"John Byrns"


That Meissner set was an anomaly. Why did they even need a switch,
why not just have it always sync to the "60 Cycle" power line as you
claim was done in old USA Television sets?


** I never claimed any such thing - that is how YOU autistically
misread my post.

My original post:


" ** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down to 59.94
Hz. "


" ** Amounts to exactly what I just posted - TV sets were synched to the
local 60 Hz supply. Something not possible unless the transmitted video
signal is synched to the same AC grid system.

This is what it says in the URL I posted to back my words and *** YOU
****ING SNIPPED *** !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate "





............... Phil

"Jon Yaeger"

"Jon Yaeger"

Someone forgot to take his meds today . . . .



** While that psychotic Yaeger **** skipped out on his daily ECT.



BTW, Phil, ECT is used to treat depression, not psychosis.




** It was and is still used for both things - you pig ignorant prick.





................ Phil


I'd suggest you try to get your money, back, Phil. It obviously didn't
work!

In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"John Byrns"

That Meissner set was an anomaly. Why did they even need a switch,
why not just have it always sync to the "60 Cycle" power line as you
claim was done in old USA Television sets?

** I never claimed any such thing - that is how YOU
misread my post.

My original post:

" ** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down to 59.94
Hz. "

It is hard to take your statement that "In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz
supply for vertical synchronisation" as meaning anything other than it's
literal interpretation that the receiver's vertical sweep was controlled
by the 60 Hz supply to the receiver. Of course this wasn't possible in
reality because even ignoring that there were many small city sized
independent power grids at that time, the RCA synchronizing generator used
by many Television stations around 1950 could be locked to any one of
three sources, 1.) the local 60 power line, 2.) an internal crystal
oscillator, or 3.) an external source such as a network feed. This last
was most desirable because it eliminated the rolling that otherwise
occurred when switching between Network programming and local programming
such as commercials.

It is clear that you now realize your original claim was dead wrong, and
that you are now trying to backpedal and claim that what you really meant
was that the Television receiver is indirectly synchronized to the "60 Hz
supply" by way of the transmitter, but even that wasn't necessarily true
depending what source the Television broadcast station being watched was
using for its synchronizing signal. The source could just as easily have
been a crystal, or in the case of Network programming it was some
frequency source in a distant city.

" ** Amounts to exactly what I just posted - TV sets were synched to the
local 60 Hz supply. Something not possible unless the transmitted video
signal is synched to the same AC grid system.

This is what it says in the URL I posted to back my words and *** YOU
****ING SNIPPED *** !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate "

What's wrong with snipping it, you snip many of my words? In any case I
would think you would thank me for snipping that statement because with it
you shot yourself in the foot twice. The first part is simply a
repetition of your original claim, but with the source of the "60 Hz
supply" made more explicit as the "local 60 Hz supply", which implies the
60 Hz supply at the receiver, not at the transmitter! Then you go on to
make matters worse for yourself by stating that this is "Something not
possible unless the transmitted video signal is synched to the same AC
grid system." The meaning of this is unmistakable, namely that both the
transmitter and receiver are synched to the "AC grid", which of course
could only work if they are both on the same grid as you say. That is
just one of the reasons that the USA Television system never worked as you
claimed.

Your problem is that you zip around the net picking of factoids here and
there and then dispensing them as your own, as if you really had knowledge
of the subject at hand, when in reality you haven't a clue.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

refering to Phil Allison Your problem is that you zip around the net
picking of factoids here and
there and then dispensing them as your own, as if you really had knowledge
of the subject at hand, when in reality you haven't a clue.


Regards,

John Byrns



Dude, you are SOOOOOOOOO busted!

could someone tell me accurately at what point in time were the various
voltage standards in play?

in other words, from what year to what year was the standard AC line
voltage
110v, and what period of years was it 115v, 117v, etc.

I posted some details a couple of years ago, either here or on
rec.antiques.radio+phono. I don't have a copy handy but some google
newsgroup searching should find it. The info came from a 1928
A.I.E.E. paper when the new standards were being proposed.

Briefly, there never was a 110V standard, and even around 1920
there were areas with 110V, 115V, 120V and even 125V (though the 125V
tended to be DC). I believe 115V was standardized around 1928.
Probably 117.5V +/- 7.5V came just after WW2, but I don't know. It's
been 120V +/- 5% or +/-6V since the 1950s.

73, Alan

Cowboy,
Look at all the trouble you caused. Next time be careful of provoking
questions!
Cordially,
west



only Alan, (sort of), answered my question, his answer was what I was
looking for, however I think his dates are way off, never seen anything
calling for 120V that was built in the 50's, but plenty wanting 115V and I
have items from the 60's that specify 117V

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"

That Meissner set was an anomaly. Why did they even need a switch,
why not just have it always sync to the "60 Cycle" power line as you
claim was done in old USA Television sets?

** I never claimed any such thing - that is how YOU
misread my post.

My original post:

" ** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation until the advent of color - when the frequency became
shifted down to 59.94

It is clear that you now realize your original claim was dead wrong,


** Not at all - you MISINTERPRETED it.



" ** Amounts to exactly what I just posted - TV sets were synched to
the
local 60 Hz supply. Something not possible unless the transmitted video
signal is synched to the same AC grid system.

This is what it says in the URL I posted to back my words and *** YOU
****ING SNIPPED *** !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate "


What's wrong with snipping it,


** Because the URL was what my words were about !!

My original post was a brief summary of what was in the URL.

Being afflicted with autism caused you to completely fail to realise that.

Autistics ****heads like you have no idea what context is.



In any case I
would think you would thank me for snipping that statement because with it
you shot yourself in the foot twice.


** More autistic misreading - it was the URL that you snipped !!!!!!

Seems you did not read it initially at tall.


The first part is simply a
repetition of your original claim, but with the source of the "60 Hz
supply" made more explicit as the "local 60 Hz supply", which implies the
60 Hz supply at the receiver, not at the transmitter!


** Errr - " local" = local area, or as in this case the local area power
grid.


Then you go on to
make matters worse for yourself by stating that this is "Something not
possible unless the transmitted video signal is synched to the same AC
grid system." The meaning of this is unmistakable, namely that both the
transmitter and receiver are synched to the "AC grid", which of course
could only work if they are both on the same grid as you say.


** Errr - so my statement was completely correct.


Your problem is that you zip around the net picking of factoids here and
there and then dispensing them as your own,


** Not at all - URLs are given to back up a claim of fact.

Saying: "I read it somewhere, years ago" - does not wash.

Luckily, I found a relevant URL with the exact same info I had once
ad - so I used it.

Then I easily found another **TWO** and posted them as well.


Try finding even one that backs you up anytime - asshole !!!!!!!



as if you really had knowledge
of the subject at hand, when in reality you haven't a clue.


** Strange then, how sooo many sources refer to the practice of synching
TV transmissions to the local AC supply.

All quote the same reason for so doing - ie preventing moving hum bars.

Only one person is saying it was not done.

And that person is a * know mad ****ing **** *.


BTW

Is this Byrns ****ing lunatic a holocaust denier as well ???





.............. Phil

Phil

can I ask you a simple question?

why do you react in the way you do? ie. completely over the top.

look forward to hearing from you.

kind regards

bill

p.s. it's sometimes safer to look in the mirror and laugh.

"bill ramsay"
Phil

can I ask you a simple question?

why do you react in the way you do? ie. completely over the top.



** Post an example of me going "OTT" .

The entire sequence of previous posts needs to be included - possibly
going back years with that same poster.




............. Phil

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:11:49 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"bill ramsay"
Phil

can I ask you a simple question?

why do you react in the way you do? ie. completely over the top.



** Post an example of me going "OTT" .

The entire sequence of previous posts needs to be included - possibly
going back years with that same poster.




............ Phil


here you go, here's some samples that took all of 90 seconds to find.


quotes

** If there were a moderator - then a pice of garbage like Yaeger
would be out on his bum real fast.

That was the **whole idea** behind locking the vertical to the local
upply - ****HEAD.

** **** you - asshole.

** The ****ing asshole has edited the quote to suit his mad LIES !!!

This is what it says in the URL I posted to back my words and *** YOU
****ING SNIPPED *** !!!!

** As usual, Pinko the Pommy Prick substitutes abuse for facts and
reasoning.

** Bull**** - go get stuffed.

** More of Pinko's smelly Bull****.

** More absolute bull**** from Pinko the Pommy Prick.

** Noted - you have wanked yourself blind and cannot see what is
on your screen.

The Turneroid moron is a misquoting ****ing arsehole !!

** Go figure it out yourself - arsehole.


\quotes


the entire sequence does not need to be quoted, you seem to be
incapable of controlling yourself.

why do you do it?

kind regards

bill

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:34:08 +0000, Adam Stouffer wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Phil Allison is the Arny Krueger of RAT. To be mocked, ridiculed,
killfiled, but definitely *not* to be reasoned with.


Hehe hes a joke. So shrill and hostile that few people actually care to
converse with him. I believe he has some useful knowledge but also a
severe case of short person syndrome like Robert Blake. Ohhh somebody on
usenet called me a ****head, such pain...


Nothing personal, Phil - please don't take offence...

I had a bit of a run-in with Phil a while ago. I agree, he has some useful
knowledge, but he doesn't always express himself well or completely. When
people don't immediately understand what he *intended* to say it seems to
put him into "abusive" mode. It's a pity that he is seen to be "To be
mocked, ridiculed, killfiled, but definitely *not* to be reasoned with" by
some.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:57:09 -0600, John Byrns wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

Unlike frequency, which became critical when Laurens Hammond introduced
his electric clock and became more so when TVs came out that clocked
their sweep to the line,

What TVs ever did this? Are you sure this isn't an Urban Legend? I think
the main thing about early Television and the power line frequency was
that if the power frequency at the receiver wasn't close to that used at
the studio, the normally subtle hum bars in the picture would become
obvious, toady we have better power supplies so that isn't a problem
anymore.


I think that's the whole point, John. Isn't the general idea that
receivers frame synchs are locked to the transmitter signal by the line
synch pulses in the signal? In that case, the last thing that the receiver
needs is a conflicting source of frame synch pulses from the mains supply.
Locking the transmitter to its own local supply may help in keeping the
line synch pulses clean, preventing them from jittering in response to any
hum on the video signal. The only exception would be if the receiver was
to be made capable of displaying a locally-generated picture. It would
need to replace the missing synch signals somehow. I suppose those could
be derived from a local mains supply if technology wasn't up to producing
a stable oscillator at reasonable cost at the time. I don't know - I'm no
tv engineer! This is all just (fairly) educated guesswork on my part... :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

"bill ramsay"
"Phil Allison"

** Post an example of me going "OTT" .

The entire sequence of previous posts needs to be included - possibly
going back years with that same poster.


here you go, here's some samples that took all of 90 seconds to find.

quotes

the entire sequence does not need to be quoted,


** Really ??????

Why is all prior posting history not relevant to the reply ??????

That seems a mighty totalitarian sort of notion.

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


Let me tell you something - Bill the **** from New Zealand.

Low life, fascist pricks like you are the most evil people on the planet.

New Zealand is basiclaly a total **** hole, chock full of white trash -
just like you.

May you and all your kind go straight to hell - even before the Maoris
take over NZ.

Now:

Is that direct and simple enough for your shrivelled, diseased brain to
comprehend ???

Want more ?




.............. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Steve"
Phil Allison

"Jon Yaeger"

Someone forgot to take his meds today . . . .


** While that psychotic Yaeger **** skipped out on his daily ECT.


BTW, Phil, ECT is used to treat depression, not psychosis.


** It was and is still used for both things - you pig ignorant prick.

................ Phil


I guess there isn't a moderator in this newsgroup then

** If there were a moderator - then a pice of garbage like Yaeger would be
out on his bum real fast.

.............. Phil
Anyone fancy a pint ?

mick said:

Nothing personal, Phil - please don't take offence...

I had a bit of a run-in with Phil a while ago. I agree, he has some useful
knowledge, but he doesn't always express himself well or completely. When
people don't immediately understand what he *intended* to say it seems to
put him into "abusive" mode. It's a pity that he is seen to be "To be
mocked, ridiculed, killfiled, but definitely *not* to be reasoned with" by
some.

You, Sir, are too kind and too generous for this world or this
newsgroup even.

BTW when I said "to mock or ridicule" I meant his *attitude* , not his
knowledge. That's why I compared him to Arnold Krueger, who suffers
from the same problem.

I never killfile anyone.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Phil, Phil, Phil

you are obviously deranged, personally I don't care that you make a
fool of yourself, it's quite amusing really.

I was just interested in what motivates you to be so vile.

Hence posting some of your 'bon mots' to you in response to your
earlier question.

The reason for not having to post any earlier bits of posts is that
you seem descend into vileness at the 'drop of a hat' as is clearly
demonstrated by your posting the message below.

Do you have an inferiority complex? Did your parents take your toys
away when you were a little boy? Were you bullied at school? Are these
some of the reasons that you are so intemperate?

What are you like when you meet people face to face? or is that the
problem, you cannot for fear of getting your face punched in?

What drives you to such nastiness?

Kind regards

Bill Ramsay.

PS. you make some sweeping assumptions as to my character which,
frankly, I am amazed that you can make based on my earlier posting to
you. To reiterate, I don't care that you make a complete prick of
yourself, and in keeping with my laissez-faire attitudes to most
things, you are free to do what you want. [with the caveat of course
that you don't hurt anyone else, that called responsibility Phil,
something that may be a bit alien to you]. Anyway, continue your
swearing, abuse, etc., it's only you that is hurting, we are
watching and laughing at you. You are to be pitied, much in the same
way as a caged lion at a zoo with rotten teeth.







On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:51:20 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"bill ramsay"
"Phil Allison"

** Post an example of me going "OTT" .

The entire sequence of previous posts needs to be included - possibly
going back years with that same poster.


here you go, here's some samples that took all of 90 seconds to find.

quotes

the entire sequence does not need to be quoted,


** Really ??????

Why is all prior posting history not relevant to the reply ??????

That seems a mighty totalitarian sort of notion.

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


Let me tell you something - Bill the **** from New Zealand.

Low life, fascist pricks like you are the most evil people on the planet.

New Zealand is basiclaly a total **** hole, chock full of white trash -
just like you.

May you and all your kind go straight to hell - even before the Maoris
take over NZ.

Now:

Is that direct and simple enough for your shrivelled, diseased brain to
comprehend ???

Want more ?




............. Phil

In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"

That Meissner set was an anomaly. Why did they even need a switch,
why not just have it always sync to the "60 Cycle" power line as you
claim was done in old USA Television sets?

** I never claimed any such thing - that is how YOU
misread my post.

My original post:

" ** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation until the advent of color - when the frequency became
shifted down to 59.94

It is clear that you now realize your original claim was dead wrong,

** Not at all - you MISINTERPRETED it.

OK, let's go with that, why don't you set the record straight then by
telling us in your own clear and unambiguous words exactly what you meant
by your original post, without giving references to Web sites whose
wording is also ambiguous at best, and in at least one case just plain
wrong. Or are you incapable of writing a few coherent sentences?

The first part is simply a
repetition of your original claim, but with the source of the "60 Hz
supply" made more explicit as the "local 60 Hz supply", which implies the
60 Hz supply at the receiver, not at the transmitter!

** Errr - " local" = local area, or as in this case the local area power
grid.

OK then, please explain how Network Television worked in 1950? At that
time there was not a single power grid covering much of the entire
country, not that such a grid necessarily exists today.

Your problem is that you zip around the net picking of factoids here and
there and then dispensing them as your own,

** Not at all - URLs are given to back up a claim of fact.

Too bad that you misquoted what the first URL said, that the second URL
didn't have the facts straight, and that you took the third URL out of
context.

Saying: "I read it somewhere, years ago" - does not wash.

Luckily, I found a relevant URL with the exact same info I had once
ad - so I used it.

That would be the URL for the "wiki" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate

which said "The NTSC refresh frequency was originally exactly 60 Hz in the
black and white system, chosen because it matched the nominal 60 Hz
frequency of alternating current power used in the United States. It was
preferable to match the screen refresh rate to the power source to avoid
wave interference that would produce rolling bars on the screen.
Synchronization of the refresh rate to the power cycle also helped
kinescope cameras record early live television broadcasts, as it was very
simple to syncronize a film camera to capture one frame of video on each
film cell by using the alternating current frequency as a shutter trigger.
In the color system the refresh frequency was shifted slightly downward to
59.94 Hz."

Notice that it in the first part of this paragraph it says that the NTSC
refresh frequency only "matched the nominal 60 Hz frequency of alternating
current power used in the United States", it doesn't state that the
refresh frequency was necessarily synchronous with the line frequency in
any particular locale, although it could be. It only talks about
synchronizing the refresh rate with the power line frequency in the
context of making kinescope recordings, and I submit that they had to find
another way of dealing with the kinescope issue, as when recording a
network feed there was no guarantee that the incoming refresh frequency
would match the local power line frequency.

Then I easily found another **TWO** and posted them as well.

The first of these was:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...ync+1950&hl=en

I submit this web page makes a number of factual errors. Some of the
mistakes were the implication that the vertical-sweep oscillator was
locked to the 60-Hz power line frequency, ant that the vertical-hold knob
on the TV let viewers adjust the phase to keep the picture from rolling
off the top or bottom of the screen." In reality the receivers
vertical-sweep oscillator was locked to the vertical sync pulses of the
signal being received, and the vertical-hold knob controlled the free
running, or un synchronized, frequency of the receivers vertical-sweep
oscillator, any affect of the vertical-hold knob on the phase was purely
incidental. They go on to say that the horizontal-sweep oscillator was
synchronized to a harmonic of the vertical-sweep oscillator. Something
along this line may be done in the modern Television sets of today, but it
surely wasn't done in the Television receivers of the 40's and 50's. Also
the horizontal-sweep oscillator is synchronized to an odd harmonic of half
the vertical-sweep frequency, not to a harmonic of the vertical-sweep
frequency.

Also in discussing the 3:2 pull down scheme used in televising films, they
say 3:2 pull down is used with "modern" films, but that somehow this
doesn't work with older films. It isn't clear to me why it should matter
whether the film is "old" or "modern", as long as it was originally shot
at 24 fps the 3:2 pull down scheme should provide proper reproduction.

The third URL you referenced was:

http://www.earlytelevision.org/meiss...storation.html

This URL describes the restoration of an old Meissner television chassis
which is completely out of context in this discussion. As it happens this
set is a prewar Television set from 1939, not only that but it is even pre
NTSC with AM sound and probably less than 525 lines per frame. We were
talking about commercially produced Black and White NTSC Television sets,
not early sets for some other system that didn't even make it. Also it
appears from reading the article that the "Television"/"60 cycle sweep"
switch was a modification that wasn't part of the original design.

Try finding even one that backs you up anytime - asshole !!!!!!!

Web sites can be notoriously inaccurate, better to look at some documents
from the period to get the facts.

At the studio end consider RCA's TG-1A Synchronizing Generator which is
shown in their 1950 catalog. This is a monster that uses octal tubes and
fills an entire 84 inch rack cabinet. Quoting from the description in the
catalog where it is speaking about the timing frequencies it says. "It
also provides a means whereby these frequencies (which are all derived
from a single master oscillator) may be "locked in", either with the local
60-cycle power line frequency, with a crystal oscillator, or with some
other external source, such as a remotely generated synchronizing wave
form." As you can see there was no limitation to using the local 60-cycle
power line frequency, and the three frequency sources provided for by the
TG-1A are exactly the same three sources that I mentioned in my previous
posts.

At the receiver end and all you need do is look at the schematics of a few
NTSC receivers from the late 1940's and early 1950's to see that the
vertical oscillators are not synchronized to the AC power line and that
there is no provision to do so.

as if you really had knowledge
of the subject at hand, when in reality you haven't a clue.

** Strange then, how sooo many sources refer to the practice of synching
TV transmissions to the local AC supply.

Not strange at all, doing so helped minimize hum bars as I said in my
original post, but synchronizing with the local power frequency wasn't
possible on Network broadcasts, and even on local broadcasts there was no
guarantee in those days that all Television receivers within receiving
distance of the a given transmitter were necessarily on the same power
grid.

All quote the same reason for so doing - ie preventing moving hum bars.

Quite right, I mentioned exactly that in my first post.

Only one person is saying it was not done.

Who might that person be? What I said was that it couldn't be done on
Network feeds, but that the cameras could synchronized with the 60 Hz
power frequency on locally originated programs if that was desired. This
practice however caused the picture to roll on the viewers set when
switching between Network programming and local breaks.

Think about it Phil, you must still have a few of the little gray cells left.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

Hi,

only Alan, (sort of), answered my question, his answer was what I was
looking for, however I think his dates are way off, never seen anything
calling for 120V that was built in the 50's, but plenty wanting 115V and I
have items from the 60's that specify 117V

Well don't forget, "one-ten" and "two-twenty" are still ingrained
in the language, long after they have ceased to exist. Old habits die
hard. I've seen some of the people in the company I work for, putting
"110V" labels on equipment being shipped out.

My own household voltage has been 123V since the 1960s, solid as a
rock. And I don't remember the lights being any dimmer as far back as
1955 when we moved here (though the power company switched something
at exactly 8PM every night, when the lights would suddenly dim and
then slowly come back up to normal).

Many transformers are still specified at 115V, I believe to make
them compatible with older production. If a company suddenly re-rated
its products at 120V, it would have to increase the number of turns on
the primary, and then they would have a different turns ratio. Easier
to keep the spec at 115V, but design them to run properly at 125V (and
probably more).

73, Alan

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"

** My original post and the prior one it was in reply to:

" TVs don't sync to the 'line' ... they sync to the standard sync signal
that is part of a television broadcast, and for color it is 59 point
something,
not 60. " ...... Bob


" ** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical synchronisation
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down
to
59.94 Hz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate "



OK, .... why don't you set the record straight then by
telling us in your own clear and unambiguous words exactly what you meant
by your original post, without giving references to Web sites whose
wording is also ambiguous at best, and in at least one case just plain
wrong.


** My words above were a brief summary of the info given in the supplied
URL - which **MUST** be read in conjunction give them context.

1. Neither my words, NOR the words in that URL, say that early TV sets
derived their vertical synch signal directly from the AC power outlet being
used by the set.

2. The URL does say that TV * transmissions*, prior to colour, were at a
vertical rate of 60 Hz , same as the nominal AC supply, chosen so that phase
lock to the local AC grid could be used to stop visible hum bars from moving
on the screens of early TV sets. ( Obviously, for this idea to work the
sets have to be on the same AC grid as the transmitter.) With the advent of
colour, the frequency became locked at 59.94 Hz - so such 60 Hz AC line
synch was no longer possible and any hum bars would drift with supply
frequency variations.


Or are you incapable of writing a few coherent sentences?


** The only problem is that a smug, evil, posturing, autistic ****head
called John Byrns cannot read a few coherent sentences, take account of
context and extract the writer's intended meaning.

But far, far worse than that - even when the demented turd is * TOLD *
he has got it dead wrong by the author of those same words, Byrns has the
unmitigated GALL to insist his view is right and continues to publicly abuse
the author for HIS reading interpretation error.





............. Phil

** You are just plain ****ing ANAL and thick as a plank too.


How about you QUIT posting **audiophool garbage** on aus.hi-fi - and
leave out posting those damn SPICE tube models too !!!


Sorry Phil, I was under the impression that some people in
aus.hi-fi were tube heads. Guess this Wank Yank is as
thick as a plank..... ;-)

"robert casey"

** You are just plain ****ing ANAL and thick as a plank too.

How about you QUIT posting **audiophool garbage** on aus.hi-fi - and
leave out posting those damn SPICE tube models too !!!


Sorry Phil, I was under the impression that some people in
aus.hi-fi were tube heads.


** The few tube head audiophools on aus.hi-fi are not interested in seeing
SPICE models posted.


Guess this Wank Yank is as thick as a plank..... ;-)


** Two short ones - at least.




.............. Phil

In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** My original post and the prior one it was in reply to:

"TVs don't sync to the 'line' ... they sync to the standard sync signal
that is part of a television broadcast, and for color it is 59 point
something, not 60." ...... Bob


"** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical synchronisation
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down
to 59.94 Hz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate"

Phil, Bob's point was that Television sets in the USA didn't sync to the
"line". Bob was correcting an earlier poster's erroneous assertion that
Televisions "clocked their sweep to the line". Bob's reference to the "59
point something" vertical frequency of the NTSC Color Television system
was simply to point out that the vertical frequency of the NTSC color
system was different than the original NTSC BW system, not that the NTSC
BW vertical scanning frequency wasn't 60 Hz. Your contradiction of Bob's
post by saying that "TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation", makes it appear that you are agreeing with the previous
poster and saying that NTSC BW Television sets actually "clocked their
sweep to the line", which was not the case at all.

Even the Synchronizing Generators at local Television stations did not
clock "their sweep to the line", or even to a local crystal oscillator,
for much of the broadcast "day". For much of the broadcast "day" they
were clocked to the incoming Network line whose frequency was determined
by a time base in a remote city like New York or Los Angeles.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
html
Alan,
pThanks for the answer! I've been working on various projects, such as
a tube curve tracer, and one of the problems has been to figure out how
much voltage my variac into filament trannys can expect from the wall (and
of course how much voltage the trannys can take). Our house is pretty consistently
123 V, but I assumed this was an overvoltage from the "proper" 117 V, and
I was worried about what range was actually out there! Never occurred to
me that someone might actually know the answer. That all makes sense, up
the average voltage just a bit from what the vast majority of equipment
was designed for, to protect from undervoltage, and in the future let everyone
expect to get 115 to 125 or so, with 120 as the target. :-)
pPhil
pAlan Douglas wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITEHi,
pcould someone tell me accurately at what point in time were the various
brvoltage standards in play?
br
brin other words, from what year to what year was the standard AC line
voltage
br110v, and what period of years was it 115v, 117v, etc.
p   I posted some details a couple of years ago, either here
or on
brrec.antiques.radio+phono.  I don't have a copy handy but some
google
brnewsgroup searching should find it.  The info came from a 1928
brA.I.E.E. paper when the new standards were being proposed.
p   Briefly, there never was a 110V standard, and even around
1920
brthere were areas with 110V, 115V, 120V and even 125V (though the 125V
brtended to be DC).  I believe 115V was standardized around 1928.
brProbably 117.5V +/- 7.5V  came just after WW2, but I don't know. 
It's
brbeen 120V +/- 5% or +/-6V since the 1950s.
p73, Alan/blockquote
/html

Phil Allison wrote:

"robert casey"


** You are just plain ****ing ANAL and thick as a plank too.

How about you QUIT posting **audiophool garbage** on aus.hi-fi - and
leave out posting those damn SPICE tube models too !!!


Sorry Phil, I was under the impression that some people in
aus.hi-fi were tube heads.



** The few tube head audiophools on aus.hi-fi are not interested in seeing
SPICE models posted.

Perhaps so. In any event, place "spice" in your killfile
so you don't have to see it. Not that it was that much of
a bandwidth hog in the first place.

"robert casey"
Phil Allison wrote:

** You are just plain ****ing ANAL and thick as a plank too.

How about you QUIT posting **audiophool garbage** on aus.hi-fi -
and leave out posting those damn SPICE tube models too !!!


Sorry Phil, I was under the impression that some people in
aus.hi-fi were tube heads.

** The few tube head audiophools on aus.hi-fi are not interested in
seeing SPICE models posted.

Perhaps so.


** So you knew it was way OT but posted it anyway ??


In any event, place "spice" in your killfile
so you don't have to see it.


** Post any more and see what happens.


Not that it was that much of
a bandwidth hog in the first place.


** You are one stubborn dumb **** aren't you .




................ Phil

** So you knew it was way OT but posted it anyway ??

I'd say it was marginal topic. Still closer to topic
than a lot of spam and such I see from time to time.
Spice tubes audio amps hi-fi.



In any event, place "spice" in your killfile
so you don't have to see it.



** Post any more and see what happens.

Wow, what are you now, this newsgroup's moderator?

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"

** My original post and the prior one it was in reply to:

"TVs don't sync to the 'line' ... they sync to the standard sync signal
that is part of a television broadcast, and for color it is 59 point
something, not 60." ...... Bob


"** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down
to 59.94 Hz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate"


Phil, Bob's point was that Television sets in the USA didn't sync to the
"line". Bob was correcting an earlier poster's erroneous assertion that
Televisions "clocked their sweep to the line".


** But they did in the past - prior to colour.


Bob's reference to the "59
point something" vertical frequency of the NTSC Color Television system
was simply to point out that the vertical frequency of the NTSC color
system was different than the original NTSC BW system, not that the NTSC
BW vertical scanning frequency wasn't 60 Hz.


** That is an interpretation you have imposed - there no mention of the
earlier system in Bob's post.


Your contradiction of Bob's
post by saying that "TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation", makes it appear that you are agreeing with the previous
poster and saying that NTSC BW Television sets actually "clocked their
sweep to the line", which was not the case at all.


** But is was the case, to cure rolling hum bars in early sets.


Even the Synchronizing Generators at local Television stations did not
clock "their sweep to the line", or even to a local crystal oscillator,
for much of the broadcast "day".


** Which implies that they did for *** MOST** of it - ie when the signal
originated locally.


For much of the broadcast "day" they
were clocked to the incoming Network line whose frequency was determined
by a time base in a remote city like New York or Los Angeles.


** This is all a massive red- herring - broadcast TV signal networking
was non existent in the 1940s and still a novelty in the early 50s.

As you have agreed, synching the vertical rate to the local 60 Hz supply was
regularly done in the early days of TV at the discretion of TV station
operators - when it was not possible to do it then they did not. Whoopee
!!

When the transmitted signal is so synched any visible hum bars become
stationary - plus it then becomes *possible* to synch a TV receiver,
operating on the same supply grid, directly to that supply.

When a TV set is operating from a weak, ghost affected or interference
affected signal synch pulses get corrupted - so vertical lock becomes
intermittent. Simply switching the vertical oscillator to synch with the
sets own AC supply provided a stable vertical lock in that case. Not a
perfect method but a workable method back then.





............ Phil

(John Byrns) wrote in
:

In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** My original post and the prior one it was in reply to:

"TVs don't sync to the 'line' ... they sync to the standard sync signal
that is part of a television broadcast, and for color it is 59 point
something, not 60." ...... Bob


"** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation until the advent of color - when the frequency became
shifted down to 59.94 Hz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate"

Phil, Bob's point was that Television sets in the USA didn't sync to the
"line". Bob was correcting an earlier poster's erroneous assertion that
Televisions "clocked their sweep to the line". Bob's reference to the
"59 point something" vertical frequency of the NTSC Color Television
system was simply to point out that the vertical frequency of the NTSC
color system was different than the original NTSC BW system, not that
the NTSC BW vertical scanning frequency wasn't 60 Hz. Your
contradiction of Bob's post by saying that "TV sets used the 60 Hz
supply for vertical synchronisation", makes it appear that you are
agreeing with the previous poster and saying that NTSC BW Television
sets actually "clocked their sweep to the line", which was not the case
at all.

Even the Synchronizing Generators at local Television stations did not
clock "their sweep to the line", or even to a local crystal oscillator,
for much of the broadcast "day". For much of the broadcast "day" they
were clocked to the incoming Network line whose frequency was determined
by a time base in a remote city like New York or Los Angeles.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/


John,

You are correct and Phil is wrong. I worked for too many years in
broadcast and pro video to get something like sync signals wrong. It is
possible to have a TV sync to the line, but the results are never pretty.

You can tell when you are right when Phil goes off and starts calling you
a liar and more. Shortly before I added Phil to my permanent killfile, I
tried to have a rational discussion with him about the definition of a lie
which means to tell a false statement with intent to decieve. He did n't
agree stating that any false statement is a lie. I proceeded to find not
only dictionary entires clearly explaing that willful deceit along with a
false statement constitutes a lie and if either one is missing it is no
longer a lie. He then called me a f'ing liar and went away. Phil has
some deep psychological issues and would likely get homocidal if pushed
too far. I suspect there was some sort of severe trauma done to Phil
which causes him to act this way. While I pity him, I also refuse to read
his postings. His is neither rational nor socially competent. Some people
enjoy seeing Phil get all twisted, but all they are doing is reinforcing
his ill manners. I do wish he would get some help before something quite
untoward would befall him. We recently had someone quite like Phil where
I work. He was the first one to be "laid-off" when our annual layoffs
commenced. In the past 2 years since he was laid off the longest he was
able to hold a job for was about 6 months.

r

PS. You know, I really miss Fred. He was quite a fellow and a good
friend.


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Rich Andrews" = one sad, demented nut case, et alia ........


You can tell when you are right when Phil goes off and starts calling you
a liar and more.


** Reeks of sheer bloody prejudice - the hallmark of a nut case LAIR !!!!



Shortly before I added Phil to my permanent killfile, I
tried to have a rational discussion with him about the definition of a lie
which means to tell a false statement with intent to decieve.


** Nope - that is the definition of a liar.


He did n't agree stating that any false statement is a lie.


** That's right - the claim is a " lie " if it is false.



I proceeded to find not
only dictionary entires clearly explaing that willful deceit along with a
false statement constitutes a lie and if either one is missing it is no
longer a lie.


** Shame the Google record has no such thing - proving what a criminal
****ing LIAR Rich Andrews has been all his miserable, stinking life.



He then called me a f'ing liar and went away.


** Nope - I PROVED you were a PSYCHOTIC liar .


Phil has some deep psychological issues and would likely get homocidal if
pushed too far


** Watch it ......


I suspect there was some sort of severe trauma done to Phil
which causes him to act this way.


** Being harassed by ****ing ASSHOLES on usenet is VERY traumatic
!!!!



While I pity him, I also refuse to read
his postings.


** How funny - afraid of his own shadow is this schizophrenic bloody
idiot.



Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.


** In Rich Andrews case - nothing beats a good course of ECT
treatments.


Bet he whimped out .....




................. Phil

In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"
** My original post and the prior one it was in reply to:

"TVs don't sync to the 'line' ... they sync to the standard sync signal
that is part of a television broadcast, and for color it is 59 point
something, not 60." ...... Bob

"** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical
synchronisation
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down
to 59.94 Hz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Refresh_rate"

Phil, Bob's point was that Television sets in the USA didn't sync to the
"line". Bob was correcting an earlier poster's erroneous assertion that
Televisions "clocked their sweep to the line".

** But they did in the past - prior to colour.

Phil, you originally posted that "** In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz
supply for vertical synchronisation until the advent of color". What are
you actually trying to say? I think we both agree that prior to the
advent of Color, the NTSC vertical scanning frequency was 60 Hz, the same
as the nominal power line frequency.

Are you saying that NTSC Television receivers prior to the advent of Color
actually synchronized their vertical scan rate directly to the 60 Hz AC
source feeding the Television Receiver?

Or are you simply saying that since the Synchronizing Generator at the
originating Television studio was sometimes synchronized to the 60 Hz
power line feeding the Television studio, that the Television receiver
indirectly "used the 60 Hz supply for vertical synchronisation", at those
times when the studio was synchronized to the 60 Hz power supply?

Or were you saying something else entirely, and if so can you make a clear
and unambiguous statement, with as little profanity as possible, as to
what it was you were actually trying to say?

For much of the broadcast "day" they
were clocked to the incoming Network line whose frequency was determined
by a time base in a remote city like New York or Los Angeles.

** This is all a massive red- herring - broadcast TV signal networking
was non existent in the 1940s and still a novelty in the early 50s.

What is your basis for saying that "broadcast TV signal networking
was...still a novelty in the early 50s"?

The "early 50s" is a fairly large time period, and by the end of that
period Network Television could hardly be called a "novelty". My
Grandmother, 1,000 miles from New York City, received Network Television
programs in 1950. We got our first Television receiver in 1952 and
Network Television was in full swing at that time. The mid sized town we
lived in got its first Television broadcasting stations in 1953 with four
different Television Networks. One of those Networks quickly collapsed,
and we were left with the three major Networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, which
remained the dominant force in US Television until the advent of cable.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

the evil greedy power companies have been inching up the line voltage for years, they make more money every extra 1/10 of a volt they can push it, and they don't give a damn what equipment that we own suffers in the process

this is why old amps such as the Dynaco Mk III have a hard time being plugged straight into the wall and trying to use the 124V that is typical today.

I use a variac into a power strip and connect everything old that I use into that, and I keep it at 117V, these greedy power companies should pay me for the efficiently lost through the variac

shame on them

"Phil" wrote in message ...
Alan,
Thanks for the answer! I've been working on various projects, such as a tube curve tracer, and one of the problems has been to figure out how much voltage my variac into filament trannys can expect from the wall (and of course how much voltage the trannys can take). Our house is pretty consistently 123 V, but I assumed this was an overvoltage from the "proper" 117 V, and I was worried about what range was actually out there! Never occurred to me that someone might actually know the answer. That all makes sense, up the average voltage just a bit from what the vast majority of equipment was designed for, to protect from undervoltage, and in the future let everyone expect to get 115 to 125 or so, with 120 as the target. :-)

Phil

Alan Douglas wrote:

Hi,
could someone tell me accurately at what point in time were the various
voltage standards in play?

in other words, from what year to what year was the standard AC line voltage
110v, and what period of years was it 115v, 117v, etc.

I posted some details a couple of years ago, either here or on
rec.antiques.radio+phono. I don't have a copy handy but some google
newsgroup searching should find it. The info came from a 1928
A.I.E.E. paper when the new standards were being proposed.

Briefly, there never was a 110V standard, and even around 1920
there were areas with 110V, 115V, 120V and even 125V (though the 125V
tended to be DC). I believe 115V was standardized around 1928.
Probably 117.5V +/- 7.5V came just after WW2, but I don't know. It's
been 120V +/- 5% or +/-6V since the 1950s.

73, Alan

John,

You are correct and Phil is wrong. I worked for too many years in
broadcast and pro video to get something like sync signals wrong. It is
possible to have a TV sync to the line, but the results are never pretty.

I can agree with that. If you lock the vertical sync to the powerline
at the TV camera or other such source, you still need a horizontal
source. Which (back in the olden vacuum tube days) would be free
wheeling with respect to the vertical. You then get "random interlace",
which means that the scan lines will at times appear to drift up
or drift down the CRT faceplate. Depends on temperature and other
drifts of the horizontal oscillator. Looks awful, and was only
tolerated on things like security systems (where cost was a
big issue and image quality not). I have a few crystals that
are cut for 31.5KHz (big ones) and that would provide twice the
horizontal frequency. Small divide down ratios (like 2:1, 3:1 to
around 6:1) are fairly simple to build with vacuum tube technology
and with a long enough chain, gets you to 525 lines every 30Hz.
525 was selected as it factors down to a list of low value prime
numbers, matching the easy divide ratios above. There would
only be one master sync generator at the TV station studio (plus
a backup) and all cameras and telecines (movie film to video
converter box, sometimes a flying spot scanner and photo-
multiplier tube, otherwise a special built regular TV camera)
and such slaved off it. As for network feeds, the TV studio
would then have to slave off some sort of TV sync separator
or PLL house sync. These tend to have jitter though. Today
TV stations use a frame buffer box to resync the network to
the TV studio's house sync. With satellites drifting a bit
is space, doppler effects require this.

We recently had someone quite like Phil where
I work. He was the first one to be "laid-off" when our annual layoffs
commenced. In the past 2 years since he was laid off the longest he was
able to hold a job for was about 6 months.


I've had such as bosses many years ago. More recent bosses
I've had have been better (probably as I have gotten more
senior, and a bit better at interpersonal skills).

R wrote:
Phil has
some deep psychological issues and would likely get homocidal if pushed
too far.

HOMOcidal is right


Adam

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:48:39 -0600, John Byrns wrote:

snip
"can you make a clear
and unambiguous statement, with as little profanity as possible, as to
what it was you were actually trying to say?"

snip

Optimist ...

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:48:09 +0100, Sander deWaal wrote:

snip

You, Sir, are too kind and too generous for this world or this newsgroup
even.


LOL!

BTW when I said "to mock or ridicule" I meant his *attitude* , not his
knowledge. That's why I compared him to Arnold Krueger, who suffers from
the same problem.


I know what you mean... :-)
I'm not sure about the comparison with Arnie. The latter seems to count
his brain cells on the fingers of one foot sometimes.

I never killfile anyone.

I must confess that I have done occasionally in the past, but I haven't
done for some time now. It can be entertaining to tell someone that they
have been kf'd for a bit though ;-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

Actually it's that low voltage costs their consumers more than high
voltage because motor burnouts are common from brownouts and motor life
is best in modern equipment-if it's not using electronic controls like
VFD's in washing machines now (!)-at 125-130V. Most people, are not
running 40 year old tube electronics. And most equipment that was well
designed back then can in fact handle it-the Dynas were at the ragged
edge to keep cost down. The power transformer especially on the ST70 is
severly underspecified so they cranked the bias up to lower the Class A
power point to meet distortion spec. This made the problem worse, users
then just underbiased them keeping them going at the expense of full
power distortion.

If you are building some serious attempt at good sound from a ST70 you
have replaced the power transformer, or are using it on one channel
only and like the extra B+, and have a regulated heater supply. Maybe
you use the heater windings in series with the primary to lower the B+,
using an outboard xfmr for the heater regulator, and using solid state
rectification or a third rectifier xfmr. If you are listening to a
vintage stock unit because you love the distortion spectra-hey,
whatever turns you on-then you have a big fat line transformer to give
110-115V from your 125V line voltage. There are many surplus xfmrs
that can be rigged to do this or, failing that, there are a lot of the
old TV service isoformers that can be had at hamfests and from TV shop
estate sales that had a 10% boost buck adjustment tap. RCA made them
and VIZ took them over, I have seen hundreds of them. TV shops don't
need them anymore-they are all out of business now anyway. You can also
buy a commercial Monster Cable power conditioner that is easily
adjusted for 110V as can a Juice Goose.
So I have to sort of side with the Power Company here.

Using a Variac in conntinuous service is dumb. Use a fixed winding
transformer.

A third idea: There are a _lot_ of saturable core Sola style power
conditioners out there for computers from the seventies and eighties
and they run forever. The oil cap may need replacing but that's no big
deal. They have a fixed voltage output for a variable input, I think
that voltage was usually 117V.

(John Byrns) said to Silly Alliphon:

Or were you saying something else entirely, and if so can you make a clear
and unambiguous statement, with as little profanity as possible, as to
what it was you were actually trying to say?

I'll bet you 4 Philips EL34s XF2 matched on my AVO that he can't in
rersponse to you.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

mick said:

BTW when I said "to mock or ridicule" I meant his *attitude* , not his
knowledge. That's why I compared him to Arnold Krueger, who suffers from
the same problem.

I know what you mean... :-)
I'm not sure about the comparison with Arnie. The latter seems to count
his brain cells on the fingers of one foot sometimes.


You mean that Phil *doesn't* ? ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"John Byrns"
Phil Allison

Are you saying that NTSC Television receivers prior to the advent of Color
actually synchronized their vertical scan rate directly to the 60 Hz AC
source feeding the Television Receiver?


** Been answered, three time at least - go learn to read ****head.


Or are you simply saying that since the Synchronizing Generator at the
originating Television studio was sometimes synchronized to the 60 Hz
power line feeding the Television studio, that the Television receiver
indirectly "used the 60 Hz supply for vertical synchronisation", at those
times when the studio was synchronized to the 60 Hz power supply?


** Cleary spelled out in several of my posts.

( snip absurd abuse from one brain dead, autistic criminal )


For much of the broadcast "day" they
were clocked to the incoming Network line whose frequency was
determined
by a time base in a remote city like New York or Los Angeles.

** This is all a massive red- herring - broadcast TV signal
networking
was non existent in the 1940s and still a novelty in the early 50s.

What is your basis for saying that "broadcast TV signal networking
was...still a novelty in the early 50s"?


** Go look up the word "novelty" for a start - ****head.

Then look up "red -herring".

Then read again all the stuff you snipped.




.............. Phil