Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

"krw" wrote in message
t

[snip]

: *MY* system is configured properly. *YOU* have the
: problem. ...and more than one.

Eh..? *I* don't have a problem. Seems to me it's *you* that has the
problem, if you can't cope with a simple : character in a plain text
message.

Bye.

Ivor

"krw" wrote in message
t
: In article ,
: lid says...

[snip]

: Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If
: your software can't do what you want it to, get
: software that can.
:
: This is only true if your intention is to write for
: yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?

Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII
text, tough.

Bye.

Ivor

In article DWnzj.9868$6R.2914@trnddc04,
Tom Horne wrote:
Much will depend on the power and light wiring method used and the
quality of the cable used to carry your telephone circuits. What do you
mean when you say "flex". I suspect you'll be amused to learn that in
the USA that word is electricians short hand for flexible metallic
conduit. I doubt that United Kingdom "flex" is anything like Flexible
Metallic Conduit a photograph of which can be found at

Correct.

The usual meaning is a flexible, rubber or PVC covered, two or three core
cable, used to connect an appliance to its electrical source. This may be
via a plug and socket in the case of something like a vacuum cleaner, or
fixed as in the cable suspending a light fitting from the ceiling fixture.

--
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

In article ,
Ivor Jones wrote:

"CBFalconer" wrote in message

: : Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

: : I replaced your non-standard (: quote markers with
: : the normal ''. Please don't use thos non-standard
: : characters. They foul up other software.

With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem.
I use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope
with that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been
using the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to
complain.

Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the fact of ": :" putting
it down to the second level of quoting as if you had used " "

--
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

In article ,
Ivor Jones wrote:
Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of
ASCII text, tough.

I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear naturally in a "plain
text" email as it is a standard punctuation mark, "" is far less likely
though I suppose ": :" is unlikely too.

--
Stuart Winsor

From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.

For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk

"Stuart" wrote in message

: In article ,
: Ivor Jones wrote:

: Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is
: written in plain text, by the way. If you can't cope
: with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII text,
: tough.
:
: I think the only real issue is that ":" could appear
: naturally in a "plain text" email as it is a standard
: punctuation mark, "" is far less likely though I
: suppose ": :" is unlikely too.

But what is the objection..? I just don't get it. I've been on Usenet for
over 10 years and nobody has *ever* complained about this before.

Ivor

"Stuart" wrote in message


[snip]

: Can't say as it caused me any issues here except the
: fact of ": :" putting it down to the second level of
: quoting as if you had used " "

Fixed. That *was* a misconfiguration ;-)

Ivor

krw wrote:
In article , says...
JosephKK wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

krw wrote:
In article , says...
krw wrote:
In article , says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Foxtrot wrote:

... snip ...

Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire"
phone extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking
the second wire from a different twisted pair?

Yes. The idea of twisted pairs is that an interference appears on
both lines, and thus tends to cancel itself. Separating the lines
makes it easy for unequal induction.

Twisting also makes the loop area low (average over a long stretch
is nil). Separating them makes a large loop, increasing the size of
the antenna.

That is not a valid analysis. It is a transmission
line, not an antenna.

It sure as hell is. Open up the loop and it makes a *wonderful*
antenna.

It's a "wonderful" antenna regardless. But it's a
single conductor long wire antenna. Changing the
spacing is merely changing the effective diameter of the
single conductor. To get any other effect requires
spacing that is significant in terms of wavelength
(greater than perhaps 1/8th of a wavelength, for
example).

Absolute nonsense.

Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
transmission line.

Consider that the effect, both for relatively small
gauge cables, such as the ubiquitous 26 gauge used
today, is *exactly* the same as the effect on the open
wire lines used in the 30's and 40's with several inches
of separate between a pair of much larger copperclad
steel wires. And while the twist on some cable is
measured per inch, on typical telephone cable it is
measured in many inches per twist, and on those old open
wire lines it was in hundreds of yards per twist.

...and open-wire transmission lines won't pick up stray noise?

It picks up as much, or as little, as unshielded twisted
pair of smaller gauge and closer spacing. That's the
point... there isn't any difference. In either case
what you have is a single conductor longwire antenna, not
a loop antenna, until the spacing is a significant fraction
of a wavelength.

Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.

I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
Start with Kraus.

I have built many twin lead antennas for VHF use. The distinction is
not so clear as you are advertising.

In fact, it is. What is an folded dipole? As opposed to a loop?

...and they work rather well as antennas, just as any open line.

There is a fundamental difference between a folded
dipole and a loop antenna. It is exactly as I
suggested above.

Folded dipoles don't work so well if you twist them, though.

You apparently have no idea what a folded dipole *is*,
in theory. Consider another similar construction, which
does not change anything in the same way that a loop
does: multiwire rhombics. The effects are the same as
experienced with a folded dipole (the two conductors equate
to one larger conductor).

The claim that separation between the two wires of a
twisted pair (or even an untwisted parallel pair)
transmission line has the effect of a loop antenna is
false.

The idea that this is covered in "EE100" is equally
ridiculous, and the dismissal (in a different message)
of my suggestion to read the work of Kraus, where it is
in fact discussed in detail, suggests that some people
really should read Kraus.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
lid says...

"krw" wrote in message
t
: In article ,
: lid says...

[snip]

: Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If
: your software can't do what you want it to, get
: software that can.
:
: This is only true if your intention is to write for
: yourself. In that case, why bother the rest of us?

Nobody's forcing you to read my message. Which is written in plain text,
by the way. If you can't cope with a simple : character in a bit of ASCII
text, tough.

This post typifies your attitude toward you reader. The question
is, why do *you* bother writing if you have no interest in your
reader?

--
Keith

In article ,
lid says...
"krw" wrote in message
t
: In article ,
: lid says...

[snip]

: Ok, fine. But you are over-complicating things IMHO.
: Why do you need different fonts for different levels
: of quotes..?
:
: That is his choice, one that you are defeating for not
: other reason than you vanity (which this thread is
: likely stroking).

Exactly - it's *his* choice, so why should *I* have to modify my
long-established system to accommodate him and a handful of people who
can't cope..?

Right. Why should you care about anyone other than yourself?

: The beauty of Usenet to
: me is it is (theoretically at any rate) in *plain
: ASCII text* so all this mucking about with fonts,
: colours or whatever that people do on the web is, or
: so I thought, mercifully absent.
:
: The beauty of the Usenet is obviously lost on you.

No, it hasn't, that's my point.

It *obviously* has.

: Seems I was wrong. But I'm not changing my quote
: marks. Live with it or plonk me, it's all the same to
: me.
:
: Yes, and I'm sure it's not the first time your
: arrogance has gotten in the way of communication.

Whatever you say. But I'm still not changing my quotes to suit a handful
of people out of the thousands I've come across in the years I've been on
Usenet.

Of course you're not going to adopt to group norms. You're far to
important for that.


--
Keith