|
Scam product for sale in Guardian newspaper, allegedly
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 |
"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message ... 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 And this has to do with DIY how precisely ? |
Paul Nutteing wrote:
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. Welcome to uk.d-i-y. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten to tell us what it is youre talking about. NT |
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:40:14 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
strung together this: If something sounds too good to be true then .... Er, yes. I'm glad it's not just me who has no idea what you're banging on about then. -- SJW Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject |
In article , Lurch
writes On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:40:14 -0000, "Paul Nutteing" strung together this: If something sounds too good to be true then .... Er, yes. I'm glad it's not just me who has no idea what you're banging on about then. I think he's talking about the time you defiantly know you put your screw driver in your tool box. But when you open the box next it's not there. -- Zaax http://www.ukgatsos.com |
wrote in message
ups.com... Paul Nutteing wrote: 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. Welcome to uk.d-i-y. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten to tell us what it is youre talking about. NT The wording in the Guardian is similar to this "Crystal clear reception in an instant Many of us suffer with 'snow', 'ghosting' or poor reception, which spoils our favourite programmes. This tiny indoor antenna will help you receive a crystal clear reception on your TV. Not only does this new technology bring you long awaited high quality TV reception but it also works with AM/FM radio. Simply plug into your TV or radio and you will instantly obtain a better picture and sound, without the need for ugly outdoor or clumsy indoor aerials. Only £12.99" The above quote from the URL http://www.powerlounge.co.uk/nz_samp.../Easylife.html as the Guardian does not have electronic access to their adverts. The newspaper has legitamised the possible scam by giving their own contact and order details. Wheras the company originating these, too good to be true devices, operates using a mobile phone number contact , no mail address and a secondary unattributeable internet site in New Zealand apparently. The Guardian is adding 2 GBP for purchasers by acting as agent for this "Guardian reader offer" A small plastic box about 2 inches square roughly with a wire and plug that you plug into your TV. If any electronic bods know what possible technology can do this with no power consumed I would be most intrigued to discover. |
"Paul Nutteing" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Paul Nutteing wrote: SNIP A small plastic box about 2 inches square roughly with a wire and plug that you plug into your TV. If any electronic bods know what possible technology can do this with no power consumed I would be most intrigued to discover. Its a 23rd Century Sub-Space radio remarkable moved back to our time during an encounter with a temporal anomaly. Probably a whole host of similar things hidden away in area 51 g |
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:39:12 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote: A small plastic box about 2 inches square roughly with a wire and plug that you plug into your TV. If any electronic bods know what possible technology can do this with no power consumed I would be most intrigued to discover. In the case of an aerial it is possible. Aerials can be directional, which provides a stronger signal with no power input. If an existing aerial is not correctly matched to the impdance of the aerial input, it is also possible to improve the signal by putting a matching network (again, unpowered) between the aerial and the input. I have no idea what the device in question is, I only give examples of how reception can be improved by the use of a passive device. -- Cynic |
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:39:12 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote: The wording in the Guardian is similar to this "Crystal clear reception in an instant Many of us suffer with 'snow', 'ghosting' or poor reception, which spoils our favourite programmes. This tiny indoor antenna will help you receive a crystal clear reception on your TV. Not only does this new technology bring you long awaited high quality TV reception but it also works with AM/FM radio. Simply plug into your TV or radio and you will instantly obtain a better picture and sound, without the need for ugly outdoor or clumsy indoor aerials. Only £12.99" acting as agent for this "Guardian reader offer" A small plastic box about 2 inches square roughly with a wire and plug that you plug into your TV. If any electronic bods know what possible technology can do this with no power consumed I would be most intrigued to discover. It's not a scam it's simply a TV aerial in a plastic box. The clue is in the phrase "This tiny indoor antenna". Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. As with all passive aerials no power supply is required. sPoNiX |
|
Max wrote:
People have been selling things like this for decades. Precisely. I suspect that they offer "money back if not satisfied" and rely on people not bothering to send it back. Also it *might* be better than some indoor aerial setups, especially FM radios which rely on a piece of wire dangling. There's one particular magic aerial that's appeared from time to time over the last two decades that just consists of a piece of wire with a solid plastic block moulded on the end. What you get for your money is a piece of wire dangling with a weight on the end :-). One reason these scams continue to work is that the goods are priced just on the right (or wrong) side of the "I've been conned but I can't be bothered to do anything about it" barrier. -- Andy |
"Andy Wade" wrote in message
... Max wrote: People have been selling things like this for decades. Precisely. I suspect that they offer "money back if not satisfied" and rely on people not bothering to send it back. Also it *might* be better than some indoor aerial setups, especially FM radios which rely on a piece of wire dangling. There's one particular magic aerial that's appeared from time to time over the last two decades that just consists of a piece of wire with a solid plastic block moulded on the end. What you get for your money is a piece of wire dangling with a weight on the end :-). One reason these scams continue to work is that the goods are priced just on the right (or wrong) side of the "I've been conned but I can't be bothered to do anything about it" barrier. -- Andy The previous definite scam device along these lines 10 years ago was priced at about £5. As you say a cut-off point where a large proportion would not be bothered claiming back their money. But £13, £15 these days if still a scam - seems piched too high even for 10 years inflation. Perhaps someone has done the focus group / psychology and 13 to 15 quid is the current cant be bothered point 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. |
In article ,
s--p--o--n--i--x wrote: It's not a scam it's simply a TV aerial in a plastic box. The clue is in the phrase "This tiny indoor antenna". Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. -- *I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:54:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) They certainly may be in some locations. In any case, I don't recall the exact wording of the advert, but if you have a roof-mounted yagi in a high signal strength area, you could be over-driving your TV tuner. Fitting a *lower* gain aerial could in that case improve your reception. If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the aerials on mobile phones have been getting smaller and smaller until these days they are usually completely hidden inside the phone. So no way would the mobile phone people be interested in an aerial as large as the one advertised. -- Cynic |
"Cynic" wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:54:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) They certainly may be in some locations. In any case, I don't recall the exact wording of the advert, but if you have a roof-mounted yagi in a high signal strength area, you could be over-driving your TV tuner. Fitting a *lower* gain aerial could in that case improve your reception. If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the aerials on mobile phones have been getting smaller and smaller until these days they are usually completely hidden inside the phone. So no way would the mobile phone people be interested in an aerial as large as the one advertised. -- Cynic I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc This scam thing, 2 inches across, must be for picking up infra-red TV stations 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 in message ... A small plastic box about 2 inches square roughly with a wire and plug that you plug into your TV. If any electronic bods know what possible technology can do this with no power consumed I would be most intrigued to discover. Well one could filter out all frequencies other than the TV channels, rectify them and somehow get enough to run a low gain amplifier at the TV frequencies. But as to it improving things, that is unlikely. |
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , s--p--o--n--i--x wrote: It's not a scam it's simply a TV aerial in a plastic box. The clue is in the phrase "This tiny indoor antenna". Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. Where's the attenna on your mobile phone ? |
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0000, "Paul Nutteing"
wrote: I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long dipole. -- Cynic |
Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Cynic said:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0000, "Paul Nutteing" wrote: I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long metre dipole. sorry, one of the ones that annoys me unreasonably -- tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger tiger |
|
In article ,
Cynic wrote: Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) They certainly may be in some locations. In any case, I don't recall the exact wording of the advert, but if you have a roof-mounted yagi in a high signal strength area, you could be over-driving your TV tuner. Fitting a *lower* gain aerial could in that case improve your reception. ********. ;-) Far cheaper to simply use a plug in attenuator. A couple of pounds. Remind me how much this aerial costs? Besides, regardless of signal strength, you have the problems with reflections which all internal aerials suffer from. If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the aerials on mobile phones have been getting smaller and smaller until these days they are usually completely hidden inside the phone. So no way would the mobile phone people be interested in an aerial as large as the one advertised. Think you've rather missed the point. -- *Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
In article ,
Mike wrote: So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. Where's the attenna on your mobile phone ? What is the field strength, and what is the frequency? And an aeriel doesn't have to be an *external* 'rod'. But where there is no internal aerial - ie a TV, then the box in question is the entire thing. -- *Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?" Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
In article ,
Cynic wrote: Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long dipole. Well, if the signal strength is high enough, no aerial at all will suffice. Just pickup on the PCB. Indeed, if you are close to a TV transmitter it's common for it to swamp wanted signals causing patterning etc on the picture. But that doesn't negate proper aerial design for the majority. -- *The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
" wrote in message t... Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Cynic said: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0000, "Paul Nutteing" wrote: I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long metre dipole. sorry, one of the ones that annoys me unreasonably Both are correct spellings. 'Meter' is the preferred use on the continent even when used in English language documents. |
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Cynic wrote: Depending upon how it is designed it *may* have a higher gain than a conventional aerial and therefore provide a better picture. So all those large external aerials are simply unnecessary? ;-) They certainly may be in some locations. In any case, I don't recall the exact wording of the advert, but if you have a roof-mounted yagi in a high signal strength area, you could be over-driving your TV tuner. Fitting a *lower* gain aerial could in that case improve your reception. ********. ;-) Far cheaper to simply use a plug in attenuator. A couple of pounds. Remind me how much this aerial costs? Besides, regardless of signal strength, you have the problems with reflections which all internal aerials suffer from. If they've invented something that works better than conventional techniques, then the mobile phone chappies would bite their hands off for it. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the aerials on mobile phones have been getting smaller and smaller until these days they are usually completely hidden inside the phone. So no way would the mobile phone people be interested in an aerial as large as the one advertised. Think you've rather missed the point. -- *Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Ah but according to their blurb this wondrous product removes ghosting. Now why did a few 10,000s of people locally have to redirect their TV aerials in the opposite direction to pick up a small power relay station on a high building the other side of a huge pile of ghosting steelwork. For the purchasers of this gizmo thinking that the Guardian is a newspaprer of repute. Next week, should they Google for information, this Guardian reader offer is callled the Easylife Electronic Antenna. 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. |
The message
from "Mike" contains these words: fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long metre dipole. sorry, one of the ones that annoys me unreasonably Both are correct spellings. 'Meter' is the preferred use on the continent even when used in English language documents. Only in American english. A meter is an instrument in English, not a measurement of length. -- Roger |
They certainly may be in some locations. In any case, I don't recall the exact wording of the advert, but if you have a roof-mounted yagi in a high signal strength area, you could be over-driving your TV tuner. Fitting a *lower* gain aerial could in that case improve your reception. Just a thought - is this product from US ? According to US films (!!) most TV watchers use a poor rabbit-ears aerial on top of their sets, which cannot be much good. The easylife antenna could be better than those, and reduce ghosting if it is somewhat directional. It's a question of what you are comparing it with. Nowhere does it say compared to qualify roof aerials as used in UK. Anyone care to buy one and crack it open ? Simon. |
|
Paul Nutteing wrote:
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles FFS use a valid sig-sep will you? -- Nothing to be done. |
"Roger" wrote in message k... The message from "Mike" contains these words: fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long metre dipole. sorry, one of the ones that annoys me unreasonably Both are correct spellings. 'Meter' is the preferred use on the continent even when used in English language documents. Only in American english. A meter is an instrument in English, not a measurement of length. And in EU English. Meter is the preferred spelling in EU, ETSI, IEC and other documents where English is used as a common language. |
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:53:17 +0000, Cynic
wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0000, "Paul Nutteing" wrote: I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long dipole. Only partially correct. The Ferrite rod of the aerial is used to concentrate the received field and link it to the coils wound on the rod. The coils form a resonant circuit with the tuning capacitor. The rod and coils combined are the arial and the rules regarding the length of dipole aerials don't apply. |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:58:37 +0000, not available
wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:53:17 +0000, Cynic wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0000, "Paul Nutteing" wrote: I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long dipole. Only partially correct. The Ferrite rod of the aerial is used to concentrate the received field and link it to the coils wound on the rod. The coils form a resonant circuit with the tuning capacitor. The rod and coils combined are the arial and the rules regarding the length of dipole aerials don't apply. 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. -- Cynic |
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. |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:44:43 +0000, Cynic
wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:58:37 +0000, not available wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:53:17 +0000, Cynic wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0000, "Paul Nutteing" wrote: I thought aerial dimensions went to scale with the wavelength I know an indoor FM radio aerial as a squashed loop is 5 foot long Long wave aerials used to be the length of the garden 405 aerial was bigger than 625 aerial etc Yes and no. *Some* aerial designs have to be a particular fraction of the wavelength, but you will find that a LW and MW radio works just fine with a 6 inch ferrite rod aerial instead of a 300 meter long dipole. Only partially correct. The Ferrite rod of the aerial is used to concentrate the received field and link it to the coils wound on the rod. The coils form a resonant circuit with the tuning capacitor. The rod and coils combined are the arial and the rules regarding the length of dipole aerials don't apply. 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. OK point taken. It should be "only a partial answer"! I was clarifying the point that Ferrite aerials can not be compared with dipole based ones with regard to size. Paul may find it interesting that some small AM receivers work well with a Ferrite slab aerial just a few inches long. |
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:19:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
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. I have seen many radios with ferrite aerials for shortwave. I was however only addressing the erroneous point made by a poster that the size of an aerial is always proportional to the wavelength. 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? I have no idea whether the device in question works or not, and if it does work what principle it adopts. It probably *is* a scam. I recall an "automatic tuner" that lots of hams were conned into buying years ago, and which was advertised in some reputable ham radio magazines. I am not defending the aerial at all. I just get a tad annoyed when people make statements that something that is claimed is totally impossible when it would be trivial to prove one way or the other. So I'm just picking holes in the reasoning of people that are saying so. I will not make the statement that the aerial in question is *impossible*. It is not as if it would violate any basic principle of physics. Maybe it is similar to a ferrite aerial. At UHF you could not make a conventional ferrite aerial with a coil & capacitor, because any coil would have far too much inductance to be able to make it resonate at UHF. But maybe something like a stripline resonant circuit on a ferrite base? Or some other material that can concentrate the magnetic or electrical component of the EM field. Maybe I'll get curious enough to waste the price of the aerial to find out for sure that it is a scam. I agree that the claims sound very suspect, especially the one regarding ghosting (though a ferrite aerial has very pronounced null regions that would be useful to eliminate ghosting). *If* there is such a principle behind the aerial, it would not be something the mobile phone bods would be clamouring over. Because, as I am sure you are aware, a ferrite aerial can only be used for reception, not transmission. An aerial for transmission must couple both E and M fields, and ferrite acts only on the M field. -- Cynic |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:29:57 +0000, not available
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. OK point taken. It should be "only a partial answer"! Quite deliberately so, I'm afraid. ;-) I was clarifying the point that Ferrite aerials can not be compared with dipole based ones with regard to size. Paul may find it interesting that some small AM receivers work well with a Ferrite slab aerial just a few inches long. See my other post, & I'll reiterate in this one that I am not arguing that the aerial is question actually works as advertised. Only that there is no law of physics that would indicate that it is *impossible*. -- Cynic |
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. That would make life very confusing. OTOH, what advances have been made in our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics in the last 40 years or so? I think I'll go and think about that one. -- Nothing to be done. |
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. That would make life very confusing. OTOH, what advances have been made in our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics in the last 40 years or so? I think I'll go and think about that one. Quite a few, but I don't agree with all of the new understandings. -- Cynic |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter