"Radium" wrote in message
ps.com...

OTOH, AM video is boring. FM video is better. As I said before, the Y
[luminance] signal should be carried on an FM wave rather than an AM
wave.

OK, but then, you're quite ignorant of anything remotely related
to this field, aren't you?

Bob M.

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

One thing that I do like are the sharp sawtooth wave patterns that
show up on FM video receivers whenever lightning strikes.

When, pray tell, have you ever seen an "FM video receiver"?

Bob M.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Bob Myers wrote:

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

One thing that I do like are the sharp sawtooth wave patterns that
show up on FM video receivers whenever lightning strikes.

When, pray tell, have you ever seen an "FM video receiver"?

Bob M.

Where he gets the rest of his "technology"; drug dreams.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Radium wrote:
One thing that I do like are the sharp sawtooth wave patterns that
show up on FM video receivers whenever lightning strikes. FM video
receivers receive Y [luminance] signals present on FM radio waves.
Electrical disturbances affect the FM video receiver causing those
beautifaul zapping and buzzing sawtooth patterns on the screen.

You may also enjoy listening to the dial tone while standing in a glass
payphone booth.

"Bob Myers" hath wroth:


"Radium" wrote in message
roups.com...

One thing that I do like are the sharp sawtooth wave patterns that
show up on FM video receivers whenever lightning strikes.

When, pray tell, have you ever seen an "FM video receiver"?
Bob M.

I have one of those FM video receivers. It's my (ancient) Wavetek
3000b communications service monitor, which displays all kinds of
nifty light shows and patterns for FM. I often tune it to the WX
channel and watch the modulation on the scope display. It's kinda
hypnotic without the accompanying audio and sometimes an improvement
over what's available on TV. I guess it's TV for radio geeks.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Bob Myers" hath wroth:

Wrong. Science fiction has mutated into social adventure, space
opera, and historical fantasy. I haven't seen any really technical
science fiction in many years.

Spider Robinson. Joe Haldeman. Larry Niven. Jerry
Pournelle. Ben Bova. Greg Egan. Stephen Baxter.

In the interest of brevity, I won't rattle off examples of how most of
those authors started out with hard technical science fiction, and
ended up recently writing what amounts to "future social problems"
type of sci-fi. At age 74, Ben Bova still cranks out excellent
stories but seems to be very light on the technology in the last few
years. Stephen Baxter is a scientist and really does well speculating
on where technology is sending us. Greg Egan is a mathemagician with
a rather creative view of artificial intelligence. Haldeman puts me
to sleep, Niven is just plain weird, and Pournelle is too militarist
for my liking. They've all done "hard" sci-fi writing, but as time
progresses, seem to be writing for a much different audience, such as
writing for TV or movies. That's where the space opera, social
adventure (chase scenes, crash and burn, and explosions) are coming
from. I still read Stephen Baxter, but none of the others. This is
the first I've heard of Spider Robinson, but will give his stuff a
look.

Arthur C. Clarke, who, thank the FSM, is still with us and writing.

Yeah, but he can certainly beat the "2001 Space Odyssey" theme to
death. At 89, I'm really impressed that he's still working. However,
his last few books have been co-authored by Stephen Baxter and read
more like Baxter's complex writing, than Clarke's neatly clipped short
lines.

Ok, I'll concede the hard sci-fi hasn't gone down the tubes completely
and that there are still authors catering to a technically astute
audience. However, even the best of these (as you've itemized) tend
to drift toward the popular media, mass market, and general audience
market, which deals primarily in entertainment. This entertainment is
invariably devoid of technology, lacking in a basis on physical
reality, and is dominated by space opera and general idiocy. For
every sci-fi author that knows his science, there are perhaps 50 that
are lacking. Little wonder that space opera predominates as it
requires very little technical expertise to write.

Maybe that's why I like reading Mr. Radium's muddled tech rants. It's
the closest approximation to science fiction I can easily find.

Sure, there's an AWFUL lot of crap out there - SF, like everything else,
obey's Sturgeon's Law - but the good stuff is still being written.
You just have to look for it.

These daze, I have to do more than look. I have to dig, excavate, and
filter to find it. However, I found a suitable replacement about 10
years ago. I was reading dot com business plans. Not only was I
being paid to rip them apart, but the products and services were some
of the best science fiction I had ever read. The authors of some of
those business plans really should be writing sci-fi stories. I
really miss the passing of the dot com era and the tremendous
technical imagination that helped make it happen.

Reminder: None of the sci-fi authors up to about 1970, ever predicted
the rise of personal computah. It was always the giant mainframe
(Multivac). Some came close with remote terminals, but even those had
a mainframe behind them. Oh well, can't get it right every time.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

When, pray tell, have you ever seen an "FM video receiver"?
Bob M.

I have one of those FM video receivers. It's my (ancient) Wavetek
3000b communications service monitor, which displays all kinds of
nifty light shows and patterns for FM. I often tune it to the WX
channel and watch the modulation on the scope display. It's kinda
hypnotic without the accompanying audio and sometimes an improvement
over what's available on TV. I guess it's TV for radio geeks.

Somehow, though, I don't think that's quite what
our boy Radium was talking about...

Bob M.

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
This is
the first I've heard of Spider Robinson, but will give his stuff a
look.

Spider's not as "hard tech" as some of the others have
been, but has been compared with Robert Heinlein in
overall style. (A comparison which I am very sure he
wouldn't claim himself, as RAH is a longtime hero of
Spider's.) But his stuff is just an amazing amount of plain,
unadulterated FUN. Try, especially, the "Callahan's
Saloon" stories.


Arthur C. Clarke, who, thank the FSM, is still with us and writing.

Yeah, but he can certainly beat the "2001 Space Odyssey" theme to
death. At 89, I'm really impressed that he's still working. However,
his last few books have been co-authored by Stephen Baxter and read
more like Baxter's complex writing, than Clarke's neatly clipped short
lines.

In my book, Clarke's earned the right to do whatever he damn well
pleases at this point. And he certainly has done quite a bit besides
the "2001" stuff; there's the "Rama" stories, "The Fountains of
Paradise," etc...and I don't think the work with Baxter has been all
that bad - you didn't like "The Light of Other Days"?


Ok, I'll concede the hard sci-fi hasn't gone down the tubes completely
and that there are still authors catering to a technically astute
audience. However, even the best of these (as you've itemized) tend
to drift toward the popular media, mass market, and general audience
market, which deals primarily in entertainment.

Well, as the Grand Old Man himself once noted, "Writing is like
prostitution - first you do it for love, and then for a few close friends,
and then for money." A writer who doesn't - or can't - write what
sells won't stay around long enough to write the Important Stuff,
should he or she care to do so.


invariably devoid of technology, lacking in a basis on physical
reality, and is dominated by space opera and general idiocy. For
every sci-fi author that knows his science, there are perhaps 50 that
are lacking. Little wonder that space opera predominates as it
requires very little technical expertise to write.

Again, though - Sturgeon's Law applies to EVERYTHING. No
exceptions.


Maybe that's why I like reading Mr. Radium's muddled tech rants. It's
the closest approximation to science fiction I can easily find.

But they sure don't seem to be grounded in anything even resembling
reality. If you want hard SF, and not the sort of fantasy that makes
"Star Wars" look like a physics text, you'd really have to look
elsewhere.

Reminder: None of the sci-fi authors up to about 1970, ever predicted
the rise of personal computah.

To be sure, but then, neither did anyone else. One of the nicest
things about the future is that it always is full of surprises for
everyone.

Bob M.

"Bob Myers" hath wroth:


"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

When, pray tell, have you ever seen an "FM video receiver"?
Bob M.

I have one of those FM video receivers. It's my (ancient) Wavetek
3000b communications service monitor, which displays all kinds of
nifty light shows and patterns for FM. I often tune it to the WX
channel and watch the modulation on the scope display. It's kinda
hypnotic without the accompanying audio and sometimes an improvement
over what's available on TV. I guess it's TV for radio geeks.

Somehow, though, I don't think that's quite what
our boy Radium was talking about...
Bob M.

If it's not what Mr Radium is using, it's close. Haven't you watched
the typical pre-1971 science fiction movie? The arrival of any alien
object or visitor is initially detected and displayed on a large CRT,
usually with an unstable Lissajous pattern or trivialized radar
simulation plus the requisite shrill noises and sound effects. After
seeing that demonstration, I concluded that if I was going to
personally greet the Galactic Ambassador from AlGore, I would need a
similar alien detector or communicator. The closest approximation I
could find was a communications service monitor. In order to monitor
it continuously, I decided that a 15 year career in land mobile
communications was required. I would leave it running continuously,
waiting for the voices from outer space. Unfortunately, the
ambassador is apparently distracted and I have moved on to other
professions. I still own a service monitor and still turn it on
waiting for the display to mark the arrival of the alien visitors.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann wrote:


snip

These daze, I have to do more than look. I have to dig, excavate, and
filter to find it. However, I found a suitable replacement about 10
years ago. I was reading dot com business plans. Not only was I
being paid to rip them apart, but the products and services were some
of the best science fiction I had ever read. The authors of some of
those business plans really should be writing sci-fi stories. I
really miss the passing of the dot com era and the tremendous
technical imagination that helped make it happen.

Reminds me of a meeting held at a large, prominent aerospace company
some years back where the marketing weenie was touting the latest
air-to-air missle idea that would completely dominate the market.

He was a bit taken aback (but not deterred, which is another story) when
one of the engineers in the audience pointed out that they needed to
come up with a communications system that operated about 3 times the
speed of light to make it work.

snip remaining

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.