On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:12:28 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Ian White wrote:
"The real technical question is how many, and how long, will be "just
enough" for "here"?"

Reminds me of the trailer house designer pulling out reaces until the
whole projkect collapses, then rebuilding with only the last brace
removed reinstalled.

Sounds like the guy works for Fleetwood.

Here's an example of their fine American craftsmanship used on my
fifth-wheel trailer. Actually I think they probably have a crew of
illegal aliens doing the work but who knows.

http://users.triconet.org/wesandlind...yFleetwood.jpg

The awning upright kept the sheet from tearing off completely and
landing in the middle of I-10 (75 mph limit). Adding insult to
injury, I had just increased my insurance deductable before the trip
from $200 to $1K to "save money."

Wes Stewart wrote:
. . .
Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

The authors didn't own the copyright. (If they did, it would be the
property of their heirs if still valid.) But the IRE isn't gone -- it
merged with the IEE, back in the '60s as I recall, to become the IEEE.
If the copyright is valid, they're its owner. And they might sue.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Wes, N7WS wrote:
"Sounds like the guy who works for Fleetwood."

Did not expect to hit a nerve with my story of "Value Engineering".
Fleetwood could be called Fleetaluminum after Wes` skin peeled and
sailed down I-10 at 75 mph.

When you are making many examples of a product it makes sense to
minimize cost if you don`t compromise the product.

A guy in my college class was hired by a car radio manufacturer. He
spent most of his first 18 months with the company eliminating a single
nut and bolt in a vibrator. His starting salery probably wasn`t much,
but I doubt they ever produced enough vibrators to recoup the cost of
their design improvement which saved a single fastener. His work must
have been akin to that of T.A. Edison finding the right stuff for the
filament of an incandescent lamp, finding a thousand things that didn`t
work before finding one which did.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

In article ,
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Hm. The way I read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc, it
has. It looks to me like the original copyright was good for 28 years
and for copyrights originally issued in 1937, renewal (if done) was good
for another 28.

That's the first thing to check - see if there's any record of the
renewal actually taking place in 1964 or 1965. If it didn't, then the
work would have entered the public domain effective 1/1/1966, I believe.

That would put it in the public domain after 1993.

Here's where I differ with you. The copyright law which went into
effect on 1/1/78 automatically extended the second (renewal) term of
copyright, for works which had been originally copyrighted before 1950
and on which the copyright had been renewed before 1/1/78. The second
(28-year) term was automatically lengthened to 67 years, giving a
total of 95 years of protection.

So: if the work's original 28-year copyright was not renewed, then it
fell into the public domain in 1966.

If the work's original 28-year copyright *was* renewed in its last
ear, then the second 28-year term was effective, was automatically
extended to 67 years by the Copyright Act of 1976, and is still in
force today.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:30:20 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

His work must
have been akin to that of T.A. Edison finding the right stuff for the
filament of an incandescent lamp

Hi Richard,

Right kind of hymn, wrong inventor for the chorus. It was Ford who
was approached by his engineers with a carburetor with two screws
holding it together. He challenged them to return only when they had
reduced it to one screw.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:56:52 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:
. . .
Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

The authors didn't own the copyright. (If they did, it would be the
property of their heirs if still valid.) But the IRE isn't gone -- it
merged with the IEE, back in the '60s as I recall, to become the IEEE.
If the copyright is valid, they're its owner. And they might sue.

All true, but...

Suppose that the IEEE has a staff of lawyers sitting around picking
their collective noses and they get wind of some ham (who actually
knew the authors) posting a copy of a document published in 1937 and
practically incorporated by reference in every FCC licensed broadcast
station's proof of performance.

They can't prove any financial harm, except maybe they didn't sell a
copy of the document for $25 and even at that there is some
possibility that the usage is "fair" in that it's for "research
purposes", do you think they will sue?

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Walter Maxwell, W2DU proposed a fast way to determine earth loss at
radio frequencies without digging into the earth.

"Earth Constants", conductivity and permittivity, affect ground wave
propagation and terrestrial reflections.. They may predict or explain
some propagation. They al;so affect operation of nearby antennas.

Earth permittivity is the ratio of a capacitor`s capacitance using an
earth sample as a dielectric, to its capacitance using air as the
dielectric. Under "permittivity" my dictionary says: "-See Dielectric
Constant.".

Earth conductivity is defined as the conductance between opposite faces
of a unit cube (usually 1.0 cubic meter) of a given earth material, e.g.
rock, sand, clay, loam, water, etc. Hoe do you measure this without
changing its value?

Conductivity and permittivity are affected by chemical and physical
composition, moisture, and temperature (especially freezing).

Earth constants are functions of frequency and antenna polarization.
R.F. determination seems best.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:56:52 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:
. . .
Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

The authors didn't own the copyright. (If they did, it would be the
property of their heirs if still valid.) But the IRE isn't gone -- it
merged with the IEE, back in the '60s as I recall, to become the IEEE.
If the copyright is valid, they're its owner. And they might sue.

All true, but...

Suppose that the IEEE has a staff of lawyers sitting around picking
their collective noses and they get wind of some ham (who actually
knew the authors) posting a copy of a document published in 1937 and
practically incorporated by reference in every FCC licensed broadcast
station's proof of performance.

They can't prove any financial harm, except maybe they didn't sell a
copy of the document for $25 and even at that there is some
possibility that the usage is "fair" in that it's for "research
purposes", do you think they will sue?

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Seems to me, Wes, that our use on the group could be considered criticism,
comment and teaching. So far I haven't received anything from the library, so
we'll see what happens.

Walt

"Richard Harrison" wrote

Earth constants are functions of frequency and antenna polarization.
R.F. determination seems best.

=================================

You seem to know something about it Rixhard.

How is it done?
----
Reg

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:37:34 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Seems to me, Wes, that our use on the group could be considered criticism,
comment and teaching. So far I haven't received anything from the library, so
we'll see what happens.

Hi Walt,

Do you have a BailPal account that we can chip into?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC