Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #2684 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-11-24 23:46 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-12-01 07:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 90 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc
Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-11-24 23:46 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 08:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-25 09:39 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 10:12 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Alan Griffin <ajg@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 10:23 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Grahame Parish <maillist.parish@millers-way.net> - 2011-11-25 10:57 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-25 11:03 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris <decordova@ukgateway.net> - 2011-11-26 01:03 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-11-26 11:18 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Bell <news@highpath.net> - 2011-11-25 11:29 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Bryn Evans <d@a.invalid> - 2011-11-25 16:29 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 15:51 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> - 2011-11-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-11-26 16:28 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-28 10:38 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-30 20:33 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 06:53 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-01 08:40 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-01 10:15 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-04 07:27 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 07:50 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:41 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 11:44 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 15:26 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 19:07 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 21:05 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 23:36 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:49 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 10:57 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:18 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Carroll <bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 12:22 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 14:19 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 13:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 16:40 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 15:46 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 05:58 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 00:21 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 06:17 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-13 09:29 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-12-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 08:18 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-12-15 20:53 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-12-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 12:26 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-12 11:18 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 13:25 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 23:48 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 16:00 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 20:56 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:53 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:11 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:19 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 18:40 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 18:59 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Martin Wynn <m.wynn@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 19:09 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 23:03 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 06:53 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Simon <simon.willcocks@t-online.de> - 2011-12-05 23:46 -0800
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 14:38 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Simon <simon.willcocks@t-online.de> - 2011-12-06 09:52 -0800
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 23:05 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 08:58 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 09:13 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 10:06 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 14:40 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:06 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-12-06 19:56 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-06 20:58 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 23:10 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-07 10:24 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 09:22 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:09 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-05 21:14 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Bell <news@highpath.net> - 2011-12-06 09:49 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-06 10:52 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Bell <news@highpath.net> - 2011-12-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 16:32 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-26 16:27 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 16:34 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 16:46 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-27 04:56 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 08:23 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 10:54 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 11:55 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 07:24 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 06:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ee6dff2$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2911 |
On 13/12/2011 01:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > And you'd assume most broadcast equipment would be new enough > - or modified - to prevent this happening in all but the most > arduous circumstances. Indeed - shouldn't shielded wires and such mitigate this greatly? > There will be a limit to how well things are shielded. It's not an on/off > type thing. True, but while I could hear da-da da-da da-da da-da on my TV when the mobile was on the desk and turned on, it never affected the RiscPC it was sitting directly on top of. Is the RiscPC well designed, or is the TV poorly designed? As to the poster who observed a doser machine speed up... yikes! Right, I've just printed a test pattern on my Brother DCP-165C while my mobile was (2G) connected to the answering service and sitting *directly* on top of the unit. No anomalies. It might induce patterning in the scanner, I'll try that another day, but it's about what I'd expect to be honest. [thinks] With respect to older kit, I would have concerns with exposed ribbon cables, like a SCSI-1 chain or Beeb-era floppy drive. The question would be - would any errors induced be auto-correctable? [ie parity bit, checksum, etc] Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 09:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <affadf4052.jess@itworkshop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #2915 |
In message <4ee6dff2$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 01:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> And you'd assume most broadcast equipment would be new enough
>> - or modified - to prevent this happening in all but the most
>> arduous circumstances.
> Indeed - shouldn't shielded wires and such mitigate this greatly?
Shielding to conform the the EMC directive should prevent most
incoming intereference.
--
Jess Iyonix
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20111213185544.3ec03e9a@office> |
| In reply to | #2918 |
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:29:47 GMT Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote: > In message <4ee6dff2$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> > Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 13/12/2011 01:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > > >> And you'd assume most broadcast equipment would be new enough > >> - or modified - to prevent this happening in all but the most > >> arduous circumstances. > > > Indeed - shouldn't shielded wires and such mitigate this greatly? > > Shielding to conform the the EMC directive should prevent most > incoming intereference. Well, maybe... If you can pin down *exactly* what the directive requires. Also, saying it is easy. The real world is somewhat different, and if you've got something that is modular with an undefined array of possibly module combinations, all bets are off. About 20 years ago (when employers still valued their staff) I was sent on a full day of seminars covering both this and earthing issues. Fascinating subjects, totally misunderstood by the people making the regulations :( -- Will J G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-14 08:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ee84dc3$0$5688$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2926 |
On 13/12/2011 19:55, Folderol wrote: > Well, maybe... If you can pin down *exactly* what the directive requires. :-) Been there, read that, scratched my head... > About 20 years ago (when employers still valued their staff) I was sent on a > full day of seminars covering both this and earthing issues. Fascinating > subjects, totally misunderstood by the people making the regulations :( Back circa Y2K I "helped" a bloke who was doing EMC testing. It was a shielded computer with some software, and two wands. One which looked like a Harry Potter wand with a styrofoam cup glued to the end, and one which was a more or less a TV antenna on a pole. *I* found it interesting to prod it towards stuff, look at the readout to see what the results were. My head gives off small amounts of electromagnetic interference, cool! But, I did have to tell the bloke *doing* the testing that in the "clean room" it might be advisable to turn off the fluorescents prior to examining the equipment under test. And *he* was the person supposed to examine? Not to mention the examination computer and the EUT were both hooked to the same power supply, which seriously browned out when the motors kicked in (and left me wondering why it didn't trip the breakers), given the EUT pulled eight kW in full operation and the circuit was rated for five...? Not to make me seem intelligent or anything, it's just really basic stuff? Nobody here would write low-level (ie filesystem) code and run it with unsaved data. Likewise, if your EMC kit is picking up a myriad of signals with the EUT turned *off*, you've got problems! Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-15 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b83c264252.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> |
| In reply to | #2926 |
In message <20111213185544.3ec03e9a@office>
Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:29:47 GMT
> Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <4ee6dff2$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
> > Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On 13/12/2011 01:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >
> > >> And you'd assume most broadcast equipment would be new enough
> > >> - or modified - to prevent this happening in all but the most
> > >> arduous circumstances.
> >
> > > Indeed - shouldn't shielded wires and such mitigate this greatly?
> >
> > Shielding to conform the the EMC directive should prevent most
> > incoming intereference.
>
> Well, maybe... If you can pin down *exactly* what the directive requires.
>
> Also, saying it is easy. The real world is somewhat different, and if
> you've got something that is modular with an undefined array of possibly
> module combinations, all bets are off.
No; you have to test representative combinations, set up in
representative ways. The radiated interference power is basically
proportional to the number of instances of the cause; i.e. 20 modules
are going to radiate 20 times as much interference power as one
module, unless (for example) only one of them is adjacent to a source
of interference.
I've seen so many people describe EMC as a black art. It is most
emphatically a science. I'll grant you that it can be difficult to
simplify the science down to a few recipes that we can cope with;
but people who understand the science can do that.
> About 20 years ago (when employers still valued their staff) I was sent on
> a full day of seminars covering both this and earthing issues. Fascinating
> subjects, totally misunderstood by the people making the regulations :(
I beg to differ, having taken various pieces of equipment through
EMC testing. I was fortunate enough to use the services of a test
house staffed by people who knew what they were doing and were happy
to pass on their knowledge.
The people drafting the regulations understand very well what happens
and what is necessary to prevent most cases of interference, without
requiring undue expenditure. They understand the compromise very
well.
Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-15 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8947254252.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> |
| In reply to | #2915 |
In message <4ee6dff2$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 01:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> > And you'd assume most broadcast equipment would be new enough
> > - or modified - to prevent this happening in all but the most
> > arduous circumstances.
>
> Indeed - shouldn't shielded wires and such mitigate this greatly?
Only if the shields are connected to earth via an appropriate route.
A classic mistake - of which I was guilty before I understood what
happens - is to connect the shield of a cable to pin 1 of a 3 pin
XLR connector and to connect pin 1 to earth inside the equipment.
The result is that all the interference picked up on the shield is
brought inside the equipment and radiated for the electronics to
pick up.
Remember the skin effect. At the frequencies we're concerned about,
the interference is conducted through one skin of any metallic
component, be it a metal case or a conductive coating of a plastic
case. The conductive skin is small compared with the thickness of
the material - even of a coat of metallic paint. The trick is to
arrange all the metalwork, shielding, and all interconnections
between them, so that interference from outside is kept on the outer
skin, and all potentially outgoing interference from inside is kept
on the inner skin.
But there can be other places where interference gets in. One I
remember was the hole for a VHS cassette. The replay amplifier
was overloaded by RF getting in through that hole. In fact any
slot can do it; the slot can be as narrow as you like. Look up
"slot antenna" for further information.
Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 12:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5240f0262btim@invalid.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #2892 |
In article <4ee6205d$0$5670$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Surely there are rules and regs about sensitive equipment being > adequately shielded? And earthed? And somebody actually testing this > once in a while? :-D -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "'Tis better to be brief than tedious" Richard III, Act i, Sc.4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3f20664052.jess@itworkshop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #2875 |
In message <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk>
Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In our local hosps, patients, nurses, doctors, and other staff will all
> be seen using mobile phones just about everywhere. It has been realised
> that hospital trusts would never have allowed O2/Orange/etc to install
> those effing great cell masts on the roof if they thought that those
> frequencies posed a threat to their equipment, the vast majority of which
> is properly shielded anyway.
Plus a nearby mast would allow the phone to turn its RF power down,
reducing the interference potential.
I always thought it was to avoid annoying the other patients and the
staff.
--
Jess Iyonix
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5240945590Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2875 |
In article <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: > Apart from not taking your phone with you into the MRI scanner, the idea > that phones would interfere with hospital bedside equipment was put about > by those sharks who supply bedside phones and who wanted you to pay the > earth to use them, as you lay dying. Not entirely true though it certainly has substance. There was, according to S.P., an early auto-syringe that was susceptible to interference but by now they should all have been scrapped. Auto-syringes are those things attached to a needle fixed "permanently" in your person which deliver a pre-determined shot of some drug or other at regular intervals. -- Stuart Winsor Only plain text for emails http://www.asciiribbon.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 13:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5240f5962atim@invalid.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #2903 |
In article <5240945590Spambin@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote: > In article <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill > <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: > > Apart from not taking your phone with you into the MRI scanner, the > > idea that phones would interfere with hospital bedside equipment was > > put about by those sharks who supply bedside phones and who wanted > > you to pay the earth to use them, as you lay dying. > Not entirely true though it certainly has substance. I was entirely true inasmuch as the sales pitch of some of those phone sharks was exactly that: to frighten hospital managers into having land-lines installed EVERYWHERE, banning the use of mobiles EVERYWHERE and charging their patients a bloody fortune. > There was, according to S.P., an early auto-syringe that was > susceptible to interference but by now they should all have been > scrapped. The current MHRA advice still says some devices such as infusion pumps are susceptible so hospitals should still disallow mobiles in critical care areas. [Snip] Then there is the concern they express about restricting the use of mobiles in ambulances and the NHS' own mobile data terminals which should be subject to the same restrictions as mobiles. Does that mean there will always be paper charts and biros in intensive care? -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "Thou art as wise as thou art beautiful" Mid N Dr, Act iii, Sc.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c8c0d5fdave@davenoise.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2806 |
In article <523c7258b0Spambin@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I am surprised she is allowed to use hospital phones for personal use.
> She'd get a slapped wrist in most "private" companies.
I'd bet a hospital pays a fixed amount for phone calls so it wouldn't cost
them anything. And it would be a pretty mean employer who wouldn't allow a
quick private call anyway.
--
*It is wrong to ever split an infinitive *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <db2f613c52.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2803 |
On 4 Dec 2011 Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04 Dec, in article <523c45fd19see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
>> Some fifteen years ago I had a box which filtered out
>> WITHHELD calls and sent them to an announce machine,
> These days some 'normal' home phones with answering machines built in
> will automatically divert any calls from 'WITHHELD' numbers straight to
> the answering machine. For example our Siemens GigaSet does. VERY few
> leave a message!
> UNKNOWN calls ring as normal, though.
> Trouble is, both can be legitimate callers.
And, as has been pointed out before, those of us who have family
abroad get "International", "Out of Area" or "Withheld" on caller ID
with calls from them.
With the real junk calls, I just put the phone down and say nothing
till they ring off. I might have a go at the next Windows scam caller,
though!
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / zfc Lu \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
and \/ __ __ \ England.
family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
/ \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pnyoung@ormail.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c7c5c69see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
| In reply to | #2805 |
In article <db2f613c52.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> wrote: > With the real junk calls, I just put the phone down and > say nothing till they ring off. I might have a go at the > next Windows scam caller, though! Maybe not such a good idea. They caught me at a bad moment yesterday, I told them that I knew exactly what they were about, having phoned me before, so they hung up on me and a 'supervisor' phoned back wanting to know why I had hung up on them. He then threatened to keep phoning back until I listened to him 'politely'. He did phone once more, but after ansering I said nothing... -- Russell http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 15:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4edcdacc$0$2541$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2807 |
On 04/12/2011 21:56, Russell Hafter News wrote: > so they hung up on me and a 'supervisor' phoned back wanting > to know why I had hung up on them. He then threatened to > keep phoning back until I listened to him 'politely'. AFAIK the CLI is blocked at your local exchange. This is perhaps when you want to report it as a *threatening* nuisance caller. If this happens regularly, it might be useful to have a tape recorder handy too. Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523ce09154riscos@mdharding.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #2814 |
In article <4edcdacc$0$2541$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 04/12/2011 21:56, Russell Hafter News wrote: > > so they hung up on me and a 'supervisor' phoned back wanting > > to know why I had hung up on them. He then threatened to > > keep phoning back until I listened to him 'politely'. > AFAIK the CLI is blocked at your local exchange. This is perhaps > when you want to report it as a *threatening* nuisance caller. > If this happens regularly, it might be useful to have a tape > recorder handy too. I've got a fair bit of technology, but . . how /do/ you record from your telephone? Michael Harding Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding riscos@mdharding.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523ce14acddave@davenoise.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2815 |
In article <523ce09154riscos@mdharding.org.uk>,
M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> I've got a fair bit of technology, but . . how /do/ you record from
> your telephone?
It's actually quite complex if you wish to record both ends of a
conversation at equal levels. Just recording across the line ends up with
the local end much louder than the distant one.
--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523ce9c1a2Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2815 |
In article <523ce09154riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote: > I've got a fair bit of technology, but . . how /do/ you record from > your telephone? The old cassette tape, telephone and answering machine, we had, could do that; you just pressed the right button. I recall my daughter "interviewing" her grandad for project she was doing at school. She was then able to remove the tape, stick it in her own tape player in order to write up the results. -- Stuart Winsor Only plain text for emails http://www.asciiribbon.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4edd01ef$0$2512$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2815 |
On 05/12/2011 16:11, M Harding wrote: > I've got a fair bit of technology, but . . how /do/ you record from > your telephone? As long as the phone isn't ringing (easily solved with a switch), jacking the line into a cheap transistor amp by way of a capacitor seems to work - although as has been mentioned, the local voice is a fair bit louder. A B | | / cap |------/ ----||----- | | sw to amp, then tape | |-------||----- | | cap | | to phone I just used two large ceramic disc caps salvaged from an old VCR. Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523cf56900Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2818 |
In article <4edd01ef$0$2512$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > As long as the phone isn't ringing (easily solved with a switch), > jacking the line into a cheap transistor amp by way of a capacitor seems > to work - although as has been mentioned, the local voice is a fair bit > louder. I have a feeling that doing that in the UK could invoke the wrath of your telecoms supplier and result in a court appearance. Traditionally an inductive pick-up coil was used but I don't know whether that would work with modern systems -- Stuart Winsor Only plain text for emails http://www.asciiribbon.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Wynn <m.wynn@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9d5af63c52.Dad@mw004f6960.blueyonder.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2819 |
In message <523cf56900Spambin@argonet.co.uk>
Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4edd01ef$0$2512$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
> Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As long as the phone isn't ringing (easily solved with a switch),
>> jacking the line into a cheap transistor amp by way of a capacitor seems
>> to work - although as has been mentioned, the local voice is a fair bit
>> louder.
>
>
> I have a feeling that doing that in the UK could invoke the wrath of your
> telecoms supplier and result in a court appearance.
>
> Traditionally an inductive pick-up coil was used but I don't know whether
> that would work with modern systems
>
Maplins have various bits of phone recording items from simple
leads/switches for tape recorders to full digital recording kit.
Martin.
--
Martin Wynn, Newport, Shropshire.
A. HTML.
Q. What are the two most annoying things about emails?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc
csiph-web