"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Right. It wasn't jet powered, either. The jet engines of the day had
service
lives measured in integer hours, which means that a flight from Europe to
the US would be pretty much guaranteed to fail. Fuel economy was
miserable
as well.

According to the wikipedia entry (quoted in an earlier post), it had the
speed to make it from Paris to New York in about 6-7 hours.

The jet engines would not of gotten you to New York and back, but it would
of gotten an atomic bomb to New York, which is what was intended.


All this is pure speculation. The "flying wing" jet fighter flew test
flights, but crashed killing it's pilot. It was a second copy (that never
flew) that was "liberated" to the USA after the war. None of the other
designs for an "Amerika Bomber" made it off the drawing board. How long
would it have taken to develop any design to the point that it could make
the trans-Atlantic flight? How long would it have taken the Nazis to develop
an atomic bomb, bearing in mind that Germany had ceased all work leading to
one back in '42?


David.

In article ,
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:17:34 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

Since AP was the home of BBC News, why should this have happened. Much
more likely is that someone made "an Entertainment Tape" as a "spoof".

You can see it for yourself here. If it's a spoof then the BBC has
presented it in a rather misleading manner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3585041.stm

(The video - in nasty "RealVideo" format - purports to be a recording
exactly as broadcast, although I don't think they had work experience
juniors blindly cropping things to 14:9 back in 1964 so that
particular aspect of the presentation must be discounted.)

The item refers to "Robert Longman who was in charge of Engineering that
night". Actually Bob Longman (as he was always known) was The Engineer in
Charge of the TV Network Department (my boss) at all times, not just that
night. I can't ask him about it, since he died 15 months ago.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:17:34 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

Since AP was the home of BBC News, why should this have happened. Much
more likely is that someone made "an Entertainment Tape" as a "spoof".

You can see it for yourself here. If it's a spoof then the BBC has
presented it in a rather misleading manner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3585041.stm

(The video - in nasty "RealVideo" format - purports to be a recording
exactly as broadcast, although I don't think they had work experience
juniors blindly cropping things to 14:9 back in 1964 so that
particular aspect of the presentation must be discounted.)

Yes, that's the recording. The DVD is in 4:3 so yes, that particular aspect
of the presentation can be discounted.

If it is a spoof then its a particularly elaborate one and I, for one, think
it far more likely that its a genuine recording of the opening night of
BBC2.

David.

In article , Mortimer
wrote:

[Snip]

Don't/didn't TV studios have some form of backup generators in case of
power failure? At least enough to power VTs and sufficient lighting for
news reports etc, even if not enough to light whole studios?

At the time, the emergency generator was only set up for BBC1. Nothing on
the BBC2 side was maintained. The larger generator was on its way but
hadn't been installed. I had the great fun of pushing the "start" button a
few years later when the mains voltage had dropped so low that the 50v
battery (which ran all the routing systems) was only delivering 38v.


I suppose for a first night launch, they'd probably planned live events
that would have taken a lot of power for lighting.

the only Live 'special' was fireworks from Southend. Well away from West
London.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:32:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a fool on Usenet?
The US National Electrical Code is online. It goes into great detail
about what can and can not be done. Read it, and see if you can learn
anything.

Ahem... the posting to which you reply to deals with UK ring
circuits.
Frankly, anyone who recommmends the practice of wiring as employed in
the US, is having a laugh.
American wiring plus wooden houses... jeez.


Your opinion is noted. And laughed at.


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

David Looser wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

J G Miller wrote:

All because of the perceived need to produce weapons of mutual
annihilation.


We wouldn't need to do it, if you Europeans would stop starting World
Wars.


According to the history books the US entered WW2 because it was attacked by
the Japanese. It seems that Michael A. Terrell thinks that Japan is in
Europe.


Sigh. America was supplying AKA: LENDING planes and other war
materials to help Europe clean up their mess, long before Japan attacked
Pearl Harbor. Is the school system really that bad where you grew up?


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

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:30:25 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


David Looser wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

J G Miller wrote:

All because of the perceived need to produce weapons of mutual
annihilation.


We wouldn't need to do it, if you Europeans would stop starting World
Wars.


According to the history books the US entered WW2 because it was attacked by
the Japanese. It seems that Michael A. Terrell thinks that Japan is in
Europe.


Sigh. America was supplying AKA: LENDING planes and other war
materials to help Europe clean up their mess, long before Japan attacked
Pearl Harbor. Is the school system really that bad where you grew up?

I hope you are not imagining that America did that from anything other
than good, solid self-interst.

d

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Ron wrote:

Surely you remember analogue TV Arny, it's when we had five channels
of rubbish, now we have 900 channels and it's still rubbish

What's TV?

Something that can actually be enjoyable, useful and even a bit
educational,
managed well.

A capacious 2 channel DVR is a big help.

An internet ready BluRay is better. A lot of free TV via the
internet including classic movies, comedy and Sci-Fi.

We have the hardware for both. After experiencing a hands-on unfettered
comparison of the two for about a year, we kept the DVR and terminated the
Internet service for the BluRay, but kept the stream of rental BD discs.


The BluRay was a one time investment of $80. Since I already have
broadband, there is no monthly fee. No need for a credit card, or trips
to one of the few remaining video stores, or to try to find something
worth watching in a 'Redbox'.


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

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

I don't know how well UK sets worked in the 1960's, but US TV sets were
not capable of receiving adjcent channels at one time, so they were not
used. For example, channel 2 was used in New York City, while the nearest
channel 3 station was in Philadelphia, 90 miles away and too far to be
received without a large antenna.

Those '60s TVs worked fine on CATV, with no open channels.

CATV in those days often involved "Cable Converter Boxes" which used the TV
as an IF strip.

Even sets from the '50s work well that way.

IME, the early 50s TVs were better made than their sequels in the late 50s
and 60s. The picture tubes and sweep circuits got larger but the RF, IF and
video circuits were "simplified".

Early CATV was simply 12 VHF channels
deilivered to the TV at 0 dBm to +5 dBm.

Some super cheap sets with a
single IF stage and no RF stage didn't work well, but they were the
floor sweepings of the industry and intended for markets where there was
only one or two stations.

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.


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

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

I don't know how well UK sets worked in the 1960's, but US TV sets were
not capable of receiving adjcent channels at one time, so they were not
used. For example, channel 2 was used in New York City, while the
nearest
channel 3 station was in Philadelphia, 90 miles away and too far to be
received without a large antenna.

US analog TV's improved greatly and were generally happy with adjacent
channels for maybe the last 20 years of their lives.

http://www.jneuhaus.com/fccindex/cablech.html

shows cable channels on 6-7 MHz intervals. Adjacent numbered channels
were
used all the time.

A couple of questions regarding that list:

Why is the HRC channel spacing offset[1] by 300Hz - 6.0003MHz instead of
6MHz?

I don't know.

Why are the IRC channels offset from broadcast channels (where they
exist) by 12.5kHz?

If memory sserves, two transmitters that are interferring just a little,
produce nasty herringbones if they are running at the same frequency, but
move them apart a tad, and the artifacts are far less objectionable.

[1] UK cable systems mostly use HRC at 8MHz spacing but this is
sometimes varied by a carefully calculated amount so that one block of
UHF channels coincides almost exactly with the broadcast frequencies.
This is done on systems with a by-pass facility to allow a few channels
- usually the local off-airs - to be fed directly to the TV giving the
subscriber direct access from the TV without needing an aerial.

Obviously this block of channels has to be chosen so as not to conflict
with local transmitters, so the offset will vary from system to system
and can't be fixed as in the US table

US cable systems ran on some of the same channels as local broadcasters.


Yes, but they would move the local channel to another frequency, if
direct pickup was expected to be a problem. United Video Cablevision in
Cincinnati moved the local channels up one channel,, and numbered the
channels from '1' instead of '2'. Then the original channels were used
for things like the program guide and community bulletin board channels
so that if there was ingression or direct pickup, it was less
noticeable. Do you know that the channel combiners in a CATV head end
were wired in odd and even banks, on separate groups to prevent IMD
caused in the passive mixing?


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