Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

"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 |

My software allows me to use virtually *anything*. It
could be a single character, or a string of characters.

Incidentally, it doesn't appear that you software is
using ":". It is using ": ". The added space isn't as
bad as the non-standard ':', but it's a waste of a
precious column, and leads to incorrectly wrapped lines
with many readers.

: 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..?

I thought you knew all about this???

Specifically my software is the gnus package running
under XEmacs. I have it configured to display each
level of quoted text with a distinct font face. In this
case the significant difference is just the color of the
text.

It can also do things like reformat quoted text, and
will maintain the appropriate quote prefix. The
paragraph quoted above, with your ':' quotes, ends up
like this if it is reformatted:

: 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...

If it had used standard quotes, it could be
reformatted to look like this:

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...

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

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?

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

"Graham." wrote:
"Ivor Jones" wrote in message
"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.

I think software developers sometimes call this kind of dilemma
Postel's Law

It certainly establishes that my PLONK filter is correctly set.

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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"kony" wrote in message


[snip]

: 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!

I don't understand why you need *software* (other than any standard
newsreader) to interpret what you're reading on the screen. I type words,
you read them - where does software come into it..? You can see perfectly
well which parts of the message I am quoting.

I ask again - what is *software* doing with my quote marks that upsets you
so much..?

Ivor

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message

: "Ivor Jones" wrote:

: Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed
: to your eyes) does with quote marks anyway..?
:
: I thought you knew all about this???
:
: Specifically my software is the gnus package running
: under XEmacs. I have it configured to display each
: level of quoted text with a distinct font face. In this
: case the significant difference is just the color of the
: text.
:
: It can also do things like reformat quoted text, and
: will maintain the appropriate quote prefix. The
: paragraph quoted above, with your ':' quotes, ends up
: like this if it is reformatted:
:
: : 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...
:
: If it had used standard quotes, it could be
: reformatted to look like this:
:
: 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...

Ok, fine. But you are over-complicating things IMHO. Why do you need
different fonts for different levels of quotes..? 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.

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.

Ivor

In article ,
lid says...
"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.

This is only true if your intention is to write for yourself. In
that case, why bother the rest of us?

--
Keith

In article ,
lid says...


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

[snip]

: It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.
:
: In this case, "differently" = "non-standard" =
: misconfigured.

How do I know it's not your system that's misconfigured..? If it were
configured correctly, surely it could cope with a : instead of a ??

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

--
Keith

In article ,
lid says...


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message

: "Ivor Jones" wrote:

: Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed
: to your eyes) does with quote marks anyway..?
:
: I thought you knew all about this???
:
: Specifically my software is the gnus package running
: under XEmacs. I have it configured to display each
: level of quoted text with a distinct font face. In this
: case the significant difference is just the color of the
: text.
:
: It can also do things like reformat quoted text, and
: will maintain the appropriate quote prefix. The
: paragraph quoted above, with your ':' quotes, ends up
: like this if it is reformatted:
:
: : 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...
:
: If it had used standard quotes, it could be
: reformatted to look like this:
:
: 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...

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).

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.

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.


--
Keith

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

--
Keith

"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..?

: 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.

: 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.

Bye.

Ivor