all I know is the sensitivity and enhanced s/n ratio of the
Gallium-Arsenide semiconductor can be used to great advantage in ones
front end... (don't know about girls though, their front ends are best
handle with bras I believe--or no bra even works for me! grin)

John

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:

From a quick trip to the living room bookshelves -

"...the fountain pen was invented in 1884. Then in the 1930s
Ladislau Biro, a Hungarian artist and journalist, invented the
ball-point pen in Budapest. He fled when the Second World War
broke out, eventually reaching Argentina."
" With the help of his brother Georg, a chemist, he perfected
the pen and manufactured it in Buenos Aires during the war. In
1944 he sold his interests in the invention to one of his
backers, who produced the Biro pen for the Allied air forces
because it was not affected by changes in air pressure."

From Reader's Digest "How In The World?" 1990, published
in Pleasantville, NY, and Montreal, Canada, page 14.

In fiction, novelist Len Deighton's excellent 5th book in his
'WWOCP' espionage series, "Horse Under Water," 1963, is the
discovery of a ball-point pen in the submerged wreckage of
a German submarine, said submarine supposedly sunk prior to
1944 (it wasn't and was used in post-WW2 times to smuggle
contraband and heroin - the "horse" of the title).

A ball-point pen requires SOME air pressure INSIDE the ink
reservoir in order for it to feed ink. Without that, there
would be a partial pressure loss inside the ink tube that would
inhibit ink flow. Yes, it works by capilliary action at the
TIP, but that requires feeding from the ink reservoir INSIDE
the pen. The ink is oil-based, of more viscosity than the ink
in fountain pens (which are entirely operating on gravity and
capilliary action). While a ball-point pen can operate at
high altitudes much better than a fountain pen, both are
inhibited in writing action in microgravity. The "Biro Pen"
use by the RAF in 1944 may lead, erroneously, to its alleged
ability to be used in microgravity.

Similarly, the Phase-Locked Loop or PLL was invented in France
in 1932! The basic PLL principle was not adaptable to any
consumer electronics frequency control applications until the
1960s and the availability of digital circuit packages. That
principle led to the Fractional-N frequency synthesis and,
quickly, to the Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS) now found in
single chip products of Advanced Micro Devices. An offshoot
of the original PLL was the "locked oscillator" operating at
a multiple of a reference frequency. The locked oscillator
principle was used in early TV receivers for sweep circuits
but its fussiness in operation confined it to limited
commercial applications.

Fascinating! It is really tough to write with one of those PLLs.

How about filling us in on Gallium-Arsenide substrates, Len?

Dave K8MN

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:11:21 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dee:

This is going to sound like a joke (and heaven knows I NEVER JOKE!--but
it
isn't...), I once heard the little windshield wiper pumps, the ones
which
spray on the window cleaner were the by-product of nasa technology
adopted
by the auto industry; you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Funny, but that question has stuck in my mind for years. I had made a
mental note to ask, if ever given the chance... sometimes doesn't take
much to entertain me... frown I actually doubt it... I mean, the
cleaner would freeze in the tank in space, immediately freeze and/or
crystallize to ice when discharged, etc...

or, perhaps they meant the pumps used by nasa were actually for another
purpose and just adapted to windshields here on terafirma...

John


Don't know about the pumps unfortunately. However it is amazing some of
the
things that came out of the space program. The original ball point pen
was
one.

Not true. The ball-point pen was invented in 1935 - a long time
before space travel became a reality. NASA did spawn the invention of
a pressurized ball-point pen that would write in zero-gravity
conditions (where the regular pen was quite useless) - I assume that
you were referring to this more modern adaptation of a much older
design.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story055.htm

snip

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


73, Leo

I stand corrected. Guess I got all those History/Discovery Channels shows
mixed up a bit.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

By the way, has no one else noticed that the drop off in numbers is
primarily Technicians who were not code tested?


Maybe all of them learned the code and upgraded.... ;-)

Kim wrote:
Oh no, we've been raided by the CB gang. DUH!! I didn't even put the
"John" and "Smith" together as being so annonymous it's ridiculous. And
Cmdr Buzz. Haven't ever noticed that User Name but, what's that mean? Cmdr
Buzz--mean something like that you command a bunch of dildoes, or something?

Dang, I got caught up in CB crap. LOL

Kim W5TIT


It's beyond you kimmie and obviously before your time.

John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yes. But do they use pencils like the russians, or pens like our
girly-men astronauts. That is the important question now, isn't it?
grin

John

Bet you wouldn't stand face-to-face with the astronuats and call them
'girly-men'.

Commander:

At 6'2" and 200 lbs with no fat, I have never had to cower in fear of
many...

However, I would expect it much more likely I would enjoy a pleasing
verbal exchange with the decent fellow--if ever I was to sit down and
have a chat with one of the fellows... and you know, by the time you
become an astronaut, petty name calling and taunts from most would not
even be heard, let alone responded to...

Life is never full of conflict--unless you go hunting it...

John



"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yes. But do they use pencils like the russians, or pens like our
girly-men astronauts. That is the important question now, isn't
it?
grin

John

Bet you wouldn't stand face-to-face with the astronuats and call
them 'girly-men'.

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm


wrote:

From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37


Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for
same.


Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just
*how* to reply.

Poor attempt at a redirect.


Try to stay focussed.


"Focused", Lennie.

Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?!


"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.


No, it's not.

It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school,
and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie.

I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment
that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to
know..."

There are plenty enough of that type running around.

It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark
must be answered with:

Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll
get started on what you need to know.




The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.


(Oh jeeze...same Lennie crap, fermented and dropped on the door
step again...)

But Part 97 DOES mandate that the Amateur Radio Service serve as a
training enviroment for self-education and training.

Unless they set the goals, what are they to train for?


Actually, that "argument" is total bull#### OUT of the academic
arena.


You and Markie must have shareware'd that dictionary of
profanities, Lennie.

Yuck - potty mouth ;^)


ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on
the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications.


A-hem.....

(reading back across header on top...
'rec.radio.AMATEUR.policy'....)

I'll bet it's hotter down south than it is in the summer, too!


It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes
longer, and no longer "gets through" better.


"Takes longer" than what? You taking that Extra right out of the
box?


All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a
sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC
isn't a fraternity house either.


And you're lying again. Sheeesh...couldn't keep it to even
marginally valid arguments, could you...?!?!


I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time.


Funny...

We've thought the same of you a LOT of the times...



Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?


No hate, Lennie.

I just don't tolerate liars.

And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of
the water.

You're a documented liar. You're more verbose and grammatically
correct than other liars in this forum (specifically N0IMD and KB9RQZ)
but you're a liar none-the-less.


Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed
"definitions" of What It Is All About?

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.

Okay, I'll slow down and explain.

See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with
your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?".

Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is
true, it remains a foolish thing.

It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons
of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally.

So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50
million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are
like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still
wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't
like make it right, you know?

Whew....




EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.

The newsgroup moderator has spoken.

Carry on, Lennie...

Steve, K4YZ


Can I go to the bathroom now????

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm
wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37

Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period.

You folks all missed an important point.

We are told in no uncertain terms that

"THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period."

But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio

"is a HOBBY".

Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97.
The FCC
doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of
the Amateur Radio Service.

So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use
the
word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio
*is* a
hobby.

Do you see the contradiction?

Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about.....

They grant the licenses for same.

Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just
*how* to reply.

Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're
"loaded".

"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.

No, it's not.

It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school,
and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie.

I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment
that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to
know..."

There are plenty enough of that type running around.

It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark
must be answered with:

Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll
get started on what you need to know.

I'll have to remember that one!

The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.

Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?

No hate, Lennie.

I just don't tolerate liars.

And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of
the water.

I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory
destroyed.

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.

Okay, I'll slow down and explain.

See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with
your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?".

Bummer!

Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is
true, it remains a foolish thing.

To the max, man...

It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons
of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally.

It's where their heads are at. Different scene.

So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50
million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are
like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still
wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't
like make it right, you know?

Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude.

Whew....

To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you
believe"

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm
wrote:
From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37

Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur
radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio.

Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also
insecure?

Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO
IN THE UNITED STATES. Period.

You folks all missed an important point.

We are told in no uncertain terms that

"THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period."

But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio

"is a HOBBY".

break

Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97.
The FCC
doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of
the Amateur Radio Service.

and it does not apear in the feining of CB or even the rules for
(controling is FCC) My R/C aircraft yet they are claerly hobies or at
least on the same basis as the ARS


So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use
the
word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio
*is* a
hobby.

becuase by and large it is

regardless of its value or lack of it to the nation to the FCC it and
us are merely to be regulated and as easily as possible

If calling the ARS a service aids the FCC they will do so

If calling us a Pizza did so I bet that would be in the rules too


Do you see the contradiction?

nope

I suspect you see one because you are operating under the assumetion
that to paraphase the Indians, "that the Great White Fathers agents
speak with forked tongue" is not SOP inside the beltway


Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about.....

They grant the licenses for same.

Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie.

Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just
*how* to reply.

Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're
"loaded".

many of the question are loaded and fall into the "have you stoped
beating your wife yet" catagory


"Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love
with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged
individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when
that skill goes back 161 years! :-)

Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't
think is relevant.

Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many.

No, it's not.

It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school,
and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie.

I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment
that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to
know..."

There are plenty enough of that type running around.

It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark
must be answered with:

Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll
get started on what you need to know.

I'll have to remember that one!

The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT
"students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test.

Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be
bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed.

No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about
K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be
HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you
will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be
like him?

No hate, Lennie.

I just don't tolerate liars.

And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of
the water.

I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory
destroyed.

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a
foolish thing.

"50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today?

Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject.

Okay, I'll slow down and explain.

See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with
your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?".

Bummer!

Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is
true, it remains a foolish thing.

To the max, man...

It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons
of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally.

It's where their heads are at. Different scene.

So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50
million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are
like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still
wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't
like make it right, you know?

Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude.

Whew....

To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you
believe"

but objective reality and Govt reg never mix

73 de Jim, N2EY

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Cmdr Buzz:

Hey, did you really think--I think, she really has 5 size W boobs?

disappointed-look-on-face

Six, but one got away and is living in UP Michigan these days...

and you call any of that english

I do.

So does Webster's.

It does go on to show your obsession with gentials

What genitals?

Breasts, Mud-for-brains, are not "genitals"

prehaps the porblem is that you realy need to get laid

I don't ahve a "porblem", Markie...Whatever THAT is...

Steve, K4YZ