--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all this time, I've only just noticed that there is an error in the
text of this article. In the caption it states that it has a listening
radius of 1700 meters. Now, unless the British have a different use for the
word 'radius', and assuming that the story is correct about the receivable
wavelengths, then I figure they must have meant that the radio was capable
of receiving signals of up to 1700 meters in wavelength.

Brenda Ann wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all this time, I've only just noticed that there is an error in the
text of this article. In the caption it states that it has a listening
radius of 1700 meters. Now, unless the British have a different use for the
word 'radius', and assuming that the story is correct about the receivable
wavelengths, then I figure they must have meant that the radio was capable
of receiving signals of up to 1700 meters in wavelength.


That's no surprise. Magazines like that still get 'technical'
articles wrong.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.