repairing an electret microphone

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <MuSDl.3031$E45.1667@newsfe26.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Phantom powering was first used by the telephone industry long before
TV of any sort. If the cable TV industry - hardly a bastion of good
practice - hijacked it for something which is patently not phantom,
they're the ones that are wrong.


This is getting out of hand, and you seem to be being deliberately
obtuse, as you sometimes are about some subjects that seem to release a
swarm of bees in your bonnet.

Pot, kettle.

It was you who suggested that the term
"phantom powered" had some particular meaning, specifically with regard
to microphones, and that it shouldn't be used in other contexts. I
never particularly suggested that it was a term 'belonging' to the TV
industry, or indeed any other industry. As a sound engineer, I'm sure
that you believe that it has this specific meaning in the context of
microphones only, but that isn't so.

Fine. Let's call apples oranges. Makes sense in your world.

It is a general purpose term that describes the feeding of DC power to
any active device, using only the signal pair from that device.

That is called line powering. Says what it is with no doubt. Why would you
want to call it anything else?

The telephone people may well be the original users of the technique,
and coiners of the name "phantom power" for it, but it is just as valid
to use the term for any similar system, including microphone powering,
and various items that I happened to pick from the TV business.

No it's not. It is a specific way of line powering.

And I'm still not clear what distinction in technique that you believe
there to be, between 'phantom powering' and 'line powering' ? Why do
you believe the powering scheme that they are using for their line
amplifiers to be "patently not phantom" ?

You don't know the difference?

I'll explain again, then. Line powering applies volts to anything on that
signal line. Phantom power doesn't - only to those devices configured to
use it. It also only applies to balanced circuits. So it follows the
meaning of phantom - invisible to some. Connect a DC meter to line power
and you'll see it. You won't with phantom.

If you don't believe me that the manufacturers of TV distribution
equipment consider that what they are doing is employing 'phantom
powering', then take a look at for example

http://www.lashen.com/vendors/channelvision/CVT-RF-Amps.asp

'Phantom powered via a Power Injector'

If that's your example of a concise technical spec gawd help us.

And why do you believe the cable TV industry to be "hardly a bastion of
good practice"? What is it you feel that they do wrong, or could do
better ?

Perhaps I'm old enough to remember the appalling quality of those early
systems. And some of the newer ones too.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:504a39a893dave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <MuSDl.3031$E45.1667@newsfe26.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Phantom powering was first used by the telephone industry long before
TV of any sort. If the cable TV industry - hardly a bastion of good
practice - hijacked it for something which is patently not phantom,
they're the ones that are wrong.


This is getting out of hand, and you seem to be being deliberately
obtuse, as you sometimes are about some subjects that seem to release a
swarm of bees in your bonnet.

Pot, kettle.

It was you who suggested that the term
"phantom powered" had some particular meaning, specifically with regard
to microphones, and that it shouldn't be used in other contexts. I
never particularly suggested that it was a term 'belonging' to the TV
industry, or indeed any other industry. As a sound engineer, I'm sure
that you believe that it has this specific meaning in the context of
microphones only, but that isn't so.

Fine. Let's call apples oranges. Makes sense in your world.

It is a general purpose term that describes the feeding of DC power to
any active device, using only the signal pair from that device.

That is called line powering. Says what it is with no doubt. Why would you
want to call it anything else?

The telephone people may well be the original users of the technique,
and coiners of the name "phantom power" for it, but it is just as valid
to use the term for any similar system, including microphone powering,
and various items that I happened to pick from the TV business.

No it's not. It is a specific way of line powering.

And I'm still not clear what distinction in technique that you believe
there to be, between 'phantom powering' and 'line powering' ? Why do
you believe the powering scheme that they are using for their line
amplifiers to be "patently not phantom" ?

You don't know the difference?

I'll explain again, then. Line powering applies volts to anything on that
signal line. Phantom power doesn't - only to those devices configured to
use it. It also only applies to balanced circuits. So it follows the
meaning of phantom - invisible to some. Connect a DC meter to line power
and you'll see it. You won't with phantom.

If you don't believe me that the manufacturers of TV distribution
equipment consider that what they are doing is employing 'phantom
powering', then take a look at for example

http://www.lashen.com/vendors/channelvision/CVT-RF-Amps.asp

'Phantom powered via a Power Injector'

If that's your example of a concise technical spec gawd help us.

And why do you believe the cable TV industry to be "hardly a bastion of
good practice"? What is it you feel that they do wrong, or could do
better ?

Perhaps I'm old enough to remember the appalling quality of those early
systems. And some of the newer ones too.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

Whoosh

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <H8ZDl.7562$KB5.964@newsfe11.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Whoosh

Ah. Another term you don't understand.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and shit head's*

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

 

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <LvOdnf4d1Kb0RULUnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed - and the pro audio lot certainly didn't use the name 'phantom'
for the first line powered mics. That was called AB or T power.


Ever seen a phantom phone line? If anyone has the right to claim the
name, it is Western Electric.

A phantom circuit is a different thing. Usually only used in desperation
as the quality isn't as good as the discrete pairs.

If the lines were designed to be phantomed, as many long-distance
telephone circuits were, the phantom should meet the same spec as the
main pairs.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <LvOdnf4d1Kb0RULUnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed - and the pro audio lot certainly didn't use the name 'phantom'
for the first line powered mics. That was called AB or T power.


Ever seen a phantom phone line? If anyone has the right to claim the
name, it is Western Electric.

A phantom circuit is a different thing. Usually only used in desperation
as the quality isn't as good as the discrete pairs.

If the lines were designed to be phantomed, as many long-distance
telephone circuits were, the phantom should meet the same spec as the
main pairs.

They did. The quality didn't suffer, until there were multiple
layers of phantom circuits. Some places used so many phantom circuits
in downtown areas that a problem on a single pair would affect dozens of
circuits. They were quite common in the days when each phone line was a
pair of single wires run between poles. They quickly ran out of room
for more pairs, and had to be creative until multiple pair lead sheathed
cable was developed.


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <LvOdnf4d1Kb0RULUnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed - and the pro audio lot certainly didn't use the name 'phantom'
for the first line powered mics. That was called AB or T power.

Ever seen a phantom phone line? If anyone has the right to claim the
name, it is Western Electric.

A phantom circuit is a different thing. Usually only used in desperation
as the quality isn't as good as the discrete pairs. Other problems with it
too.

Have you ever used a real WE designed phantom phone line? The quality
was only dependent on the frequency response of the special phantom
transformers, and how good the support pairs were. Properly installed,
you couldn't tell the difference. If you phantomed already bad pairs,
you got the noise and hum from both bad pairs.

Desperation? How about: "It was developed to provide telephone
service where it was impossible to run new lines."


Have you ever used 100 miles of old telephone trunkline for a network
feed at a remote radio station? Or, in a pinch, connected a spare audio
console directly to a phone line to do and emergency live remote feed to
the station?

Did Western Electric invent it?

Who do you think invented it?


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:504a39a893dave@davenoise.co.uk...
In article <MuSDl.3031$E45.1667@newsfe26.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Phantom powering was first used by the telephone industry long before
TV of any sort. If the cable TV industry - hardly a bastion of good
practice - hijacked it for something which is patently not phantom,
they're the ones that are wrong.


This is getting out of hand, and you seem to be being deliberately
obtuse, as you sometimes are about some subjects that seem to release a
swarm of bees in your bonnet.

Pot, kettle.

It was you who suggested that the term
"phantom powered" had some particular meaning, specifically with regard
to microphones, and that it shouldn't be used in other contexts. I
never particularly suggested that it was a term 'belonging' to the TV
industry, or indeed any other industry. As a sound engineer, I'm sure
that you believe that it has this specific meaning in the context of
microphones only, but that isn't so.

Fine. Let's call apples oranges. Makes sense in your world.

It is a general purpose term that describes the feeding of DC power to
any active device, using only the signal pair from that device.

That is called line powering. Says what it is with no doubt. Why would you
want to call it anything else?

The telephone people may well be the original users of the technique,
and coiners of the name "phantom power" for it, but it is just as valid
to use the term for any similar system, including microphone powering,
and various items that I happened to pick from the TV business.

No it's not. It is a specific way of line powering.

And I'm still not clear what distinction in technique that you believe
there to be, between 'phantom powering' and 'line powering' ? Why do
you believe the powering scheme that they are using for their line
amplifiers to be "patently not phantom" ?

You don't know the difference?

I'll explain again, then. Line powering applies volts to anything on that
signal line. Phantom power doesn't - only to those devices configured to
use it. It also only applies to balanced circuits. So it follows the
meaning of phantom - invisible to some. Connect a DC meter to line power
and you'll see it. You won't with phantom.

If you don't believe me that the manufacturers of TV distribution
equipment consider that what they are doing is employing 'phantom
powering', then take a look at for example

http://www.lashen.com/vendors/channelvision/CVT-RF-Amps.asp

'Phantom powered via a Power Injector'

If that's your example of a concise technical spec gawd help us.

And why do you believe the cable TV industry to be "hardly a bastion of
good practice"? What is it you feel that they do wrong, or could do
better ?

Perhaps I'm old enough to remember the appalling quality of those early
systems. And some of the newer ones too.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

Whoosh

Arfa

Definately. Early CATV systems required AC power at each pole
mounted 12 channel amplifer. I'll bet he believes all the hype about
'Monster Cable' too.


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <H8ZDl.7562$KB5.964@newsfe11.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Whoosh

Ah. Another term you don't understand.

You could fill a dozen phone books with terms you don't understand.

Explain: :Long Loop Video Combiner".


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <LvOdnf4d1Kb0RULUnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed - and the pro audio lot certainly didn't use the name 'phantom'
for the first line powered mics. That was called AB or T power.


Ever seen a phantom phone line? If anyone has the right to claim the
name, it is Western Electric.

A phantom circuit is a different thing. Usually only used in desperation
as the quality isn't as good as the discrete pairs.

If the lines were designed to be phantomed, as many long-distance
telephone circuits were, the phantom should meet the same spec as the
main pairs.


They did. The quality didn't suffer, until there were multiple
layers of phantom circuits. Some places used so many phantom circuits
in downtown areas that a problem on a single pair would affect dozens of
circuits. They were quite common in the days when each phone line was a
pair of single wires run between poles. They quickly ran out of room
for more pairs, and had to be creative until multiple pair lead sheathed
cable was developed.

As a slightly quirky aside: starquad cable uses the 'phantom' for the
main circuit with the side pairs short-circuited. The 'phantom' in this
particular case gives better immunity to localised inteference than the
side pairs would on their own.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ZrWdnfAOB63JG33UnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <LvOdnf4d1Kb0RULUnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed - and the pro audio lot certainly didn't use the name
'phantom' for the first line powered mics. That was called AB or
T power.


Ever seen a phantom phone line? If anyone has the right to
claim the name, it is Western Electric.

A phantom circuit is a different thing. Usually only used in
desperation as the quality isn't as good as the discrete pairs.

If the lines were designed to be phantomed, as many long-distance
telephone circuits were, the phantom should meet the same spec as the
main pairs.

They did. The quality didn't suffer, until there were multiple
layers of phantom circuits. Some places used so many phantom circuits
in downtown areas that a problem on a single pair would affect dozens of
circuits. They were quite common in the days when each phone line was a
pair of single wires run between poles. They quickly ran out of room
for more pairs, and had to be creative until multiple pair lead sheathed
cable was developed.

I must admit I was thinking of where a telephone line is used as a 'music'
circuit for broadcast. A phantom one wasn't capable of the same
performance. But might well have been near identical at the sorts of
frequencies a telephone needs.

I doubt you'd get your broadband feed through one. ;_)

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <zpednYY1J7RSGn3UnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <LvOdnf4d1Kb0RULUnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Indeed - and the pro audio lot certainly didn't use the name
'phantom' for the first line powered mics. That was called AB or T
power.

Ever seen a phantom phone line? If anyone has the right to claim
the name, it is Western Electric.

A phantom circuit is a different thing. Usually only used in
desperation as the quality isn't as good as the discrete pairs. Other
problems with it too.

Have you ever used a real WE designed phantom phone line? The quality
was only dependent on the frequency response of the special phantom
transformers, and how good the support pairs were. Properly installed,
you couldn't tell the difference.

That goes against all I was taught. For sure they may have been adequate,
but in practice too many variables.

If you phantomed already bad pairs,
you got the noise and hum from both bad pairs.

Think you've answered your point...

Desperation? How about: "It was developed to provide telephone
service where it was impossible to run new lines."

It's never 'impossible' to run new lines. Otherwise none would ever be
installed. It was used as a stopgap until they were - I doubt you'd find
many in use today.

Have you ever used 100 miles of old telephone trunkline for a network
feed at a remote radio station? Or, in a pinch, connected a spare audio
console directly to a phone line to do and emergency live remote feed to
the station?

That really was what I was basing things on. A phantom music circuit never
performed as well as a discrete pair - even when that pair was an ordinary
telephone circuit.

Did Western Electric invent it?

Who do you think invented it?

I dunno. That's why I was asking you if you were sure or just guessing.
They may well have been the first to use them in the US, of course. But
that's not the same thing.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

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

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <zpednYA1J7QlFX3UnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <H8ZDl.7562$KB5.964@newsfe11.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Whoosh

Ah. Another term you don't understand.

You could fill a dozen phone books with terms you don't understand.

Explain: :Long Loop Video Combiner".

Whoosh.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:504a474b5cdave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <H8ZDl.7562$KB5.964@newsfe11.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Whoosh

Ah. Another term you don't understand.

Along with all the ones you don't then . I was implying that I was
contemplating sticking red hot needles in my eyes as a happier way of
spending my time than arguing with you, thus I was 'letting' it all whoosh
over my head ...

Arfa

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Have you ever used a real WE designed phantom phone line? The quality
was only dependent on the frequency response of the special phantom
transformers, and how good the support pairs were. Properly installed,
you couldn't tell the difference.

That goes against all I was taught. For sure they may have been adequate,
but in practice too many variables.

If you phantomed already bad pairs,
you got the noise and hum from both bad pairs.

Think you've answered your point...

Desperation? How about: "It was developed to provide telephone
service where it was impossible to run new lines."

It's never 'impossible' to run new lines. Otherwise none would ever be
installed. It was used as a stopgap until they were - I doubt you'd find
many in use today.

At one time it was. there are pictures of New York and other major
US cities with so many phone lines that the sidewalks were dark. They
literally ran out of room for new wire, under the original designs.
Some phantom circuits were only a few blocks, on pairs that went much
further. In some cases, the phantom circuit was cleaner than the other
pairs.

Have you ever used 100 miles of old telephone trunkline for a network
feed at a remote radio station? Or, in a pinch, connected a spare audio
console directly to a phone line to do and emergency live remote feed to
the station?

That really was what I was basing things on. A phantom music circuit never
performed as well as a discrete pair - even when that pair was an ordinary
telephone circuit.

Did Western Electric invent it?

Who do you think invented it?

I dunno. That's why I was asking you if you were sure or just guessing.
They may well have been the first to use them in the US, of course. But
that's not the same thing.

I saw several sets while in the US military. All were made by WE,
and had the parent numbers on them. WE wouldn't include the numbers if
they didn't own the patent.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

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

--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <zpednYA1J7QlFX3UnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <H8ZDl.7562$KB5.964@newsfe11.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Whoosh

Ah. Another term you don't understand.

You could fill a dozen phone books with terms you don't understand.

Explain: :Long Loop Video Combiner".

Whoosh.

Is that British for 'I have no clue'?


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <hfCdnSdmS5fla33UnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Desperation? How about: "It was developed to provide telephone
service where it was impossible to run new lines."

It's never 'impossible' to run new lines. Otherwise none would ever be
installed. It was used as a stopgap until they were - I doubt you'd
find many in use today.

At one time it was. there are pictures of New York and other major
US cities with so many phone lines that the sidewalks were dark.

So that's still the case? Or did they find ways round this 'impossible'
situation? Like running multicores? And hopefully underground?

They literally ran out of room for new wire, under the original
designs. Some phantom circuits were only a few blocks, on pairs that
went much further.

In some cases, the phantom circuit was cleaner than
the other pairs.

I can quite see a phantom circuit being cleaner than a faulty copper pair.
However, try running that phantom circuit over faulty copper pairs...

Have you ever used 100 miles of old telephone trunkline for a
network feed at a remote radio station? Or, in a pinch, connected a
spare audio console directly to a phone line to do and emergency
live remote feed to the station?

That really was what I was basing things on. A phantom music circuit
never performed as well as a discrete pair - even when that pair was
an ordinary telephone circuit.

Did Western Electric invent it?

Who do you think invented it?

I dunno. That's why I was asking you if you were sure or just guessing.
They may well have been the first to use them in the US, of course. But
that's not the same thing.

I saw several sets while in the US military. All were made by WE,
and had the parent numbers on them. WE wouldn't include the numbers if
they didn't own the patent.

The equipment could well have been the subject of a patent. But did they
invent the principle? I did do a quick Google but got nowhere.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

 

[Tim Phipps]

Arfa Daily wrote:

OK, but seems that all of this is tending to look at 'whole' mics as in
something that a newsreader would clip to himself, whereas the original
poster was talking about just the capsule inside, which was also what I was
referring to. As far as the polarity of electret mics varying, I can't
remember ever seeing a capsule where the case wasn't a negative-side ground,
and over the years, I have dealt with and replaced many in cordless phones
and similar.

IIRC the capsule in the Realistic (Tandy/RadioShack own brand) PZM
microphone had the +ve side connected to the case.

--
Tim Phipps

replace "invalid" with "uk" to reply by email

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <hfCdnSdmS5fla33UnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Desperation? How about: "It was developed to provide telephone
service where it was impossible to run new lines."

It's never 'impossible' to run new lines. Otherwise none would ever be
installed. It was used as a stopgap until they were - I doubt you'd
find many in use today.

At one time it was. there are pictures of New York and other major
US cities with so many phone lines that the sidewalks were dark.

So that's still the case? Or did they find ways round this 'impossible'
situation? Like running multicores? And hopefully underground?

Are you really that stupid? No new phantom circuits have been
installed in decades. As I said in other posts, the inability to run
more open pair circuits led to the development of lead jacketed multi
pair cable, which has mostly been replaced with Fiber optics. Phantom
telephone circuits were needed early last century, but technology has
passed them by. In areas where there is still copper to the CO, a newer
form of phantom is used, by multiplexing multiple lines to a single
pair. Typical audio grade is about 16 per pair. The technology wasn't
available in the early days of telephone.

They literally ran out of room for new wire, under the original
designs. Some phantom circuits were only a few blocks, on pairs that
went much further.

In some cases, the phantom circuit was cleaner than
the other pairs.

I can quite see a phantom circuit being cleaner than a faulty copper pair.
However, try running that phantom circuit over faulty copper pairs...

Which faults? How far away from the phantomed portion? Give me some
real numbers.

Have you ever used 100 miles of old telephone trunkline for a
network feed at a remote radio station? Or, in a pinch, connected a
spare audio console directly to a phone line to do and emergency
live remote feed to the station?

That really was what I was basing things on. A phantom music circuit
never performed as well as a discrete pair - even when that pair was
an ordinary telephone circuit.

Did Western Electric invent it?

Who do you think invented it?

I dunno. That's why I was asking you if you were sure or just guessing.
They may well have been the first to use them in the US, of course. But
that's not the same thing.

I saw several sets while in the US military. All were made by WE,
and had the parent numbers on them. WE wouldn't include the numbers if
they didn't own the patent.

The equipment could well have been the subject of a patent. But did they
invent the principle? I did do a quick Google but got nowhere.

WE listed their patent numbers on their products. I never saw
anything they built under a license to another company. WE was the
manufacturing arm of Bell Labs. I know you like to think that the US
stole every idea we ever had, but it just isn't true.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

To confuse stupid bastards. It works really well, doesn't it?

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

--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <I42dnYQ7-Ik6pH_UnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

In areas where there is still copper to the CO, a newer
form of phantom is used, by multiplexing multiple lines to a single
pair.

Crikey. How many other versions of 'phantom' are you going to use? Have
you ever written a technical spec?

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <I42dnYQ7-Ik6pH_UnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
In areas where there is still copper to the CO, a newer
form of phantom is used, by multiplexing multiple lines to a single
pair.

Crikey. How many other versions of 'phantom' are you going to use? Have
you ever written a technical spec?

Yes, but you won't be allowed to read them, without the proper
security clearance.

--
And another motherboard bites the dust!