Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155178 > unrolled thread

Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958)

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-14 08:28 -0800
    REPOST Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-14 08:33 -0800
    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-14 11:54 -0500
      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-14 17:07 -0800
        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-14 23:25 -0500
          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-15 18:38 -0800
      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-14 17:11 -0800
        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-14 20:07 -0800
          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-14 23:29 -0500
            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-15 00:15 -0600
    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-14 11:08 -0600
      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-14 17:57 +0000
    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) jhhaynes@earthlink.net - 2015-12-15 15:54 -0800
      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 19:12 -0500
        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-15 19:41 -0600
        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2015-12-15 23:07 -0800
          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-16 14:32 -0600
            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-16 22:59 +0000
              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 07:30 -0800
                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:07 -0500
                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:06 -0800
            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:56 -0500
              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 14:12 -0600
                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:43 -0500
                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 01:43 -0800
                    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-20 10:16 -0500
                      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-20 10:58 -0600
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:13 -0600
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:17 -0800
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 19:24 -0600
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-12-21 18:03 -0800
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-22 17:29 -0600
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 14:03 +0100
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 12:39 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 14:37 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:45 -0500
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 10:53 +0000
                                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-23 23:42 +0100
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:41 -0800
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:22 -0500
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-21 17:29 -0600
                      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 13:58 -0600
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:07 -0800
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 15:40 -0600
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 17:09 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 17:29 -0600
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 17:03 -0800
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 19:28 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 15:46 -0600
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 19:13 -0600
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-23 23:25 +0100
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 17:04 -0600
                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 13:56 -0600
                    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:10 -0800
                    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
                      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:42 -0800
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:25 -0500
                    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 16:48 -0600
                      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 17:37 -0600
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-21 18:25 -0600
                      Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:46 -0800
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:24 -0500
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-22 11:28 -0500
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 15:20 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:51 -0500
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:33 -0500
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 09:47 -0800
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 15:17 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 13:31 -0800
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-22 16:48 -0500
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-22 17:43 -0600
                                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-22 19:35 -0600
                                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-12-23 11:55 -0800
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:50 -0500
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 18:56 -0600
                              Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-23 02:38 -0800
                                Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-23 13:55 -0600
                                  Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-23 14:12 -0600
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 12:28 -0600
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 11:06 -0800
                            Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 15:58 -0600
                        Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-22 12:24 -0600
                          Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 11:09 -0800
    Re: Amperex #6977 subminiature indcator tube (1958) terry+googleblog@tmk.com - 2015-12-16 21:33 -0800

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#155474

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> After a while, channels 70 through 83 disappeared from UHF tuners,
>> when that part of the band (806-890 MHz) was reassigned to other
>> things, like cell phones.
>
> In case anyone cares, the original frequencies assigned to
> mobile telephones (pre-cell) were:
>
> 30-44 mc band (up to eight channels)
> 152-162 mc band (up to four channels)
>
>
And both were allocations within a broader segement allocated to "two way 
radio".

30 to 50MHz was the low VHF band, radios were sold often calling it it 
"the low Public Service Band".  All I remember in the seventies when I 
could tune the band was some paging, and every so often when conditions 
were good, some police from far away would come in.

Then "VHF Hi", 148 to 174MHz, police, paging, the VHF marine band (which 
was a new thing in the early seventies), NOAA weather radio, fire, and so 
on.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155442

Osmium wrote:


> I am positive there was never a TV that covered ch 2-84 in one sweep.
> 
Right, the continuous tuning sets definitely did not have UHF.  Would be 
somewhat hard with typical octal tubes.  Our DuMont could pick up the FM 
stations between channels 6 and 7.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155407

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1512201016040.14906@darkstar.example.org...
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2015, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> TV channels are not all spaced together, there's a gap between channel 6
>>> and channel 7, and I can't remember if it's continuous to channel 13. 
>>> UHF
>>> is separate, but it's one single chunk of spectrum.
>>>
>>> So I think the "continuous tuning" tv sets from the early days, actually
>>> did tune through it all, you were just supposed to ignore what wasn't 
>>> tv.
>>> I'm not sure, it would depend on whether there was a bandswitch or not.
>>
>> In the early days, TV channels were even spaced differently!
>>
>> http://www.quadibloc.com/science/freqint.htm
>>
> I forgot.
>
> So the "continuous tuning" sets were gone after the current channel 
> arrangement came into being?
>

Yes, "continuous tuning" for channels 2 through 13 is *not* used anymore to 
my knowledge.  However, you can probably find pretty recent analog sets that 
still tune UHF channels with continuous tuning.  I have used analog TVs that 
have "detent" tuning for UHF however.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155423

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:58:06 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:

> Yes, "continuous tuning" for channels 2 through 13 is *not* used anymore to 
> my knowledge.  However, you can probably find pretty recent analog sets that 
> still tune UHF channels with continuous tuning.  I have used analog TVs that 
> have "detent" tuning for UHF however.

Sometime a while ago they govt directed TV makers to add detents
to the UHF tuner.  Seemed pointless to me.

I haven't seen dial tuners in a long time--it's been keypad tuning 
for a while.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155428

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:58:06 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>> Yes, "continuous tuning" for channels 2 through 13 is *not* used anymore 
>> to
>> my knowledge.  However, you can probably find pretty recent analog sets 
>> that
>> still tune UHF channels with continuous tuning.  I have used analog TVs 
>> that
>> have "detent" tuning for UHF however.
>
> Sometime a while ago they govt directed TV makers to add detents
> to the UHF tuner.  Seemed pointless to me.
>
> I haven't seen dial tuners in a long time--it's been keypad tuning
> for a while.

Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could be in 
use at one place? Like half of them?  Of course, Conges has the right to 
ignore advice, even good advice. It sounds to me like a plan for a lot of 
space that would never be usaed, especially if you go back to the public 
interest origins of the FCC.

Just a tangent, but the local guy who started the public channel was forced 
out after a few years, he thought it should be an educational channel, 
Spanish language and so on.  He lost to the English soap opera faction. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155441

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:

> Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could
> be in use at one place? Like half of them?  Of course, Conges has the
> right to ignore advice, even good advice. It sounds to me like a plan
> for a lot of space that would never be usaed, especially if you go
> back to the public interest origins of the FCC.

In the US, it was thus:  In the 'large market' areas, you could have
VHF 2,4,5,7,9,11,13.  A smaller-market area would get the others,
3,6,8,10,12.

UHF stations were assigned with 6 channel gaps ... for example, SF Bay
Area had (pre digital) 14,20,26,32,38,44, etc.  Nearby in San Jose, were
36,48,54, and 60 (although 60 was actually assigned CoL of San Mateo -
and their transmitter, IIRC was on Black Mtn.).  Now, adjacency
requirements are made more-or-less moot by digital, and there are dozens
of markets in North America with adjacent digital assignments with no hassle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155443

"Lawrence Statton" wrote:


> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could
>> be in use at one place? Like half of them?  Of course, Conges has the
>> right to ignore advice, even good advice. It sounds to me like a plan
>> for a lot of space that would never be usaed, especially if you go
>> back to the public interest origins of the FCC.
>
> In the US, it was thus:  In the 'large market' areas, you could have
> VHF 2,4,5,7,9,11,13.  A smaller-market area would get the others,
> 3,6,8,10,12.
>
> UHF stations were assigned with 6 channel gaps ... for example, SF Bay
> Area had (pre digital) 14,20,26,32,38,44, etc.  Nearby in San Jose, were
> 36,48,54, and 60 (although 60 was actually assigned CoL of San Mateo -
> and their transmitter, IIRC was on Black Mtn.).  Now, adjacency
> requirements are made more-or-less moot by digital, and there are dozens
> of markets in North America with adjacent digital assignments with no 
> hassle.

Thanks, I never saw that information before.  So about 17 channels more or 
less, in a 'big" market. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155448

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:40:58 PM UTC-7, Osmium wrote:

> Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could be in 
> use at one place? Like half of them?

With VHF, they usually did not use the channel next to a channel in use.

With UHF, the practice was to use one channel out of every six.

Although UHF was originally channels from 14 to 83, first channel 37 was taken 
away for radio astronomy use, and then channels 71 to 83 were taken away for 
use by other services - basically cell phones.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155450

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:40:58 PM UTC-7, Osmium wrote:
>
>> Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could be in 
>> use at one place? Like half of them?
>
> With VHF, they usually did not use the channel next to a channel in use.
>
> With UHF, the practice was to use one channel out of every six.
>
> Although UHF was originally channels from 14 to 83, first channel 37 was taken 
> away for radio astronomy use, and then channels 71 to 83 were taken away for 
> use by other services - basically cell phones.
>
> John Savard

And after  June, 2009 channels 52 through 69 were deleted for 'sale to
the highest bidder'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155506

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:31eda5bb-8231-4fc7-bd55-0bc53460a89b@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:40:58 PM UTC-7, Osmium wrote:
>
>> Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could be 
>> in
>> use at one place? Like half of them?
>
> With VHF, they usually did not use the channel next to a channel in use.
>

Yes, VHF did *not* use ajoining channels except for 6 and 7, where a 
frequency gap exists.  Somehow in the Dallas, TX area, on the old analog TV, 
there were channels 4 and 5.  They must have made some special arrangements 
so they did *not* interfere with each other.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155523

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> Yes, VHF did *not* use ajoining channels except for 6 and 7, where a
> frequency gap exists.  Somehow in the Dallas, TX area, on the old
> analog TV, there were channels 4 and 5.  

Yes -- there was a 4 MHz gap between channels 4 and 5.

Other markets that had 4 and 5 include Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, Boston, amongst others.  It was very common.

--NK1G

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155566

In article <n5cg6c$d3h$1@dont-email.me>,
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
>news:31eda5bb-8231-4fc7-bd55-0bc53460a89b@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:40:58 PM UTC-7, Osmium wrote:
>>
>>> Was there some estimate as to how many of the 82 or so channels could be 
>>> in
>>> use at one place? Like half of them?
>>
>> With VHF, they usually did not use the channel next to a channel in use.
>>
>
>Yes, VHF did *not* use ajoining channels except for 6 and 7, where a 
>frequency gap exists.  Somehow in the Dallas, TX area, on the old analog TV, 
>there were channels 4 and 5.  They must have made some special arrangements 
>so they did *not* interfere with each other.

ISTR that this was synchronous transmission, that the frames of one
channel was exactly inteleaved by the ones on the other. Quite difficult
to do with pre-1980s technology.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155439

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Sometime a while ago they govt directed TV makers to add detents
> to the UHF tuner.  Seemed pointless to me.

1975.

> I haven't seen dial tuners in a long time--it's been keypad tuning 
> for a while.

About that same time is when UHF PLLs and prescalers really came into
their own -- my brother had a quite pricey television with PLL tuning in
his first apartment that same year.

--NK1G

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155406

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1512181941030.11445@darkstar.example.org...
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>>                [snip...]                    [snip...] 
>> [snip...]
>>
>> If you think of the detent "click" tuners as selecting the "band", and 
>> the "fine tuning" knob as the actual tuning, then every TV had a form of 
>> continuous tuning.
>>
> I think the meaning, as brought up here, was different.
>

I understand, but what I posted above about "click" and "band" still holds.

> TV channels are not all spaced together, there's a gap between channel 6 
> and channel 7, and I can't remember if it's continuous to channel 13.  UHF 
> is separate, but it's one single chunk of spectrum.
>

If it's like the U.S., and I think it is, the only "gap" in the TV channels 
is between channel 6 and channel 7 with analog TV.  Of course, it's a whole 
different thing now in the U.S. since TV broadcasts have gone digital.

> So I think the "continuous tuning" tv sets from the early days, actually 
> did tune through it all, you were just supposed to ignore what wasn't tv. 
> I'm not sure, it would depend on whether there was a bandswitch or not.
>

Tune your analog TV to channel 6, then try to use the fine tuning to receive 
FM radio stations around channel 6 on the frequency spectrum.  In the US, 
either above or below channel 6 audio (I don't remember which), was the band 
for FM radio.  So you can get analog TV channel 6 audio with a regular FM 
radio.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155424

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:56:19 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:

> Tune your analog TV to channel 6, then try to use the fine tuning to receive 
> FM radio stations around channel 6 on the frequency spectrum.  In the US, 
> either above or below channel 6 audio (I don't remember which), was the band 
> for FM radio.  So you can get analog TV channel 6 audio with a regular FM 
> radio.

I used to like to listen to the audio of TV Channel 6 on my car's
FM radio.  Came in fine, and gave me the weather as I drove home
from work.

Unfortunately, when TV went digital, that signal was lost.  Turned
out a lot of people were doing the same thing as there was
consumer pressure on TV Channel 6 to broadcast the FM audio in that
old frequency space.  Nothing came of it, either the frequency was
gonna be used elsewhere or it simply wasn't allowed by FCC rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155432

On 2015-12-21, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> Tune your analog TV to channel 6, then try to use the fine tuning to receive 
> FM radio stations around channel 6 on the frequency spectrum.  In the US, 
> either above or below channel 6 audio (I don't remember which), was the band 
> for FM radio.  So you can get analog TV channel 6 audio with a regular FM 
> radio.

TV channels 2 through 6 occupy 6-MHz slots from 54 to 88 MHz (there's a
4-MHz gap between channels 4 and 5).  Channel 6's sound is at 87.75 MHz,
so if you crank your FM tuner just off the bottom of the band you can
pick it up.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155466

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> TV channels 2 through 6 occupy 6-MHz slots from 54 to 88 MHz (there's a
> 4-MHz gap between channels 4 and 5).  Channel 6's sound is at 87.75 MHz,
> so if you crank your FM tuner just off the bottom of the band you can
> pick it up.

Since the switch to digital, that no longer works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155469

On 2015-12-22, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> TV channels 2 through 6 occupy 6-MHz slots from 54 to 88 MHz (there's a
>> 4-MHz gap between channels 4 and 5).  Channel 6's sound is at 87.75 MHz,
>> so if you crank your FM tuner just off the bottom of the band you can
>> pick it up.
>
> Since the switch to digital, that no longer works.

Even if it did, continuously-tuned FM receivers are now almost as rare
as continuously-tuned TVs - and you can't set most digitally-tuned
FM receivers to 87.75 MHz.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155476

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2015-12-22, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> TV channels 2 through 6 occupy 6-MHz slots from 54 to 88 MHz (there's a
>>> 4-MHz gap between channels 4 and 5).  Channel 6's sound is at 87.75 MHz,
>>> so if you crank your FM tuner just off the bottom of the band you can
>>> pick it up.
>>
>> Since the switch to digital, that no longer works.
>
> Even if it did, continuously-tuned FM receivers are now almost as rare
> as continuously-tuned TVs - and you can't set most digitally-tuned
> FM receivers to 87.75 MHz.
>
I had no problem getting the local CBC TV station that was on channel six
with a digitally tuned FM radio.  It probably wasn't perfectly tuned, but 
it was good enough.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155437

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> If it's like the U.S., and I think it is, the only "gap" in the TV
> channels is between channel 6 and channel 7 with analog TV.  Of
> course, it's a whole different thing now in the U.S. since TV
> broadcasts have gone digital.

Even in the digital era, the channel assignments have not changed.  2,3,
and 4 are edge-to-edge, then a small (4MHz) gap, then 5 and 6, then a
94 MHz gap to 7 through 13. 

Then, several hundred MHz of "other services" to the bottom of the UHF
band at 470 MHz up to the top of channel 69 at 800MHz.

>> So I think the "continuous tuning" tv sets from the early days,
>> actually did tune through it all, you were just supposed to ignore
>> what wasn't tv. I'm not sure, it would depend on whether there was 
>> bandswitch or not.

I've got about 40 vintage televisions, mostly post-war through the
1960s and none of them use 'continuous tuning' on VHF.  In fact, the
only ones I have that DO are much, much later (80s) like the Watchman 
and the TV80.  My oldest set, is a 1939 Andrea and has the 'three
channel' mod applied. (Upgrade from the original TWO channel selector).

As of 1975, in the US, televisions were required to have detent tuning
for UHF as well.

--NK1G

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web