know I'm very late to this party but it's
an important point), Those 110v transformers produce a bi-phase supply
of 55-0-55 Vac. The two lives provide the 110v but the shock hazard
wrt grounding is reduced to a mere 55v which is merely very unpleasant
in the wet if the user happens to provide a path to earth.

Wrong. It's about current. Here's an excerpt from OSHA:


Below 1 milliampere Generally not perceptible
1 milliampere Faint tingle
5 milliamperes Slight shock felt; not painful but
disturbing. Average individual can
let go. Strong involuntary reactions
can lead to other injuries.
625 milliamperes (women) Painful shock, loss of muscular
control*
930 milliamperes (men) The freezing current or let-go
range.* Individual cannot let go,
but can be thrown away from the
circuit if extensor muscles are
stimulated.
50150 milliamperes Extreme pain, respiratory arrest,
severe muscular contractions.
Death is possible.
1,0004,300 milliamperes Rhythmic pumping action of
the heart ceases. Muscular
contraction and nerve damage
occur; death likely.
10,000 milliamperes Cardiac arrest, severe burns; death
probable

--
Randy Yates
DSP/Firmware Engineer
919-577-9882 (H)
919-720-2916 (C)

 

[William Sommerwerck]

The larger numbers look very wrong. You don't need anywhere nearly that much
current to kill someone.

1,0004,300 mA? Not only is it overly precise, but 1000A will cook someone,
not just kill them.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 7, 3:27 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

The larger numbers look very wrong. You don't need anywhere nearly that much
current to kill someone.

1,0004,300 mA? Not only is it overly precise, but 1000A will cook someone,
not just kill them.

good eye

that should have read 1000-4300 milliamperes
go to the URL
<http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3075.pdf>