Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: [RSGB] No. 10, December 2016 - January 2017
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 20, 2019, 6:39:36 AM5/20/19
to
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/05/2019 09:15, AndyW wrote:
>> On 17/05/2019 09:28, Spike wrote:
>
>>>> Radio Society of Great Britain - Main Site
>
>>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> No. 10, December 2016 - January 2017
>
>>>> <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RadioSocietyOfGreatBritain-MainSite/~3/c6QeKT8cHk8/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
>
>>>> What is the MUF and why is it important?
>
>>> Don't ask awkward questions. Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls
>>> will be confused.
>
>> Thanks for including me in that. That I qualified late in life seems to
>> be my crime.
>
> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>
Burt continuing to make a bollocks of radio propagation theory, as per.
--
STC / M0TEY / People’s Champion 2018
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
> On 20/05/2019 09:15, AndyW wrote:
>> On 17/05/2019 09:28, Spike wrote:
>
>>>> Radio Society of Great Britain - Main Site
>
>>>> ///////////////////////////////////////////
>>>> No. 10, December 2016 - January 2017
>
>>>> <http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RadioSocietyOfGreatBritain-MainSite/~3/c6QeKT8cHk8/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
>
>>>> What is the MUF and why is it important?
>
>>> Don't ask awkward questions. Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls
>>> will be confused.
>
>> Thanks for including me in that. That I qualified late in life seems to
>> be my crime.
>
> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>
Burt continuing to make a bollocks of radio propagation theory, as per.
--
STC / M0TEY / People’s Champion 2018
http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 20, 2019, 1:03:09 PM5/20/19
to
Jeefaw K Effkay <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> When the power leaves the antenna, it has no cognizance of whether it's
> going to be a ground wave, direct wave or sky wave.
>
> The signal might leave the transmitting antenna at an angle of 20º. If it
> reaches one of the F layers of the ionosphere and is refracted, clearly
> it's a sky wave. But if a listener on a hilltop 20km away receives it,
> it's a ground wave. Or if it's picked up by a passing aircraft, it's a direct wave.
>
> Your problem can only be considered from the viewpoint of the receiving
> antenna, not from that of the transmitting antenna.
>
It’s 2019 and people are *still* having to explain radio propagation theory
to Burt. Fucking Nora!
> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:28:57 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>
>> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
>> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
>> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
>> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
>> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
>> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
>> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
>> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>
> I did answer that at the time. Perhaps you missed it?
>
>> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
>> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
>> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
>> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
>> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
>> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
>> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
>> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>
>
> When the power leaves the antenna, it has no cognizance of whether it's
> going to be a ground wave, direct wave or sky wave.
>
> The signal might leave the transmitting antenna at an angle of 20º. If it
> reaches one of the F layers of the ionosphere and is refracted, clearly
> it's a sky wave. But if a listener on a hilltop 20km away receives it,
> it's a ground wave. Or if it's picked up by a passing aircraft, it's a direct wave.
>
> Your problem can only be considered from the viewpoint of the receiving
> antenna, not from that of the transmitting antenna.
>
It’s 2019 and people are *still* having to explain radio propagation theory
to Burt. Fucking Nora!
Rambo
May 20, 2019, 3:14:20 PM5/20/19
to
On 20 May 2019 17:03:07 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
Which sideband are the waves on?
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 20, 2019, 3:15:27 PM5/20/19
to
Rambo
May 20, 2019, 3:29:09 PM5/20/19
to
On 20 May 2019 19:15:26 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>Rambo <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2019 17:03:07 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeefaw K Effkay <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:28:57 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
>>>>> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
>>>>> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
>>>>> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
>>>>> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
>>>>> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
>>>>> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
>>>>> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>>>>
>>>> I did answer that at the time. Perhaps you missed it?
>>>>
>>>> When the power leaves the antenna, it has no cognizance of whether it's
>>>> going to be a ground wave, direct wave or sky wave.
>>>>
>>>> The signal might leave the transmitting antenna at an angle of 20º. If it
>>>> reaches one of the F layers of the ionosphere and is refracted, clearly
>>>> it's a sky wave. But if a listener on a hilltop 20km away receives it,
>>>> it's a ground wave. Or if it's picked up by a passing aircraft, it's a direct wave.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem can only be considered from the viewpoint of the receiving
>>>> antenna, not from that of the transmitting antenna.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It?s 2019 and people are *still* having to explain radio propagation theory
>Rambo <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2019 17:03:07 GMT, Stephen Thomas Cole
>> <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeefaw K Effkay <mike.ga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:28:57 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
>>>>> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
>>>>> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
>>>>> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
>>>>> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
>>>>> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
>>>>> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
>>>>> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>>>>
>>>> I did answer that at the time. Perhaps you missed it?
>>>>
>>>> When the power leaves the antenna, it has no cognizance of whether it's
>>>> going to be a ground wave, direct wave or sky wave.
>>>>
>>>> The signal might leave the transmitting antenna at an angle of 20º. If it
>>>> reaches one of the F layers of the ionosphere and is refracted, clearly
>>>> it's a sky wave. But if a listener on a hilltop 20km away receives it,
>>>> it's a ground wave. Or if it's picked up by a passing aircraft, it's a direct wave.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem can only be considered from the viewpoint of the receiving
>>>> antenna, not from that of the transmitting antenna.
>>>>
>>>
>>> to Burt. Fucking Nora!
>>
>> Which sideband are the waves on?
>
>Thanks for the retwat, Rich.
You're more than welcome OM.
>>
>> Which sideband are the waves on?
>
>Thanks for the retwat, Rich.
Roger Hayter
May 20, 2019, 4:08:19 PM5/20/19
to
someone else's technical assertion unless one understands it oneself.
--
Roger Hayter
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 23, 2019, 12:44:44 AM5/23/19
to
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> result we want. For the sake of simplicity let's pretend that verticals
> give ground wave (and a little sky wave) and horizontals give sky wave
> (and a little ground wave). Now a distant station, set up for one
> polarization or another, *will* notice a difference in received signal
> strength if the sending station changes polarization - which mean, of
> course, that the received power has changed. The difference will in the
> first instance be due to the changed distribution of power between
> ground and sky waves at the sending station due to the different
> behaviours of the two polarizations. Now, at the time of posing the
> question I was interested in a particular set-up, which is why I asked
> the question in the form that I did, namely, a short vertical rod etc
> etc., as I wanted to know where the transmitted power was going. I can't
> say that I received a sensible answer, apart from one that recognised
> the issue and offered some approximate answers. I'm sorry if I missed
> your original reply.
>
> I guess some people are struggling with this as Google doesn't provide
> an answer.
People are “struggling” to give you the answer you want, Burt, as your
question is so badly malformed as to be gibberish. HTH, OM. YFI.
> On 20/05/2019 16:58, Jeefaw K Effkay wrote:
>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:28:57 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:28:57 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>
>>> My 'crime' was to pose a question some years ago in .antenna asking
>>> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
>>> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
>>> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
>>> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
>>> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
>>> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
>>> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>
>>> which form of wave (ground, sky, space) carried what proportion of the
>>> RF power, radiated from a short vertical rod antenna at MF/low HF. Since
>>> then some 'Award-winning MM-zeros and modern Fulls' have used this as a
>>> stick with which to beat me, despite a) not getting a sensible answer on
>>> .antenna and b) getting a sensible answer on UKRAM. The latest
>>> reference to the episode was from Class B Brian Reay only yesterday, so
>>> perhaps I should have included that as well.
>
>> I did answer that at the time. Perhaps you missed it?
>
>> When the power leaves the antenna, it has no cognizance of whether it's
>> going to be a ground wave, direct wave or sky wave.
>
>> The signal might leave the transmitting antenna at an angle of 20º. If
>
>> When the power leaves the antenna, it has no cognizance of whether it's
>> going to be a ground wave, direct wave or sky wave.
>
>> it reaches one of the F layers of the ionosphere and is refracted,
>> clearly it's a sky wave. But if a listener on a hilltop 20km away
>> receives it, it's a ground wave. Or if it's picked up by a passing
>> aircraft, it's a direct wave.
>
>> Your problem can only be considered from the viewpoint of the receiving
>> antenna, not from that of the transmitting antenna.
>
> I'm not sure that's true. As Amateurs we put up aerials to get the
>> clearly it's a sky wave. But if a listener on a hilltop 20km away
>> receives it, it's a ground wave. Or if it's picked up by a passing
>> aircraft, it's a direct wave.
>
>> Your problem can only be considered from the viewpoint of the receiving
>> antenna, not from that of the transmitting antenna.
>
> result we want. For the sake of simplicity let's pretend that verticals
> give ground wave (and a little sky wave) and horizontals give sky wave
> (and a little ground wave). Now a distant station, set up for one
> polarization or another, *will* notice a difference in received signal
> strength if the sending station changes polarization - which mean, of
> course, that the received power has changed. The difference will in the
> first instance be due to the changed distribution of power between
> ground and sky waves at the sending station due to the different
> behaviours of the two polarizations. Now, at the time of posing the
> question I was interested in a particular set-up, which is why I asked
> the question in the form that I did, namely, a short vertical rod etc
> etc., as I wanted to know where the transmitted power was going. I can't
> say that I received a sensible answer, apart from one that recognised
> the issue and offered some approximate answers. I'm sorry if I missed
> your original reply.
>
> I guess some people are struggling with this as Google doesn't provide
> an answer.
People are “struggling” to give you the answer you want, Burt, as your
question is so badly malformed as to be gibberish. HTH, OM. YFI.
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 23, 2019, 12:44:44 AM5/23/19
to
Jim GM4DHJ ... <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2019 22:10, Jeefaw K Effkay wrote:
>> And, again, that was clearly explained at the time.
>>
>> STC was referring to RTTY. The choice of sideband on RTTY is less obvious than for voice.
>>
>> To cut a long story short, if you got a string of 464646 instead of
>> RYRYRY at the beginning of a transmission, you could either switch
>> sideband on your receiver, or invert the tone decoder in your terminal
>> unit. Either action had exactly the same effect, and neither action was
>> more "correct" than the other.
>>
> yes that taunt was a bit unkind and inaccurate much as I hate cole .....
>
Jim, thanks for confirming that Burt’s a liar. You’re quite getting the
hang of this snitching lark, eh? Thanks, Jim.
> On 20/05/2019 22:10, Jeefaw K Effkay wrote:
>>
>> STC was referring to RTTY. The choice of sideband on RTTY is less obvious than for voice.
>>
>> To cut a long story short, if you got a string of 464646 instead of
>> RYRYRY at the beginning of a transmission, you could either switch
>> sideband on your receiver, or invert the tone decoder in your terminal
>> unit. Either action had exactly the same effect, and neither action was
>> more "correct" than the other.
>>
> yes that taunt was a bit unkind and inaccurate much as I hate cole .....
>
Jim, thanks for confirming that Burt’s a liar. You’re quite getting the
hang of this snitching lark, eh? Thanks, Jim.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
May 23, 2019, 12:46:37 AM5/23/19
to
--
Report a bad lying Freemason to Mr Baker of UGLE Audi Vide Tace
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 23, 2019, 12:56:10 AM5/23/19
to
Jim GM4DHJ ...
May 23, 2019, 1:01:50 AM5/23/19
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 23, 2019, 1:22:20 AM5/23/19
to
Jim, checked up, Jim, on Paul, Jim? Thanks, Jim.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
May 23, 2019, 1:30:01 AM5/23/19
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 23, 2019, 3:35:58 PM5/23/19
to
mm0fmf <no...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/2019 10:03, Jeefaw K Effkay wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 9:02:40 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2019 15:14, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>> Rambo <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
>>>>> Brian Reay <no...@m.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Rambo <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2019 09:05:02 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, what can we expect from a bunch of under achieving, bitter, lying,
>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>
>>>>>>> My My you do seem to be angry this morning.
>>>
>>>>>>> Is it because you feel you are an under achieving, bitter, lying,
>>>>>>> failure.
>>>
>>>>>> HavenÂ’t you got an exam to study for? You donÂ’t want to fail again.
>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>
>>>> You’ve given up then.
>>>
>>>> I'll take that as an admission we made it too difficult for you. Steve
>>>> passed it. ;-)
>>>
>>> So, pray tell us why you yourself have failed not only to advance, but
>>> in essence actually have gone backwards from a Class B to an M3?
>>
>> Some confusion here, maybe?
>>
>> I doubt that Brian is old enough to have ever held a "Class B" licence.
>> The Class A and Class B licences were effectively combined in November
>> 1955, when the PMG decided that the new licencees' restriction to 1 year
>> of CW only was no longer required.
>>
>> Brian's G8 callsign is actually an "amateur licence B", which was introduced in June 1964.
>>
>> Amateur licence Bs were rolled up into the current full licence in July 2003.
>>
> Just how many times is Mike going tear Spuke a new one ?
>
I’m genuinely starting to feel a bit embarrassed for Burt. The silly old
twat’s so far out of his depth it’s unreal.
> On 23/05/2019 10:03, Jeefaw K Effkay wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 9:02:40 AM UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/05/2019 15:14, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>> Rambo <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
>>>>> Brian Reay <no...@m.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Rambo <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2019 09:05:02 -0000 (UTC), Brian Reay <no...@m.com>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Then, what can we expect from a bunch of under achieving, bitter, lying,
>>>>>>>> failures.
>>>
>>>>>>> My My you do seem to be angry this morning.
>>>
>>>>>>> Is it because you feel you are an under achieving, bitter, lying,
>>>>>>> failure.
>>>
>>>>>> HavenÂ’t you got an exam to study for? You donÂ’t want to fail again.
>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>
>>>> You’ve given up then.
>>>
>>>> I'll take that as an admission we made it too difficult for you. Steve
>>>> passed it. ;-)
>>>
>>> So, pray tell us why you yourself have failed not only to advance, but
>>> in essence actually have gone backwards from a Class B to an M3?
>>
>> Some confusion here, maybe?
>>
>> I doubt that Brian is old enough to have ever held a "Class B" licence.
>> The Class A and Class B licences were effectively combined in November
>> 1955, when the PMG decided that the new licencees' restriction to 1 year
>> of CW only was no longer required.
>>
>> Brian's G8 callsign is actually an "amateur licence B", which was introduced in June 1964.
>>
>> Amateur licence Bs were rolled up into the current full licence in July 2003.
>>
> Just how many times is Mike going tear Spuke a new one ?
>
I’m genuinely starting to feel a bit embarrassed for Burt. The silly old
twat’s so far out of his depth it’s unreal.
Wm
May 25, 2019, 5:24:35 AM5/25/19
to
On 20/05/2019 21:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Can you explain in what respect he is mistaken? It is unwise to quote
> someone else's technical assertion unless one understands it oneself.
>
And plain fucking stupid to make an issue of it in this and other ng's
> Can you explain in what respect he is mistaken? It is unwise to quote
> someone else's technical assertion unless one understands it oneself.
>
That includes *you* Roger. FFS, why are *you* being a tosser in devon?
--
Wm
Roger Hayter
May 25, 2019, 6:42:56 AM5/25/19
to
Somerset).
--
Roger Hayter
0 new messages