Slightly OT, but kinda fun anyhow.....

I'd been trying to locate a reasonably priced USB cable over the weekend
It seems that you often pay as much for the cable as you fo for the
device you are connecting to the computer.

Has stereo voodoo physics entered the computer realm?

Anyhow, I ended up in a Radio Shack store, found the cheapest cable I
could, (20 bucks) and made the mistake of mentioning something to the
salesman about the funny claims on the packages. Big mistake, I had
blasphemed his religion. In the next couple minutes I learned that:

Turns out that different frequencies travel at different speeds down the
cable. Good cables have special formulations of wire that compensate for
this.

Everybody knows that!

He didn't know what velocity factor was, but let me know that he had
taken physics classes, so he knew what he was talking about.

So why have u antenna gurus been misleading us?!


Now that my eyes have been opened I understand....

Looking at an antenna, it becomes obvious that the lower the frequency,
the slower the signal moves. The extra length of the antenna allows the
RF to accellerate enough so that when it reached the end of the antenna,
it has enough velocity to shoot out and not float straight up. Those
really high frequencies are zipping by so fast that they hardly need any
wire to get to TOSP (Take-off speed)

Wow, I have reached true enlightenment...............



- Mike KB3EIA -

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:28:47 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Slightly OT, but kinda fun anyhow.....

I'd been trying to locate a reasonably priced USB cable over the weekend
It seems that you often pay as much for the cable as you fo for the
device you are connecting to the computer.

Has stereo voodoo physics entered the computer realm?

Anyhow, I ended up in a Radio Shack store, found the cheapest cable I
could, (20 bucks) and made the mistake of mentioning something to the
salesman about the funny claims on the packages. Big mistake, I had
blasphemed his religion. In the next couple minutes I learned that:

Turns out that different frequencies travel at different speeds down the
cable. Good cables have special formulations of wire that compensate for
this.

Everybody knows that!

He didn't know what velocity factor was, but let me know that he had
taken physics classes, so he knew what he was talking about.

So why have u antenna gurus been misleading us?!


Now that my eyes have been opened I understand....

Looking at an antenna, it becomes obvious that the lower the frequency,
the slower the signal moves. The extra length of the antenna allows the
RF to accellerate enough so that when it reached the end of the antenna,
it has enough velocity to shoot out and not float straight up. Those
really high frequencies are zipping by so fast that they hardly need any
wire to get to TOSP (Take-off speed)

Wow, I have reached true enlightenment...............

Mike, sounds like he is well on the way to a ham licence... did you
sign him up?

Owen
--

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:43:15 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:28:47 -0500, Michael Coslo wrote:

Slightly OT, but kinda fun anyhow.....

I'd been trying to locate a reasonably priced USB cable over the weekend
It seems that you often pay as much for the cable as you fo for the
device you are connecting to the computer.

Has stereo voodoo physics entered the computer realm?

Anyhow, I ended up in a Radio Shack store, found the cheapest cable I
could, (20 bucks) and made the mistake of mentioning something to the
salesman about the funny claims on the packages. Big mistake, I had
blasphemed his religion. In the next couple minutes I learned that:

Turns out that different frequencies travel at different speeds down the
cable. Good cables have special formulations of wire that compensate for
this.

Everybody knows that!

He didn't know what velocity factor was, but let me know that he had
taken physics classes, so he knew what he was talking about.

Mike, sounds like he is well on the way to a ham licence... did you
sign him up?

Too much ruckus has been focused on the 'No Code License' issue.
The ruckus should, instead, be focused on the 'No Clue License'.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
Pueblo, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
38.24N 104.55W | config.com | DM78rf | SK

On 23 Nov 2005 20:29:37 GMT, Allodoxaphobia
wrote:


Too much ruckus has been focused on the 'No Code License' issue.
The ruckus should, instead, be focused on the 'No Clue License'.

I never mentioned the no-code licence... we got over that over a year
ago down under.

I suggest it is not a matter of the no-clue licence, but the no-clue
licensee, who could be licensed in any grade.

Owen
(Spelling correct for country of origin!)
--

Owen Duffy wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 20:29:37 GMT, Allodoxaphobia
wrote:



Too much ruckus has been focused on the 'No Code License' issue.
The ruckus should, instead, be focused on the 'No Clue License'.


I never mentioned the no-code licence... we got over that over a year
ago down under.

I suggest it is not a matter of the no-clue licence, but the no-clue
licensee, who could be licensed in any grade.

Owen
(Spelling correct for country of origin!)
--

Correct. I have personally met more extras without a clue than
generals, and that's not percentage-wise. Your personal mileage may
vary, but a lot of extras seem to be really code oriented or contest
oriented, and did nothing but memorize the technical questions answers
(US) to pass.

I do not maean to disparage anyone who got their license by legitimate
means.

Wasn't there a scandal around that sort of thing a while ago. The name
West comes to mind, but I truthfully don't remember anything more than that.

tom
K0TAR

It's interesting you mention that, Tom.

I just got my Extra last month. Now, I admit I am not an electronics
expert. I had to study really hard before I felt I could take the test.
What was funny was actually taking the test.

There were a total of six people testing. Myself and five others. Two
going for Technician, two going for General, and two going for Extra (myself
and one other guy I didn't know). So, I'm pounding away on the calculator
and the other Extra finishes before anyone. He must have only taken ten
minutes, if that. He had to of memorized the answers. Actually there were
a total of three people who had to have memorized the questions. No way
they could have finished so fast. Actually, I was the only one who brought
a calculator, so that tells you something.

What was really interesting to me was that the other Extra had now passed
all the writtens, but had never passed the 5 WPM code test. So, no HF
priveleges until he does that.

I was licensed fifteen years ago and got up through Advanced and took the
code tests. But I moved out of state and never got around to taking the
Extra. Now, it's all changed and there are only three tests.

Anyway, interesting experience.

Rod KI7CQ

Whut is wrong with memorizing the test questions? I did that all
through school, from pre-kindergarten to the present. Thats why I know
so much stuff..........well, I sorta know a bunch of stuff. Buttt, I R
Retired now and I don't have to know anything anymore. Now, aint that
some ****.
Ole' Butch said that..


Tom Ring wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:

On 23 Nov 2005 20:29:37 GMT, Allodoxaphobia
wrote:



Too much ruckus has been focused on the 'No Code License' issue.
The ruckus should, instead, be focused on the 'No Clue License'.



I never mentioned the no-code licence... we got over that over a year
ago down under.

I suggest it is not a matter of the no-clue licence, but the no-clue
licensee, who could be licensed in any grade.

Owen
(Spelling correct for country of origin!)
--


Correct. I have personally met more extras without a clue than
generals, and that's not percentage-wise. Your personal mileage may
vary, but a lot of extras seem to be really code oriented or contest
oriented, and did nothing but memorize the technical questions answers
(US) to pass.

I do not maean to disparage anyone who got their license by legitimate
means.

Wasn't there a scandal around that sort of thing a while ago. The name
West comes to mind, but I truthfully don't remember anything more than
that.

tom
K0TAR

My son took and electronics course at Benson High School in Portland Oregon.
The teacher was totally clueless and just made things up as he went along.
One of them was that the higher the voltage on a wire, the faster it travels
in the wire. It took me all day to make my son believe that his teacher was
just a clueless sot and to understand ohms law. From my son's perspective, a
teacher must really know something to be a teacher. Sadly, this is far from
true.

The good news was that I was forced to take a more active part in his
education about electronics. We built and tested projects together and it
was good for both of us.

Michael wrote:
From my son's perspective, a teacher must really know something to be a
teacher. Sadly, this is far from true.

When I was student-teaching in the early 60's, the regular
physics teacher told his students that transistors were
made out of geranium. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael wrote:

From my son's perspective, a teacher must really know something to be a

teacher. Sadly, this is far from true.

When I was student-teaching in the early 60's, the regular
physics teacher told his students that transistors were
made out of geranium. :-)

Everybody knows they are made out of humurous ex-convicts [silly-con].

But, in the 60s I was production engineer making 'geranium' transistors.