In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes:

wrote:
[]
Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

Is that the reflexing someone mentioned, or just a general term for
cheap circuit techniques? I'm not familiar with the name, but (a) I'm in
UK (b) I'm not in the trade.

In a similar vein (though OT for UTB), Amstrad put actually useful - as
opposed to just gaming - computing into many homes and small businesses
where there would not have been any otherwise, especially with his PCW
(personal computer Word processor) series that included a printer. The
machines were often derided by others but provided computing - with
printing, so therefore actually of some use - at a low price. (In UK, in
I think about the early '80s.)

I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


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

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a
profound truth may well be another profound truth. -Niels Bohr, physicist
(1885-1962)

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

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes:

wrote:
[]
Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
**** there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.

Is that the reflexing someone mentioned, or just a general term for
cheap circuit techniques? I'm not familiar with the name, but (a) I'm in
UK (b) I'm not in the trade.


A reflex circuit would use the same tube to amplify signals at
different frequencies, like an IF amp and an audio amp by using tuned
circuits to separate the signals. It worked, within reason, but was
touchy. Muntz's habit of removing bypass caps from working designs made
the layout of the point to point wiring quite critical.


In a similar vein (though OT for UTB), Amstrad put actually useful - as
opposed to just gaming - computing into many homes and small businesses
where there would not have been any otherwise, especially with his PCW
(personal computer Word processor) series that included a printer. The
machines were often derided by others but provided computing - with
printing, so therefore actually of some use - at a low price. (In UK, in
I think about the early '80s.)


I used some Commodore 64 equipment for video test generators &
character generators in CATV and while building a commercial TV
station. The baseband video was better than the $60,000 Metrodata
graphics system at the CATV headend, and the video test patterns allowed
me to repair and align the video stages in a 30 year old RCA 25 KW UHF
TV transmitter.


I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.


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.


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

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you

And here is another United Nations poster, this one from 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

I was born during WW2, and therefore was personally affected by its
history (both during and since). However, until yesterday, I've never
heard of the allied forces of that time ever being referred to as
"United Nations". The fact that, in WW2, a group of nations were united
in the fight against Germany and Japan - and occasionally presented
themselves as being the "United Nations" - does not mean that the UN, as
an organisation, existed at that time. In fact, we know it didn't. Any
attempt to argue that WW2 was fought between UN forces and the Axis
forces is simply attempting to re-write history.

However, the Korean war was a different matter. Many still don't know
that (at least officially) 'our' forces were under the control of the
UN. I think this was the first time that they were, as a body, ever
involved in 'peacekeeping'.
--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you

And here is another United Nations poster, this one from 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

I was born during WW2, and therefore was personally affected by its
history (both during and since). However, until yesterday, I've never
heard of the allied forces of that time ever being referred to as "United
Nations". The fact that, in WW2, a group of nations were united in the
fight against Germany and Japan - and occasionally presented themselves as
being the "United Nations" - does not mean that the UN, as an
organisation, existed at that time. In fact, we know it didn't. Any
attempt to argue that WW2 was fought between UN forces and the Axis forces
is simply attempting to re-write history.

However, the Korean war was a different matter. Many still don't know that
(at least officially) 'our' forces were under the control of the UN. I
think this was the first time that they were, as a body, ever involved in
'peacekeeping'.
--
Absolutely. I accept that in 1944 there was an embryonic "United Nations" of
26 nations that had agreed to continue the fight against the Axis powers.
However it is clear that the D-day landings were not discussed and
authorised by these 26 nations, but were planned by the US and UK alone. It
is problable that most of the 26 would have known nothing about the D-day
plans until after it happened. So to call the D-day invasion a "United
Nations" operation is to mislead. Eisenhower's use of the term "united
nations" is a rhetorical flourish, not a claim that an organisation of that
name had authorised, or even been consulted about, the invasion.

As you say, Korea was entirely different. In that case the military action
was authorised by a vote of the UN.

David.

wrote

FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided,

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

but they wanted us
in it, badly. So the Japanese-who were brutish toward other Asians but
knew enough not to F with us and had no designs on our turf-were
systematically goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor. It worked well.

An interesting claim. Who do you claim was "goading" the Japanese? And what
evidence do you have to back it up?

David.

David Looser wrote:

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

FDR was pro-war (or anti-NAZI, depending upon your point of view).

The US had large anti-war (pro-peace) and fascist (pro-Nazi), and
isolationist (do what you want, just don't do it here) populations.
Combined they were enough to prevent him from joining the war.

The fact that the Japanese attacked the US, and (by accident) the attack
was a surprise gave FDR the excuse he needed.

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.

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.


Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
After America joined the war in December 1941, the title "United
Nations" was adopted — at the instigation of Roosevelt — by the
Allies fighting the Axis forces. The title United Nations was
adopted on January 1st 1942 and was used by all those nations who
were at war with the Axis.

This so-called United Nations Declaration stated that all
signatories agreed with the principles of the Atlantic Charter.
Twenty-six nations signed it in January 1942, including Britain,
America, Soviet Russia and China.

So troops from 26 nations took part in the invasion?

No reason why they should. 'From each according to their means...'
Isn't that what you believe in Dave?

I believe in not trying to rewrite history, Bill. But I'm not surprised to
see you do it to support your opinions.

Or perhaps you'd give details of the meetings between these 'United
Nations' where the D Day landings were discussed and agreed?

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , David Looser
writes
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , J G Miller
writes
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you

And here is another United Nations poster, this one from 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

I was born during WW2, and therefore was personally affected by its
history (both during and since). However, until yesterday, I've never
heard of the allied forces of that time ever being referred to as "United
Nations". The fact that, in WW2, a group of nations were united in the
fight against Germany and Japan - and occasionally presented themselves as
being the "United Nations" - does not mean that the UN, as an
organisation, existed at that time. In fact, we know it didn't. Any
attempt to argue that WW2 was fought between UN forces and the Axis forces
is simply attempting to re-write history.

However, the Korean war was a different matter. Many still don't know that
(at least officially) 'our' forces were under the control of the UN. I
think this was the first time that they were, as a body, ever involved in
'peacekeeping'.
--
Absolutely. I accept that in 1944 there was an embryonic "United Nations" of
26 nations that had agreed to continue the fight against the Axis powers.
However it is clear that the D-day landings were not discussed and
authorised by these 26 nations, but were planned by the US and UK alone. It
is problable that most of the 26 would have known nothing about the D-day
plans until after it happened. So to call the D-day invasion a "United
Nations" operation is to mislead. Eisenhower's use of the term "united
nations" is a rhetorical flourish, not a claim that an organisation of that
name had authorised, or even been consulted about, the invasion.

As you say, Korea was entirely different. In that case the military action
was authorised by a vote of the UN.

I haven't checked further, but I would think that the 26 'united
nations' were basically those on the side of the Allies - Australia, New
Zealand, Malaya, Burma, India, South Africa, USSR etc, as well as
representatives from the occupied countries, such as France, Holland,
Belgium, Denmark, Norway etc.
--
Ian

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
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.

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000, J G Miller wrote:

Perhaps this poster from 1942 will convince you

And here is another United Nations poster, this one from 1943

http://upload.wikimedia.ORG/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

They're lovely old posters aren't they?

Bill