Hack a DTV antenna for dual directions?
Esther & Fester Bestertester
<http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/cm4228.html>
From my location the 2 largest DTV transmitter clusters are approximately 60
degrees apart.
How effective would it be to modify this antenna such that each of the 2 bays
pointed to each transmitter cluster?
Yes, I know it's probably best to buy 2 antennae and couple them, but funds
are really scarce and I've got time on my hands.
1. Would it work?
2. What are the practical down-sides (engineering blasphemies aside)?
I know this is not an elegant solution, so if your only comment is to say
this, please resist.
Thanks.
Tio Pedro
do so. Do you, or will you, have and digital stations that will
remain in the VHF band?
Pete
Bill M
Hate to suggest hacking up your antenna but sure, I think you could
'bend' it down the middle 60 degrees and accomplish that.
In the analog days that might have resulted in terrible ghosting but the
latest 8VSB technology can operate even with a multipath signal at 1-2db
down.
(That also means that if you have a 2004 vintage DTV or DTV converter it
might not work if multipath comes into play)
Second idea. If you are in a fairly strong reception area why not
simply build a pair of homebrew antennas before hacking up your good
one? There's some plans on the web, one notorious one is on YouTube
with DIY instructions.
-Bill
JIMMIE
wrote:
I think hacking an antenna so that half is pointing in one direction
and half 60 degrees awy would be worse than just pointing the antenna
half way between the two TV clusters.
Jimmie
Tio Pedro
Well, if funds are tight, and you have time, build two of
these antennas designed by Kent Britain. They'll work
better than the antenna you cited (for UHF), and also
have the benefit of being 75-ohm impedance.
Pete k1zjh
Richard Clark
<n...@me.really> wrote:
><http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/cm4228.html>
>
>From my location the 2 largest DTV transmitter clusters are approximately 60
>degrees apart.
>
>How effective would it be to modify this antenna such that each of the 2 bays
>pointed to each transmitter cluster?
hacksaw the top and bottom angle bars to just break the lip that
extends out from the mast (rather than lays against the mast).
Bend the angle bars and screen 60 degrees along the length of the mast
so that each side points towards the separate transmitter clusters.
(Giving the appearance of a ship prow pointing halfway between the two
clusters.)
Effectivity? You lose up to 3dB gain; your nulls fill in somewhat;
you don't spend any money.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Esther & Fester Bestertester
If I DIY, I'll need only one; I'll keep the 4228 and couple it with the DIY.
How do I couple two antennae onto one cable?
Thanks.
Ian Jackson
<kb7...@comcast.net> writes
As you increase the angle between the two parts of the antenna, the
presently 'pointed' polar diagram will broaden and flatten, then it will
start going heart-shaped (with an increasingly deep null in the centre).
The only downside is that, when you are looking at one transmitter, you
will be picking any reflections coming from the direction of the other.
But, being digital, you will probably get away with it.
Just one point: I'm wondering if, for the highest gain towards each
transmitter, the bend should be 60 degrees - or maybe something a bit
more would be better?
--
Ian
Scott
have them. Normally used to split one antenna to two TVs. Just reverse
it and put it up by the antennas. This will "combine" the two antennas
and send the signals down one coax to the TV.
Scott
N0EDV
Highland Ham
>> How do I couple two antennae onto one cable?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> TV splitter. Any place such as Best Buy, Wal Mart, Radio Shack should
> have them. Normally used to split one antenna to two TVs. Just reverse
> it and put it up by the antennas. This will "combine" the two antennas
> and send the signals down one coax to the TV.
>
> Scott N0EDV
Have a Time Warner labeled cable TV splitter here: 5 -1000 MHz with
F-type female connectors. Attenuation 3.5 dB applicable to each channel
Ex US fleamarket
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Ian Jackson
<rfb...@allbands.net> writes
If it had been for analogue, I would have said no, no, no, no, no, no -
never EVER use a wideband splitter to combiner two antenna feeds. When
you are looking at one transmitter, you will be picking any reflections
coming from the direction of the other. However, as this is digital, you
may get away with it (just like bending the antenna to obtain two
lobes).
However, you are far, far better off with a separate feeder and a 2-way
A/B switch. They are only a few dollars each.
--
Ian
Rob
> However, you are far, far better off with a separate feeder and a 2-way
> A/B switch. They are only a few dollars each.
And then, what? Walk to the switch to throw it from A to B or vice-versa
every time you zap to another channel?
That does not sound like "better off" to me...
Esther & Fester Bestertester
> A/B switch. They are only a few dollars each.
Better in the sense of being there to throw the switch, maybe. But I've got a
programmable-event DTV converter box which allows me to record shows
automatically. The antenna set-up needs to be automated.
Thanks.
Ian Jackson
<nom...@example.com> writes
As I'm sure you know, Sunshine, life's tough at times. 'Ye canna change
the laws of physics'.
--
Ian
Richard Clark
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>From my location the 2 largest DTV transmitter clusters are approximately 60
>>degrees apart.
...
>>Bend the angle bars and screen 60 degrees along the length of the mast
>>so that each side points towards the separate transmitter clusters.
...
> the bend should be 60 degrees - or maybe something a bit
>more would be better?
?
Dave Platt
>programmable-event DTV converter box which allows me to record shows
>automatically. The antenna set-up needs to be automated.
Some DTV converter boxes support the CEA-909 or CEA-909A "smart
antenna" interface, which allow a command to be sent to the antenna to
change the antenna's behavior (directionality, frequency setting,
etc.). A good DTV converter will identify the best antenna setting
for each channel (I imagine this takes place during the initial
scan-for-channels process) and will switch the antenna system each
time it tunes to a new channel. In CEA-909A, the signalling can be
done over the same coax cable which carries the antenna signal; the
older CEA-909 requires a separate control cable.
Not all converter boxes support this feature, and of course you need
to have an antenna which has Smart Antenna support.
Unfortunately, the Smart Antenna specs are not freely available... a
hardcopy or download version costs somewhere in the neighborhood of
$70. I don't know if anyone has reverse-engineered the data format.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Ian Jackson
<kb7...@comcast.net> writes
Well, if you put a smallish bend in the antenna of (say) 10 degrees, you
will still have one lobe, although it wider and the gain will be lower.
Only when you increase the bend to (maybe) 20 degrees will you start to
get two separate lobes.
I'm somewhat guessing, but I reckon that the angle between the two lobes
will continue to be less than the angle of bend until the bend is
considerable - and possibly more than the 60 degrees between the
transmitters. Eventually, the angle between the lobes will 'catch up'
with the angle of the bend - but maybe only when the bend is a full 180
degrees.
So, for the two lobes really to be 60 degrees apart, maybe the bend will
have to be (say) 65 degrees? What do you reckon?
--
Ian
Richard Clark
Hi Ian,
That sounds more reasonable, but I would suspect that when the hammer
is swung, that 5 degree slop will par for the course. It will take
more sophistication to peak both clusters independantly to prove your
point, but it could well be.
Ian Jackson
<kb7...@comcast.net> writes
I thought I wasn't talking total rubbish (like I usually do).
Unfortunately, I've just spotted a problem with bending the antenna. If
you cut partially through the two angle bars to weaken them, and then
bend them and the reflector backwards by 60 degrees, the 'feeder' which
joins the two halves of the antenna will have to be stretched - and you
won't be able to do that. You would have to replace it.
Nah... It would be silly to ruin a handsome antenna. Far better to put
up a separate antenna and feeder, and use some sort of A/B switch at the
TV end.
--
Ian
raypsi
wrote:
Hey OM
I guess nobody here is a youtuber? I seen on youtube a guy has a 4 bay
bow tie, shows how to make one for chump change. Like 5 steel wire
coat hangers and a 2 ft 1X2 and some screws, and a balun transformer.
I saw it on youtube he makes a 4 bay bow tie antenna in under 5
minutes. It doesn't have a screen reflector, it's more like
bidirectional, well almost.
73 OM
de n8zu
Tio Pedro
"Esther & Fester Bestertester" <n...@me.really> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C5C7B170...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
You can't; one is 75 ohms and it looks like the one you have
is 300 ohms. You'd need a balun on the 300-ohm bowtie antenna to
make it 75 ohms, and then use a TV combiner/splitter to
combine the two antenna feedlines down to one single
feedline.
Pete
SparkyGuy
This is my favorite ;-) (note that that's a wink emoti)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRS4GMGJr7M>
Esther & Fester Bestertester
> bow tie, shows how to make one for chump change. Like 5 steel wire
> coat hangers and a 2 ft 1X2 and some screws, and a balun transformer.
> I saw it on youtube he makes a 4 bay bow tie antenna in under 5
> minutes. It doesn't have a screen reflector, it's more like
> bidirectional, well almost.
I don't see that one, but this one has several possible configurations, one
of which includes multiple bays aimed in different directions:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0m6AfR-9As&NR=1>
Thanks.
Ian Jackson
Esther & Fester Bestertester <n...@me.really> writes
I've skipped through the video, so maybe I've missed one or two key
facts. However:
1. Are there three identical antenna, each pointing 120 degrees apart,
each with its own feeder, or
Are all three combined to make an approximately omnidirectional antenna?
2. The reflector seems to be far too close to the active elements. I
would have expected it to be a quarter wavelength away.
--
Ian
SparkyGuy
> would have expected it to be a quarter wavelength away.
It's "2x4" separation... ;-)
Ian Jackson
SparkyGuy <spar...@mumcrank.ck> writes
>> 2. The reflector seems to be far too close to the active elements. I
>> would have expected it to be a quarter wavelength away.
>
>It's "2x4" separation... ;-)
>
--
Ian
SparkyGuy
> OK. What IS "2x4" separation?
Sorry, that was a little American-centric comment (must remember: Imperial
Measurement System is not universal...)
The most basic standard lumber used in construction in N. America is the 2x4
stud (2 inches x 4 inches cross-section, available in 8, 10, 12, 16, and (I
think) 20 foot lengths).
This is what the guy building the antenna is using as the structural wood
members.
Dave
Roy Lewallen
> . . .
> The most basic standard lumber used in construction in N. America is the 2x4
> stud (2 inches x 4 inches cross-section, available in 8, 10, 12, 16, and (I
Actually, dimensional lumber has shrunk over the years just like candy
bars and dollars. Only in very old houses will you find 2 X 4s that are
2" X 4". I'm getting pretty geezerly, and it was before my day -- they
were down to 1-5/8" X 3-5/8" at the earliest I can remember. Now a
"two-by-four" has shrunk to 1-1/2" X 3-1/2". When they get down to 2 X 4
cm, we can finally go metric without having to do any conversions. Maybe
when they get down to 1/4 X 1/2 inch they'll get revalued like a peso?
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> writes
OK. Too late last night to 'twig'! But don't you mean "4x2"?
--
Ian
SparkyGuy
"Po-tay-to", "po-tah-to".
Actually I mean 1-1/2 x 3-1/2. ;-)
Ian Jackson
SparkyGuy <spar...@mumcrank.ck> writes
>> OK. Too late last night to 'twig'! But don't you mean "4x2"?
>
>"Po-tay-to", "po-tah-to".
>
>Actually I mean 1-1/2 x 3-1/2. ;-)
>
preserves that nice slimline look.
--
Ian
Jim Lux
"rough lumber" size. However, as you point out, it changed from 5/8 to
1/2, which lets you get just a few more 2x4s out of that tree.
And hardwood is done even more differently.
Google is my friend, and the first hit was this: (which tells me that I
was wrong about the drive to get more boards out of a tree..)
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf says that back
in 1964:
"Declining markets for lumber have been a source of grave concern for
the lumber industry and the Forest Service. The industry has studied
its marketing problems and concluded that thinner sizes of boards and
dimension are desirable."
This fascinating document also talks about how it came to be.. (things
like saw kerf changes make a difference, too). Basically, they went out
in the 'teens and measured what people were actually producing and
selling as 2x4s.. which were typically 2" boards that had been surfaced
while green, and then shrank a bit after drying. Truly fascinating..
rail transport and the Panama canal also had their effects. One Mr.
Hoover (Sec'y of Commerce), a noted engineer(!) had an interest in
standardizing stuff (e.g. NBS, part of Commerce Dept) and started this
activity in 1921.
Upshot is that the change occurred in around 1960 (the doc refers to the
"battle of the 32nd inch" in the trade literature of the late 50s), with
everyone signing up to the "new" dimensions by 1963.
The drive to make it a bit smaller was for transportation costs,
apparently, not to get more boards out of a tree.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf says that back
>in 1964:
(...)
Very nice historical document. However, it's 45 years old and much
has happened since then.
In the mid 1970's there was a movement to convert everything to metric
sizes which included using the actual lumber dimensions instead of the
approximations.
<http://www.awc.org/HelpOutreach/faq/FAQfiles/Metric_Lumber_Conv.html>
Instead of a 2x4, it's really a 38x89mm. Next time you're at the
lumber yard, ask for a 38x89 and enjoy the blank stares.
Things get messy with larger sizes, such as 4x8ft panels. Apparently,
the lumber industry is unable to handle more then 2 significant
figures. So, a 1220x2440mm panel becomes a 1200x2400mm panel. What's
a few mm between friends?
Also, lumber is shipped and wholesaled by the board foot, which is
independent of how it's cut.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
JIMMIE
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:46:53 -0800, Jim Lux <james.p....@jpl.nasa.gov>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdfsays that back
> >in 1964:
>
> (...)
>
> Very nice historical document. However, it's 45 years old and much
> has happened since then.
>
> In the mid 1970's there was a movement to convert everything to metric
> sizes which included using the actual lumber dimensions instead of the
> approximations.
> <http://www.awc.org/HelpOutreach/faq/FAQfiles/Metric_Lumber_Conv.html>
> Instead of a 2x4, it's really a 38x89mm. Next time you're at the
> lumber yard, ask for a 38x89 and enjoy the blank stares.
>
> Things get messy with larger sizes, such as 4x8ft panels. Apparently,
> the lumber industry is unable to handle more then 2 significant
> figures. So, a 1220x2440mm panel becomes a 1200x2400mm panel. What's
> a few mm between friends?
>
> Also, lumber is shipped and wholesaled by the board foot, which is
> independent of how it's cut.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
When I was a kid you could buy 2x4s that were just planed on two
sides. These were made by a local sawmill sold by the local building
supply and were cheaper than lumber with all four sides finished. You
could also buy full size unfinished lumber. These 2x4s werent 2x4
either and could be larger or smaller.
Jimmie
raypsi
wrote:
Hey OM
This is the youtube video I ment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw
6 coathangers and 7 minutes long.
73 OM
de n8zu
DaveC
What are the critical dimensions? If one wanted to use better materials
(plastic rather than wood for the base; aluminum tube rather than wire), how
does one calculate the dimensions?
I mean, "about 2 inches down" and "about 5-3/4 inches between elements", and
"tips about 3 inches apart" are the results of some calculations. What are
the calculations that determine these dimensions for this style of antenna?
Thanks,
--
DaveC
m...@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group
Ian Jackson
DaveC <m...@bogusdomain.net> writes
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw
>
>What are the critical dimensions? If one wanted to use better materials
>(plastic rather than wood for the base; aluminum tube rather than wire), how
>does one calculate the dimensions?
>
>I mean, "about 2 inches down" and "about 5-3/4 inches between elements", and
>"tips about 3 inches apart" are the results of some calculations. What are
>the calculations that determine these dimensions for this style of antenna?
>
Seriously, when the antenna simply gets dumped behind the TV set, do you
really think that any of the dimensions will be very critical?
--
Ian
Jim Lux
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:46:53 -0800, Jim Lux <james...@jpl.nasa.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdf says that back
>> in 1964:
> (...)
>
> Very nice historical document. However, it's 45 years old and much
> has happened since then.
>
> In the mid 1970's there was a movement to convert everything to metric
> sizes which included using the actual lumber dimensions instead of the
> approximations.
> <http://www.awc.org/HelpOutreach/faq/FAQfiles/Metric_Lumber_Conv.html>
> Instead of a 2x4, it's really a 38x89mm. Next time you're at the
> lumber yard, ask for a 38x89 and enjoy the blank stares.
I'm sure that went the way of all industrial metric conversions..
(perhaps someone on the newsgroup who buys lumber in Europe can provide
standard sizes used there..
>
> Things get messy with larger sizes, such as 4x8ft panels. Apparently,
> the lumber industry is unable to handle more then 2 significant
> figures. So, a 1220x2440mm panel becomes a 1200x2400mm panel. What's
> a few mm between friends?
A gap big enough to put your hand through? (the 40mm)
>
> Also, lumber is shipped and wholesaled by the board foot, which is
> independent of how it's cut.
>
There's a whole discussion of that aspect in the document, towards the
end. Lots of commentary on moisture content, shrinkage, etc.
Jim Lux
> On Feb 24, 3:10 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:46:53 -0800, Jim Lux <james.p....@jpl.nasa.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/miscpub_6409.pdfsays that back
>>> in 1964:
>> (...)
>>
>
> sides. These were made by a local sawmill sold by the local building
> supply and were cheaper than lumber with all four sides finished. You
> could also buy full size unfinished lumber. These 2x4s werent 2x4
> either and could be larger or smaller.
>
S1S, S2S, S2SE, S4S, etc.
And the issues with saw kerfs, green dimensions, etc.
DaveC
> really think that any of the dimensions will be very critical?
If one were to build something to better specs, with better materials, in a
much better location (not dumped behind anything)?
I presume there's antenna design formulae that result in the proper
dimensions for this type of antenna. Where can I find this information
(preferably on-line)?
With my Google criteria, I don't find much that's useful.
Thanks.
Dave Platt
>> really think that any of the dimensions will be very critical?
>
>If one were to build something to better specs, with better materials, in a
>much better location (not dumped behind anything)?
>
>I presume there's antenna design formulae that result in the proper
>dimensions for this type of antenna. Where can I find this information
>(preferably on-line)?
The following may be useful:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/index.htm
Single- and double-bay Gray-Hoverman UHF antennas, which can be built
using either of several styles of reflector - a full screen, a split
screen, or a set of collinear rods.
JIMMIE
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <0001HW.C5C9B7B001B74859B0437...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
When I lived in the Air Force barracks a guy bought a very similar
antenna at Radio Shack. This was after cable had been removed because
so many people were stealing it.
Anyway it didnt take long before everyone started building their own
antenna copied from the RS one. The stock of brazing rods at the
motorpool was depleated very quickly.
Funny thing, I was accused of stealing cable though I wasnt hooked up
to it. I was able to demonstrate to the First Sargent that I could
receive Cable TV just off of the leakage from the system and argued
that the Cable company had the responsibility to prevent radiation
from their equipment. He agreed. What I learned was really happening
was that the guy in the room next to me had his rabbit ears connected
to the cable input of his TV and was broadcastinig it. About 10 rooms
could clearly pickup the signal from this. Unfortunately several
people had simply made illegal connections to the cable system. I
understand that the same thing is happening now with internaet service
in the barracks. My nephew tells me that it has been forbidden to have
a wireless router in the barracks for ths isame reason.
Jimmie
Sal M. Onella
"Dave Platt" <dpl...@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:slme76-...@radagast.org...
< snip >
> The following may be useful:
>
> http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/index.htm
>
> Single- and double-bay Gray-Hoverman UHF antennas, which can be built
> using either of several styles of reflector - a full screen, a split
> screen, or a set of collinear rods.
I see the 300 ohm feedpoint for the single bay but the double bay is a
little different. I can see something's attached to the two bars that run
vertically and join the antennas (in the photo that shows the double bay
with PVC frame), but I can't tell if there's a balun there. Do we know what
the impedance is at that point?
I may need to try reaching the people who did the web page. Thanks.
"Sal"
Bill M
>
> I see the 300 ohm feedpoint for the single bay but the double bay is a
> little different. I can see something's attached to the two bars that run
> vertically and join the antennas (in the photo that shows the double bay
> with PVC frame), but I can't tell if there's a balun there. Do we know what
> the impedance is at that point?
Given that the presumed bandwidth of the antenna ranges from 470 to 700
Mhz (not counting any VHF bonus) I figure there's no specific impedance
other than 'ballpark'.
-Bill
Ian Jackson
DaveC <m...@bogusdomain.net> writes
>> Seriously, when the antenna simply gets dumped behind the TV set, do you
>> really think that any of the dimensions will be very critical?
>
>If one were to build something to better specs, with better materials, in a
>much better location (not dumped behind anything)?
>
>I presume there's antenna design formulae that result in the proper
>dimensions for this type of antenna. Where can I find this information
>(preferably on-line)?
>
>With my Google criteria, I don't find much that's useful.
>
a sound design. It's just that (unless I'm very much mistaken) the
elements need be around a quarterwave in front of the reflector (more
like 6 inches instead of the less than 2 inches shown), and you need to
mount the antenna 'in the clear', and point it towards the transmitter.
Obviously, with these materials, the antenna is best suited to mounting
in a loft, provided that the roof tiles and lining are adequately
transparent to UHF RF.
--
Ian
Highland Ham
> snip
> Unfortunately several
> people had simply made illegal connections to the cable system. I
> understand that the same thing is happening now with internaet service
> in the barracks. My nephew tells me that it has been forbidden to have
> a wireless router in the barracks for ths isame reason.
>
> Jimmie
Here in Britain it is illegal to 'tap' an individual's or
organisation's/company's Wifi for Internet Access without permission,
however with consent of the Wifi router owner it is permitted.
I know that for example in the Netherlands (usually large)houses are
often occupied by up to 20 students . With 1 Hi-speed /unlimited
download (A)DSL connection , they all share that 1 connection.
They don't need an e-mail address from the ISP but have one or more from
Google or Yahoo .
If I had a neighbour close by I would be happy to share my connection.
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Esther & Fester Bestertester
Wood is a great retainer of moisture (indeed it holds a great quantity of
water). Isn't this likely to electrically short (to some degree) the elements
and reduce gain or... ?
Esther & Fester Bestertester
> organisation's/company's Wifi
Can you please take this to another thread of its own?
Dave Platt
>a sound design. It's just that (unless I'm very much mistaken) the
>elements need be around a quarterwave in front of the reflector (more
>like 6 inches instead of the less than 2 inches shown)
I don't think that this is necessarily true. There are many valid
antenna designs in which the reflector spacing varies quite a lot from
1/4 wavelength.
In Yagi designs, for instance, the spacing between driven element and
reflector has a big effect on the antenna's feedpoint impedance, and
is sometimes set to yield a convenient feedpoint impedance match with
the cable. It doesn't have all that much effect on forward gain.
With a "sheet reflector" antenna design, I suspect that the reflector
spacing won't have much effect on either forward gain or on
front-to-back ratio. It's entirely possible that (in this design) it
was set as it was in order to result in a not-intolerable impedance
match over the relatively broad range of frequencies that this antenna
needs to be able to cover.
> and you need to
>mount the antenna 'in the clear', and point it towards the transmitter.
Yup, that's best.
stev eh
Google bow tie tv antenna, similar in principal to the short backfire array.
Steve H
Bill M
check out how the scheme might work with scrap wood and coathangers and
if that works then you could upgrade to finer materials for a more
permanent solution that works in the rain.
On the other hand it may work well for you in spite of the loss in gain.
-Bill
Sal M. Onella
"Highland Ham" <rfb...@allbands.net> wrote in message
news:i5idnZ4jCP_gtDjU...@pipex.net...
>
> If I had a neighbour close by I would be happy to share my connection.
>
> Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Nice idea in theory, bad idea in practice, since you can't monitor his PC.
If something illegal goes on from his computer, your IP address will be
logged as the source.
I note a valid objection to this thread going OT and will not post on it
again.
Scott
That's what spar varnish is for. Metal booms with the uninsulated
elements going through are probably more "shorted" than from wet wood!
When aluminum is out in the rain, it's just as wet as wood would be.
The water may detune it slightly. Wood can be a great choice for boom
material (with proper varnishing)...it would probably outlast an
aluminum one in a salt air environment....
Scott
N0EDV
dave
> "Highland Ham" <rfb...@allbands.net> wrote in message
> news:i5idnZ4jCP_gtDjU...@pipex.net...
>
>
>> If I had a neighbour close by I would be happy to share my connection.
>>
>> Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
>
> Nice idea in theory, bad idea in practice, since you can't monitor his PC.
> If something illegal goes on from his computer, your IP address will be
> logged as the source.
>
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
In this case the wood is being used as the feedpoint insulator.
Jimmie
Esther & Fester Bestertester
>> If something illegal goes on from his computer, your IP address will be
>> logged as the source.
> So?
Can you please take this to another thread of its own?
Tio Pedro
"Bill M" <radio...@geeemail.com> wrote in message
news:go4st...@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> No doubt, so I don't think a wooden antenna is the final solution.
> Best check out how the scheme might work with scrap wood and coathangers
> and if that works then you could upgrade to finer materials for a more
> permanent solution that works in the rain.
>
> On the other hand it may work well for you in spite of the loss in gain.
>
> -Bill
Wood is fine, it has been used for UHF colinears for decades....
The trick is to have the elements supported (in contact with
wood) at the low voltage,
high current points. CC made a colinear back in the 60s
that used good insulators, but had them on the high voltage
points, which affected the antenna's performance.
Pete
Sal M. Onella
"dave" <da...@dave.dave> wrote in message
news:3oqdnSWyisq7DTvU...@earthlink.com...
which was OT in thread "Hack a DTV antenna for dual directions?"
Criminal penalties apply to computer crimes that could be committed via such
a shared connection. Notable are the downloading of child pornography (a
five-year federal felony in the US) and the misuse of a "zombie" computer
for conducting a distributed denial-of-service attack or for sending spam.
In these and other computer crimes, the shared connection is via the
subscriber's IP, no matter where the misused computer is located -- in the
house, in the barn, in the street, next door, etc. The authorities want to
talk to YOU!
Even if the person with whom you share your connection is a model citizen,
you still face a risk of misuse out of his sight.
I hope I've made my viewpoint clear.
Esther & Fester Bestertester
Can you please take this to another thread of its own?
Rob
>
> Can you please take this to another thread of its own?
Again??? What do you want?
It has been taken to another thread and still you repeat your comment.
Esther & Fester Bestertester
Relax...
There have been 4 OT posts. Each poster apparently needs a little help...
> It has been taken to another thread and still you repeat your comment.
Can you please take this to another thread of its own?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Ian Jackson
<nom...@example.com> writes
No it hasn't. The original thread, 'Hack a DTV antenna for dual
directions?' has been hijacked, and changed to 'Sharing Internet
Connection'.
--
Ian
Rob
>
> Relax...
>
> There have been 4 OT posts. Each poster apparently needs a little help...
You have been replying "take it to another thread" on a post that already
has changed the subject.
When you don't consider that another thread, pity for you.
Rob
So now it is a new thread "Sharing Internet Connection". That is
what was requested. No need to put more comments about changing thread
into there.
Ian Jackson
<nom...@example.com> writes
Don't you absolutely hate people who hijack threads by changing the
subject?
--
Ian
Rob
Get a newsreader that threads by subject, and be done with it.
Ian Jackson
I thought that mine did!
When the tree is collapsed, the subject is 'Hack a DTV antenna for dual
directions?' It's only when you expand it, and look 66 postings down the
tree, that you find that some idiot has changed the subject to
'Newsreaders that thread by subject'
Are there any news readers which allow you to rearrange news posts,
which have already been received, into a separate, new thread, and then
have further incoming posts automatically routed there?
--
Ian
Rob
> Are there any news readers which allow you to rearrange news posts,
> which have already been received, into a separate, new thread, and then
> have further incoming posts automatically routed there?
My newsreader, slrn, does just that. It is starting a new thread at
toplevel everytime you change the subject.
Ian Wade
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 Time: 10:27:59
Your newsreader is broken -- it doesn't understand threads. Here are all
the contributors to the "Hack a DTV antenna for dual directions?"
thread:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References: <0001HW.C5C7191C...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>
<ebd65c07-ff25-4c6f...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
<0001HW.C5C8697A...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>
<1a221a01-4140-4008...@f24g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
<0001HW.C5C9B7B0...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>
<1uz374a3...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
<d36b413a-da35-430c...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
<i5idnZ4jCP_gtDjU...@pipex.net>
<Oyopl.282$Rg3...@newsfe17.iad>
<3oqdnSWyisq7DTvU...@earthlink.com>
<QpLpl.36525$g63....@newsfe24.iad>
<0001HW.C5CCD1CC...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>
<slrngqf939....@xs7.xs4all.nl>
<z0XW9BGl...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
<slrngqfah4....@xs7.xs4all.nl>
<6UEUF5Hr...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
<slrngqfdn3....@xs7.xs4all.nl>
<aHBsRMM+...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are all in the *same* thread, even though a couple people changed
the Subject on the way.
In the world of Usenet groups, changing the Subject line does *not*
start a new thread.
--
73
Ian, G3NRW
Highland Ham
Indeed you have. In the end it all boils down to : Trust thy neigbour.
Also ,there is no life without risk.
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Ian Jackson
writes
>>>
>>
>
>In the world of Usenet groups, changing the Subject line does *not*
>start a new thread.
>
neat feature if it did this!
--
Ian
JIMMIE
> "Bill M" <radioex...@geeemail.com> wrote in message
True enough if the design work has been do to ensure that the high
impedance points arent in contact with the wood.
In the concerned case this may not be and probably isnt true for all
frequencies concerned..
Jimmie
Rob
> They are all in the *same* thread, even though a couple people changed
> the Subject on the way.
>
> In the world of Usenet groups, changing the Subject line does *not*
> start a new thread.
Then stop the discussion about starting a new thread, as that just isn't
going to happen.
Bob Miller
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I use Forte Agent. It starts a new thread whenever a post isn't a
reply to an existing thread, but has a new header.
Also, if I right-click on any received header, Agent gives options
for moving, copying, deleting, marking "read" or whatever.
Bob
k5qwg
Sal M. Onella
> In the end it all boils down to : Trust thy neigbour.
> Also ,there is no life without risk.
>
> Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Glory be to God! I failed absolutely!
No, no NO! What I said was: Do NOT trust your neighbor with your Internet
connection. He is not as concerned with keeping you out of prison as you
would want him to be if you are a freedom-loving soul. His misdeeds (or the
misdeeds of people who have access to his computer, connected wirelessly to
your 802.11 Internet connection) will be blamed on you. He does the deed --
you get the beating.
If there is no life without risk, go down to the packing plant and stick
your dick in the pickle slicer. Maybe nothing will happen.
;-)
"Sal"
(KD6VKW, a Lowland Ham -- 458 ft AMSL and hoping for not very much sea level
rise)
Sal M. Onella
Sal M. Onella
Seriously, do the headers retain a record of a past thread when the subject
line is changed? I ask because I do not recall whether I did that or
whether I went to the <File> menu and initiated a <New News Message>.
When I saw the complaint about being off-topic, I really, truly, sincerely
wanted to comply with general NG etiquette (and I thought I was doing so).
I already Googled for NG etiquette and got a lot of stuff, nothing
conclusive on this subject. URLs, please. If I do wrong, I need to undo
it.
"Sal"
Sal M. Onella
"Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:o35ql.33570$EO2....@newsfe04.iad...
>
> Seriously, do the headers retain a record of a past thread when the
subject
> line is changed? I ask because I do not recall whether I did that or
> whether I went to the <File> menu and initiated a <New News Message>.
Answering my own question, for some newsreaders, a change of the subject
line DOES NOT create a new thread.
Therefore, to avoid taking the "Hacking a DTV Antenna ..." thread off-topic,
I should have posted a new message. We're all still learning.
Scott
>>
>>That's what spar varnish is for. Metal booms with the uninsulated
>>elements going through are probably more "shorted" than from wet wood!
>>When aluminum is out in the rain, it's just as wet as wood would be.
>>The water may detune it slightly. Wood can be a great choice for boom
>>material (with proper varnishing)...it would probably outlast an
>>aluminum one in a salt air environment....
>>
>>Scott
>>N0EDV- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> In this case the wood is being used as the feedpoint insulator.
>
> Jimmie
OK, throw on another coat of varnish if it makes you feel better...I
usually use 3 heavy, slopped on coats...I don't care about runs or beauty ;)
Scott
dave
dave
of a thread with a single click.
Sal M. Onella
"dave" <da...@dave.dave> wrote in message
< snip >
> This thread was earlier called: Hack a DTV antenna for dual direction.
Yes, and I screwed it up by changing the <Subject>, thinking I was creating
a new thread. However it doesn't always happen that way.
It went off topic, I followed and was called on it. The attempted "fix"
turned out to be my screw-up.
Stray Dog
Don't feed the trolls, don't be a troll.
Some trolls like to think they have a right to be: netcop, self-appointed
censors, judges-juries-executioners, etc.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Esther & Fester Bestertester wrote:
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:47:37 -0800
> From: Esther & Fester Bestertester <n...@me.really>
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,
> rec.radio.amateur.misc
> Subject: Re: Sharing Internet Connection
Stray Dog
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:05:47 +0000
> From: Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,
> rec.radio.amateur.misc
> Subject: Hijacking Newsgroup Threads
FYI,
There is a sociological phenomenon called "Godwin's Law"
Here is a copy.....
---
Subject: How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ
Archive-name: usenet/legends/godwin
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-Modified: October 7, 2003
Version: 1.15
URL: http://www.killfile.org/faqs/godwin.faq
Maintainer: tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Godwin's Law FAQ
-or-
"How to post about Nazis and get away with it"
One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention
Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion
you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a
long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ
is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's
Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more
sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...
[Standard Disclaimers: this document assumes you have some basic knowledge
of Usenet; if you don't, go check out news.announce.newusers for a while to
gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ
is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly
how you could misuse this information). Copyright 1999-2002, Tim Skirvin,
all rights reserved, <FISH><, fnord, furrfu.]
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(god...@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
years or so, the Nazis were a German political party led by Adolf Hitler
that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
II. What does it mean?
1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
Them's the breaks.
That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
Nazis, of course.
3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
help you.
4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (qu...@swcp.com):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by
somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if
the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi
comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list.
Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk
with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly
bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of
Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and
you'll eventually get there.
If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin.
Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis
using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about
computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are
best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key
keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard
MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to
attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which
will force the other side to start talking about the differences between
fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
Appendix A: The Many Forms of Godwin's Law
"You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
- Richard Sexton (http://www.vrx.net/richard/) stating what would later
be known as Godwin's Law, Message-ID <21...@gryphon.COM>, 16 Oct 1989
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21000%40gryphon.COM&output=gplain
"Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
- Mike Godwin, first article about the topic in the Google archives,
Message-ID <1991Aug18.2...@eff.org>, 18 Aug 1991
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff.org
:Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
thread length in those groups.
- The Jargon File (http://www.ccil.org/jargon/)
Hitler, Nazis, nazis, and net.cops:
Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis, UseNet Rule #4
(also known as Godwin's Rule, after Mike Godwin of the EFF, sci.crypt, and
comp.org.eff.talk, a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q.v.) [even though it
was apparently in use, by Richard Sexton {q.v.} among others, before Mike's
1988 (?) net.advent; the "Godwin's" part seems to stem from "Rich Rosen's
Rules of Net.Debate, which I don't have a copy of]) says it will be coming to
an irrelevant and off-topic end soon. Just as there will always be newbies
("It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" - response to a 1993 wave
of delphi.com postings on a.f.u), there will always be people who see the net
and are repulsed because there's stuff there they don't want to see - so they
set out to make sure noone else can, either. They invariably fail, because
there are no net.cops to enforce any such rules on UseNet; in the course of
the heated flamewar that usually follows, things escalate until either Hitler
or Nazis (or both) put in an appearance, at which point the thread has
officially lost all relevance. People scream at each other a bit more, then
give up and go home. Bleah. "Keep your brains up top; don't be a net.cop."
This has mutated, in true UseNet fashion, to encompass *any* continuing
thread; if you mention Hitler or Nazis out of the blue, the thread is sure to
die irrelevantly soon (and, incidentally, you've lost the argument, whatever
it was)... and every continuing thread on UseNet *must* contain such a
reference sooner or later. Invoking Rule #4 deliberately in hopes of ending
a thread, however, is doomed to failure (Quirk's Exception)...
UseNet Rules #n:
No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other UseNet
Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
--
Rule #nonumber: There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines,
which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group to group;
this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a bit before ever
posting to it.
Rule #0: *There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*. There *is*, however, a net-wide
conspiracy designed solely to lead Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there
is a C*b*l.
Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*.
Rule #9: It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.
Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended [so far,
there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...]
Rule #17: Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and
`Yes' and `Try another newsgroup'.
Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
around it."
Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ): "What will happen to me if I read
soc.motss?" "In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of
course; but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)"
Rule #666: Old alt groups never die. They don't fade away nicely, either.
Rule #7-B: There is no topic so thoroughly covered that noone will ever
bring it up again.
Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result
in a flamewar.
Rule #1: Spellling and grammer counts. So do grace, wit, and a sense of
humor (the latter two are different), as well as a willingness to meet
odd people, but these are lesser considerations.
Rule #x^2: FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
Rule #29: no rational discourse can happen in a thread cross-posted to
more than two newsgroups.
rule #6 (Eddie Saxe): don't post to misc.test unless you understand the
consequences.
Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort to ad
hominems.
Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat): Read the thread from the beginning, or else.
Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason): Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on
Usenet.
Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott): The Internet *isn't* *free*. It just has
an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.
Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"): For every opinion there is at
least one equally loud and opposing opinion; sometimes stated as:
Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski): "In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
And for completeness' sake:
Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause
the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon;
every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain
such a mention.
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is
ineffectual.
Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
- net.legends FAQ (http://www.killfile.org/faqs/legends.html)
Appendix B: Addendums, Commentary, and Miscellaneous
1. Bentsen's Defense
For some, there is another way around Godwin's Law:
"Not this time. I know Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is a friend of mine.
Senator, you're no Mike Godwin."
This, of course, only applies to friends of Mike Godwin. The
originator of this rule, Earl Cooley III (sh...@io.com), is one of those
people. If you have to ask, you don't apply. I don't apply, so don't
feel bad.
Note that this was named after Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "You're
no Jack Kennedy" line from the 1988 vice-presidential debates. And the
original usage can be found in <3b09d2e6...@news.supernews.com>:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3b09d2e6...@news.supernews.com
2. Godwin's Commentary
Godwin actually wrote a short article for Wired Magazine on the
Law back in 1994:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
The article is actually more about the power and danger of memes
(thought-viruses) than about Godwin's Law itself, but it's worthwhile
reading for anybody who actually got this far into the FAQ.
3. Author's Note on the Holocaust
Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ
regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the
numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't
have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to
point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history
of World War II.
4. Additional Corollaries
There have been many additional corollaries and otherwise related
rules created since the net.legends FAQ codified them, and/or missed in
that FAQ. Those that have been brought to the author's attention:
Stead's Law (named for Lew Stead of alt.pagan fame):
Any discussion between more than 2 Pagans will eventually come around
to Christianity.
- Reported by Donal Brewich <do...@brewich.com>
- More information regarding its history would be appreciated
--
Copyright 1999-2003, Tim Skirvin
http://www.killfile.org/faqs/godwin.faq
dave
>>
>
> FYI,
>
> There is a sociological phenomenon called "Godwin's Law"
>
I don't believe in Godwin.
Ian Jackson
<da...@dave.dave> writes
To me, the fact that His Law (in one form or another) is true proves
that He exists.
In the UK, in uk.radio.amateur, after about three 'overs', all threads
get hijacked and turn into a slanging match which is invariably about
the UK amateur 'Foundation Licence' (effectively a low-grade novice
licence). This is much more important than Nazis and the like.
--
Ian
Esther & Fester Bestertester
discussion of Godwin's Law?
Stray Dog
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Esther & Fester Bestertester wrote:
> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:44:12 -0800
> From: Esther & Fester Bestertester <n...@me.really>
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,
> rec.radio.amateur.misc
> Subject: Re: #Re: Hijacking Newsgroup Threads
>
> Is there a corollary of Godwin Law where the original thread devolves into a
> discussion of Godwin's Law?
I am not aware of this, but the chances are surely infinitesimal.
A related (psychological) phenomenon is: "the elephant in the livingroom"
which is a tag label for people who are unaware of their own problems even
though everyone around them can see it.
My own pet notions about newsgroup threads are as follows:
1. It is a fact that dogs, when out being walked by their owners (or dogs
wandering on their own), go around and sniff fire hydrants and tree trunks
for dog piss residue. Because of their olfactory sensitivity, dogs can
identify other dogs on piss smell alone. So, its a form of communication.
After the sniff, the dog pisses on top of the prior layer of piss to tell
the next dog (maybe the same one as before) something like "Hi Joe, this
is Pete", etc., and thus makes dog socializing possible (as for millions
of years), and now, humans can do the same on newsgroup threads (read the
post, reply to the post, etc., thus giving rize to terms like "pissing
contest" etc).
2. There is a certain resemblance, to a certain degree, to the bar scene
in the movie "Star Wars"
3. I've also had the observations that: i) no matter what you say, and no
matter what your intentions, there will always be at least one person out
there who will be unhappy with what you say, ii) they will also completely
misunderstand what you say, and iii) no matter what you do to try to
explain it, it will still be misunderstood. In my retirement years I've
been reading a lot of history; kinda makes it obvious why we've had
thousands of years of wars, destruction, death, pain. Hmmmmmm? Is there a
lesson there? On newsgroups, thus, we get flamewars as a substitute.
David Lesher
>> However, you are far, far better off with a separate feeder and a 2-way
>> A/B switch. They are only a few dollars each.
>Better in the sense of being there to throw the switch, maybe. But I've got a
>programmable-event DTV converter box which allows me to record shows
>automatically. The antenna set-up needs to be automated.
Two friends both bought a $125 dual DTV RX box; its output is TCP/IP and the
control input a web browser.
One antenna goes each way....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Esther & Fester Bestertester
> control input a web browser.
Would that be:
David Lesher
>Would that be:
><http://www.silicondust.com/products/hdhomerun_atsc> ?
That looks like it but I'd have to ask to be sure...
moronsbegone
This thread's gone to the Natzi's of Hitler. WOOOOOPS there
goes this thread .
--
May You reep the poverrty You have Voted for.