On 06/08/2020 09:45, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:26:32 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XX9ptCNpik

1) I think you meant to post that he

https://twitter.com/jimgm4dhj

2) As you like brevity, I think it will be better if you posted the
list of things you *do* know.

tee hee

Cheers, T i m

plenty...just haven't got a big gob like you timmy ....

On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:34:23 +0100, "Jim GM4 DHJ ..."
wrote:

On 06/08/2020 09:45, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:26:32 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XX9ptCNpik

1) I think you meant to post that he

https://twitter.com/jimgm4dhj

2) As you like brevity, I think it will be better if you posted the
list of things you *do* know.

tee hee

Cheers, T i m

plenty...just haven't got a big gob like you timmy ....

Ok, of us, which is happy / respectful enough to conform to the
Netiquette here and which of us can be seen 'gobbing off' on Youtube?

And constantly Tweeting stuff here about all sort of nonsense?

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

You are the classic example of someone with a big gob Crazy Jim.

Cheers, T i m

plenty...just haven't got a big gob like you timmy ....

Ok, of us, which is happy / respectful enough to conform to the
Netiquette here and which of us can be seen 'gobbing off' on Youtube?

you slavishly conform I don't.....

And constantly Tweeting stuff here about all sort of nonsense?

I never tweet

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

****s like you....

On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

On 06/08/2020 17:05, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

and descriptive of the measurement ..

On 06/08/2020 17:05:00, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

Except one is an SI unit and the other isn't.

One is an international quantity and the other isn't.

On 06/08/2020 17:11, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/08/2020 17:05:00, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

Except one is an SI unit and the other isn't.

One is an international quantity and the other isn't.
we have left europe

On 06/08/2020 17:37, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 06/08/2020 17:11, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/08/2020 17:05:00, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

Except one is an SI unit and the other isn't.

One is an international quantity and the other isn't.
we have left europe

If we stayed in, Miles-per-hour would presumably be replaced
by something else ?.

On 06/08/2020 18:07, Andrew wrote:
On 06/08/2020 17:37, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 06/08/2020 17:11, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/08/2020 17:05:00, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

Except one is an SI unit and the other isn't.

One is an international quantity and the other isn't.
we have left europe

If we stayed in, Miles-per-hour would presumably be replaced
by something else ?.
probably

In message ,
writes
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

are people still stressing about that? I have a vague recollection
it happened when I was doing block release as an apprentice around 1961!

--
Tim Lamb

On Thursday, 6 August 2020 21:26:01 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
tabbypurr writes
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

are people still stressing about that? I have a vague recollection
it happened when I was doing block release as an apprentice around 1961!

There are always people concerned over nothing


NT

On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 21:20:59 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

are people still stressing about that? I have a vague recollection
it happened when I was doing block release as an apprentice around 1961!

Yes, but Jim is one of those sad old radio amateurs who lives in the past.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 6 Aug 2020 21:49:13 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

snip


Yes, but Jim is one of those sad old radio amateurs who lives in the past.

And there is no logic to his statement.

If he's happy with 'cycles per second' because it means what it says,
how uncomfortable must he be with pretty well ever other unit that
doesn't (or not with any level of accuracy)?

No wonder it's driven him crazy! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 06/08/2020 21:20, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
writes
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

Â*Â*Â*Â* are people still stressing about that? I have a vague recollection
it happened when I was doing block release as an apprentice around 1961!

only timmy is stressing about it...I just don't use it......I use the
more descriptive cycles per second.....

On 06/08/2020 22:28, wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 21:26:01 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
tabbypurr writes
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

are people still stressing about that? I have a vague recollection
it happened when I was doing block release as an apprentice around 1961!

There are always people concerned over nothing


NT

like timmy

On 06/08/2020 22:49, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 21:20:59 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Thursday, 6 August 2020 13:40:29 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

Who is happy to accept that the current way of measuring frequency is
in Hertz and not insisting using cycles per second.

same thing

are people still stressing about that? I have a vague recollection
it happened when I was doing block release as an apprentice around 1961!

Yes, but Jim is one of those sad old radio amateurs who lives in the past.



nothing sad about it...it is the place to be.....the hobby has been
trashed.....

On 07/08/2020 00:00, T i m wrote:
On 6 Aug 2020 21:49:13 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

snip


Yes, but Jim is one of those sad old radio amateurs who lives in the past.

And there is no logic to his statement.

If he's happy with 'cycles per second' because it means what it says,
how uncomfortable must he be with pretty well ever other unit that
doesn't (or not with any level of accuracy)?

No wonder it's driven him crazy! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

as you say timmy