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

Groups > uk.local.glasgow > #1955 > unrolled thread

Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m

Back to article view | Back to uk.local.glasgow

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:05 +0000
    Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:20 +0000
      Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-08-19 19:27 +0100
        Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> - 2019-08-19 19:29 +0100
          Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2019-08-19 21:20 +0100
            Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> - 2019-08-19 21:27 +0100
        Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Roger Breedle <rb@rmb.invalid> - 2019-08-19 19:37 +0100
          Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 18:43 +0000
            Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Jim <jim@jim.jim.jim.invalid> - 2019-08-19 19:54 +0100
            Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 19:35 +0000
          Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> - 2019-08-19 20:17 +0100
            Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> - 2019-08-20 07:31 +0100
              Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-20 06:41 +0000
        Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-08-19 20:49 +0100
        Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 11:07 +1000
          Re: Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2019-08-20 10:30 +0200
    Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2019-08-19 19:55 +0100
      Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> - 2019-08-19 19:13 +0000

#1955 — Re: Ping Ian Jackson 160m

Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
> news:qjem2d$fee$1@dont-email.me...
>> 
>> "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>> news:qjeku7$8ic$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <g9WdnRql-IlhgMXAnZ2dnUU78XfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Peter 
>>>> Able <stuck@home.com> writes
>>>>> On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>> I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group 
>>>>>> but here we go.
>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 159.3m 
>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 160m 
>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the 
>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after you've 
>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were 
>>>>> nurtured.,,:). Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs
>>>>> 
>>>>> AaaaaH!
>>>>> 
>>>> You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was 
>>>> something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of 
>>>> newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war 
>>>> surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The 
>>>> fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at 
>>>> around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!
>>> 
>>> Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that 
>>> was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.
>>> 
>>> I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of 
>>> top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at 
>>> some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant 
>>> AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with 
>>> multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion 
>>> transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to 
>>> get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves 
>>> appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.
>>> 
>>> Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the 
>>> typical UK postage stamp garden.
>>> 
>>> I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.
>>> 
>>> 
>> no  no...after you chebs ....
>> 
> something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on 
> DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely ....... 
> 

I don’t know why you don’t just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
Jim, rather than keep wearing and shitting your poor wife’s drawers. Have
some consideration, mate, for fuck’s sake. Thanks, Jim. 

-- 
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1957

Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
> news:gs06neFtsdeU6@mid.individual.net...
>> Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qjem2d$fee$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> 
>>>> "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:qjeku7$8ic$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> In message <g9WdnRql-IlhgMXAnZ2dnUU78XfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Peter
>>>>>> Able <stuck@home.com> writes
>>>>>>> On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>>> I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this 
>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>> but here we go.
>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 159.3m
>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 160m
>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the
>>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after you've
>>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we 
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> nurtured.,,:). Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> AaaaaH!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was
>>>>>> something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of
>>>>>> newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war
>>>>>> surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. 
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at
>>>>>> around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like 
>>>>> that
>>>>> was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of
>>>>> top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at
>>>>> some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant
>>>>> AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with
>>>>> multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion
>>>>> transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to
>>>>> get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few 
>>>>> valves
>>>>> appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into 
>>>>> the
>>>>> typical UK postage stamp garden.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> no  no...after you chebs ....
>>>> 
>>> something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up 
>>> on
>>> DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely .......
>>> 
>> 
>> I don't know why you don't just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
>> Jim, rather than keep wearing and shitting your poor wife's drawers. Have
>> some consideration, mate, for fuck's sake. Thanks, Jim.
>> 
>> M0TEY // STC
>> www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur
> 
> you will have to excuse posts from this man as he is insane and loves to
> cross post...sorry

ROLF!

-- 
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

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

#1958

"Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 
>>>>>>>>> 159.3m
>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 
>>>>>>>>> 160m
>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the
>>>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after you've
>>>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?

As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to wavelength, 
when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in the 1970s-80s? I 
realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the other by a factor of c.

Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays actually 
display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they display 
frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in the 70 cm / 160 
m band" as an approximation. 

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

#1959

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
news:qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me...
> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 
>>>>>>>>>> 159.3m
>>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 
>>>>>>>>>> 160m
>>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the
>>>>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after 
>>>>>>>>>> you've
>>>>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?
>
> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to wavelength, 
> when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in the 1970s-80s? I 
> realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the other by a factor of 
> c.
>
> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays actually 
> display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they display 
> frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in the 70 cm / 
> 160 m band" as an approximation.

it's Mc/s actually .... 

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

#1968

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:qjepqp$7ji$1@dont-email.me...
>
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me...
>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to wavelength, 
>> when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in the 1970s-80s? 
>> I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the other by a factor 
>> of c.
>>
>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays 
>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they 
>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in the 
>> 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>
> it's Mc/s actually ....

LOL. Of course. I'd completely forgotten about old radio stations using the 
term "c/s" rather than "Hz".

"c/s" is somewhat reminiscent of old editions of Wireless World and other 
similar magazines which had a strange house style of putting a full stop 
after every single letter of an abbreviation or unit, and always using 
lower-case letters (so "c./s." rather than "c/s", and e.p.r.o.m." rather 
than "EPROM". 

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

#1969

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
news:qjf0ca$hl4$1@dont-email.me...
> "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
> news:qjepqp$7ji$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me...
>>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to 
>>> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in 
>>> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the 
>>> other by a factor of c.
>>>
>>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays 
>>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they 
>>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in the 
>>> 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>>
>> it's Mc/s actually ....
>
> LOL. Of course. I'd completely forgotten about old radio stations using 
> the term "c/s" rather than "Hz".
>
> "c/s" is somewhat reminiscent of old editions of Wireless World and other 
> similar magazines which had a strange house style of putting a full stop 
> after every single letter of an abbreviation or unit, and always using 
> lower-case letters (so "c./s." rather than "c/s", and e.p.r.o.m." rather 
> than "EPROM".
yes much better..I mean what does Hertz mean anyway...some German 
punter........ 

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

#1960

On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
> >>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
> >>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
> >>>>>>>>> had a 160m
> >>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
> >>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
> >>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?  
> 
> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in
> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the
> other by a factor of c.
> 
> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they
> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation. 
> 

Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?

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

#1961

Roger Breedle <rb@rmb.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
>> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
>>>>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
>>>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
>>>>>>>>>>> had a 160m
>>>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
>>>>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
>>>>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?  
>> 
>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
>> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in
>> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the
>> other by a factor of c.
>> 
>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they
>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
>> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation. 
>> 
> 
> Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?

How about fathoms? Then when Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW fails to send a signal
further than quarter mile again we could say that he couldn’t fathom it. 

-- 
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

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

#1962

On 19 Aug 2019 18:43:17 GMT
Stephen Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

> Roger Breedle <rb@rmb.invalid> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
> > "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >   
> >> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
> >> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...  
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
> >>>>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
> >>>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
> >>>>>>>>>>> had a 160m
> >>>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
> >>>>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
> >>>>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?    
> >> 
> >> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
> >> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency
> >> in the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related
> >> to the other by a factor of c.
> >> 
> >> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
> >> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do
> >> they display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to
> >> as "in the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation. 
> >>   
> > 
> > Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?  
> 
> How about fathoms? Then when Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW fails to send a
> signal further than quarter mile again we could say that he couldn’t
> fathom it. 
> 

Once we've Taken Back Control™ we should have British Frequency,
measured in furlongs.

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

#1966

Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
> news:gs08u5Fuc11U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Roger Breedle <rb@rmb.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
>>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had a 160m
>>>>>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?
>>>> 
>>>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
>>>> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in
>>>> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the
>>>> other by a factor of c.
>>>> 
>>>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
>>>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they
>>>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
>>>> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?
>> 
>> How about fathoms? Then when Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW fails to send a 
>> signal
>> further than quarter mile again we could say that he couldn't fathom it.
>> 
> that was almost funny....ha.......ha 

Thanks for the retwat, Jim. Thanks, Jim. 

-- 
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

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

#1965

In message <%%B6F.32132$Zy3.24596@usenetxs.com>, Roger Breedle 
<rb@rmb.invalid> writes
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
>"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
>> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
>> >>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
>> >>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
>> >>>>>>>>> had a 160m
>> >>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
>> >>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
>> >>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?
>>
>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
>> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in
>> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the
>> other by a factor of c.
>>
>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they
>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
>> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>>
>
>Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?

We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.
>
>
>

-- 
Ian

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

#1971

In message <X12oBaSiXvWdFwul@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson 
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> writes
>In message <%%B6F.32132$Zy3.24596@usenetxs.com>, Roger Breedle 
><rb@rmb.invalid> writes
>>On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
>>"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> >>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
>>> >>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
>>> >>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
>>> >>>>>>>>> had a 160m
>>> >>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
>>> >>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
>>> >>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?
>>>
>>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
>>> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in
>>> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the
>>> other by a factor of c.
>>>
>>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
>>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they
>>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
>>> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>>>
>>
>>Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?
>
>We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.

Lord Kelvin of Glasgow University was the champion of the metric system. 
The absolute  metric temperature scale is named after him.

By a remarkable coincidence ,the  non metric equivalent the Rankine 
scale is named after  a contemporary of his at Glasgow  William Rankine.

Http://www.engineeringhalloffame.org/profile-rankine.html

A proper Polymath  and champion of the non-metric system.

"Two of Rankine's somewhat reactionary verses from "The Three Foot Rule" 
which he sang at the British Association in 1864" Listed on the right

He was some kid.

Brian

-- 
Brian Howie

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

#1972

brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <X12oBaSiXvWdFwul@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson 
> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> writes
>> In message <%%B6F.32132$Zy3.24596@usenetxs.com>, Roger Breedle 
>> <rb@rmb.invalid> writes
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 19:27:22 +0100
>>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 159.3m
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had a 160m
>>>>>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try the band. So what makes 160m something of interest to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you after you've been active for 60 years or so?
>>>> 
>>>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to
>>>> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in
>>>> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the
>>>> other by a factor of c.
>>>> 
>>>> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays
>>>> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they
>>>> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in
>>>> the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why aren't the wavelengths in yards?
>> 
>> We will be changing back to yards in 1 Nov.
> 
> Lord Kelvin of Glasgow University was the champion of the metric system. 
> The absolute  metric temperature scale is named after him.
> 
> By a remarkable coincidence ,the  non metric equivalent the Rankine 
> scale is named after  a contemporary of his at Glasgow  William Rankine.
> 
> Http://www.engineeringhalloffame.org/profile-rankine.html
> 
> A proper Polymath  and champion of the non-metric system.
> 
> "Two of Rankine's somewhat reactionary verses from "The Three Foot Rule" 
> which he sang at the British Association in 1864" Listed on the right
> 
> He was some kid.

Did he ever get a postman in a headlock, tho?

-- 
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

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

#1967

On 19/08/2019 19:27, NY wrote:
> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to 
> wavelength, when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in 
> the 1970s-80s? I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the 
> other by a factor of c.

Well exactly.

Mile per gallon or liters per 100km/h?


> 
> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays 
> actually display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres, or do they 
> display frequencies in kHz/MHz, but colloquially referred to as "in the 
> 70 cm / 160 m band" as an approximation.

I suspeect radio amateurs know the damned relationships off by rote. Of 
course knowing the wavelenght is handy when building antennae.


-- 
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

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

#1970

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
news:qjepnp$73l$1@dont-email.me...
> "Stephen Cole" <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message 
> news:gs07k5Fu3ctU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 
>>>>>>>>>> 159.3m
>>>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 
>>>>>>>>>> 160m
>>>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the
>>>>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after 
>>>>>>>>>> you've
>>>>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?

> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to wavelength, 
> when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in the 1970s-80s?

They are just as much traditionalists as the worst of the lawyers.

That’s why they keep using terms like QSO, XYL, OM and wavelengths.

> I realise that c = f lambda, so one is related to the other by a factor of 
> c.

> Do modern ham radios with synthesised tuning and digital displays actually 
> display it as a wavelength in metres/centimetres,

Nope.

> or do they display frequencies in kHz/MHz,

Yep.

> but colloquially referred to as "in the 70 cm / 160 m band" as an 
> approximation.

The radios don’t, but individuals do when referring to bands.
But they use the frequency when telling you where to tune to. 

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

#1974 — Re: Lonely Psychopathic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert!

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:07:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


>> As a matter of interest, why do radio amateurs still refer to wavelength, 
>> when broadcast radio changed to referring to frequency in the 1970s-80s?
> 
> They are just as much traditionalists as the worst of the lawyers.

Now ALSO an expert in radio amateurs' practices, you clinically insane,
"all-knowing", senile asshole? I guess nobody is surprised any more. LOL

-- 
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile 
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

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

#1963

On 19 Aug 2019 18:05:34 GMT, Stephen Cole
<usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

>Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
>> news:qjem2d$fee$1@dont-email.me...
>>> 
>>> "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:qjeku7$8ic$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> In message <g9WdnRql-IlhgMXAnZ2dnUU78XfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Peter 
>>>>> Able <stuck@home.com> writes
>>>>>> On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>> I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group 
>>>>>>> but here we go.
>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 159.3m 
>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 160m 
>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the 
>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after you've 
>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were 
>>>>>> nurtured.,,:). Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> AaaaaH!
>>>>>> 
>>>>> You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was 
>>>>> something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of 
>>>>> newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war 
>>>>> surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The 
>>>>> fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at 
>>>>> around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that 
>>>> was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of 
>>>> top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at 
>>>> some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant 
>>>> AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with 
>>>> multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion 
>>>> transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to 
>>>> get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves 
>>>> appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.
>>>> 
>>>> Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the 
>>>> typical UK postage stamp garden.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> no  no...after you chebs ....
>>> 
>> something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on 
>> DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely ....... 
>> 
>
>I don’t know why you don’t just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
>Jim, rather than keep wearing and shitting your poor wife’s drawers. Have
>some consideration, mate, for fuck’s sake. Thanks, Jim. 


 You on them funny fags ...again?

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

#1964

Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2019 18:05:34 GMT, Stephen Cole
> <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jim GM4DHJ ... <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "Jim GM4DHJ ..." <kinvig.netta@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:qjem2d$fee$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> 
>>>> "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:qjeku7$8ic$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 17/08/2019 17:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> In message <g9WdnRql-IlhgMXAnZ2dnUU78XfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Peter 
>>>>>> Able <stuck@home.com> writes
>>>>>>> On 17/08/2019 15:58, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>>>>>> I apologise in advance for a serious radio related topic on this group 
>>>>>>>> but here we go.
>>>>>>>> Ian, you jokingly mentioned the problem with 70cms was it was 159.3m 
>>>>>>>> too short and that got me thinking about 160m. I've never had a 160m 
>>>>>>>> QSO in 29 years of activity. I've never been motivated to try the 
>>>>>>>> band. So what makes 160m something of interest to you after you've 
>>>>>>>> been active for 60 years or so?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'd guess that for those of us of that age it is the womb where we were 
>>>>>>> nurtured.,,:). Loran, Portishead, TT11 PAs, HROs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> AaaaaH!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You've put it better and more succinctly than I could. There was 
>>>>>> something magic about radio in those days, with a high proportion of 
>>>>>> newcomers being young, and either making their own gear or using 'war 
>>>>>> surplus' equipment - often modifying it to improve its performance. The 
>>>>>> fact that I was able to get an endfed fullwave up (over a river and at 
>>>>>> around 70' or 80' at the highest point) also helped!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers for that Ian and Peter. I expected there to be something like that 
>>>>> was involved, a soft spot for how things were etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did some Googling into top band stuff and found Mike G4KFK's page of 
>>>>> top band articles which I've been reading. What is obvious looking at 
>>>>> some of the older valved gear is how delightfully simple and elegant 
>>>>> AM/CW transmitters can be. It's brought home as my job deals with 
>>>>> multi-million lines of software, GB of data resulting in multi-billion 
>>>>> transistor chips. An unforgiving sea of complexity that's difficult to 
>>>>> get a good overall view of what's happening. Something with a few valves 
>>>>> appeals even if my chassis work skills are rough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then there's getting an effective antenna for the band installed into the 
>>>>> typical UK postage stamp garden.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'll leave this to degenerate now as all things on here always do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> no  no...after you chebs ....
>>>> 
>>> something about wearing the wife's panties like the post you just made up on 
>>> DIY under my "joining the motorway thread" would do nicely ....... 
>>> 
>> 
>> I don’t know why you don’t just buy a stock of your own ladies underwear,
>> Jim, rather than keep wearing and shitting your poor wife’s drawers. Have
>> some consideration, mate, for fuck’s sake. Thanks, Jim. 
> 
> 
>  You on them funny fags ...again?

Jim’s poor wife’s drawers are no laughing matter, Rich. Especially not
after Jim’s peeled them off his taint. 

-- 
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.local.glasgow

csiph-web