Digital Aerial

J G Miller wrote:
On Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 21:01:27h +0100, Chris Hogg suggested:

Replace the clock by a little cctv camera and you've got a serviceable
mirror!

Not so.

Try brushing or combing your hair whilst watching yourself
with a camera plus monitor combination as compared to a mirror.

You left/right reverse the image.

As a matter of interest, on a vehicle a backward-pointing camera needs
the image reversing so that it is in agreement with the side mirrors.
Anything else is most disconcerting. However, on a big vehicle with the
camera mounted high and looking down at the road and back bumper (as a
reversing aid) the image is most natural if not mirrored, and with the
visible body of the vehicle at the top of the picture.

Bill

On 18/08/2011 17:18, Graham. wrote:

Hang on a mo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQWIb...eature=related
...It's turned into a plasma set now!

.... and those flies are beautifully trained to ... err dance? ... in
exactly the same way...

Andy

In message , Richard Tobin
writes
In article ,
Ian wrote:
Who says there's no such thing?

So, what *would* be a digital aerial?

-- Richard

Something like this, maybe,

http://tinyurl.com/42sa89x
--
Ian

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:52:08 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Yes, it totally spoils the elegant mantelpiece.

This reminds me of the start of the railway age, when the Lake
District was inundated with hoi polloi.

You were there then?

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:52:08 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Yes, it totally spoils the elegant mantelpiece.
This reminds me of the start of the railway age, when the Lake
District was inundated with hoi polloi.

You were there then?

No, it was before my time. I'm going from near-contemporary accounts:

"Wordsworth responds to this [railway] proposal by humbly explaining
that members of the working class would not

have the capacity to appreciate the “beauty” and “character of seclusion
and retirement” that the Lakes District

had to offer. He states quite plainly that “a vivid perception of
romantic scenery is neither inherent in mankind,

nor a necessary consequence of a comprehensive education.” He concludes
this letter by stating that bringing many

travellers into the district would destroy the beauty they had come to
enjoy. He says, “Let then the beauty be

undisfigured and the retirement unviolated” (Selincourt,156).

Bill

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 01:06:50 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:52:08 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Yes, it totally spoils the elegant mantelpiece.
This reminds me of the start of the railway age, when the Lake
District was inundated with hoi polloi.

You were there then?

No, it was before my time. I'm going from near-contemporary accounts:

"Wordsworth responds to this [railway] proposal by humbly explaining
that members of the working class would not

have the capacity to appreciate the ´beauty¡ and ´character of seclusion
and retirement¡ that the Lakes District

had to offer. He states quite plainly that ´a vivid perception of
romantic scenery is neither inherent in mankind,

nor a necessary consequence of a comprehensive education.¡ He concludes
this letter by stating that bringing many

travellers into the district would destroy the beauty they had come to
enjoy. He says, ´Let then the beauty be

undisfigured and the retirement unviolated¡ (Selincourt,156).

Bill

He was correct.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:52:08 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:


This reminds me of the start of the railway age, when the Lake
District was inundated with hoi polloi.

This is a bit long and OT but my summary of the 'debate' surrounding
the proposal to build a railway up Snowdon might interest/amuse some
of you (Assheton-Smith was the landowner, Stewart was his agent):

By October 1894 stories about a proposed railway to the summit had
circulated sufficiently for Canon Hardwick D. Rawnsley, the secretary
of the newly formed National Trust for the Preservation of Sites of
Historical Interest and National Beauty, to write to Stewart to ask if
there was any truth in the rumours, claiming that 'a large number of
people in all parts of the United Kingdom are alarmed . . . They fear
that if once the interest of the railway engineer or hotel proprietor
are allowed on such a mountain as Snowdon to outweigh the best
interests of the lovers of our native land undisfigured and
undestroyed there will be an end to all real enjoyment of mountain
scenery throughout the country. The deplorable example set on Snowdon
will touch every mountain height. . .' What was acceptable in Italy
and Switzerland, where the heat of the plains and valleys encouraged
development in the mountains, 'would seem to be hardly necessary or
practicable in our own climate.' Stewart replied that although a line
had been surveyed he could not say 'to a certainty' that it would be
built and pointed out that Assheton-Smith was not promoting the scheme
but was granting facilities to others.
He continued: 'But, assuming that a railway is made, I do not see that
this need deprive mountain climbers of their climb. They can have
their climb all the same, if they prefer it to be being whisked to the
summit by steam or electricity. Don't you think on reflection,
however, that the view you take of the matter is rather selfish? Why
should Mr Assheton-Smith be debarred from promoting the interests and
prosperity of the people amongst whom he dwells? Why should Snowdon be
reserved exclusively for the enjoyment of mountain climbers? Why
should they have the entire monopoly of the mountain? Are there not
thousands and tens of thousands of people, some too young and some too
old and others who from various causes find themselves unable to make
the ascent who would like to inhale the exhilarating air of the
mountain and from the highest summit in England or Wales look down on
the glorious panorama that lies beneath? Is not the greatest happiness
of the greatest number the true end to be achieved? And is not he who
lends a hand in this direction a benefactor of this country?'
Writing on 23 October, Rawnsley acknowledged that Stewart's reply was
courteous before attacking Assheton-Smith for agreeing 'to this
objectionable scheme of vulgarising one of our grandest natural
possessions.' He was still hoping that Assheton-Smith would see that
'Snowdon, unvulgarised and uncommercialised, is, after all, the best
investment for "a declining Llanberis," and may believe that it is no
selfish spirit but a real love of our country and a real belief in the
growth of the appreciation of nature among the people that would urge
him at the eleventh hour to refuse to others the "reasonable
facilities" to which he is really opposed and of which he has refused
to avail himself' before concluding: '. . . It seems to me, though, of
course, it is only my opinion, that any one who will deprive the
people of the chief joy of such an ascent by taking away all the
association with mountain solitude, as will be done the moment a
railway and its accompaniments are imported to the scene, is directly
taking away the greatest happiness of the greatest number for the sake
of the profit to the few, and he who lends a hand in this direction
can surely in no sense claim to be a benefactor of his country.'
On 1 November Stewart replied '. . . I am glad you acknowledge my
letter to have been a courteous one, and regret to discover so little
of that quality in yours. When you find yourself defeated in argument
you indulge in sentiment, and I can only regard your epistles as the
sulky, sentimental dribble (canonised) of a dreamer and faddist. I
must ask you not to trouble me with further communications.'
In fact, Rawnsley had already gone over Stewart's head by writing to
Assheton-Smith on 23 October: '. . . if it could be shown you that the
preponderant sense of the nation were against such innovation, you
would take firm steps to prevent so sacred an inheritance as Snowdon
being thus robbed of its chief charm for future generations, and
vulgarised for ever.' Suggesting that developments on Snowdon would
set a precedent for other mountains in the UK he went on to appeal to
Assheton-Smith's sense of patriotism, concluding: 'It is in very few
places in our crowded country that man can be alone with nature, and
with their God - and Snowdon is one of them. To rob Snowdon, so
easily accessible as it is both by night and by day, of its grand
natural solitude and super eminent charm will be to inflict a loss
upon the whole world.'
To which Assheton-Smith answered: 'I regret to say that I cannot take
the same view of the matter as your association appears to do. You are
right in saying that I was in former years opposed to the scheme; but
times have changed, and if in many ways one does not advance with
them, one is left alone. In trying to direct the tourists to
Llanberis, and making things easy for them, I am consulting the
interest of the estate and the neighbourhood in which I live, and I
cannot recognise any outside interference in the matter.'
Ratcheting up the pressure, Rawnsley responded on 27 October: '. . . I
felt from what I had heard that you had at last, in your kindness,
given way to certain local representations, and that probably in heart
you were opposed as ever to the scheme. Knowing that many of my
fellow-countrymen, from no selfish spirit, are strongly opposed to the
introduction into our land of the Swiss mountain-railway craze, with
its utter destruction of one of the chief charms of mountain scenery
for all future time, and feeling that the interest in preserving
Snowdon from such harm was more than local, I venture to approach you.
I hope you will have no objection to our correspondence being made
public.'
On 6 November the Times published a letter from Rawnsley that included
his correspondence with Assheton-Smith. Rawnsley concluded by claiming
that there was no need for the railway. The mountain was already
accessible to all but the infirm and the 'little refreshment house on
the summit, with its four beds probably satisfies the needs of those
who wish to see the sun rise'. He agreed that the railway would be
good for Llanberis but at the expense of the existing guides and the
other villages used to make the ascent. They, he cited Beddgelert and
Capel Curig, might then promote their own railways to the summit.
Swiss mountain railways demonstrated that there would be no cheap
fares so the railway would only benefit the 'well to do'. As the
tourist season was so short the only way that the railway could cover
its operating costs would be by exploiting the mountain for mineral
traffic. 'Those who remember what Llanberis was before the quarries
existed, are naturally not anxious to see the Llanberis experiment
repeated . . .'
His greatest objection, however, remained what he called the
''commercialising' of scenery'.'Snowdon unrailwayed, unvulgarised, and
unexploited,' he said, 'is a better investment for Wales, for
Llanberis . . . than Snowdon turned into a mixture of tea-garden and
switchback.' 'The love of natural scenery - ' he continued, 'hardly
more than a century old in Great Britain - is working gradually
downward into the mass of the people; and the inevitable crowding into
the cities, with all the accompaniment of train and tram, as
inevitably makes men desire more and more something that is without
these accompaniments for their rest and enjoyment.' He closed by
referring to the Lake District, where 'within the past few years the
claims of natural scenery have been held by Parliament to be superior
to the claims of the railway promoter's pocket . . .'
The Times published a reply from Stewart on 9 November in which he
pointed out that Rawnsley had been in correspondence with him and had
only released half of the correspondence with the Vaynol estate,
saying 'The rev gentleman considered it necessary to supplement the
letters by a lengthy disquisition setting forth his own particular
views. I refrain from following his lead in this respect, and content
myself with merely supplying you with copies of the correspondence,
and leave it to your readers to form their own conclusions.' In a
postscript he added that Rawnsley was ill-informed about Snowdon,
saying that it was not uncommon for 500 people to ascend the mountain
in a day and that on one day earlier in the year more than 1,000 had
reached the summit.
The exchange was repeated in other newspapers. In the Times it
attracted support for the railway from Robert St John Corbet of
Shrewsbury, saying 'only one side of the giant hill would be
disfigured' and 'a cultured man like Canon Rawnsley . . . need [not]
fear anything from the multiplication of excursionists, male and
female, learned and ignorant, serious and frivolous'.
Commenting on the Times correspondence, the Manchester Guardian's
Welsh correspondent, published on 13 November, was critical of the
railway, saying 'If Welshmen have a spark of genuine patriotism in
them they will rise as one man against this 'desecration' as it may
well be called, of the grandest natural feature of their country. . .
.. I shall be much disappointed if Welshmen will allow a commercial
enterprise to ruin the charms of the most glorious of all their
mountains.'
The editor of the North Wales Chronicle, writing on 17 November, also
commented on the dispute.'The action of Mr Assheton-Smith in granting
facilities . . . has called forth the indignant protest of the
secretary . . . and the usual aesthetic persons always ready to join a
newspaper correspondence, which may serve to exhibit their
'superiority'. . . . the secretary had all the facts before him when
he first lifted up his voice against the so-called desecration of
Snowdon, but those facts seemed to have no effect whatever upon the
reverend gentleman, whose sense of beauty is apparently out of all
proportion to what ordinary folks would call common sense. It is
always an easy matter to pose as a champion of the preservation of
natural beauty, but the fact that the sympathy of unthinking people is
enlisted with ease should be a caution to plain men to be quite sure
that there is really a good case before any question of desecration or
vandalism is publicly raised. We venture to think that if Canon
Rawnsley had tempered his platitudes with a little respect for common
sense and a regard for facts, he would not have failed to appreciate
the kindness which prompted Mr Assheton-Smith and his advisers to
grant facilities for the construction of the proposed Snowdon Railway.
.. . Had Mr Assheton-Smith turned a deaf ear to the petitions of his
people, the radical and socialist press, which is now filled with
shrieking denunciations of the desecration of Snowdon, would not have
ceased from holding up to obloquy the landlord who preferred his own
sentimental fancy to the prosperity of the thousands who inhabit
Llanberis. The people who live in the Snowdon district have no need to
be told that it is no unusual sight in summer to see long trains
crowded with tourists going in the direction of Snowdon, but it is
equally well known that, by a clever device of the promoters of the
narrow gauge railway, the stream of visitors has been almost entirely
diverted from Llanberis. The re-christening of the Rhyd Ddu terminus
and calling it Snowdon attracts thousands of tourists annually, with
loss to the lodging house keepers, hotel keepers, and the general
population of Llanberis. As Captain Stewart pointed out . . . it is
absurd folly to speak of the solitudes of Snowdon during the summer
months, and it is equally silly to describe the people who make the
ascent as 'bun and whisky' tourists. As a matter of fact the crowds
that visit Snowdon are ordinary and decent people . . . It is
therefore under a sense of what he owes to the people of Llanberis, Mr
Assheton Smith withdraws his opposition to the scheme, from which he
derives no benefit whatever.'
Obviously the editor of a north Wales newspaper was not going to
criticise the Vaynol estate. A council member of the National Society
for Checking the Abuses of Public Advertising added to the Times'
correspondence on 19 November by taking a different stance, saying
that the real issue was not with the railway itself but with 'the
perfectly gratuitous disfigurements which it is generally allowed to
bring in its train.' 'Let, then, ' he continued, 'those who would if
they could keep Snowdon as it is reserve some part of their energy for
securing that the intrusion of the locomotive shall do the least
possible harm to the amenities. They can, if they chose to concentrate
their energies, make it a condition that neither the stations nor the
line shall be used for puffing disfigurements; that the buildings and
all else shall be modest, and not unnecessarily out of keeping with
the scene. . . . There is really no reason why places where meat and
drink are dispensed should cause offence. I admit that they generally
do, but that is because people take it for granted that they must.
But, if need were, I could mention instances where much-frequented
hostelries have been not merely useful, but perfectly harmless,
additions to fine scenery.' The society had been formed in 1893 and
was to play a part in securing the 1907 Advertisements Regulation Act;
the designer and socialist William Morris was a member.
The president of the Board of Trade, James Bryce MP, addressing
members of the Norwegian Club on 11 December declared that he wished
that he had the power to 'check the attempt to make a railway to the
top of Snowdon'. The first sod was cut on 15 December.

There would be a 'ski lift' up the side on Honister if it hadn't been
for this disaster:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/m...d&type=article

Mark was a genuinely remarkable man.

Bill

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:52:08 +0100, Peter Johnson
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:52:08 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:


This reminds me of the start of the railway age, when the Lake
District was inundated with hoi polloi.

This is a bit long and OT but my summary of the 'debate' surrounding
the proposal to build a railway up Snowdon might interest/amuse some
of you (Assheton-Smith was the landowner, Stewart was his agent):

[snip very interesting info]

There doesn't appear to be a digital aerial on the building at the
summit of Snowdon. Would any of our erectors like to install one? :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...t-Snowdon.html

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:52:08 +0100, Peter Johnson
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:52:08 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:


This reminds me of the start of the railway age, when the Lake
District was inundated with hoi polloi.

This is a bit long and OT but my summary of the 'debate' surrounding
the proposal to build a railway up Snowdon might interest/amuse some
of you (Assheton-Smith was the landowner, Stewart was his agent):

[snip very interesting info]

There doesn't appear to be a digital aerial on the building at the
summit of Snowdon. Would any of our erectors like to install one? :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...t-Snowdon.html

It could present a challenge, what with CCI and beam tilt. Probably find
the best reception was from Ireland or Bilsdale!

Or you could use a tiny satellite dish (it would only need a small one
because you'd be so much closer to the satellite)...

Bill