Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...


The only one tripping tonight is you.

I see you can't answer simple questions on the technical terms you use,
which pretty much disproves the BS you have propagated via Usenet and
the web that you have built transmitters and understand how to couple
them to towers. You completely fabricated that stuff.

Actually, for several years I had the only OIB in Ecuador, and was
frequently called on to tune towers.

Yeah sure thing. You don't know mathematical or technical terms but you
can tune towers. Give me a break.

If you really were "frequently called on to tune towers" then you must
have had a method. Maybe you could explain this tuning method. There are
always times when you go to tune some circuit or box or tower and it
does not tune up right. Maybe you have a notable example of when things
did not go right and you had to change methods or trouble shoot the
tower/coupling circuits before it would tune up?

All you can do for an explanation of field strength is point to the FCC
web site. You can't use your own words to explain the terms.

Well there is a point we can agree on. That is all you can do. All I
have been asking is for you to put it in your own words. If I can do so
can you.

I gave you an explanation, consisting of the context in which broadcast
engineers use the term. Very few are experts in propagation theory, most can
not design a directional array. Our interest in signal contours is based on
insuring management that we are getting all the coverage we are legally
licensed for....

And the fact still remains... and this is where this started... that
listeners do not commonly listen beyond the 10 mv/m contour on AM and beyond
the 64 dbu on FM... based on analysis of ZIP codes where listening to
stations takes place and the available "listenable" stations in each ZIP
code.

You gave a very weak "someone else's explanation." I'm not asking hard
questions of you. I just want to know whether you understand the
terminology you use to make a point. You make many posts to the news
group. You should know what you are talking about. I suggest you sit
down with an engineer and have him explain them to you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Frackelton Gleason, up late and trying to tell more lies, wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Your website is filled with lies... get over it 'tard boy!


Not a single item there is a lie; you have failed to prove your
attempts
to
prove otherwise.

The nice thing is that you attached your full name and address to one,
linkable post.

Come on Edweenie, trip the wire..

The only one tripping tonight is you.

Nah... the only one tripping, and worried as hell, is you. Try to cover
your
sorry ass after telling the big LIE!


Quite honestly, why would I worry about what anyone on this ng thinks? It's
fun to participate, and for every loon like you and Telamon and the deranged
Steve, there is a worthy debater like Mr. Maus. But in the overall picture
of things, nothing said here matters.

You seem to put a lot of effort into something that does not matter.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



Hey, Edtardo... tell us again about the amateur radio license you had
in
Ecuador. What was that call?


HC1DG

Ya got proof of that? It never seems to show up in any Callbooks.

What kinda test did you take?

There was no test at all. Never took a driver's test, either. A properly
processed application for either required no test.

You have stated this several times and it does not pass the smell test.
Why would any country issue a license to broadcast or transmit without a
proficiency test. The same goes for driving.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

On Sep 8, 4:20 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The only one tripping tonight is you.

I see you can't answer simple questions on the technical terms you use,
which pretty much disproves the BS you have propagated via Usenet and
the web that you have built transmitters and understand how to couple
them to towers. You completely fabricated that stuff.

Actually, for several years I had the only OIB in Ecuador, and was
frequently called on to tune towers.

Yeah sure thing. You don't know mathematical or technical terms but you
can tune towers. Give me a break.

If you really were "frequently called on to tune towers" then you must
have had a method. Maybe you could explain this tuning method. There are
always times when you go to tune some circuit or box or tower and it
does not tune up right. Maybe you have a notable example of when things
did not go right and you had to change methods or trouble shoot the
tower/coupling circuits before it would tune up?

All you can do for an explanation of field strength is point to the FCC
web site. You can't use your own words to explain the terms.

Well there is a point we can agree on. That is all you can do. All I
have been asking is for you to put it in your own words. If I can do so
can you.

I gave you an explanation, consisting of the context in which broadcast
engineers use the term. Very few are experts in propagation theory, most can
not design a directional array. Our interest in signal contours is based on
insuring management that we are getting all the coverage we are legally
licensed for....

And the fact still remains... and this is where this started... that
listeners do not commonly listen beyond the 10 mv/m contour on AM and beyond
the 64 dbu on FM... based on analysis of ZIP codes where listening to
stations takes place and the available "listenable" stations in each ZIP
code.

You gave a very weak "someone else's explanation." I'm not asking hard
questions of you. I just want to know whether you understand the
terminology you use to make a point. You make many posts to the news
group. You should know what you are talking about. I suggest you sit
down with an engineer and have him explain them to you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Here's a simulated Tardo reply: "You don't know anything about what it
was like in Ecuador in the 60's, do you? We didn't have methods then,
and troubleshooting is an American concept that has no counterpart in
Ecuadorian culture."

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:20 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

The only one tripping tonight is you.

I see you can't answer simple questions on the technical terms
you use, which pretty much disproves the BS you have propagated
via Usenet and the web that you have built transmitters and
understand how to couple them to towers. You completely
fabricated that stuff.

Actually, for several years I had the only OIB in Ecuador, and
was frequently called on to tune towers.

Yeah sure thing. You don't know mathematical or technical terms but
you can tune towers. Give me a break.

If you really were "frequently called on to tune towers" then you
must have had a method. Maybe you could explain this tuning method.
There are always times when you go to tune some circuit or box or
tower and it does not tune up right. Maybe you have a notable
example of when things did not go right and you had to change
methods or trouble shoot the tower/coupling circuits before it
would tune up?

All you can do for an explanation of field strength is point to
the FCC web site. You can't use your own words to explain the
terms.

Well there is a point we can agree on. That is all you can do. All
I have been asking is for you to put it in your own words. If I can
do so can you.

I gave you an explanation, consisting of the context in which
broadcast engineers use the term. Very few are experts in
propagation theory, most can not design a directional array. Our
interest in signal contours is based on insuring management that
we are getting all the coverage we are legally licensed for....

And the fact still remains... and this is where this started...
that listeners do not commonly listen beyond the 10 mv/m contour
on AM and beyond the 64 dbu on FM... based on analysis of ZIP
codes where listening to stations takes place and the available
"listenable" stations in each ZIP code.

You gave a very weak "someone else's explanation." I'm not asking
hard questions of you. I just want to know whether you understand
the terminology you use to make a point. You make many posts to the
news group. You should know what you are talking about. I suggest
you sit down with an engineer and have him explain them to you.

Here's a simulated Tardo reply: "You don't know anything about what
it was like in Ecuador in the 60's, do you? We didn't have methods
then, and troubleshooting is an American concept that has no
counterpart in Ecuadorian culture."

Very funny.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

Steve wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:20 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The only one tripping tonight is you.

I see you can't answer simple questions on the technical terms you use,
which pretty much disproves the BS you have propagated via Usenet and
the web that you have built transmitters and understand how to couple
them to towers. You completely fabricated that stuff.

Actually, for several years I had the only OIB in Ecuador, and was
frequently called on to tune towers.

Yeah sure thing. You don't know mathematical or technical terms but you
can tune towers. Give me a break.

If you really were "frequently called on to tune towers" then you must
have had a method. Maybe you could explain this tuning method. There are
always times when you go to tune some circuit or box or tower and it
does not tune up right. Maybe you have a notable example of when things
did not go right and you had to change methods or trouble shoot the
tower/coupling circuits before it would tune up?

All you can do for an explanation of field strength is point to the FCC
web site. You can't use your own words to explain the terms.

Well there is a point we can agree on. That is all you can do. All I
have been asking is for you to put it in your own words. If I can do so
can you.

I gave you an explanation, consisting of the context in which broadcast
engineers use the term. Very few are experts in propagation theory, most can
not design a directional array. Our interest in signal contours is based on
insuring management that we are getting all the coverage we are legally
licensed for....

And the fact still remains... and this is where this started... that
listeners do not commonly listen beyond the 10 mv/m contour on AM and beyond
the 64 dbu on FM... based on analysis of ZIP codes where listening to
stations takes place and the available "listenable" stations in each ZIP
code.

You gave a very weak "someone else's explanation." I'm not asking hard
questions of you. I just want to know whether you understand the
terminology you use to make a point. You make many posts to the news
group. You should know what you are talking about. I suggest you sit
down with an engineer and have him explain them to you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Here's a simulated Tardo reply: "You don't know anything about what it
was like in Ecuador in the 60's, do you? We didn't have methods then,
and troubleshooting is an American concept that has no counterpart in
Ecuadorian culture."

I don't think Edweenie knew too much about Ecuadorian culture in the 60's either.
That is perhaps why he got caught with his pants down and was told to leave the
country *at gunpoint*.

Dance Little Jean... today your daddy called your mom.

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

If you really were "frequently called on to tune towers" then you must
have had a method. Maybe you could explain this tuning method. There are
always times when you go to tune some circuit or box or tower and it
does not tune up right. Maybe you have a notable example of when things
did not go right and you had to change methods or trouble shoot the
tower/coupling circuits before it would tune up?

The method for tuning a tower is to design based on wavelength a
theroretical ATU tuning circuit based on line impedance (typically 50 or 52
ohms for coax fed towers) and the calculated base impedence of the tower.
Then, using either the actual transmitter, or an RF signal generator, RF is
fed to the tower throug an OIB and the impedence and reactance are measured.

Frequently you have a close match, and only slight adjustments of the coil
in the ATU are needed (most ATUs use strappable coils, but fixed vacuum
caps) will bring it into match. One of the issues that makes tuning harder
today is the desire to have the tower as broadband as possible. Many older
ATUs had an easy to adjust high Q network, but today most stations want a
broader bandwidth ATU, which makes the best tuning point harder to find.
Many engineers will begin with an OIB read at points a quarter of the way
from each end of the coil's winding.... this gives you an idea of which way
to go to get a match. Once the tuning area is reduced, then "half way
between" steps are usually used.

Most ATUs are not built by station staff. One either provides a measurement
made with an RF generator and a bridge (Some bridges have an RF generator
incorporated) or the description of the tower in electrical degrees at the
frequency and the fabricator, like Kintronics, will ship an ATU built for
the tower.

On directionals, most are designed by consulting engneers, and the phasors
are built by one of two or three fabricators like Kintronics. While not used
in the US, many simple directionals elsewhere are done by means of a dual
coax feed, of equal electrical length, which goes to each of two towers,
with just the spacing in degrees determining directionality.

This does not adress towers tuned by methods other than series fed base fed
towers. There are shunt fed and unipole antennas, both of which are not
insulated from ground at the tower base. And there are direct fed antennas,
mostly foded L's and T's, that are fed without an ATU right off the final
tank circuit of the transmitter, with the vertical component of the L or T
being the radiator and the horizontal portion becomeing a top hat or "top
load" to simulate greater electrical height.

My tricks for tower tuning included, 1. do not do it when there is a single
cloud. 2. do not do it when there are any atmospherics. 3. wear boots at all
times. 4. have a positive indication, such as a light bulb on a long cord,
whether the transmitter is plates on or plates off 5. never do this work
alone. 6. when I was doing it, I always carried my CEI slide rule for
calculations 6. watch out for cattle, goats and, especially, geese. Geese
bite.


You gave a very weak "someone else's explanation." I'm not asking hard
questions of you. I just want to know whether you understand the
terminology you use to make a point. You make many posts to the news
group. You should know what you are talking about. I suggest you sit
down with an engineer and have him explain them to you.

Actually, after I posted, I went to our engineering office to get the NAB
Engineering Handbook, and brought up the simple question "what is mV/m"
since it is a daily use term; both of the engineers present gave the same
definition I gave you: it expresses the field strength of a signal at a
particular point or along a particular contour.

And these are engineers who install and maintain and modify the transmitters
for 5 stations (All with HD), two of them with backup sites, 16 studios,
network feeds to one 28 station and another 12 station network, dozens of
remotes, remote TV studios for out talent who are on TV daily, and all the
related routers, processing, redundant STL systems, earthquake and disaster
preparedness installations like alternate studios and genny sets as well as
a 50 kw 5 tower, 2 pattern directional that is diplexed with another high
power AM only 130 kHz higher on the band... all of which use a counterpoise
ground that has acres of copper webbing, silver-soldered and clamped, 12
meters above ground!

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Quite honestly, why would I worry about what anyone on this ng thinks?
It's
fun to participate, and for every loon like you and Telamon and the
deranged
Steve, there is a worthy debater like Mr. Maus. But in the overall
picture
of things, nothing said here matters.

You seem to put a lot of effort into something that does not matter.


Lot's of fun things don't matter. Scoring higher than the last time at Doom
is fun... but it has no significance.

IBOC - The Great Debate - Message Count is 490 . . .
 

On Aug 31, 2:31 am, dxAce wrote:
David Frackelton Gleason, still posing as 'Eduardo', wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers"

This was documented in another thread.

A "thread" is your documentation? Well, there are "threads" all over the web
about aliens in the US Government, but being in a thread does not make it
so.

The funny thing is that I have neither seen nor heard of a gag order.

Wasn't a gag order imposed on you in Ecuador? Just before they tossed your
prancing ass out of the country at gun point?

IBOC The Great Debate - Message Count is 490
Will We Reach 500 and Go into the Bonus Round ? ? ?

Ibiquity's "Gag Order" on engineers
 

David "Yep, I BS everyone, including my handlers at Univision, since I began
posing as 'Eduardo'", wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

If you really were "frequently called on to tune towers" then you must
have had a method. Maybe you could explain this tuning method. There are
always times when you go to tune some circuit or box or tower and it
does not tune up right. Maybe you have a notable example of when things
did not go right and you had to change methods or trouble shoot the
tower/coupling circuits before it would tune up?

The method for tuning a tower is to design based on wavelength a
theroretical ATU tuning circuit based on line impedance (typically 50 or 52
ohms for coax fed towers) and the calculated base impedence of the tower.
Then, using either the actual transmitter, or an RF signal generator, RF is
fed to the tower throug an OIB and the impedence and reactance are measured.

Frequently you have a close match, and only slight adjustments of the coil
in the ATU are needed (most ATUs use strappable coils, but fixed vacuum
caps) will bring it into match. One of the issues that makes tuning harder
today is the desire to have the tower as broadband as possible. Many older
ATUs had an easy to adjust high Q network, but today most stations want a
broader bandwidth ATU, which makes the best tuning point harder to find.
Many engineers will begin with an OIB read at points a quarter of the way
from each end of the coil's winding.... this gives you an idea of which way
to go to get a match. Once the tuning area is reduced, then "half way
between" steps are usually used.

Most ATUs are not built by station staff. One either provides a measurement
made with an RF generator and a bridge (Some bridges have an RF generator
incorporated) or the description of the tower in electrical degrees at the
frequency and the fabricator, like Kintronics, will ship an ATU built for
the tower.

On directionals, most are designed by consulting engneers, and the phasors
are built by one of two or three fabricators like Kintronics. While not used
in the US, many simple directionals elsewhere are done by means of a dual
coax feed, of equal electrical length, which goes to each of two towers,
with just the spacing in degrees determining directionality.

This does not adress towers tuned by methods other than series fed base fed
towers. There are shunt fed and unipole antennas, both of which are not
insulated from ground at the tower base. And there are direct fed antennas,
mostly foded L's and T's, that are fed without an ATU right off the final
tank circuit of the transmitter, with the vertical component of the L or T
being the radiator and the horizontal portion becomeing a top hat or "top
load" to simulate greater electrical height.

My tricks for tower tuning included, 1. do not do it when there is a single
cloud. 2. do not do it when there are any atmospherics. 3. wear boots at all
times. 4. have a positive indication, such as a light bulb on a long cord,
whether the transmitter is plates on or plates off 5. never do this work
alone. 6. when I was doing it, I always carried my CEI slide rule for
calculations 6. watch out for cattle, goats and, especially, geese. Geese
bite.


You gave a very weak "someone else's explanation." I'm not asking hard
questions of you. I just want to know whether you understand the
terminology you use to make a point. You make many posts to the news
group. You should know what you are talking about. I suggest you sit
down with an engineer and have him explain them to you.

Actually, after I posted, I went to our engineering office to get the NAB
Engineering Handbook, and brought up the simple question "what is mV/m"
since it is a daily use term; both of the engineers present gave the same
definition I gave you: it expresses the field strength of a signal at a
particular point or along a particular contour.

And these are engineers who install and maintain and modify the transmitters
for 5 stations (All with HD), two of them with backup sites, 16 studios,
network feeds to one 28 station and another 12 station network, dozens of
remotes, remote TV studios for out talent who are on TV daily, and all the
related routers, processing, redundant STL systems, earthquake and disaster
preparedness installations like alternate studios and genny sets as well as
a 50 kw 5 tower, 2 pattern directional that is diplexed with another high
power AM only 130 kHz higher on the band... all of which use a counterpoise
ground that has acres of copper webbing, silver-soldered and clamped, 12
meters above ground!

More BS from the King!

Kung Foo Fighting!