Fixing a time delay between wto Freeview boxes

Bill Wright wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Do you get good reception under your bridge?

Come now. The man asked an honest question and got an honest answer.

He's been trolling in other groups I use.
This looks like a move to new territory

--
Alex

Piece by piece the penguins have taken my sanity
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Bill Wright wrote:
"Bazzer Smith" wrote in message
news
I have a freeview box and a freeview dongle (for my PC),
however they take different times to process the signals so
they are out of sync, this is most noticible on the sound when you
listen to both at the same time.

Is there anyway of fixing this time delay so they are in sync?

I was think a good idea would be to make the cable to the faster box
longer so the signal had to go futher, dunno how much cable I would need
though, the delay is only about 1/5 of a second. I have some spare cable
but I don't
know what lenght to cut it too :O)

Try 40,000km. Reduce it by 5,000km increments until it's right. It's OK to
coil it up.

I beg to differ. Concerned with the low WAF of 5,000 tonnes of cable
under the carpet, I coiled it on your advice, I might add, into a tidy
bundle some billionth of a millimetre across, which I figured would fit
out of sight behind the bookcase, when lo & behold, it promptly
collapsed in on itself.

Now I can't fit the last damned connector. Assuming you can suggest a
suitable workaround to the termination issue, I'm still concerned the
Hawking radiation will interfere with my reception. In your experience,
is that likely to be a problem?

Signal losses will be about 8,000dB if you use CT100 so you
might need some compensating amplification.

That's another thing - it doesn't seem to matter how strong a signal I
feed into it, nothing comes back out. It appears your calculations are
off somewhat. I have to say I'm not at all happy with your advice.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Do you get good reception under your bridge?

Come now. The man asked an honest question and got an honest answer.

He's been trolling in other groups I use.
This looks like a move to new territory

Not new territory, he's been trolling here for years under various names.
--
Adrian

IMHO Signal travels through cable at about a foot per nanosecond.

So you can make up a delay line, but would it be practical?

Good Luck

Peter


"Bazzer Smith" wrote in message
news
I have a freeview box and a freeview dongle (for my PC),
however they take different times to process the signals so
they are out of sync, this is most noticible on the sound when you
listen to both at the same time.

Is there anyway of fixing this time delay so they are in sync?

I was think a good idea would be to make the cable to the faster box
longer so the signal had to go futher, dunno how much cable I would need
though, the delay is only about 1/5 of a second. I have some spare cable
but I don't
know what lenght to cut it too :O)


TIA.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.

In article ,
Peter Williams wrote:
IMHO Signal travels through cable at about a foot per nanosecond.


we used to consider that video co-ax had a velocity factor of 0.8.
Resulting in: 3 x 10e8 x 0.8 m/sec or 2.4 x 10e8m/sec or 2.4 x 10e2m/usec

or 240m/usec or .24m/nsec. (nearer 9inches)

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:
we used to consider that video co-ax had a velocity factor of 0.8.
Resulting in: 3 x 10e8 x 0.8 m/sec or 2.4 x 10e8m/sec or 2.4 x
10e2m/usec

or 240m/usec or .24m/nsec. (nearer 9inches)

Not if you use Mathew Orman's special FTL data transmission cable
(sci.physics posts passim). The last I heard, he was claiming transmission
speeds of several millions of times c, knocking Einstein into a cocked hat.
The deluded fool even had a go at selling the prototype on ebay, with a
starting price of $100,000. Sadly, there were no bids.

In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
charles wrote:
we used to consider that video co-ax had a velocity factor of 0.8.
Resulting in: 3 x 10e8 x 0.8 m/sec or 2.4 x 10e8m/sec or 2.4 x
10e2m/usec

or 240m/usec or .24m/nsec. (nearer 9inches)

Not if you use Mathew Orman's special FTL data transmission cable
(sci.physics posts passim). The last I heard, he was claiming
transmission speeds of several millions of times c, knocking Einstein
into a cocked hat.

but surely, to minimise the length of cable needed you need much slower
transmission?

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:
In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
charles wrote:
we used to consider that video co-ax had a velocity factor of 0.8.
Resulting in: 3 x 10e8 x 0.8 m/sec or 2.4 x 10e8m/sec or 2.4 x
10e2m/usec

or 240m/usec or .24m/nsec. (nearer 9inches)

Not if you use Mathew Orman's special FTL data transmission cable
(sci.physics posts passim). The last I heard, he was claiming
transmission speeds of several millions of times c, knocking Einstein
into a cocked hat.

but surely, to minimise the length of cable needed you need much
slower transmission?

Sadly slow speed transmission does not seem to be an area addressed by Mr
Orman's cutting edge research. Using one of his cables, you'd probably get
to see the programme before it had even left the aerial.

More orthodox science may have the answer:

http://news.zdnet.com/IBM+slows+ligh...2-5928541.html

"Roger R" wrote in message
...

"Bazzer Smith" wrote in message
news
I have a freeview box and a freeview dongle (for my PC),
however they take different times to process the signals so
they are out of sync, this is most noticible on the sound when you
listen to both at the same time.

Is there anyway of fixing this time delay so they are in sync?

I was think a good idea would be to make the cable to the faster box
longer so the signal had to go futher, dunno how much cable I would need
though, the delay is only about 1/5 of a second. I have some spare cable
but I don't
know what lenght to cut it too :O)

This won't be any help but.. did something like this many years ago.
However the frequency was 70 MHz rather than baseband video.
We used a couple of reels of cable, probably about 500m, and that gave
sufficeint delay.

Could TV delay line technology be of use?
A TV delay line has a delay of one line = 0.06 ms so you would only need
about 8000 of them ..or perhaps bigger capacitors ;-)


This would do it probably!!
http://delayplay.com/



Roger

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

I have *myself* seen it working very well, not sure of the
electronics/mechanics/software..

Are you talking about the commercial, professional outfit you referred to
in your earlier post, or have you seen consumer-level Freeview boxes from
different manufacturers showing synchronised audio and video through some
kind of external synchronisation system? I was referring to the latter,
since that's what the original poster was asking about.

--
TTFN, Andrew Hodgkinson
Find some electronic music at: Photos, wallpaper, software and mo
http://pond.org.uk/music.html http://pond.org.uk/