Those were the days!

In article ,
Rick wrote:

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 15:46:26h +0100, Rick wrote:

I reckon its still got enough suction to lift a house brick :-)

That is impressive.

Do you think that if enough of them were combined together, they
could be use to deflect the trajectory of an asteroid?


Somehow I don't think that even the most powerful vacuum cleaner
imaginable would be much good in space :-)

but surely a 'vacuum cleaner' cleans vacuums

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


That was a Panasonic. My next door neighbour raved about Dyson. She's on
her fourth since I bought the Panasonic.

She must be mentally defective.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
They were certainly capable of producing *brighter* pictures before the
beam defocused, possibly because more of the metal sieve was empty
space, and most of the early Trinitron tubes had smaller screen sizes,
which always gives the first impression that the picture is sharper.
That dark line from the damping wire was, if anything, even more
irritating on a computer monitor than a TV.
I don't think I ever had a customer mention it on a TV.
Of course not. You get away with murder on that tiny screen.

Did they use the wire thingy on the 18" and 20" ones?

Still small. My last monochrome set was a 21". I certainly wasn't going
smaller for colour.

At the time we lived in a house with a small lounge. Our mono set was
17", so I didn't mind the 13" Sony. It used to surprise me though how
many people preferred the little Sony to the 22" sets of other makes.

Bill

"Rick" wrote in message ...


Somehow I don't think that even the most powerful vacuum cleaner imaginable
would be much good in space :-)


That's OK, we'll just take some compressed air up with us, so it's got
something to suck on....

SteveT

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), red16v
wrote:

With regard to your final point, assuming you have designed a
practical system using 3 separate signals, how are you going to get
those signals to the transmitter situated many miles away from your
studio centre (think - originate pictures in London, transmit in
furthest Scotland - we do that day in, day out) without degrading the
signals in any way ? - remembering that many posters on this forum
have already posted how critical it is to keep these 3 signals
perfectly aligned to each other.

If the problem is that "you can't mix SECAM" then the solution is
clearly "work with a mixable format in-house - e.g. RGB, YUV, CMYK or
what-have-you". But this doesn't mean that you then have to send that
mixable format to the transmitter. What would be the point? Encode to
SECAM at *that* point, once no further changes to the signal are
necessary, and feed that to the transmitter down your existing single
piece of wet string.

Not really any different to digital TV nowadays. I mean, studios don't
work in sub-2mbps MPEG2 internally, do they? They work in the best
format possible internally, and only convert to the crappy emission
format at the point where no further changes will occur.

--

In message
,
"
writes:
[]
I don't know, but I suspect at the time the "new EU standard" had to
be somewhat better than all the existing national standards to
convince people to change. Maybe 625 was a proper step-up from 405,
441 etc, while 525 wasn't really. Plus the bandwidth / line frequency
argument.
[]
I have heard/read it said that one problem with 405, due in part to the
design of the waveform, was that on many sets, significant line pairing
was in evidence, so that what was actually viewed was more like 200
lines. Thus 625 was a tripling, rather than a 50%, improvement. I don't
know how true this was/is - though I do remember seeing some 405-line
sets on which the pairing was rather noticeable. Presumably there was no
incentive to - or financial/political reasons against it - improve the
405 system.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... more doomed than a busload of ... enthusiasts on their way to a Private
Frazer convention on a bus whose brakes have just failed as it heads towards a
cliff. - Eddie Mair, Radio Times 20-26 November 2010

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , J G Miller
wrote:
On Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 15:46:26h +0100, Rick wrote:

I reckon its still got enough suction to lift a house brick :-)

That is impressive.

Do you think that if enough of them were combined together, they could
be use to deflect the trajectory of an asteroid?

Should work. They are called "vacuum cleaners" aren't they? If it doesn't
work. register your complaints under the laws that require items to
function as described! :-)

There is nothing in a vacuum so they obviously work.

On 24/06/2011 16:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In , J G
wrote:
On Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 15:46:26h +0100, Rick wrote:

I reckon its still got enough suction to lift a house brick :-)

That is impressive.

Do you think that if enough of them were combined together, they could
be use to deflect the trajectory of an asteroid?

Should work. They are called "vacuum cleaners" aren't they?

Pedant mode on

Suction cleaners actually

Pedant mode off

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , d
writes:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:30:22 +0100
charles wrote:
[]
Raw RGB means 3 signal paths rather than one. Think of the extra cost of
cabling and routing sysytems, mixers, etc and - in the early transistor
dasy - keeping them all in accurate alignment.

FM radio stations seem to cope perfectly well with 2 seperate audio paths
for L+R and then mix them at the transmitter - they don't have studio
equipment that deals with mono and a difference signal.

Even neglecting the difference between audio and video signals, you're
comparing two with two (L and R versus L+R and difference), so there
wouldn't (in the days before digital/psycho things like mp3 anyway that
could reduce the difference signal) be a saving in cables.

Even if RGB is asking too much of early equipment , why deal in the same
format as you're going to transmit in when that format is clearly a poor
compromise - eg the colour signal strength is much lower than luminosity?

Matches the human eye system. (See next post for another
misunderstanding here.)
[]
A20
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... more doomed than a busload of ... enthusiasts on their way to a Private
Frazer convention on a bus whose brakes have just failed as it heads towards a
cliff. - Eddie Mair, Radio Times 20-26 November 2010

In message , d
writes:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:15:42 +0100
"Max Demian" wrote:
It's 'cramped' to limit bandwidth, taking account of the lower resolution of
the colour system of the human eye/perception. [1]

The human eye has a much large colour palette than is available on either
analogue or digital TV.

What Max is talking about is the _spatial_ (actually angular) aspect,
not the colour palette. It has been frequently proved that the human eye
has much higher angular resolution for luminance than colour.
Interestingly, this was known decades if not centuries before
television: those who, for example, coloured prints (I mean line prints,
as often sold by the antique trade, not photographic ones) knew that
they did not have to be particularly careful to keep the colours within
their nominal boundaries. (If you look closely at some prints, you'll be
amazed at how badly the colours stay within their boundaries - and yet
produce an effect which is not noticeable from a normal viewing
distance.)

They might not have superimposed the carrier on the luminance system,
though.

There'd be no need for a luminance sub system at all. You'd just transmit
RGB encoded in some form as is done in digital systems.

B2003

It's keeping the timing differences down, and the gains matched.
A20
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... more doomed than a busload of ... enthusiasts on their way to a Private
Frazer convention on a bus whose brakes have just failed as it heads towards a
cliff. - Eddie Mair, Radio Times 20-26 November 2010