Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:35:13 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
snip
Nonconformity is all some have to prove (to themselves) that they'reIn an unregulated environment such as Usenet, I can't do anything wrong as
there are no rules.
Want to bet whether a google search for "usenet rules" turns
up anything? What exactly is it that would be necessary for
your compliance? Loss of ISP or news account? A fine?
Imprisonment? They all seem rather ridiculous things to
have to do when there is no compelling reason to do it wrong
as you do.
If there were no evidence, but THERE IS, WE'RE TELLING YOU!"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:rirot35knkj8ncn995h4ctqvm8ltiaqut4@4ax.com
: On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:36:48 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
: >So explain to me just why, in 10+ years, this is the
: >first time a "complaint" has arisen. It's been
: >"agreeable to others" until now, what has suddenly
: >happened..?
:
: >Ivor
:
: Incorrect. Someone not saying it's disagreeable is no
: more evidence that it's agreeable to them than that it
: wasn't.
Incorrect. No evidence is precisely that.
Wouldn't that be even more boring?I'm getting bored now, please go away.
The following is a quote from 'son of RFC1036'.JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ivor Jones"
.... snip ...
I went poking through the RFC's including 3977, 2980, and 1036.
None of them specified a quoting character for Usenet. Can
anyone find one that does?
I have never seen one. That would suggest any character is
allowed. The first indenting I ever saw was with ">" either
with or without a space. The space isn't required, either. It
seems most use a space following the character they use, so it
could be considered customary. But without the space there isn't
any misleading indications; it's just a tad bit harder to read,
but not much (and others may find it the other way around). What
is a problem is when someone indents the text in such a way that
it looks like it was indented then indented again. It looks like
such a poster is quoting someone who quoted someone else when in
fact they are just merely quoting someone. It doesn't matter
what character they are choosing.
Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to observeIvor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
.... snip ...
So what's the problem with that..? No, don't bother answering,
I've had enough of this pointless argument.
Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like. But don't
quote with ": >" because that looks like two levels of quoting.
Piggybacking. It is topical here as long as you fail to observeIvor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
.... snip ...
So what's the problem with that..? No, don't bother answering,
I've had enough of this pointless argument.
Quote with ":" if you like. Quote with ">" if you like. But don't
quote with ": >" because that looks like two levels of quoting.
In article <87pru3y5ar.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <877igcpua6.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <87d4q8sc5k.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <87hcfkseyr.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <47CDEAD6.2D67BCF3@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com
says...
Foxtrot wrote:
... snip ...
Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire"
phone extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking
the second wire from a different twisted pair?
Yes. The idea of twisted pairs is that an interference appears on
both lines, and thus tends to cancel itself. Separating the lines
makes it easy for unequal induction.
Twisting also makes the loop area low (average over a long stretch
is nil). Separating them makes a large loop, increasing the size of
the antenna.
That is not a valid analysis. It is a transmission
line, not an antenna.
It sure as hell is. Open up the loop and it makes a *wonderful*
antenna.
It's a "wonderful" antenna regardless. But it's a
single conductor long wire antenna. Changing the
spacing is merely changing the effective diameter of the
single conductor. To get any other effect requires
spacing that is significant in terms of wavelength
(greater than perhaps 1/8th of a wavelength, for
example).
Absolute nonsense.
Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
transmission line.
Consider that the effect, both for relatively small
gauge cables, such as the ubiquitous 26 gauge used
today, is *exactly* the same as the effect on the open
wire lines used in the 30's and 40's with several inches
of separate between a pair of much larger copperclad
steel wires. And while the twist on some cable is
measured per inch, on typical telephone cable it is
measured in many inches per twist, and on those old open
wire lines it was in hundreds of yards per twist.
...and open-wire transmission lines won't pick up stray noise?
It picks up as much, or as little, as unshielded twisted
pair of smaller gauge and closer spacing. That's the
point... there isn't any difference. In either case
what you have is a single conductor longwire antenna, not
a loop antenna, until the spacing is a significant fraction
of a wavelength.
Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.
I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
Start with Kraus.
I have built many twin lead antennas for VHF use. The distinction is
not so clear as you are advertising.
In fact, it is. What is an folded dipole? As opposed to a loop?
...and they work rather well as antennas, just as any open line.
There is a fundamental difference between a folded
dipole and a loop antenna. It is exactly as I
suggested above.
Folded dipoles don't work so well if you twist them, though.
You apparently have no idea what a folded dipole *is*,
in theory. Consider another similar construction, which
does not change anything in the same way that a loop
does: multiwire rhombics. The effects are the same as
experienced with a folded dipole (the two conductors equate
to one larger conductor).
The claim that separation between the two wires of a
twisted pair (or even an untwisted parallel pair)
transmission line has the effect of a loop antenna is
false.
The idea that this is covered in "EE100" is equally
ridiculous, and the dismissal (in a different message)
of my suggestion to read the work of Kraus, where it is
in fact discussed in detail, suggests that some people
really should read Kraus.
Keep up the baloney Floyd. You're good at it.
--
Keith