Radio Days
J. B. Wood
Does anyone know what table radio gets pounded on in that scene
accompanied by "I know what I'm doing!"? I wonder if all those radio sets
in the movie were real or just mock-ups. The studio mics looked genuine.
Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
waves
> Hello, all. Just watched Woody Allen's subject movie last night on TCM.
> Does anyone know what table radio gets pounded on in that scene
> accompanied by "I know what I'm doing!"? I wonder if all those radio sets
> in the movie were real or just mock-ups. The studio mics looked genuine.
> Sincerely,
>
> Naval Research Laboratory
> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> Washington, DC 20375-5337
The radio sets were real. Woody Allen is a stickler for period props
that are true to the times. Many of the mics and radios used in the
movie came from Waves.
Charlotte aka Waves
http://www.wavesllc.com
Engineer
If real then they were tricked out!
I watched the first few minutes on TCM last night where someone
switches on a radio - it powered up virtually instantly! Really
irritating!
Then I had to quit watching the movie... did not see the "pounding"
incident, sorry.
Cheers,
Roger
Scott W. Harvey
This always happens in movies. The sound guy is probably some
thirtysomething guy who never turned on a tube radio in his life or
doesn't remember it if he did.
When you explain the principle of warm-up to a young person, you've got
to frame it in terms they understand-"you know how a computer or an Ipod
takes a little time to start up before it's ready? A radio was once like
that".
Same thing with old telephones. Most youngsters have never seen a
classic dial telephone much less used one. I have a couple in my house.
Many friends of my children look at them in bewilderment, wondering how
to place a call with one. The notion of not pressing buttons to dial is
completely alien to them.
-Scott
Jim Mueller
Several months ago I gave a few high school students a ride in my '67
Valiant (no air conditioning). They couldn't figure out how to open the
windows.
--
Jim Mueller wron...@nospam.com
To get my real email address, replace wrongname with dadoheadman.
Then replace nospam with fastmail. Lastly, replace com with us.
spsffan
Well, yes and no. The "instant on" or at least "not long enough for the
tubes to warm up" radio was quite common in movies long before the
transistor was invented. Although it irks us perfectionists, you do have
to consider that screen time is money, and in most films, it just
doesn't make sense to have everyone wait around for the warm up.
I will note that a Jack Benny radio show (1950s) I was listening to last
week included a "scene" where Jack and Don Wilson waited for the
television picture to appear. But the script let them get in a joke
while they were waiting.
Regards,
DAve, age 39.
J. B. Wood
> Well, yes and no. The "instant on" or at least "not long enough for the
> tubes to warm up" radio was quite common in movies long before the
> transistor was invented. Although it irks us perfectionists, you do have
> to consider that screen time is money, and in most films, it just
> doesn't make sense to have everyone wait around for the warm up.
>
Hello, and thanks to "waves" for that recent reply. As for the above,
that certainly makes sense. Film "magic" permits ignarance of the laws of
physics, which Hollywood consistently does despite having "technical
advisors" in the credits. Did you really think the web-swinger
(Spiderman) could move that fast while changing direction on a dime
without encountering tremendous g-forces? (They should consult USN fighter
pilots). Did it ever occur to film makers that a totally invisible person
would also be totally blind? Does anyone in la-la land have any idea what
a 40-ft woman would weigh? At least "Forbidden Planet" was somewhat
believable (Anne Francis was totally believable). Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Kenneth Scharf
to switch gears either. (Did you have the version with the push button
transmission?)
Gridleak
night. The one where at the end a cop asks Cagneys girl friend who he
was and she gave the classic answer "He used to be a big shot". One
scene shows Cagney and a girl listening to a crysal set. He said he paid
alot of money for it to please her. Don't recognize the set but it had a
glass tube enclosed crystal and cat whisker. They must have been better
back then as they had two headsets connected and they were both
listening with only one phone.
DON
AC7PD
Michael Black
On tonight's CSI:Las Vegas some sort of Heathkit appeared. They treated
it like a transceiver, but it was the late fifties or early sixties
sequence of ham equipment, where everything had an indian name. I didn't
notice a name, and any full view of the front was too quick. The only
transceivers in that line were the 6m and 2m Shawnee/Pawnee (I don't know
which was which) and the rig didn't look like either of those.
They transmit, they hear something, then there's a flash and the rig
goes dead. Someone suggests fixing it, and another says "well only
if you have a stash of vacuum tubes around".
So they got some of it right.
Michael
Jim Mueller
No, it has an automatic with the lever on the steering column. They
wouldn't have had a problem with that. They would have had trouble
finding the place to put the ignition key, though. The lock is on the
dashboard. They would have also had trouble tuning in their favorite FM
station. The radio is AM only. FM wasn't available even as an option
(although it was optional on the top of the line Plymouths).
Unrevealed Source
"J. B. Wood" <wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:wood-10120...@jbw-mac.itd.nrl.navy.mil...
Michael Black
> Why would an invisible person be blind?
>
Because of the way the eye works, it deals with a reflection of what it
sees and if you're invisible there's nothing to reflect off.
Michael
philo
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Unrevealed Source wrote:
>
>> Why would an invisible person be blind?
>>
> Because of the way the eye works, it deals with a reflection of what it
> sees and if you're invisible there's nothing to reflect off.
>
> Michael
>
Wow very clever of you to have though of that...
Next time I see an invisible blind person I'll have to ask them about that
Engineer
> Michael Black wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Unrevealed Source wrote:
>
> >> Why would an invisible person be blind?
>
> > Because of the way the eye works, it deals with a reflection of what it
> > sees and if you're invisible there's nothing to reflect off.
>
> > Michael
>
> Wow very clever of you to have though of that...
>
> Next time I see an invisible blind person I'll have to ask them about that
>
>
>
> >>news:wood-10120...@jbw-mac.itd.nrl.navy.mil...
> >>> In article <hfq2er01...@news7.newsguy.com>, spsffan
> >>> <spsf...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
(snip)
> >>> Did it ever occur to film makers that a totally invisible
> >>> person would also be totally blind?
(snip)
> >>> John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: w...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
> >>> Naval Research Laboratory
> >>> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> >>> Washington, DC 20375-5337
The answer to why an "invisible person" can't see anything is that, if
they are rendered invisible due to a cloaking device, the light flows
around them (to be recombined exactly in phase, but that's OT.) On
the other hand, if the invisibility was engendered by actually
changing the molecules of the person to allow light to pass through
them, then the person could still see but likely in a fuzzy or
distorted view (think Lord of the Rings.)
Gotta go and work on my tube-based cloaking device but it gets really
hot inside... not to mention the weight carrying it around!
Cheers,
Roger
philo
OK
I got some good photos of invisible people
cut and pasted below
>>
<<
Kenneth Scharf
It was a strange thing to drive. (the car also didn't have AC and was
hot as hell in the summer in NYC). It also had the basic 6 cylinder
engine that had problems getting out of it's own way. (what a pain
trying to merge onto the highway!). Mike referred to the car as the
'thunderbolt grease slapper'.
Kenneth Scharf
Bill M
>
> I got some good photos of invisible people
> cut and pasted below
>
> >>
Don't you know you're not supposed to post photos to a text group? Move
them to the binaries, por favor.
Sheesh. Some people.
-Bill M
philo
OK
I'll save that one for April 1st maybe !
maa...@wf.dd.invalid
> Why would an invisible person be blind?
The eye, or any other conventional seeing device such as a camera,
captures some of the light thus alters the light waves instead of letting
them pass through unchanged. So an invisible entity will at least have 1
semi-dark spot in order to be able to see. A normal person will have dark
spots where his eyes are.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Maarten Bakker.
J. B. Wood
<unreveal...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Why would an invisible person be blind?
>
Hello, and think about it. If light is passing right through a
transparent eyeball then no refraction takes place and no image can form
on the retina. If the eye captured any light then it couldn't be totally
invisible. Sincerely,
J. B. Wood
<4af9eeee-cc22-4bca...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Engineer <junk...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 3:52=A0pm, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, if the invisibility was engendered by actually
> changing the molecules of the person to allow light to pass through
> them, then the person could still see but likely in a fuzzy or
> distorted view (think Lord of the Rings.)
> Gotta go and work on my tube-based cloaking device but it gets really
> hot inside... not to mention the weight carrying it around!
> Cheers,
> Roger
Hello, and it wouldn't be fuzzy or anything else if light is passing
totally through the eyeball. If the eye were, say, nearly invisible then
I suspect the subject would perceive the world rather "darkly".
Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Terry S
Jimmy Stewart. In the opening scene, in the back room of a speakeasy,
sat a ~1932 Philco cathedral. Couldn't get a great look at it, but it
might have been a model 84. The same radio appeared later in the film,
11 years later in time.
Also reminded me of a scene from Star Trek - The Next Generation... in
which Picard is role playing in the holodeck. He's a gumshoe detective
in his office... walks in, switches on a vintage wood cased radio I
couldn't identify, it instantly comes on and plays 1940's music... I
guess the holodeck was just too efficient at replicating vacuum
tubes...
Terry.
Rod
> In article
> <4af9eeee-cc22-4bca-8e4b-f87594c1d...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Engineer <junk2...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 3:52=A0pm, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, if the invisibility was engendered by actually
> > changing the molecules of the person to allow light to pass through
> > them, then the person could still see but likely in a fuzzy or
> > distorted view (think Lord of the Rings.)
> > Gotta go and work on my tube-based cloaking device but it gets really
> > hot inside... not to mention the weight carrying it around!
> > Cheers,
> > Roger
>
> Hello, and it wouldn't be fuzzy or anything else if light is passing
> totally through the eyeball. If the eye were, say, nearly invisible then
> I suspect the subject would perceive the world rather "darkly".
> Sincerely,
>
> Naval Research Laboratory
> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> Washington, DC 20375-5337
So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a
sound? I say no, because there is no "ear" or other type of membrane
that would pick up on the changing air currents that cause a vibration
that would translate into sound. Right???
spsffan
Wrong. The changing air currents ARE the sound, whether there is anyone
there to detect them or not. If a radio is playing in the middle of the
desert, with nobody around for miles, same thing happens.
For the invisible man situation, nobody is saying that the light doesn't
exist. Only that detecting it requires an eye, which in order to
function, must be opaque or at least translucent. Not transparent.
QED.
Engineer
(snip)
> Also reminded me of a scene from Star Trek - The Next Generation... in
> which Picard is role playing in the holodeck. He's a gumshoe detective
> in his office... walks in, switches on a vintage wood cased radio I
> couldn't identify, it instantly comes on and plays 1940's music... I
> guess the holodeck was just too efficient at replicating vacuum
> tubes...
>
> Terry.
The holodeck programmer didn't know there was a delay so didn't put in
that program parameter!
Or, perhaps he just researched "our era" vintage movies and thought
there was no delay.
Cheers,
Roger
J.B. Wood
from the lens in order to form an image. And that image has to register
on some opaque material such as film, a CCD, or the retina. An
invisible (I probably shouldn't say "totally" invisible as that's
redundant) person's eye would not have these properties. This has also
been pointed out by others in the thread. Sincerely,
--
Bill Baka
> On 12/13/2009 1:24 PM, maa...@wf.dd.invalid wrote:
>> Unrevealed Source<unreveal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Why would an invisible person be blind?
>>
>> The eye, or any other conventional seeing device such as a camera,
>> captures some of the light thus alters the light waves instead of letting
>> them pass through unchanged. So an invisible entity will at least have 1
>> semi-dark spot in order to be able to see. A normal person will have dark
>> spots where his eyes are.
>>
> Hello, and whether it's a camera or the eye, you have to have refraction
> from the lens in order to form an image. And that image has to register
> on some opaque material such as film, a CCD, or the retina. An
> invisible (I probably shouldn't say "totally" invisible as that's
> redundant) person's eye would not have these properties. This has also
> been pointed out by others in the thread. Sincerely,
>
Bill Baka
Michael Black
That may fool the other fish, but any invisible person is going to look
pretty obvious if there are a set of eyeballs floating in air and walking
around.
Michael
Michael Coslo
> On 12/13/2009 1:24 PM, maa...@wf.dd.invalid wrote:
>> Unrevealed Source<unreveal...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Why would an invisible person be blind?
>>
>> The eye, or any other conventional seeing device such as a camera,
>> captures some of the light thus alters the light waves instead of letting
>> them pass through unchanged. So an invisible entity will at least have 1
>> semi-dark spot in order to be able to see. A normal person will have dark
>> spots where his eyes are.
>>
> Hello, and whether it's a camera or the eye, you have to have refraction
> from the lens in order to form an image. And that image has to register
> on some opaque material such as film, a CCD, or the retina. An
> invisible (I probably shouldn't say "totally" invisible as that's
> redundant) person's eye would not have these properties. This has also
> been pointed out by others in the thread. Sincerely,
The assumption is that the invisibility is brought about by
transparency. If transparency is the cause, sure. Refraction and a
suface to land on and register the image will not exist, as they are
manifestations of the visible world.
But if the invisibility is brought about by other means, a person might
be able to see just fine. If this invisibility is an optical obscuration
(is that even a word?) the perception might all be on the receiving end.
Experiments in cloaking devices that we see on the web these days are
the second, that is "cloaking".
- Mike
Brian McAllister
wrote:
"Years ago in the Orient, Lamont Cranston learned the strange and
mysterious power to cloud mens minds, so that they cannot see him. His
girlfriend, the lovely Margo Lane, is the only one who knows to whom
the voice of the invisible 'Shadow' belongs"
So old Lamont would be able to see.
Brian McAllister
Sarasota, Florida
email bkm at oldtech dot net a...@hope.thespambots.die