Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 18, 1:28 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:04:44 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.

What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.
snip

I see a surprisingly large number of non-electronic posts from you,
considering that claim.

snip

I have no desire to talk to JT.

Given that he starts so many threads on a subject you suddenly seem so
focused on stemming, you might try that tact.  It would, if you are
successful, certainly reduce the problem you seem so concerned about
(when it serves your interest to feign that concern.)

If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.

I'm a hobbyist.  Is that a problem for you?

Like Sloman.

You mean the person that seems to keep you writing on a subject you
pretend to want to avoid here?

If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.

Note I didn't accuse you of _starting_ the threads.

And I never talk with JT.

You might improve what you claim to want to improve, by doing so.
Can't say until you try.  Since I've been pretty much mum on the
subject of late, you seem to be tilting at the wrong windmill.  I
don't mind a rare post on the subject, but in general I have learned
that almost everyone here has no skill in the subject and isn't the
least interested in lifting a finger to change it.  So I've greatly
reduced any of my contributions there.

As I said, you need to look in a mirror or go after other big fish on
this subject, if you really care that much to change the tenor.  There
are much better prizes to be had, John.

You put no personal work into them, that much is
obvious, and I see no reason why anyone else should care when you
respect yourself and what you say so little as that.  It may be simply
because you don't even believe in your own abilities to understand any
of it.

I believe that nobody can get usefully predictive data from bad models
of chaotic systems, even people who don't cheat.

Which of course you pretend to know without a shred of personal work.

If so, you have my condolences.

Oh, stop being a fathead. I'm having fun.

You imagine I'm not?

Actually, I have been
gradually taking the impression you are no longer competent to even
read the papers with understanding, anymore.  But I could be wrong.
And I want you to show me just how wrong I am on that.  But I doubt
you will get off your butt long enough to do so.

Get off your butt and design something. Show your work.

I have, already.  And I don't think you missed it, because I remember
some comments from you.  But as I said, that's not relevant.  My point
(the one you started responding to, remember?) is that those posting
here about climate, like you claiming that the science knowledge
doesn't really exist, neither dares nor bothers to engage the methods,
source materials, and conclusions in a serious way.  I've seen not one
single case of it, here.... okay.... except maybe one.  But it wasn't
from you.

I just think you just lack confidence in your ability to engage any
serious facet of the subject.  But are all too willing to make broad,
sweeping accusations all the same.  You don't value your own opinions
on the subject that much, which is sad.

Jon

If you want a detailed scientific debate on climate why are you here?
It is not a climate forum.

It is not the job of engineers here to do the job that "climate
scientists" are paid to do.

It does not stop us having opinions when we see what appears to be
obvious bad science.

Unfortunately your opinions about what is "obviously bad science" are
harvested from denialist web-sites with a vested interest in casting
doubt on what is actually perfectly good science.

My objection to AGW is to the claim that the science is settled when
the temperature anomaly is clearly based on unsuitable measurements.

Not that you have any idea what a "suitable" measurment might be.

And the anomaly is over egged by quoting it in degrees F or C. 287K
rising by 1K or 2K on the other hand isn't so, politically, alarming.
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

It shouldn't.

The historical record for the last 420 thousand years has the inter-
glacial temperatures peaking at 3K above the current level.

We can be pretty confident that warming up to that level won't get us
into another climate regime, or destabilise any interesting volumes of
methane hydrates.

If we manage to get more than 3K of temperature rise, we are moving
into unknown territory.

55.8 Million years ago, a slow progressive warming managed to get to a
temperature where methane hydrates started coming apart, producing the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

"Other "hyperthermal" events can be recognised during this period of
warming, including the Elmo event (ETM2). During these events – of
which the PETM was by far the most severe – around 1,500 to 2,000
gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean/atmosphere system over
the course of 1,000 years. This rate of carbon addition almost equals
the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today
through anthropogenic activity."

We aren't talking about "1%" regulation in a system which is
controlled by neat negative feedbacks, but rather about driving a
system that includes weak positve feedback loops into a regime when
strong positive feedbacks - run-away warming - has been seen in the
geological past.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Steve Pope]

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

It should be noted that decrypting in non-real time, right now, in
December, 2009, is impossible using 256-bit AES.

WTF are you talking about?

Steve

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 18, 2:19 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:04:44 -0800, Jon Kirwan





j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.

What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.
snip

I see a surprisingly large number of non-electronic posts from you,
considering that claim.

snip

I have no desire to talk to JT.

Given that he starts so many threads on a subject you suddenly seem so
focused on stemming, you might try that tact.  It would, if you are
successful, certainly reduce the problem you seem so concerned about
(when it serves your interest to feign that concern.)

Why do you take this climate nonsense so seriously, especially in a
group that has nothing to do with it? The only thing I enjoy
"stemming" is fatheads who don't think.



If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.

I'm a hobbyist.  Is that a problem for you?

Depends on hobbyist at what. If you're an amateur climatologist,
please post to a more welcoming group.

Like Sloman.

You mean the person that seems to keep you writing on a subject you
pretend to want to avoid here?

Sloman is a mess for a lot more reasons than his climate fixations. He
should get straight before his life is wasted in bitterness.

John really doesn't like having his pretensions to climatic expertise
deflated, and is now dedicated to seeing me as some kind of vicious
curmudgeon who has no other interest in life than deflating his
(admittedly over-blown) ego.

If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.

I don't start climate threads any more - I promised not to a few
months ago, and I've kept my word

Note I didn't accuse you of _starting_ the threads.

Once they're started, what does it matter how long they are? Anybodt
is free to ignore climate threads.

Unless you have a deeply embedded aversion to total nonsense.

And I never talk with JT.

You might improve what you claim to want to improve, by doing so.

I do. I discuss electronics a lot, and try to be helpful.

Can't say until you try.  Since I've been pretty much mum on the
subject of late, you seem to be tilting at the wrong windmill.  I
don't mind a rare post on the subject, but in general I have learned
that almost everyone here has no skill in the subject and isn't the
least interested in lifting a finger to change it.  So I've greatly
reduced any of my contributions there.

You should avoid climate threads. They upset you too much.

Unfortunately, it is an importatn subject, and the denialist
propaganda peddled by Exxon-Mobil and an a number of other self-
interested liars needs to be identified as such, rather than accepted
as common sense.

Design any interesting circuits lately?

John's regular get out of jail free card, usually played after a long
post explaining why he is free to post denialist nonsense, while the
people who respond to point out that he doesn't know what he is
talking about should confine themselves to electronics.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Rick Jones wrote:

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for
unencrypted analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I
know, there exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken
already. The problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing
information so that no part of the output looks like any part of
the input. The satellite link is filled with errors and distortion
that have to be contained to retain adequate video quality.

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?

You do know there were two levels of Videocipher? VC-1 was designed
for military applications. VC-II was a very scaled down version done for
HBO in the early '80s. I installed one of the first VC-II units for
beta testing for HBO at United Video in Cincinnati, Ohio. That would
make it 25 years.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

In comp.dsp Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
(someone wrote)

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already.
(snip)

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15
years ago for HBO?

He said "that has not been broken already". As far as I know,
both the analog in digital encryptions have been broken.

It slows down most people, though, so it still works.

The usual analog encryption reverses the polarity of some scan
lines and/or frames. It isn't hard to figure out fairly reliably
a polarity reversal.

-- glen

Videocipher-I was digital video & audio. Videocipher-II was analog.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jerry Avins wrote:

"Hacking" is the wrong term for that. Am I hackinf usenet with Thunderbird?

No, 'Coping' would be closer.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Dec 18, 12:09 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:13 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cannot be done. The satellite that the predator talks to only supports
analog video.

3. Receive encrypted digital data from satellite to ground-based
satellite receiver.
4. Decrypt the data after it enters PC, or whatever over-priced thingy
they have waiting for the encrypted data.

????

What I am I missing?

You're missing that the link from the satellite to the ground station
is a completely different link from the link from the Predator. The
system was changed around from the one originally designed because it
turned out that the latency introduced by multiple geosynchronous
satellite links was too high for reliable operation.

Ok, I just did a more thorough investigation based on the original
article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

as well as how the SkyGrabber software works:

http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php

And I am all but convinced that the problem has nothing to do with
analog links anywhere.

[By the way, I started my career developing wireless narrow-band
transceivers, and I can tell you that there is no way that they are
controlling those drones with analog links, either via the satellite
from remote, or via a ground unit that is closer to the drone. The
drones would have all crashed by now.]

Apparently, the link from Satellite to Predator is digital and follows
a standard format for such links, which the SkyGrabber software is
familiar with:

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

The Wikipedia article does not say what modulation scheme is used, but
QPSK seems to be popular:

http://www.satsig.net/ivsatcos.htm

In any case, the link from drone to satellite is digital, and link
from satellite to ground station is almost certainly digital, as it
would make no sense at all to decode a digital bit stream arriving
from the drone into the satellite, decode that bitstream, convert it
to analog, then send it back to earth in some analog format, which
would be hopelessly inefficient in so many ways.

Also, the military itself implys in the WSJ article that they have
know about this for a while and simply goofed.

20 MHz analog bandwidth and 40 MB/s data rates have been available
for about 10 years for telemetry receivers with excellent Doppler
compensation.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that there was
no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone to
do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be that
young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists could
put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to the
terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"

Hopefully, the video of them ramming a drone up a terrorist's ass as
he runs for his life will be leaked. It would be great for morale on
both sides.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

robert bristow-johnson wrote:

On Dec 17, 12:34 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

DARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!

maybe they're including psychological warfare in this. so i'm some
kinda Iraqi insurgent watching my latest "Drone TV". and i see my
face on it. that would be soooo cool.

another thing is they could put some drones up there with video tape
of some other drone. they could be transmitting the "real" signal on
some other channel where no one is expecting it and broadcast the
video tape of some completely fictional place on the other.

or they could be putting some Tokyo Rose propaganda on it. that would
be cool.

or PORN!!! make these hardcore Islamists watch some hardcore porn!!!
titles like "Under the Burka" or something like that. or US daytime
TV hits like Genital Hospital. that would be *really* cool.

them DARPA guys are pretty clever.

Or videos of sexy women butchering hogs, while drinking lots of beer.



--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Sylvia Else]

Jerry Avins wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Dec 17, 11:20 am, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

This Christmas, I offer to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency a reflection of truth about the Predator program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator

As some of you have undoubtedly already seen, the live video feed was
allegedly hacked using OTS*

*off the shellf software

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Futhermore, these drones seem to crash a lot:

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

Earlier this year, when I spoke to DARPA program managers and prime
contractors about secure, mobile, wirless links, it seemed that that
"their bread was not fully baked" in this area. I asked a technical
director of a $11US+ billion program if this was the case, and he was
reluctant to admit that, after $5US billion already spent, they still
had not figured out how to do secure mobile links in a way that
actually made sense. His response was something like,

"Yes, before, we had some issues around 2000-2001, but recently we
have provided demonstrations that show that we have control of the
situation."

DARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!

The video down link is not encrypted. They say they're working on it.

Jerry

<sigh>

Everytime one thinks developers of systems know what they're doing,
something like this comes out, and one realises that they didn't.

Sylvia.

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.dsp Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)

Videocipher-I was digital video & audio. Videocipher-II was analog.

And then there was the system that adds a sine wave to the
video signal such that the sync is not the lowest level anymore,
and wonders around enough that you won't try watch it.

-- glen

 

[PeterD]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:12 -0800 (PST), Mark <makolber@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

DS

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Mark

They didn't do the video, just the audio. Video was a very simple
inversion technique, that was trivial to break. The audio was DES (so
they said) encrypted, but there were several holes in the system that
rendered it a bit less secure.

 

[Jim Yanik]

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:t6pli5taujnq2pqp7rqh084udrbgfoomhs@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that there
was no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone to
do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be that
young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists could
put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to the
terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"

the US now has a very small Air-Ground Missile in development;it's called
Spike(not the Israeli Spike ATGM),and is 2 ft long,5.3 lb total and has a 1
lb warhead,electro-optical guidance.It's intended to take out
unarmored/lightly armored vehicles or single rooms in buildings and not
cause a lot of collateral damage.
A soldier can carry three missiles and launcher,and it can also be carried
on the drones.

it's like a small model rocket.

http://defense-update.com/products/s/spike_laser.htm


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:hgfngh$4cg$1@naig.caltech.edu:

In comp.dsp Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)

Videocipher-I was digital video & audio. Videocipher-II was analog.

satellite TV like Direct TV/DishTV has always been digital;
why do you think the picture pixellates or freezes when the signal is lost?

And then there was the system that adds a sine wave to the
video signal such that the sync is not the lowest level anymore,
and wonders around enough that you won't try watch it.

-- glen

Jeez,that's ANCIENT.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:18:56 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 17, 12:32 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:43:01 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:25 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.

Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.

You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.

This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.

John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.

Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels.

But you still managed to ignore the line

"> >> >On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid
wrote:"

But this is a discussion group.

Which excuses you from having to think about what you are responding
to?

Pretty much yes. I don't need to be careful about things that don't
matter.



Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.

I've got only one big project going on at the moment - getting a new
aortic valve. It doesn't call for much creative input on my part, but
does require a certain amount of showing up at the local hospitals and
putting up with stuff, which can be distracting.

As expected; all hat, no horse.

John has a nice little horse in Highland Technology, but he seems to
think that this gives him a license to wear a huge hat of expertise in
a wide variety of unrelated areas.

When he retails denialist nonsense which he gets - directly or
indirectly - from Exon-Mobil funded web-sites, he's riding a little
wooden hobby-horse that really should be confined to the infant play-
room. Denialist propaganda doesn't really belong in the infant
playroom either, but infants do have an excuse for being too ignorant
to distinguish plausible rubbish from scientifically coherent fact.

This is pretty good:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020279/copenhagen-climate-summit-most-important-paper-in-the-world-is-a-glorified-un-press-release/

.... a lot more fun to read than your never-changing dronings.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:02:05 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
wrote:

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:t6pli5taujnq2pqp7rqh084udrbgfoomhs@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that there
was no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone to
do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be that
young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists could
put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to the
terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"


the US now has a very small Air-Ground Missile in development;it's called
Spike(not the Israeli Spike ATGM),and is 2 ft long,5.3 lb total and has a 1
lb warhead,electro-optical guidance.It's intended to take out
unarmored/lightly armored vehicles or single rooms in buildings and not
cause a lot of collateral damage.
A soldier can carry three missiles and launcher,and it can also be carried
on the drones.

it's like a small model rocket.

http://defense-update.com/products/s/spike_laser.htm

That's the sort of thing I recommend to stop "hot pursuit"
situations...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/321871

Stop on an officer's order or we make you stop ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:07:35 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov>
wrote:

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:hgfngh$4cg$1@naig.caltech.edu:

In comp.dsp Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)

Videocipher-I was digital video & audio. Videocipher-II was analog.

satellite TV like Direct TV/DishTV has always been digital;
why do you think the picture pixellates or freezes when the signal is lost?

And then there was the system that adds a sine wave to the
video signal such that the sync is not the lowest level anymore,
and wonders around enough that you won't try watch it.

-- glen


Jeez,that's ANCIENT.

And trivial to break.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

In comp.dsp Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)

Videocipher-I was digital video & audio. Videocipher-II was analog.

And then there was the system that adds a sine wave to the
video signal such that the sync is not the lowest level anymore,
and wonders around enough that you won't try watch it.

That was 'On TV' or the 'Hamlin' scrambling system on Cable TV. That
was '70s technology.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:08:09 -0800, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:27:19 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

DaveC wrote:
The coil in an industrial electromagnetic clutch (connecting the flywheel to
the drive mechanism) has gone open-circuit. So it is being rewound by a motor
rewind shop.

I was just informed that the original wire was about 12 ga. (maybe slightly
larger; original was metric) but it was rewound using 10 ga.

Why do Americans persist in using stupid AWG that no-one else in the
world uses except to entertain you ?

Have you never heard of mm^2 ?

Metric magnet wire (enameled copper wire to you) is usually specced in
diameter, rather than cross sectional area.

How do you know what the standard diameters are?

With AWG, you know the "next size up" (number--) and the "next common
size up" (next even number down)

To double the diameter, you go down by about 6 AWG sizes.
To halve the resistance you go down by about 3 AWG sizes.

I really don't see much reason to ever change from the AWG system.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:17:54 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:08:09 -0800, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:27:19 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

DaveC wrote:
The coil in an industrial electromagnetic clutch (connecting the flywheel to
the drive mechanism) has gone open-circuit. So it is being rewound by a motor
rewind shop.

I was just informed that the original wire was about 12 ga. (maybe slightly
larger; original was metric) but it was rewound using 10 ga.

Why do Americans persist in using stupid AWG that no-one else in the
world uses except to entertain you ?

Have you never heard of mm^2 ?

Metric magnet wire (enameled copper wire to you) is usually specced in
diameter, rather than cross sectional area.

How do you know what the standard diameters are?

With AWG, you know the "next size up" (number--) and the "next common
size up" (next even number down)

To double the diameter, you go down by about 6 AWG sizes.
To halve the resistance you go down by about 3 AWG sizes.

I really don't see much reason to ever change from the AWG system.

When the Islamists take over the Europeons, there will be no need for
_any_ electronics standards ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Lord protect me from fascist Democrats, perverts, & Prius Drivers!