A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are primes brighter and sharper than wide open zooms



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old October 4th 05, 01:13 PM
Peter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Floyd Davidson wrote:
"Peter" wrote:

Amateur radio operators often use "c.w." as a kind
of informal short form for radiotelegraphy. It isn't
what it actually means.


Ahem... that is *precisely* what it means!


I should have known better than":

a) cite an example outside my own but in anothers'
field of expertise.

b) take position which is frequent result of flamewar
as somehow authoritative

Peter.
--


  #162  
Old October 4th 05, 03:08 PM
Jan Böhme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly
been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it,
it will be obvious from context which version they are talking
about, hence there is to be no confusion.


Do you really think that, even in the nerdiest of cricket-nerd circles,
anyone can ever again use that word without everyone who hears him
thinking of the "new" meaning?


Well, cricketeers have for a very long time used the very common
everyday word "silly" in a specialised, technical sense. Yet, it would
seem that nobody who has ever been within four foot of a cricket bat,
believes that the silly mid-off position is any more inherently stupid
than plain old mid-off.

With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?

Jan B=F6hme

  #163  
Old October 4th 05, 04:43 PM
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com, Jan
Böhme writes

Well, cricketeers have for a very long time used the very common
everyday word "silly" in a specialised, technical sense. Yet, it would
seem that nobody who has ever been within four foot of a cricket bat,
believes that the silly mid-off position is any more inherently stupid
than plain old mid-off.

In the days before head protectors and boxes became universal, I think
anyone fielding at silly mid-off, or silly mid-on, or silly point, would
know exactly why the distinction was made.

David
--
David Littlewood
  #164  
Old October 4th 05, 06:37 PM
Siddhartha Jain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jan B=F6hme wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly
been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it,
it will be obvious from context which version they are talking
about, hence there is to be no confusion.


Do you really think that, even in the nerdiest of cricket-nerd circles,
anyone can ever again use that word without everyone who hears him
thinking of the "new" meaning?


Well, cricketeers have for a very long time used the very common
everyday word "silly" in a specialised, technical sense. Yet, it would
seem that nobody who has ever been within four foot of a cricket bat,
believes that the silly mid-off position is any more inherently stupid
than plain old mid-off.

With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?
=20
Jan B=F6hme


Cricketers even

- Siddhartha

  #165  
Old October 4th 05, 07:56 PM
DoN. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

According to Floyd Davidson :
"Peter" wrote:

Amateur radio operators often use "c.w." as a kind
of informal short form for radiotelegraphy. It isn't
what it actually means.


[ ... ]

Here is the technical definition of "continious wave", according
to the FTC 1037C Standards, available at

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm

continuous wave (cw): A wave of constant amplitude and
constant frequency.

Clearly it means a transmission that is neither amplitude,
frequency, nor phase modulated. Any such modulation necessarily
must cause a discontinuity in the wave. The only thing you can
do is turn it on and off... which is called radio telegraphy!


Well ... to *my* mind, even keying (turning on and off) is a
form of amplitude modulation -- a rather extreme one at 100% modulation.

And it is certainly causing a discontinuity in the wave.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  #167  
Old October 5th 05, 12:19 AM
no_name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jan Böhme wrote:


With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?


I thought the word in cricket was "googlie".
  #168  
Old October 5th 05, 01:38 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

no_name wrote:
Jan B=F6hme wrote:

With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?


I thought the word in cricket was "googlie".


That is the cricket term.
I was puzzled as to what other use the word "google" has.
The website is Google and the cricketer bowls a googlie.

  #169  
Old October 5th 05, 03:18 AM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

I thought the word in cricket was "googlie".


That is the cricket term.
I was puzzled as to what other use the word "google" has.
The website is Google and the cricketer bowls a googlie.


I included the dictionary definition in my previous post...

--
Jeremy |
  #170  
Old October 5th 05, 05:05 AM
Floyd Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(DoN. Nichols) wrote:
According to Floyd Davidson :

Here is the technical definition of "continious wave", according
to the FTC 1037C Standards, available at

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm

continuous wave (cw): A wave of constant amplitude and
constant frequency.

Clearly it means a transmission that is neither amplitude,
frequency, nor phase modulated. Any such modulation necessarily
must cause a discontinuity in the wave. The only thing you can
do is turn it on and off... which is called radio telegraphy!


Well ... to *my* mind, even keying (turning on and off) is a
form of amplitude modulation -- a rather extreme one at 100% modulation.


Except that it is *not*.

And it is certainly causing a discontinuity in the wave.


If the wave is *not there*, it just doesn't exist and has no
characteristics. When it is there, it is not being modulated.
Turning it on and off may well produce some modulation effects,
but that "modulation" is not being used to pass information, and
in fact is a form of distortion that actually interferes with
the information rather than enabling it.

Of course when we get down to practical implementations, in
almost all cases we do have to treat c.w. as if it a modulation,
mostly in order to "shape" the distortion products in ways to
reduce the effects.

While the difference may not be obvious even at typical
c.w. speeds, and might be very hard to see at higher speeds...
think about such things as the very slow speeds often used for
such things as the original moon bounce work, or for breaking
path distance records at microwave frequencies. Circumstances
where a "dash" might be 10 or 20 seconds in length.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.