Scam product for sale in Guardian newspaper, allegedly

I'm a Lady - what is "Physics"?

Reply to
Mary Pegg
Loading thread data ...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:30:19 GMT, Mary Pegg wrote the following to uk.misc:

Soda Stream.

mh.

Reply to
Marcus Houlden

Almost certainly. We live in a densely populated country with good radio and TV coverage. I imagine there are more people suffering problems with urban ghosting than there are with remote weak signals. Input stages also have AGC and very good sensitivity these days. In such cases, a simple attenuator is more use than a bigger antenna. A gadget like this (which I assume to have some level of band-pass filtering) probably works very well for those people suffering from out-of-band interference, induced pickup in long antenna leads, and much ghosting.

And of course, if your existing antenna is already working well, you're unlikely to shell out on any new gadget. So even if this thing is useless for nearly everyone, for probably two thirds of those people who have a problem, it's quite possibly appropriate - contrary as its technical capabilities might suggest.

Years ago I worked briefly for the radio interference investigation branch of BT. In one small area (underneath a local radio transmitter) a standard technique was _unplugging_ the aerial altogether. There was just too much of it - no sensible radio could cope. Signal strength was such that I really did hear Radio Merseyside on Granny's fillings.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

True. COBOL programmers just did it first :-)

Reply to
Mike

Don't believe you. To get a good clean signal, the best way is with a decent roof top aerial and a good downlead. If this results in too much signal, an attenuator is pennies. The problem with any set top aerial at UHF is reflections from people moving about in the room etc. Hence get the aerial above any such interference. This also applies to decent MF reception - get the aerial above the interference fields and use a decent screened feeder.

It was usually due to 'poor' receiver design - it was picking up the strong signals elsewhere than the actual aerial input. A decent receiver will filter out all the crap at every stage - as will a simple amplifier. But this costs money.

Years ago, I spent some time sorting out a very expensive TV of a pal who lived close to Crystal Palace, and who had a near unwatchable picture. It took quite some time, but the components cost pennies.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

How?

They are arguing about how accurately G has been measured so far, which is an indication of how difficult it is to measure.

This is big G I am talking about.

Glenys

Reply to
Juggz

Whilst I was taliking about little "g" - the relationship between force, distance and two masses. The change has been measured by observing planetary motion rather than measuring the Eath's gravitational force.

Reply to
Cynic

OK. Maybe I am not making myself clear, here. There is no such little "g". As far as I know, but then, I am a girly, etc. And you are a big strong boy and clearly know more about such things.

Which is why I am asking you for a cite.

Glenys

Reply to
Juggz

OK, the gravitational constant is usually referred to as big 'G' and I had misremembered. I think it was clear from my explanation as to the constant I was referring to. There is indeed a quantity usually referred to as little 'g', which is the acceleration caused by gravity.

I am sure your seach engine turned up much the same sites as mine has just done.

Reply to
Cynic

Great! Now we're thinking with rocket fuel.

So, why do you think that big G has changed, apart from problems with measurement.

Don't need no search engine.

Glenys

Reply to
Juggz

Somehow, I don't think La Juggz is arguing from ignorance and web sites.

Reply to
August West

The widely differing values of "G" that different measurement methods have produced cannot reasonably be explained by experimental error, so "problems with measurement" rather understates the issue.

I am sure that someone with so much knowlege of the subject that they can afford to be so annoyingly patronising has at least heard of the Attractive Universe Theory (AUT), which ties "G" to the mass distribution of the Universe and is what I was originally alluding to?

Ahh. Fresh knowlege or fixed ideas?

Reply to
Cynic

Nor am I. There is no shame in consulting a reference when it appears necessary.

Reply to
Cynic

And again, I am asking you for a cite on this.

Glenys

Reply to
Juggz

Aye, she wouldn't take your job away from you.

Reply to
Mary Pegg

Anyone using a bit of thought would question how come the level of uncertainty regarding G is *increasing* as experimental methods become more accurate.

As for a cite, a quick 'net search came up immediately with:

formatting link

Reply to
Cynic

Reply to
Mary Pegg

... Bruce here teaches logical positivism. And is also in charge of the sheep dip.

Reply to
August West

A troll of your calibre ought to manage something better than a spelling flame. Sez?

Reply to
Cynic

Yes. "Sez". That is wot I wrote.

Reply to
Mary Pegg

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.