Those were the days!

Dave Plowman wrote:
Some 20 years ago I needed a new upright vacuum
....
That was a Panasonic.

In 1993 I bought a Mercedes/TLK 1100. It's still going strong.
The Kalashnikov of vacuum cleaners.

JGH

On 6/24/2011 2:28 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
wrote:
Dyson's are grossly overrated, they're called "die soons" in the
trade, Dyson only make a limited range of vacs with built-in
obsolesence, and other 'fashionable' products.

Some 20 years ago I needed a new upright vacuum, and bought the Which best
buy. I've found Which ok for things I'm not really interested in. ;-)

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

I bought my first Dyson in 1998, on the recommendation of a number of
relatives. Theirs, and mine, are still going strong. Perhaps we were
all just lucky?

On 6/24/2011 7:59 PM, Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/06/2011 18:52, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 24/06/2011 16:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:

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

Pedant mode on

Suction cleaners actually

Pedant mode off


more pedant They _are_ _called_ vacuum cleaners./more

Even though "suction cleaner" would be a better term I've never heard it
before.

That's when they aren't called Hoovers of course. Regardless of brand.


I've heard them called stoor sookers...

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:50:39 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

U-matic? Betacam? Both took PAL analogue input but didn't record it as
raw, chroma and luma were separated and modulated separately for
recording. Both VCR formats met broadcast standards.

U-matic was never broadcast standard. It was tolerated for news, that's
all. Betacam SP was a different world altogether.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:44:43 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

got something seriously wrong in your studio complex!) How would you
record RGB on a quad tape machine in the mid-70's would be another
example. No manufacturer could have even contemplated building an
analogue RGB mixer!

But analogue VCRs don't record a raw PAL signal do they?

Yes they did - the very common workhorse of the late 70s/most of the 80s
Ampex VPR-2 1" C format machine recorded composite.
Other more "domestic type" machines used "colour under" which separated
Y and C.
Then there was Betacam and later the SP variant (and other competitors)
which worked component.

Anyway, you are just stirring without knowing what the hell you are
talking about...

On 24 Jun,
Andy Champ wrote:

That's when they aren't called Hoovers of course. Regardless of brand.

They're called hovers on our local freecycle.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:29:03 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'poor compromise'? PAL and NTSC were

Umm, they were designed to work with monochrome TVs so by design the
colour system is a compromise. If you were designing an analogue colour
broadcast system from scratch that didn't have to be backwards compatible
you wouldn't come up with PAL, NTSC or SECAM with a cramped colour
subcarrier would you.

They had to fit the bandwidth available - an 8 MHz channel.
There never was, and never will be, limitless bandwidth or limitless
money.

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

The same way the PAL signal gets there or is there something magic
about PAL that changes the electrical properties of wires that it
runs through? Obviously an RGB signal would need to be modulated in
some way for long distance transmission , I wasn't thinking of sending
the raw low frequency camera signal.

have already posted how critical it is to keep these 3 signals
perfectly aligned to each other.

Why wouldn't they be if they're all travelling on the same piece of wire
all modulated in the same way?

So, you have to combine 3 signals in some way onto one wire, which
invariably means some sort of FDM technique in the analogue world.
Different frequencies are affected differently by the cable, so it's
blindingly obvious that they are not going to remain aligned in your
simplistic view.

Max Demian wrote:

Uber-Pedant On

There's no such thing as suction. It's atmospheric pressure that blows the
dust into the cleaner.

Uber-Pedant Off


Super-pedant On

This newsgroup is in English.

Super-pedant Off

Bill

On 6/25/2011 6:35 AM, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:52:25 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

There is nothing in a vacuum so they obviously work.

B-)

Trouble is there is plenty of energy in a vacuum, just no matter.


It doesn't matter.

On 6/25/2011 6:59 AM, Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/06/2011 18:52, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 24/06/2011 16:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:

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

Pedant mode on

Suction cleaners actually

Pedant mode off


more pedant They _are_ _called_ vacuum cleaners./more

Even though "suction cleaner" would be a better term I've never heard it
before.

That's when they aren't called Hoovers of course. Regardless of brand.

Andy

Ours was always called an Electrolux, even when it wasn't.