In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"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.

Nope, hasn't been answered, all you have done is repeat the original
erroneous, or at best ambiguous, statement you copied from a web site at
least three more times, you have made no effort to explain the actual
meaning of the statement. But then that is the nature of your game, you
have no independent knowledge of your own, all you can do is parrot things
you find on the web, and if something you post is challenged you have no
actual knowledge to use in defending it, so you just repeat the original
statement over again each time you are asked to explain, adding a few
profanities for effect.

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".

Television itself was certainly something of a "novelty" up until maybe
1953 or 54, but due to the experience of the public with radio networking,
networking was an expected part of Television that was taken for granted
and was not considered by the public to be a novel aspect of Television.

My use of Television Networking as an example to refute your claim that
"In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical synchronization
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down to
59.94 Hz", is hardly a "red -herring". You are just complaining because
Television Networking, which was well established in the USA by the early
1950's, so perfectly refutes your argument.


Regards,

John Byrns


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

"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.

Nope, hasn't been answered,


** It has, several times.

Shame how you keep snipping it out of sight.



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".


My use of Television Networking as an example to refute your claim that
"In the USA, TV sets used the 60 Hz supply for vertical synchronization
until the advent of color - when the frequency became shifted down to
59.94 Hz", is hardly a "red -herring". You are just complaining because
Television Networking, which was well established in the USA by the early
1950's, so perfectly refutes your argument.


** It simply has no connection to my comment on the URL I posted.

Repost of what was snipped by the lying psychopath.


" 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
!! "




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

Nope, hasn't been answered, all you have done is repeat the original
erroneous, or at best ambiguous, statement you copied from a web site at
least three more times, you have made no effort to explain the actual
meaning of the statement. But then that is the nature of your game, you
have no independent knowledge of your own, all you can do is parrot things
you find on the web, and if something you post is challenged you have no
actual knowledge to use in defending it, so you just repeat the original
statement over again each time you are asked to explain, adding a few
profanities for effect.


DUDE, you are SO busted!!

parroting other people and websites, with little independent knowledge of
your own, and now shown in this thread for all the world to see!

I am ROFL

DUDE, you are so busted!!

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:25:05 +0100, Sander deWaal wrote:

snip

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

lol!
Nope - I give Phil more credit than that... ;-)

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

On 2005-02-01 01:35:01 +1000, "cowboy" cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom said:

parroting other people and websites, with little independent knowledge
of your own, and now shown in this thread for all the world to see!

I am ROFL

DUDE, you are so busted!!

It is amusing that I visited RAT to escape the phill allison at
aus.hifi and here he is again like a bad smell.

Eric said:

It is amusing that I visited RAT to escape the phill allison at
aus.hifi and here he is again like a bad smell.


As Lord Valve is known to say: "don't likee, don't clickee!" .

Damn good advice for a change ;-)

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

On 2005-02-01 08:19:47 +1000, Sander deWaal said:

Eric said:

It is amusing that I visited RAT to escape the phill allison at
aus.hifi and here he is again like a bad smell.


As Lord Valve is known to say: "don't likee, don't clickee!" .

Damn good advice for a change ;-)

I killfiled him sadly it doesn't help when people quote him or engage
in long flame wars leaving it all to see. That is life I guess.

In article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

" 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
!! "

Exactly, now you understand why your original statement was wrong, and why
NTSC B&W Television receivers couldn't have "used the 60 Hz supply for
vertical synchronisation", because they wouldn't give a proper picture
much of the time if they did sync to the 60 Hz power line.


Regards,

John Byrns


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

"John Byrns"
"Phil Allison"


" 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
!! "

Exactly, now you understand why your original statement was wrong,


** More ****ing illogical garbage.


and why
NTSC B&W Television receivers couldn't have "used the 60 Hz supply for
vertical synchronisation", because they wouldn't give a proper picture
much of the time if they did sync to the 60 Hz power line.



** Bull****.

See the heading ???





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

The fact is, I'm not a TV tech, I actually hate TV at least the over
the air kind and modern CRT displays are for all purposes economically
unrepairable, I knew the varying 25 and 30 frame standards were related
to the 50 or 60 Hz power even if TVs didn't directly sync from the
powerline. It's 1) irrelevant and 2) could be answered by old Sams
Photofacts if you were really interested.

But frequency is critical for several reasons and voltage less so, and
it has risen over the years for reasons that are reasonable from the
utilities' perspective, and can be easily altered with transformers,
available surplus with a little moxie, for vintage gear hobbyists. My
salient points which stand unchallenged. So let's move on.

In article . com,
wrote:

The fact is, I'm not a TV tech, I actually hate TV at least the over
the air kind and modern CRT displays are for all purposes economically
unrepairable, I knew the varying 25 and 30 frame standards were related
to the 50 or 60 Hz power even if TVs didn't directly sync from the
powerline. It's 1) irrelevant and

It's hardly irrelevant when there are still people who believe, and are
making claims, that NTSC Television sets "used the 60 Hz supply for
vertical synchronisation until the advent of color" Old televisions
worked without problems when operating from power sources like gasoline
engine driven generators with frequencies different than a perfect 60 Hz.

2) could be answered by old Sams
Photofacts if you were really interested.

Quite true, and no one has yet pointed out a Sams Photofact of an old NTSC
television that shows circuitry to synchronize the vertical time base of
the receiver to the 60 Hz supply.

But frequency is critical for several reasons and voltage less so, and
it has risen over the years for reasons that are reasonable from the
utilities' perspective, and can be easily altered with transformers,
available surplus with a little moxie, for vintage gear hobbyists. My
salient points which stand unchallenged. So let's move on.

Your salient points are not unchallenged, I am challenging your point that
"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", which Phil is supporting you on.


Regards,

John Byrns


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

Oh boy,
Here we go again. Well, since I was around when people still said I
like IKE, I can tell you that where I lived, my line voltage
was 121 volts. Back then we called it 117 volts. Today it is called 120.
My voltage at my house here in Florida is 121.5 volts. My 1929 Philco
console radio says it wants 115 volts. My 1950's and 1960's vintage
H.H. Scott gear wants 110V - 120V. There really were no points in time
when a certain voltage was considered standard everywhere. I have stuff
from the 40's, some of which says 115 volts, some states 120 volts and
one has 110 volts printed on it by the fuse. Then there is the 220 volt
thing. As far back as I can remember, the main line comming to our house
was called 220 volts, but each leg was called 117 volts, and each side
in the fuse box was actually 120 volts with a total across both hot's of
240 volts. Go figure.
Bill B.

cowboy wrote:

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.

thanks,

cowboy

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:21:23 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

(snip)

Dumb****. Enjoy making a fool of yourself, eh?