Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

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.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:04:57 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

"ehsjr" wrote in message
news:3HTzj.19815$ES.6877@trnddc05

[snip]

: : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to
: : understand, and more difficult for others. Apparently,
: : you don't care. I'm just adding one more response to
: : let you know that your non-standard usage is not
: : appreciated.

Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure gets to a
noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.

Ivor

: :
: : Ed

Not one of the three news clients i have regularly used have any
problem with these quotes.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:26:05 -0500, CBFalconer
wrote:

PCPaul wrote:
Ivor Jones wrote:
"ehsjr" wrote in message

[snip]

: : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to : :
understand, and more difficult for others. Apparently, : : you
don't care. I'm just adding one more response to : : let you
know that your non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.

Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure
gets to a noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.

Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*

The only problem with a straight plonk is that other peoples quotes
of the plonkee shine through. The advantage of that is that one
has a chance to decide the plonk should be retracted.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.

One of the major reasons that i do not plonk anything but pure spam.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:41:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:



wrote in message


[snip]

: What can be confusing to people is the double ": :"
: usage. That makes
: it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous
: poster quoted with ":". So instead of that quoted text
: being understood as the part of
: the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the
: grandparent post.
: It also looks like you or your software replaced other
: people's quoting character with ":" or ": :". Whatever
: anyone uses, that should be
: left as is (unless it is clearly broken).

It's OE Quotefix and I've found the setting that caused it to convert the
existing quote marks and I've disabled that, so they should now be as they
were.

Hope this helps.

Ivor

The prudes are not listening any more.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:



"kony" wrote in message


[snip]

: I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
: worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
: should not be someone else's burden to cope with
: non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
: can do so.

It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.

Ivor

That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because some
newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or right. Your stuff
don't bother me none. News clients that produce non-quotable posts do
bother me, it makes trying to reply worthless.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:56:39 -0500, kony wrote:

On 5 Mar 2008 14:42:21 GMT, wrote:


| One contribution I would make is that you are aware that your phone service
| will support 4 REN and that each phone is normally 1 REN, meaning that you
| can have a maximum of 4 phones. My parents had more of this and whilst from
| their perspective it seemed to work (they could call out), it stopped people
| from calling in because their phones stopped ringing.

I used to see phones rated in terms of their "ringer equivalence" here in
the USA. These numbers were, for some phones, as low as 0.2. I do not
recall ever seeing one about 0.9. That would suggest to me that you could
readily have more than 4 phones on such a phone circuit. I never had any
reason to actually do a scientific test of this.


It depends on how old the phones, or these days with modern
electrically powered phones, cordless/etc, the REN, number
may be very low per phone. IMO, no good reason not to get a
cordless phone these days as some are dirt cheap, except
it's nice to have at least one non-electric in case the
power goes out.

I think i still have an old trimline. If i can find it, maybe i
should plug it in. Not much advantage though, i will still have my
cell. I wonder how long the cell towers will function in a power
outage. The telco backup may not be any better. Maybe it is time to
get my amateur licence and a radio.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message


[snip]

: So just how many different possible quote characters is
: my software supposed to work for? Idiots who want to
: use a non-standard quote character can choose from 100
: or so...

My software (OE Quotefix, also OE as supplied) has a choice of three - the
standard or : or |

: You may, or may not, be able to recognize the problem
: with accepting any character as the quote character...
: It's exactly the same as not recognizing any quote
: character at all. Or, recognizing the standard and
: looking at an article formatted with a non-standard
: character.
:
: See?

No. Sorry.

Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed to your eyes) does
with quote marks anyway..?


Ivor

"JosephKK" wrote in message

: On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: wrote:

[snip]

: It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: cope.
:
: Ivor
:
: That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because
: some newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or
: right. Your stuff don't bother me none. News clients
: that produce non-quotable posts do bother me, it makes
: trying to reply worthless.

Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If your software can't
do what you want it to, get software that can.

Ivor

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:45:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message


[snip]

: So just how many different possible quote characters is
: my software supposed to work for? Idiots who want to
: use a non-standard quote character can choose from 100
: or so...

My software (OE Quotefix, also OE as supplied) has a choice of three - the
standard or : or |

: You may, or may not, be able to recognize the problem
: with accepting any character as the quote character...
: It's exactly the same as not recognizing any quote
: character at all. Or, recognizing the standard and
: looking at an article formatted with a non-standard
: character.
:
: See?

No. Sorry.

Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed to your eyes) does
with quote marks anyway..?


Explain why we should need software with certain feature
sets to reinterpret something so you don't have to follow
standards. The whole point of usenet is to NOT need to do
these things!

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:58:41 -0800, JosephKK
wrote:


I think i still have an old trimline. If i can find it, maybe i
should plug it in. Not much advantage though, i will still have my
cell. I wonder how long the cell towers will function in a power
outage. The telco backup may not be any better. Maybe it is time to
get my amateur licence and a radio.

I've never had the telco power go out with a power outtage,
FWIW, but I've never had to endure one that was lengthly
(more than about a day). Since most outtages tend to be
localized to a small area a cellphone would certainly be
useful in most outtages.