Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: "KØHB"
Date: 10/18/2004 6:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Please spare us the cult fable of Noahs ark.)

This explains a lot.

My name is Hans and I improved this message.

This was "improved"...???

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: "KØHB"
Date: 10/18/2004 8:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:



"Jim Hampton" wrote

C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment
sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked
for radiated emissions.

Of course I know better than that!

And so does Jim.

A single example of this product developed some sort of birdie/spur on
121.5. Nothing more, nothing less.

On the contrary.

That device is a rather expensive piece of consumer electronics. If I
plop down more than $100 for a television, I darn well expect it to do what I
want, and I DON'T expect it to do stuff I don't want it to do...Like QRM'ing
SARSAT.

Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly
a remarkable incident, and certainly not a reason to make snide innuendo
about "Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS".

Sure it was.

It was an expensive piece of consumer electronics that launched an even
more expensive (and potentially distracting) search and rescue mission. The
USAF and it's proxy, Civil Air Patrol do NOT dismiss as "unimportant" ELT
signals or RF radiated on ANY frequency that have the potential of being a
distress signal.

Neither is it a reasonable
basis for a jeremiad about the FCC shirking their responsibilities.

Why not?

What other agency is responsible for establishing the technical standards
for consumer

Sheeeeesh!

Sunnuvagun!

My name is Hans and I improved this message.

This was improved?

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Jim Hampton" wrote

C'mon, you know better than that. Perhaps the point is that equipment
sold in the United States is *supposed* to be (and likely was) checked
for radiated emissions.

Of course I know better than that!

And so does Jim.

A single example of this product developed some sort of birdie/spur on
121.5. Nothing more, nothing less.

If it happened once, it can happen again. We don't really know what made it
fail that way.

Of course the story makes good news copy on a slow day, but it's hardly
a remarkable incident,

False signal on a distress frequency? Possible fine of $10,000 if the owner
turns it on again? Somewhat remarkable to me.

and certainly not a reason to make snide innuendo
about "Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS".

I was simply pointing out that *any* piece of electronics can have problems. I
guess that's not allowed here.

Just like one must not wear shirts with the slogan "Protect Our Civil
Liberties" where President Bush can see them.

Neither is it a reasonable
basis for a jeremiad about the FCC shirking their responsibilities.

I think it is, considering the background of how loose certification has
become.

---

On the subject of "MADE IN CHINA": There was a story in the local paper's
business section about the bottleneck at various West Coast ports, specifically
Long Beach and Los Angeles. Imports from Pacific Rim countries, particularly
China, are arriving at such a rate that ships wait as much as a week to be
unloaded because the port facilities can't handle the flow. New people are
being hired and the facilities expanded, but such expansion takes time.

Of course what's less visible is the flow of money in the opposite direction.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals?

Yes - but there was nothing wrong with its design and construction. In fact, it
carried more lifeboats, and employed more modern safety equipment, than was
required by regulations at the time.

The Titanic's problem was improper operation. Steaming full speed into an ice
field on a cold, calm, moonless night after receiving no less than six warnings
of ice ahead was simply reckless. Doing so when the lookouts had no binoculars
was even more reckless.

Trying to turn away, and in doing so exposing the side of the ship to the
danger, was the final mistake. That action can be understood, however, because
the decision to do it was made in haste. (Later analysis showed that had the
First Officer simply reversed engines and hit the 'berg head-on, the ship would
have stayed afloat and few if any lives would have been lost).

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Leo
writes:

On 18 Oct 2004 22:57:00 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

N2EY" wrote

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html

Jim,

Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur
engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem?

Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may
sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0?

The latter, Hans.

Jim, I noticed that Hans had three options to choose from in his
original post - the third being:

Or were you just trolling?

For the sake of accuracy, this one would be the latter , Jim..... :)

Seems to fit best, as well. And as usual.


My point was simply that even high priced state of the art electronics can go
awry at times, and in ways that affect more than the owner of the device.

IOW, nobody's perfect.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

On the subject of "MADE IN CHINA": There was a story in the local
paper's
business section about the bottleneck at various West Coast ports,
specifically
Long Beach and Los Angeles. Imports from Pacific Rim countries,
particularly
China, are arriving at such a rate that ships wait as much as a week
to be
unloaded because the port facilities can't handle the flow. New people
are
being hired and the facilities expanded, but such expansion takes
time.

Of course what's less visible is the flow of money in the opposite
direction.

If US manufacturers don't want the business at that price, then they
have no reason to whine when an offshore firm does.

73, de K0HB
--
My name is Hans and I improved this message.

On 19 Oct 2004 09:42:11 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 18 Oct 2004 22:57:00 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

N2EY" wrote

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/10182004_bb_tv.html

Jim,

Are you suggesting that Toshiba should employ non-professional amateur
engineers to build their TV's to avoid this problem?

Or are you suggesting that even professionally designed equipment may
sometimes fail and generate a "birdie" at 121.5 or 243.0?

The latter, Hans.

Jim, I noticed that Hans had three options to choose from in his
original post - the third being:

Or were you just trolling?

For the sake of accuracy, this one would be the latter , Jim..... :)

Seems to fit best, as well. And as usual.


My point was simply that even high priced state of the art electronics can go
awry at times, and in ways that affect more than the owner of the device.

IOW, nobody's perfect.

Gee, that's good to know - for a minute there, I thought it might have
been another rant on how those pesky bumbling "PROFESSIONALS" keep
messing things up........ :)


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

On the subject of "MADE IN CHINA": There was a story in the local
paper's
business section about the bottleneck at various West Coast ports,
specifically
Long Beach and Los Angeles. Imports from Pacific Rim countries,
particularly
China, are arriving at such a rate that ships wait as much as a week
to be
unloaded because the port facilities can't handle the flow. New people
are
being hired and the facilities expanded, but such expansion takes
time.

Of course what's less visible is the flow of money in the opposite
direction.

If US manufacturers don't want the business at that price, then they
have no reason to whine when an offshore firm does.

Would you be willing to work for what your Chinese counterpart is paid? And
work under his conditions?

Would you be willing to repeal most environmental, safety, and child-labor
laws? How about intellectual-property protection?

I wouldn't.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals?

Yes - but there was nothing wrong with its design and construction. In
fact, it
carried more lifeboats, and employed more modern safety equipment, than was
required by regulations at the time.

The Titanic's problem was improper operation. Steaming full speed into an
ice
field on a cold, calm, moonless night after receiving no less than six
warnings
of ice ahead was simply reckless. Doing so when the lookouts had no
binoculars
was even more reckless.

Trying to turn away, and in doing so exposing the side of the ship to the
danger, was the final mistake. That action can be understood, however,
because
the decision to do it was made in haste. (Later analysis showed that had
the
First Officer simply reversed engines and hit the 'berg head-on, the ship
would
have stayed afloat and few if any lives would have been lost).

No officer in their right mind is going to plow straight ahead into an
iceberg to "save the ship".

Sure they would - if they knew that the ship could not turn in time, and would
sink as a result.

The rudder was grossly undersized so the
Titanic did not respond to the helm soon enough and swiped the ice.

Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, was essentiaaly the same ship. A few feet
shorter and less luxurious, but the same basic design. Olympic went into
service first, and much of her crew was transferred to Titanic because of their
experience.

No complaints of a grossly undersized rudder.

Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have
turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare.

Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned away
quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant. The ship was clearly
going too fast for conditions.

73 de Jim, N2EY