"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cynic wrote:
Quite, all stuff I learnt well over 30 years ago. So why do you say I
was only "partially" correct? Which part do you believe I got wrong?
A "ferrite rod aerial" describes the ferrite *and* the coil BTW.

Ferrite rod aerials are irrelevant to UHF. Or even HF, if you look at the
average radio which includes SW.

You might also think about other things that are capable of
concentrating the received field.

No - I think you should explain how the device in question might work?

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I would not mind betting that this 'product' has
its case plastic welded closed if its like the
previous proven scam.
Different shaped plastic box but once the case
was cracked open the scam was plain to see.
The 2 wires on the lead for the TV were soldered
together to one point on a board. Nothing on
this board except a hand drawn shape in copper
resembling a small christmas tree. No electronics
of any technology and no power source.
It was an out and out scam. They must have made
a fortune out of it as their adverts were half page,
full colour, in most of the UK colour supplements.

Anyone cracking open the Guardian Easylife electronic
antenna would not be able to claim back their 15 quid.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:53:56 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:09:19 +0000, (Sn!pe)
wrote:

Quite, all stuff I learnt well over 30 years ago. So why do you say I
was only "partially" correct? Which part do you believe I got wrong?
A "ferrite rod aerial" describes the ferrite *and* the coil BTW.

You might also think about other things that are capable of
concentrating the received field.

Ooh, ooh! Are you an old fart like me, then? I learned this stuff
*forty* years ago, and it's still just as true today as if it was
yesterday.

Yup, I'm an old fart. But I don't drive like one :-)

It's okay, just get a flat cap, that'll do it for you!
--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc)

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cynic wrote:
Quite, all stuff I learnt well over 30 years ago. So why do you say I
was only "partially" correct? Which part do you believe I got wrong?
A "ferrite rod aerial" describes the ferrite *and* the coil BTW.

Ferrite rod aerials are irrelevant to UHF. Or even HF, if you look at the
average radio which includes SW.

You might also think about other things that are capable of
concentrating the received field.

No - I think you should explain how the device in question might work?

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I emailed the Bad Science columnist on the Guardian,
he replied only with reference to dodgey PCR / DNA
technology not the subject of my mailing.
He takes pleasure in exposing dodgey devices etc
that rely on unproven technology and dodgey science.
Nothing in his piece yesterday exposing the Guardian item.
I somehow don't expect to see any write-up in the
Guardian about it.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

Cynic writes:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:21:29 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:

The laws of physics have hardly changed at all in my lifetime so far,

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

Really? Which are those?


Paul
--
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.
The time is gone, the song is over.
Thought I'd something more to say.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:30:02 UTC, Paul Leyland
wrote:

Cynic writes:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:21:29 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:

The laws of physics have hardly changed at all in my lifetime so far,

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

Really? Which are those?

G, probably...

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:30:02 UTC, Paul Leyland
wrote:


Cynic writes:


On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:21:29 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:


Cynic wrote:


The laws of physics have hardly changed at all in my lifetime so far,

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

Really? Which are those?


G, probably...

Has it? g has, but that doesn't count.

Ben

Paul Nutteing wrote:
[...]
I emailed the Bad Science columnist on the Guardian, he replied only
with reference to dodgey PCR / DNA technology not the subject of my
mailing.

That's because you haven't bothered with a sig separator, and it's
just another couple of paragraphs of text, so it looks like it's part
of the body.

--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger for full key

On 11 Feb 2005 09:30:02 +0000, Paul Leyland
wrote:

Cynic writes:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:21:29 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:

The laws of physics have hardly changed at all in my lifetime so far,

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

Really? Which are those?

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message
news
On 11 Feb 2005 09:30:02 +0000, Paul Leyland
wrote:

Cynic writes:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:21:29 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote:

Cynic wrote:

The laws of physics have hardly changed at all in my lifetime so
far,

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

Really? Which are those?

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.


Well, it's an interesting philosophical question! The "laws of physics"
(lower case) haven't changed, it's just we didn't quite know what they were
in times past (and probably still don't). If one means The Laws of Physics
(as written in text books 100 years ago), they do differ in certain areas
now. There are many instances but two examples a wave-particle duality of
light and quantum tunneling, both of which were contrary to the Laws of
Physics at the time of their discovery.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:57:55 -0000, "Bob Mannix"
wrote:


Well, it's an interesting philosophical question! The "laws of physics"
(lower case) haven't changed, it's just we didn't quite know what they were
in times past (and probably still don't). If one means The Laws of Physics
(as written in text books 100 years ago), they do differ in certain areas
now. There are many instances but two examples a wave-particle duality of
light and quantum tunneling, both of which were contrary to the Laws of
Physics at the time of their discovery.

I always use "laws of physics" to mean our *present understanding* of
the interactions between matter and energy. The only things I would
consider to be totally impossible are things that would create a
paradox. Such as certain types of time-travel. What if I travelled
back in time a mere 5 minutes and killed my past self? Or if I looked
into the future and killed the baby who was destined to become the
future prime minister? There would be no paradox in *looking* into
the past, but interaction with past events would create logical
paradoxes. There would also be no paradoxes involved with time-travel
into the future, so long as it were a one-way trip.

OTOH, paradoxes involved in time travel disappear if you assume that
there is no such thing as free will.

--
Cynic

In article ,
Cynic wrote:
Ferrite rod aerials are irrelevant to UHF. Or even HF, if you look at
the average radio which includes SW.

I have seen many radios with ferrite aerials for shortwave.

Perhaps you'd name one? All the ones I've seen have some form of whip
aerial for SW reception. More efficient, for a start, and would be on MF
as well - except that it would be too long for a portable.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:26:18 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

That's not very constant, then, is it?

Glenys

--
No, really, the basket does not fit on your head.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:52:12 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.

Cite please. I'm a girl, so I don't understand Physics, and find it
Difficult.

Glenys

--
No, really, the basket does not fit on your head.

"Juggz" wrote in message

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

That's not very constant, then, is it?

Rolling on the floor here, boss!

Nice One.

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Juggz said:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:26:18 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

That's not very constant, then, is it?

Glenys


One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say
--
tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger

"Sn!pe" wrote in message

One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

Old computers were like that.

-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...

DZ-015 wrote:
"Sn!pe" wrote in message


One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

Old computers were like that.


-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...



... / .- -- / ... --- .-. .-. -.-- / -....- / .. / -.. --- -. .----. - /
..... .- ...- . / .- -. -.-- .-.-.- But I do have a few old computers...

--

Sue

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:39:09 -0000, N.LENN @ WKX.KM.EU
wrote in :

One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

...or: Constants aren't; variables don't.

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Sn!pe said:
wrote:

One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

Old computers were like that.

And the languages that ran on them.

PROGRAM INCONSTANT
CALL BONK(5)
PRINT *,5
STOP
END
SUBROUTINE BONK(I)
I=I+1
END

--
tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:28:05 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:52:12 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.

Cite please. I'm a girl, so I don't understand Physics, and find it
Difficult.

It's something I learnt quite a while back, so maybe do an Internet
search - ther's bound to be a cite somewhere. As this is a legal
newsgroup, I should also point out that there is as yet no Act that
makes it illegal for a girl to learn about physics.

Though it is possible that the government may bring in such a law
soon.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:27:05 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:26:18 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

You mean they have a bit? I do hope not.

Some of the constants have changed by a tiny amount.

That's not very constant, then, is it?

It shows that even constants are relative.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:08:04 -0000, "DZ-015"
wrote:

"Sn!pe" wrote in message

One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

Old computers were like that.

-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...

You missed out a --- in there somewhere.

--
-.-. -.-- -. .. -.-.

"Cynic" wrote in message

As this is a legal
newsgroup, I should also point out that there is as yet no Act that
makes it illegal for a girl to learn about physics.

Can't throw
Can't punch
Can't run

Physsics, innit.

"Cynic" wrote in message

-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...

You missed out a --- in there somewhere.

Aye. So I did.

Bllx!

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:37:24 -0000, DZ-015
wrote the following to uk.misc:

"Cynic" wrote in message

-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...

You missed out a --- in there somewhere.

Aye. So I did.

Bllx!

- .... . ..-. ..- -.-. -.-


mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid.
"From" address is a blackhole.

Cynic wrote:


-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...

You missed out a --- in there somewhere.

Yeah, but it seemed ungentlemanly t pint ut the errr. After all, what's
the dd vwel between friends?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:58 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Cynic wrote:
Ferrite rod aerials are irrelevant to UHF. Or even HF, if you look at
the average radio which includes SW.

I have seen many radios with ferrite aerials for shortwave.

Perhaps you'd name one? All the ones I've seen have some form of whip
aerial for SW reception. More efficient, for a start, and would be on MF
as well - except that it would be too long for a portable.

The ferrite has the advantage of allowing you to null out an
interfering station. Interference was more of a problem on domestic
sets with wide IF's than sensitivity.

I recall a set that had a ferrite for LW, MW and 3 SW bands. There
was an aerial socket as well, which connected to a separate coil on
the ferrite IIRC. A knob on the front was connected via a string &
pullies which allowed the user to rotate the ferrite for best
reception.

Can't tell you the make - it was a while back. It had a triple-gang
air spaced tuning capacitor, a complex pully system to connect the
tuning knob, capacitor and indicator needle that I never managed to
get mechanically working quite right. Five valves in the receive
circuit (one a dual triode, ECC83 I think, so effectively 6 active
devices), a double anode rectifier valve and a neon voltage stabiliser
tube. Also a "magic eye" tube as a tuning indicator.

I remember it very well because I found it quite badly damaged in a
scrap heap & rebuilt it after tracing the circuit & figuring out what
valves to put in the empty sockets. Very proud of that radio, I was,
but as it had no case my parents would not allow it in the house, it
had to stay in the workshop.

Some of the new-fangled portable radios (AKA "trannies") had ferrites
for SW as well as a whip aerial. A 9-transistor set I saved up for
and bought new could receive SW on the ferrite alone, or extend the
whip for weaker stations. (The label said it was a 10 transistor set,
but one was being used as a diode, so I didn't count it). Then
silicon started to replace germanium, radios came with a strange new
band called "FM" and things went downhill from there ...

Talk about an AC/DC "trannie" to the youth of today, and they totally
misinterpret what you are talking about.

--
Cynic

Juggz wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:52:12 +0000, Cynic
wrote:


Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.


Cite please. I'm a girl, so I don't understand Physics, and find it
Difficult.


I wouldn't worry about it as it will all come out in the wash - apart
from the odd big rip or two..

--

Sue

"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message
...
If something sounds too good to be true then ....

Bottom of page 24 of today's Guardian 16
column inch advert for this product.
Previous incarnation of this device , same 'function'
and similar wording of ads was a proven scam.
Just an empty box.
The give away was no power
source internal or external - anyone heard of
the Law of Conservation of Energy?
Anyone aware of this actual variant ? If an internal
or external power source then I could be on the wrong tack.

Probably the same as third item down on this file
http://www.powerlounge.co.uk/nz_samp.../Easylife.html

The previous scam, different company,
worked because at 5 GBP it was pitched
low enough that people did not claim a refund
when they found, not surprisingly, it did not work.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine



This is a recoconstruction of this highly dubious OFF79
Guardian reader offer expunged from their internet site
(unless anyone else can track it down ) on
www.guardian.co.uk/readeroffers

Quote
crystal clear television
http://www2.powerlounge.co.uk/editsi...mages/1097.jpg
Indoor TV aerial, Just £14.99 inc UK p&p
When you find there's something good to watch on
TV, there's nothing worse than having it spoiled by
poor reception. But now you can receive a better
picture and sound with this innovative indoor TV
aerial. Featuring new technology, the aerial simply
plugs into your TV, removing the need for ugly
outdoor or clumsy indoor aerials.
Can also be used with your AM/FM radio
...T&Cs etc ...

End Quote

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:15:18 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:28:05 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:52:12 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.

Cite please. I'm a girl, so I don't understand Physics, and find it
Difficult.

It's something I learnt quite a while back, so maybe do an Internet
search - ther's bound to be a cite somewhere. As this is a legal
newsgroup, I should also point out that there is as yet no Act that

Um, you need to check your headers, Cynic.

--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:36:56 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote:

"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message
...
If something sounds too good to be true then ....

[snip]

Okay, hands up in uk.d-i-y, uk.legal and uk.misc who actually gives a
toss, other than Paul?
--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc)

"Linz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:36:56 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote:

"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message
...
If something sounds too good to be true then ....

[snip]

Okay, hands up in uk.d-i-y, uk.legal and uk.misc who actually gives a
toss, other than Paul?
--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with
stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc)

The point is how many people, next week , having
paid their 14.99 and received their Easylife electronic
antenna. Then find it doesn't work and research the way
one does these days and find this
thread on Usenet.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

Paul Nutteing wrote:
"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message
...
=20
If something sounds too good to be true then ....

Bottom of page 24 of today's Guardian 16
column inch advert for this product.
Previous incarnation of this device , same 'function'
and similar wording of ads was a proven scam.
Just an empty box.
The give away was no power
source internal or external - anyone heard of
the Law of Conservation of Energy?
Anyone aware of this actual variant ? If an internal
or external power source then I could be on the wrong tack.

Probably the same as third item down on this file
http://www.powerlounge.co.uk/nz_samp.../Easylife.html

The previous scam, different company,
worked because at 5 GBP it was pitched
low enough that people did not claim a refund
when they found, not surprisingly, it did not work.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine


=20
=20
This is a recoconstruction of this highly dubious OFF79
Guardian reader offer expunged from their internet site
(unless anyone else can track it down ) on
www.guardian.co.uk/readeroffers
=20
Quote
crystal clear television
http://www2.powerlounge.co.uk/editsi...mages/1097.jp=
g
Indoor TV aerial, Just =C2=A314.99 inc UK p&p
When you find there's something good to watch on
TV, there's nothing worse than having it spoiled by
poor reception. But now you can receive a better
picture and sound with this innovative indoor TV
aerial. Featuring new technology, the aerial simply
plugs into your TV, removing the need for ugly
outdoor or clumsy indoor aerials.
Can also be used with your AM/FM radio
...T&Cs etc ...


Whilst in no way suggesting that this thing is other than=20
a complete scam - it does make me wonder if, at this very=20
moment, some inventor is just finishing off tweaking the=20
positions of the elements of this tiny phased array that=20
really does produce this beautiful single lobe with no=20
sidelobes, the "perfect" miniature tv aerial..but, because=20
of scams like these no one will ever believe it and buy one.=20
It could even appear to be passive, by picking up and using=20
all the other crap that fill up the spectrum in most houses,=20
these days. It does bring some odd operating instructions to=20
mind, "If the aerial appears not to work, put your mobile=20
phone next to it".

Perhaps the inventor might be persuaded to design a=20
steerable phased array flat aerial for satellite tv=20
reception - that could be stuck on a window or hung out of=20
it to allow those in listed buildings or living under=20
restrictive local controls, the joys of French Televison.=20
ISTR one being mentioned in the papers years ago but this=20
seems to have died a death.

Going even further OT, one of my neighbours, in Dartmoor=20
National Park, has what appears to be at least a 2m=20
steerable satellite dish fitted to the top of his caravan in=20
the garden of his house - with a cable going back to his=20
house. The National Park people came and looked and sent=20
away nonplussed - well it isn't actually a permanent fixture=20
is it? He seems to have found a way around the 90cm limit,=20
as they haven't been back. I am not sure what the legal=20
position is though or what it would be if he took the=20
caravan on the highway...The Parks people are probably about=20
to get him under some anti-terrorism legislation - they must=20
be experts at that area of law.

--=20

Sue

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:19:23 +0000, Linz
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:15:18 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:28:05 +0000, Juggz
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:52:12 +0000, Cynic
wrote:

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance.
It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is
becoming less dense as it expands.

Cite please. I'm a girl, so I don't understand Physics, and find it
Difficult.

It's something I learnt quite a while back, so maybe do an Internet
search - ther's bound to be a cite somewhere. As this is a legal
newsgroup, I should also point out that there is as yet no Act that

Um, you need to check your headers, Cynic.

*I'm* posting from uk.legal. As I did not alter the newsgroup list,
you may be reading it in a diy group.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:39:40 UTC, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote:

For God's sake...put in a proper signature separator (that's two dashes,
followed by a space, on one line).

Then the followups won'r repeat your paranoid sig.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:39:40 -0000, Paul Nutteing
wrote the following to uk.misc:

"Linz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:36:56 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote:

"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message
...
If something sounds too good to be true then ....

[snip]

Okay, hands up in uk.d-i-y, uk.legal and uk.misc who actually gives a
toss, other than Paul?
--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with
stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc)

The point is how many people, next week , having
paid their 14.99 and received their Easylife electronic
antenna. Then find it doesn't work and research the way
one does these days and find this
thread on Usenet.

I'm still waiting to see your proof that it doesn't work. All you've said so
far is that it *probably* doesn't work because you can't work out how it
does. Have you tried one? Have you heard from other people who have tried
one?

You might also want to lose the stuff below or at least put it under a sig
separator as it otherwise makes you look like one of those "'they' are
coming to get me" loons.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine


mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.

"Forgive me if I can't give you the answers today, I don't have all
the answers, and the answers I do have may be different tomorrow."

"Palindr?me" wrote in message
...
Paul Nutteing wrote:
"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message
...

Whilst in no way suggesting that this thing is other than
a complete scam - it does make me wonder if, at this very
moment, some inventor is just finishing off tweaking the
positions of the elements of this tiny phased array that
really does produce this beautiful single lobe with no
sidelobes, the "perfect" miniature tv aerial..but, because
of scams like these no one will ever believe it and buy one.
It could even appear to be passive, by picking up and using
all the other crap that fill up the spectrum in most houses,
these days. It does bring some odd operating instructions to
mind, "If the aerial appears not to work, put your mobile
phone next to it".

Perhaps the inventor might be persuaded to design a
steerable phased array flat aerial for satellite tv
reception - that could be stuck on a window or hung out of
it to allow those in listed buildings or living under
restrictive local controls, the joys of French Televison.
ISTR one being mentioned in the papers years ago but this
seems to have died a death.


I thought it was too good to be true at the time on
Tomorrow's World some years back.
A sort of asymmetric Fresnel lens , custom
built for your window orientation, lat & long
and satellite choice. You stuck this ring structure
to your window and positioned the electronic bit from
your dish inside the room.
Perhaps the trouble was you had to change the
glass of your window to whatever the material is that
covers the Fylingdales mushrooms.


What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:41:32 -0000, N.LENN @ WKX.KM.EU
wrote in :
Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Sn!pe said:
wrote:

One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

Old computers were like that.

And the languages that ran on them.

PROGRAM INCONSTANT
CALL BONK(5)
PRINT *,5
STOP
END
SUBROUTINE BONK(I)
I=I+1
END

Ah, good old FORTRAN IV[1]. Luckily it's now called "Fortran 2003".

[1] Or G, H, what-have-you...

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

Marcus Houlden (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
:

I'm still waiting to see your proof that it doesn't work. All you've said
so far is that it *probably* doesn't work because you can't work out how
it does. Have you tried one? Have you heard from other people who have
tried one?

Is there anybody here, that's *got* one of these things, and finds that it
*works* ? The future of this thread is in your hands, you could kill it
right now.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:49:11 +0000, Prai Jei
wrote:

Marcus Houlden (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
:

I'm still waiting to see your proof that it doesn't work. All you've said
so far is that it *probably* doesn't work because you can't work out how
it does. Have you tried one? Have you heard from other people who have
tried one?

Is there anybody here, that's *got* one of these things, and finds that it
*works* ? The future of this thread is in your hands, you could kill it
right now.

No they couldn't, as people would argue about what constitutes
'working' as with good reception conditions any old piece of wire
would work.