|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > March 2008 > Hum from phone wires running next to mains?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Hum from phone wires running next to mains?
|
|
| Foxtrot 2008-03-04, 1:25 pm |
| I am in the UK and want to make several phone extensions.
QUESTION: I would like to know I this will increase the level of hum.
ISTR UK phones have a transformer and some other components to
neutralise hum but would that be good enough to prevent hum from a messy
setup like mine? Some details are below.
-------------------------
In my situation the phone extension wires and the mains wires will run
close to one other.
There will be about four or five additional extension phone sockets.
And in some phone sockets there will be a loose extension lead of approx
3 metres which will be almost ontop of curled mains flex
--
max four x-post groups:
uk.telecom a.c.hardware a.e.electrical sci.electronics.equipment
| |
| Graham. 2008-03-04, 1:25 pm |
|
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A57AA15ACE8ED712E3@127.0.0.1...
>I am in the UK and want to make several phone extensions.
>
> QUESTION: I would like to know I this will increase the level of hum.
>
> ISTR UK phones have a transformer and some other components to
> neutralise hum but would that be good enough to prevent hum from a messy
> setup like mine? Some details are below.
>
> -------------------------
>
> In my situation the phone extension wires and the mains wires will run
> close to one other.
>
> There will be about four or five additional extension phone sockets.
>
> And in some phone sockets there will be a loose extension lead of approx
> 3 metres which will be almost ontop of curled mains flex
>
It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring.
Use twisted pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made
extension cables.
--
Graham
%Profound_observation%
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2008-03-04, 5:25 pm |
| On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:13:07 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns9A57AA15ACE8ED712E3@127.0.0.1...
>
>It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring.
>Use twisted pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made
>extension cables.
Exactly!
The phone company has millions of miles of cable running right below
power lines and hundreds literally touching each other in the jacket
of the cable. That little twist they put in the pairs is excellent in
isolating them from crosstalk.
Just don't use "straight through" door bell wire and you will be fine.
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-04, 5:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
| On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:13:07 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
|>It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring.
|>Use twisted pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made
|>extension cables.
|
| Exactly!
| The phone company has millions of miles of cable running right below
| power lines and hundreds literally touching each other in the jacket
| of the cable. That little twist they put in the pairs is excellent in
| isolating them from crosstalk.
That twist is a great little means to ensure induced signals, whatever
they may be, are induced in equal amount on both wires, so they do not
contribute to the actual intended signal that is a differential between
those two wires.
However, a risk exists when two different pairs are present next to each
other and each pair is twisted at the same pitch. The signal carried by
one can end up being induced differentially on the other. So don't twist
those power lines, or if you do, twist them at a pitch with a ratio to
the phone line twist that is not a whole number.
CAT5 cable is an example. It has 4 different pairs twisting along. Each
of the pairs has a different twist pitch by design (unless you get some
cheap cable not manufactured correctly).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-04-1516@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-03-04, 8:25 pm |
| On Tue 04 Mar 2008 21:22:30, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>| On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:13:07 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com>
>| wrote:
>
>|>It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring.
>|>Use twisted pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made
>|>extension cables.
>|
>| Exactly!
>| The phone company has millions of miles of cable running right
>| below power lines and hundreds literally touching each other in
>| the jacket of the cable. That little twist they put in the pairs
>| is excellent in isolating them from crosstalk.
>
> That twist is a great little means to ensure induced signals,
> whatever they may be, are induced in equal amount on both wires, so
> they do not contribute to the actual intended signal that is a
> differential between those two wires.
>
> However, a risk exists when two different pairs are present next to
> each other and each pair is twisted at the same pitch. The signal
> carried by one can end up being induced differentially on the
> other. So don't twist those power lines, or if you do, twist them
> at a pitch with a ratio to the phone line twist that is not a whole
> number.
>
> CAT5 cable is an example. It has 4 different pairs twisting along.
> Each of the pairs has a different twist pitch by design (unless
> you get some cheap cable not manufactured correctly).
>
I do not have any technical knowledge of this area.
I would like to ask about a cable which has two or more twisted pairs
in it.
Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire" phone
extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking the second
wire from a different twisted pair?
| |
| Foxtrot 2008-03-04, 8:25 pm |
| On Tue 04 Mar 2008 19:13:07, Graham. <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A57AA15ACE8ED712E3@127.0.0.1...
>
> It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring.
> Use twisted pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made
> extension cables.
(As you suggest, I will not get the flat ready made extension cable
which I guess is made from flexible multi-stranded wires.)
Is the sort of cable sold in the UK specifically for domestic
telephone wall sockets (wuth single stranded wires) usually made up
as "twisted pair" in the way you are recommending?
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-04, 8:25 pm |
| "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A57F1761E171D712E3@127.0.0.1
[snip]
: : I do not have any technical knowledge of this area.
: :
: : I would like to ask about a cable which has two or more
: : twisted pairs in it.
: :
: : Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a
: : "2 wire" phone extension by using one wire from a
: : twisted pair and taking the second wire from a
: : different twisted pair?
Why would you want to do that..? The answer is very probably, so ensure
that the pair of wires you use are twisted *together*..!
Ivor
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-04, 8:25 pm |
| Foxtrot <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue 04 Mar 2008 21:22:30, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
Twist the power lines all you like. You *can't*
physically twist them identically to that of a comm
cable *and* get the two pairs to snuggle up to each
other in a way that will create the problem described
above.
Regardless, it isn't "smart" to run a comm cable in
physical contact with power cabling. Even a couple of
inches separation is sufficient to significantly reduce
common mode coupling. And the fact that no hum is heard
when it is first installed is *not* sufficient reason to
accept such practice. The common mode voltage induced
on the comm cable may not be a problem at any given
time, but it means that in the future anything (such as
kinks in the cable, dampness, damaged insulation, etc)
that reduces the balance *will* cause excessive hum.
The higher the common mode induced voltage, the less
unbalance required to cause objectionable hum.
If you can avoid putting the two types of cable
together, you *should*.
[color=darkred]
All multipair twisted-pair cable uses different twists
for each pair. That is identically true for bundled
pairs in telephone cable. Moreover, if there are
multiple bundles the bundles are swirled within the
jacket too.
[color=darkred]
>I do not have any technical knowledge of this area.
>
>I would like to ask about a cable which has two or more twisted pairs
>in it.
>
>Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire" phone
>extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking the second
>wire from a different twisted pair?
That is referred to as a "split pair", and yes it will
cause problems. It commonly happens with CAT5 cabling
due to the different standards for pin assignments for a
DS1 interface and for 10BaseT Ethernet. Typically a DS1
cable will work for Ethernet if the length is short, but
if used for faster than 10baseT, it won't work at all,
even for a 6 foot jumper cable.
On large telephone cables split pairs invariably have
significant crosstalk (either hum or speech from other
cables).
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
|
| On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:44:11 GMT, Foxtrot
<foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote:
>Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire" phone
>extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking the second
>wire from a different twisted pair?
yes
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-04, 9:25 pm |
| Foxtrot wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire"
> phone extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking
> the second wire from a different twisted pair?
Yes. The idea of twisted pairs is that an interference appears on
both lines, and thus tends to cancel itself. Separating the lines
makes it easy for unequal induction.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Tom Horne 2008-03-04, 9:25 pm |
| Foxtrot wrote:
> I am in the UK and want to make several phone extensions.
>
> QUESTION: I would like to know I this will increase the level of hum.
>
> ISTR UK phones have a transformer and some other components to
> neutralise hum but would that be good enough to prevent hum from a messy
> setup like mine? Some details are below.
>
> -------------------------
>
> In my situation the phone extension wires and the mains wires will run
> close to one other.
>
> There will be about four or five additional extension phone sockets.
>
> And in some phone sockets there will be a loose extension lead of approx
> 3 metres which will be almost ontop of curled mains flex
Much will depend on the power and light wiring method used and the
quality of the cable used to carry your telephone circuits. What do you
mean when you say "flex". I suspect you'll be amused to learn that in
the USA that word is electricians short hand for flexible metallic
conduit. I doubt that United Kingdom "flex" is anything like Flexible
Metallic Conduit a photograph of which can be found at
<http://www.tradexpro.com/product_ca...nv=img-106372-->.
The best way to reduce the amount of noise in telephone lines is to use
station cable that has the wire pairs continuously twisted around each
other. In this way any electro magnetic fields that might otherwise
induce an unwanted noise into the circuit is self canceling in the
twisted pair of wires. Even with good quality station cable best
practice is to maintain at least several inches of separation between
the telephone cables and the electrical power and light wiring.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
| |
| Tom Horne 2008-03-04, 9:25 pm |
| Foxtrot wrote:
> On Tue 04 Mar 2008 21:22:30, <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>
>
> I do not have any technical knowledge of this area.
>
> I would like to ask about a cable which has two or more twisted pairs
> in it.
>
> Is there is a greaterlikelihood of hum if I connect a "2 wire" phone
> extension by using one wire from a twisted pair and taking the second
> wire from a different twisted pair?
That practice is known in the North American communications industry as
a split pair. It is usually the cause of a host of troubles of which
induced noise is only the most common.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
| |
|
| Foxtrot wrote:
> On Tue 04 Mar 2008 19:13:07, Graham. <me@privacy.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>
> (As you suggest, I will not get the flat ready made extension cable
> which I guess is made from flexible multi-stranded wires.)
>
> Is the sort of cable sold in the UK specifically for domestic
> telephone wall sockets (wuth single stranded wires) usually made up
> as "twisted pair" in the way you are recommending?
No
I don't know why it is still used as most people in the UK seem to have adsl
connections nowadays (not just phones)
| |
| George 2008-03-05, 9:25 am |
| On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:22:30 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> | On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:13:07 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>
> |>It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring. Use twisted
> |>pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made extension cables.
> |
> | Exactly!
> | The phone company has millions of miles of cable running right below
> | power lines and hundreds literally touching each other in the jacket of
> | the cable. That little twist they put in the pairs is excellent in
> | isolating them from crosstalk.
>
> That twist is a great little means to ensure induced signals, whatever
> they may be, are induced in equal amount on both wires, so they do not
> contribute to the actual intended signal that is a differential between
> those two wires.
>
> However, a risk exists when two different pairs are present next to each
> other and each pair is twisted at the same pitch. The signal carried by
> one can end up being induced differentially on the other. So don't twist
> those power lines, or if you do, twist them at a pitch with a ratio to the
> phone line twist that is not a whole number.
>
> CAT5 cable is an example. It has 4 different pairs twisting along. Each
> of the pairs has a different twist pitch by design (unless you get some
> cheap cable not manufactured correctly).
Very interesting.
Please can you advise on how these twisted pairs compare with
1. shielded audio cable
and
2. rf coax.
In case 1 both the wanted signal and the noise are in the audio frequency
range.
In case 2 the electricity supply noise contains harmonics of similar
frequency to the wanted rf signal.
| |
| Brian Cryer 2008-03-05, 9:25 am |
| "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A57AA15ACE8ED712E3@127.0.0.1...
>I am in the UK and want to make several phone extensions.
>
> QUESTION: I would like to know I this will increase the level of hum.
>
> ISTR UK phones have a transformer and some other components to
> neutralise hum but would that be good enough to prevent hum from a messy
> setup like mine? Some details are below.
>
> -------------------------
>
> In my situation the phone extension wires and the mains wires will run
> close to one other.
>
> There will be about four or five additional extension phone sockets.
Can't comment on the hum ... but it looks like others have.
One contribution I would make is that you are aware that your phone service
will support 4 REN and that each phone is normally 1 REN, meaning that you
can have a maximum of 4 phones. My parents had more of this and whilst from
their perspective it seemed to work (they could call out), it stopped people
from calling in because their phones stopped ringing.
So be aware that if you are adding four or five additional phone sockets
that you won't be able to use all of them (at the same time).
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-05, 9:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical George <George@nomail.invalid> wrote:
| On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:22:30 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote:
|
|> In alt.engineering.electrical gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
|> | On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:13:07 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
|>
|> |>It is quite difficult to induce hum into telephone wiring. Use twisted
|> |>pair cabling rather than the flat ready-made extension cables.
|> |
|> | Exactly!
|> | The phone company has millions of miles of cable running right below
|> | power lines and hundreds literally touching each other in the jacket of
|> | the cable. That little twist they put in the pairs is excellent in
|> | isolating them from crosstalk.
|>
|> That twist is a great little means to ensure induced signals, whatever
|> they may be, are induced in equal amount on both wires, so they do not
|> contribute to the actual intended signal that is a differential between
|> those two wires.
|>
|> However, a risk exists when two different pairs are present next to each
|> other and each pair is twisted at the same pitch. The signal carried by
|> one can end up being induced differentially on the other. So don't twist
|> those power lines, or if you do, twist them at a pitch with a ratio to the
|> phone line twist that is not a whole number.
|>
|> CAT5 cable is an example. It has 4 different pairs twisting along. Each
|> of the pairs has a different twist pitch by design (unless you get some
|> cheap cable not manufactured correctly).
|
| Very interesting.
|
| Please can you advise on how these twisted pairs compare with
|
| 1. shielded audio cable
| and
| 2. rf coax.
|
| In case 1 both the wanted signal and the noise are in the audio frequency
| range.
|
| In case 2 the electricity supply noise contains harmonics of similar
| frequency to the wanted rf signal.
I don't have specific data on the quality of noise immunity. I'd bet that
kind of research has been done. It most certainly would vary by quality of
construction of the cables in question.
RF coax comes in various levels of quality based on a stated shielding
percentage. I've seen lows of 60% all the way up to 100%. The latter
could be a foil, or a solid metal encapsulation (quite a variety of
different coax types with this).
I've seen cables, including CAT5, with both twisting _and_ shielding around
the whole cable assembly. I don't know how much the effectiveness works
together. I have not had a case where I would consider using it.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-05-0813@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-05, 9:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Brian Cryer <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote:
| "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
| news:Xns9A57AA15ACE8ED712E3@127.0.0.1...
|>I am in the UK and want to make several phone extensions.
|>
|> QUESTION: I would like to know I this will increase the level of hum.
|>
|> ISTR UK phones have a transformer and some other components to
|> neutralise hum but would that be good enough to prevent hum from a messy
|> setup like mine? Some details are below.
|>
|> -------------------------
|>
|> In my situation the phone extension wires and the mains wires will run
|> close to one other.
|>
|> There will be about four or five additional extension phone sockets.
|
| Can't comment on the hum ... but it looks like others have.
|
| One contribution I would make is that you are aware that your phone service
| will support 4 REN and that each phone is normally 1 REN, meaning that you
| can have a maximum of 4 phones. My parents had more of this and whilst from
| their perspective it seemed to work (they could call out), it stopped people
| from calling in because their phones stopped ringing.
I used to see phones rated in terms of their "ringer equivalence" here in
the USA. These numbers were, for some phones, as low as 0.2. I do not
recall ever seeing one about 0.9. That would suggest to me that you could
readily have more than 4 phones on such a phone circuit. I never had any
reason to actually do a scientific test of this.
| So be aware that if you are adding four or five additional phone sockets
| that you won't be able to use all of them (at the same time).
Or check your phone specs for an REN or ringer equivalence number.
If you want to put DSL on your phone line, I also suggest a splitter at
the entrance of the phone line and a separate NON-branching higher grade
(e.g. twisted pair) wire for the run from the DSL side of the splitter
to the intended connection.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-05-0819@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| charles 2008-03-05, 9:25 am |
| In article <fqmbgd0kd7@news3.newsguy.com>,
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
> I used to see phones rated in terms of their "ringer equivalence" here in
> the USA. These numbers were, for some phones, as low as 0.2. I do not
> recall ever seeing one about 0.9. That would suggest to me that you could
> readily have more than 4 phones on such a phone circuit. I never had any
> reason to actually do a scientific test of this.
There is obviously a significant difference in the phone systems in the two
countries. Our phones have the bells in parallel and if thee are too many
the wrong impedance is presented to the exchange, and no ringing voltage
will get sent. I have never seen a UK approved phone with a REN less than
1, but there were plenty of 2s & 3s about at one time.
You can buy a REN booster ( a mains powered device) which allows many more
phones.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
| |
|
| On 5 Mar 2008 14:42:21 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>| One contribution I would make is that you are aware that your phone service
>| will support 4 REN and that each phone is normally 1 REN, meaning that you
>| can have a maximum of 4 phones. My parents had more of this and whilst from
>| their perspective it seemed to work (they could call out), it stopped people
>| from calling in because their phones stopped ringing.
>
>I used to see phones rated in terms of their "ringer equivalence" here in
>the USA. These numbers were, for some phones, as low as 0.2. I do not
>recall ever seeing one about 0.9. That would suggest to me that you could
>readily have more than 4 phones on such a phone circuit. I never had any
>reason to actually do a scientific test of this.
>
It depends on how old the phones, or these days with modern
electrically powered phones, cordless/etc, the REN, number
may be very low per phone. IMO, no good reason not to get a
cordless phone these days as some are dirt cheap, except
it's nice to have at least one non-electric in case the
power goes out.
| |
| Ryan Weihl 2008-03-05, 1:25 pm |
| Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Foxtrot" <foxtrot@demo.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A57AA15ACE8ED712E3@127.0.0.1...
>
> Can't comment on the hum ... but it looks like others have.
>
> One contribution I would make is that you are aware that your phone
> service will support 4 REN and that each phone is normally 1 REN,
> meaning that you can have a maximum of 4 phones. My parents had more
> of this and whilst from their perspective it seemed to work (they
> could call out), it stopped people from calling in because their
> phones stopped ringing.
>
> So be aware that if you are adding four or five additional phone
> sockets that you won't be able to use all of them (at the same time).
I just looked at my phoneset, a wireless extension by Uniden.
the base is rated at 0.08 REN. We have a regular phone and 2 of these
wireless base stations with 2 sets each, so everyone has a set handy
and the neighbors can listen in too.
--
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-05, 1:25 pm |
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fqma4m1ier@news3.newsguy.com
[snip]
: : I've seen cables, including CAT5, with both twisting
: : _and_ shielding around the whole cable assembly. I
: : don't know how much the effectiveness works together.
: : I have not had a case where I would consider using it.
That's STP (shielded twisted pair) and is not really worth it for most
applications. There is a military spec. for it somewhere, I believe.
It's also a different impedance to UTP so may not work correctly with all
equipment.
Ivor
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-05, 1:25 pm |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
><phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
>news:fqma4m1ier@news3.newsguy.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: : I've seen cables, including CAT5, with both twisting
>: : _and_ shielding around the whole cable assembly. I
>: : don't know how much the effectiveness works together.
>: : I have not had a case where I would consider using it.
>
>That's STP (shielded twisted pair) and is not really worth it for most
>applications. There is a military spec. for it somewhere, I believe.
>
>It's also a different impedance to UTP so may not work correctly with all
>equipment.
All outside plant telephone cable with the exception of
the local drop cable is shielded. Inside a telephone
office equipment room, T1 and higher speed data cables
are all shielded if the cable extends between rows or
for more distance in one row than 4 racks.
STP is significantly expensive, and will not commonly be
seen anywhere that it is not absolutely required. For
example, it would make no sense to use it within a
normal customer premise area, unless there is an
equipment room with multiple rows of equipment racks.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Graham. 2008-03-05, 5:25 pm |
|
> What do you
> mean when you say "flex". I suspect you'll be amused to learn that in the
> USA that word is electricians short hand for flexible metallic conduit. I
> doubt that United Kingdom "flex" is anything like Flexible Metallic
> Conduit a photograph of which can be found at
> <http://www.tradexpro.com/product_ca...nv=img-106372-->.
I believe I can help here.
Rightpondian "flex" <> Leftpondian "cord"
--
Graham
%Profound_observation%
| |
| Graham. 2008-03-05, 5:25 pm |
| > There is obviously a significant difference in the phone systems in the
> two
> countries. Our phones have the bells in parallel and if thee are too many
> the wrong impedance is presented to the exchange, and no ringing voltage
> will get sent. I have never seen a UK approved phone with a REN less than
> 1, but there were plenty of 2s & 3s about at one time.
>
> You can buy a REN booster ( a mains powered device) which allows many more
> phones.
To me, Phil's post illustrates how *similar* the our systems are,
and I strongly suspect that the reason why we don't see REN
<1 is that the approval rules specify the figure quoted should
be an integer between 1 and 4.
Powered devices like DECT base-stations and FAX machines
don't need to supply any significant ringing current from the line,
they just need to sense the AC waveform to trigger the ringing.
REN is a bit of an anathema these days IMHO.
A good get-out for the support drones.
(
For the North Americans)
What is unusual with the UK system apart from our
"special" plug and receptacle instead of an RJ11,
is the fact that we use a third wire which couples
all the ringers in parallel to a capacitor in the master
socket to which the incommer is connected.
Many modern phones do not even use this "bell wire"
and just use the A and B wires (tip & ring).
--
Graham
%Profound_observation%
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-05, 8:25 pm |
| "Graham." wrote:
>
.... snip about ringer specs on phones and lines ...
>
> For the North Americans)
> What is unusual with the UK system apart from our "special" plug
> and receptacle instead of an RJ11, is the fact that we use a
> third wire which couples all the ringers in parallel to a
> capacitor in the master socket to which the incommer is connected.
> Many modern phones do not even use this "bell wire" and just use
> the A and B wires (tip & ring).
In North America again (I don't know about elsewhere) the normal
phone uses 3 wires to connect to the two wires of the phone
circuit. The yellow wire carries the ring signal. Just disconnect
that and the phone won't ring, and the load is zero.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-05, 8:25 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> That's STP (shielded twisted pair) and is not really worth it for
> most applications. There is a military spec. for it somewhere, I
> believe.
>
> It's also a different impedance to UTP so may not work correctly
> with all equipment.
It should deal with hum pickup on audio cables quite nicely.
However shielded twisted pairs are considerably more expensive, and
you have to be careful about generating ground-loops in the shield
grounding.
I replaced your non-standard (:  quote markers with the normal
'>'. Please don't use thos non-standard characters. They foul up
other software.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-05, 9:25 pm |
|
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47CF3D42.810AA5C9@yahoo.com
: : Ivor Jones wrote:
[snip]
: : I replaced your non-standard (: quote markers with
: : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
: : characters. They foul up other software.
With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem. I
use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope with
that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been using
the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to complain.
Ivor
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-05, 9:25 pm |
| CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In North America again (I don't know about elsewhere) the normal
>phone uses 3 wires to connect to the two wires of the phone
>circuit. The yellow wire carries the ring signal. Just disconnect
>that and the phone won't ring, and the load is zero.
I don't recall any system in North America that put ring
voltage on a separate wire. The yellow wire is
generally not connected unless one 4-wire cable is used
for two separate telephone lines.
In North America the "normal" line uses only 2 wires.
The audio signal is applied between the "tip" and the
"ring" of a single pair. "Ring Current" and "Loop
Current" are also applied between the Tip and the Ring
of the same pair.
Commonly used drop cable has four wires: Green is the
Tip and Red is the Ring (positive and negative,
repectively for the DC loop current), while the Yellow
and the Black wires are not used. (Note that the DC
voltages used by telephone companies are negative with
respect to ground, hence for DC the Tip wire is at
ground potential, and the Ring wire has a negative
potential. But the Tip is not at ground potential for
Ring Current or for the audio signal.)
One configuration often seen includes a second line on
the same cable, using Yellow and Black as Tip and Ring.
Historically the Yellow wire was, for a few years, used
for a small AC voltage (nominally 6.8 volts) to power a
lamp circuit on some telephone set models.
Another historical use had the Yellow wire as a ground
for party line service from the old style mechanical
switching systems (such as the Step or Stroeger
switching systems once used by the Bell System and by
Automatic Electric). On those systems the ring current
was applied between either Tip or Ring and ground, which
was supplied to the telephone set on the Yellow wire.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
|
| In article <47CDEAD6.2D67BCF3@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com
says...
> Foxtrot wrote:
> ... snip ...
>
> Yes. The idea of twisted pairs is that an interference appears on
> both lines, and thus tends to cancel itself. Separating the lines
> makes it easy for unequal induction.
Twisting also makes the loop area low (average over a long stretch
is nil). Separating them makes a large loop, increasing the size of
the antenna.
--
Keith
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-05, 9:25 pm |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:47CF3D42.810AA5C9@yahoo.com
>: : Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: : I replaced your non-standard (: quote markers with
>: : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
>: : characters. They foul up other software.
>
>With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem. I
>use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope with
>that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been using
>the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to complain.
Consider for a bit just how absurd that statement is...
Are you posting your articles for your personal
edification, or are they intended to be read by an
audience? Who should you format them for, yourself or
the audience?
Your non-standard quote characters are *not* appreciated
by the audience, and indeed the more sophisticated
members that you might want to appeal to the most are
the ones most likely to make use of software options
based on the quote marks.
What your formatting style does, is tell the reader what
your priorities are, and that your ability to comprehend
the effect is apparently impaired.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-06, 3:25 am |
| krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>In article <47CDEAD6.2D67BCF3@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com
>says...
>
>Twisting also makes the loop area low (average over a long stretch
>is nil). Separating them makes a large loop, increasing the size of
>the antenna.
That is not a valid analysis. It is a transmission
line, not an antenna.
Consider that the effect, both for relatively small
gauge cables, such as the ubiquitous 26 gauge used
today, is *exactly* the same as the effect on the open
wire lines used in the 30's and 40's with several inches
of separate between a pair of much larger copperclad
steel wires. And while the twist on some cable is
measured per inch, on typical telephone cable it is
measured in many inches per twist, and on those old open
wire lines it was in hundreds of yards per twist.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
|
| In article <87hcfkseyr.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> That is not a valid analysis. It is a transmission
> line, not an antenna.
It sure as hell is. Open up the loop and it makes a *wonderful*
antenna.
> Consider that the effect, both for relatively small
> gauge cables, such as the ubiquitous 26 gauge used
> today, is *exactly* the same as the effect on the open
> wire lines used in the 30's and 40's with several inches
> of separate between a pair of much larger copperclad
> steel wires. And while the twist on some cable is
> measured per inch, on typical telephone cable it is
> measured in many inches per twist, and on those old open
> wire lines it was in hundreds of yards per twist.
....and open-wire transmission lines won't pick up stray noise?
--
Keith
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-06, 3:25 am |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your*
> problem. I use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your
> system can't cope with that, then it's up to *you* to do
> something about it. I have been using the quote marks I use for
> several years and you are the first to complain.
Well, I said my piece. The normal method of handling it is the
casual plonk.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-06, 3:25 am |
| "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't recall any system in North America that put ring
> voltage on a separate wire. The yellow wire is
> generally not connected unless one 4-wire cable is used
> for two separate telephone lines.
>
> In North America the "normal" line uses only 2 wires.
> The audio signal is applied between the "tip" and the
> "ring" of a single pair. "Ring Current" and "Loop
> Current" are also applied between the Tip and the Ring
> of the same pair.
>
> Commonly used drop cable has four wires: Green is the
> Tip and Red is the Ring (positive and negative,
> repectively for the DC loop current), while the Yellow
> and the Black wires are not used. (Note that the DC
> voltages used by telephone companies are negative with
> respect to ground, hence for DC the Tip wire is at
> ground potential, and the Ring wire has a negative
> potential. But the Tip is not at ground potential for
> Ring Current or for the audio signal.)
>
> One configuration often seen includes a second line on
> the same cable, using Yellow and Black as Tip and Ring.
>
> Historically the Yellow wire was, for a few years, used
> for a small AC voltage (nominally 6.8 volts) to power a
> lamp circuit on some telephone set models.
>
> Another historical use had the Yellow wire as a ground
> for party line service from the old style mechanical
> switching systems (such as the Step or Stroeger
> switching systems once used by the Bell System and by
> Automatic Electric). On those systems the ring current
> was applied between either Tip or Ring and ground, which
> was supplied to the telephone set on the Yellow wire.
Well, it is possible that my memory is fouled. Haven't needed to
disconnect ringers for at least 20 years.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-06, 3:25 am |
| krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>In article <87hcfkseyr.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
>
>It sure as hell is. Open up the loop and it makes a *wonderful*
>antenna.
It's a "wonderful" antenna regardless. But it's a
single conductor long wire antenna. Changing the
spacing is merely changing the effective diameter of the
single conductor. To get any other effect requires
spacing that is significant in terms of wavelength
(greater than perhaps 1/8th of a wavelength, for
example).
>
>...and open-wire transmission lines won't pick up stray noise?
It picks up as much, or as little, as unshielded twisted
pair of smaller gauge and closer spacing. That's the
point... there isn't any difference. In either case
what you have is a single conductor longwire antenna, not
a loop antenna, until the spacing is a significant fraction
of a wavelength.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2008-03-06, 3:25 am |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> With no respect,
Plonk
--
My sig file can beat up your sig file!
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-06, 9:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|>
|> With no respect,
|
|
| Plonk
You should do that more often.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-06-0834@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47CF3D42.810AA5C9@yahoo.com
> : : Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : : I replaced your non-standard (: quote markers with
> : : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
> : : characters. They foul up other software.
>
> With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem.
> I use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope
> with that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been
> using the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to
> complain.
>
> Ivor
>
Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to understand,
and more difficult for others. Apparently, you don't care.
I'm just adding one more response to let you know that your
non-standard usage is not appreciated.
Ed
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-06, 1:25 pm |
| "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87lk4wsfhn.fld@apaflo.com
: : "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
: : : "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: : : news:47CF3D42.810AA5C9@yahoo.com
: : : : : Ivor Jones wrote:
: : :
: : : [snip]
: : :
: : : : : I replaced your non-standard (: quote markers
: : : : : with the normal '>'. Please don't use thos
: : : : : non-standard characters. They foul up other
: : : : : software.
: : :
: : : With respect, and without wishing to start a row,
: : : that's *your* problem. I use non-standard quote marks
: : : for a purpose. If your system can't cope with that,
: : : then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I
: : : have been using the quote marks I use for several
: : : years and you are the first to complain.
: :
: : Consider for a bit just how absurd that statement is...
Which part..? The part where I say I use non-standard quotes for a reason,
or the part where I said nobdy has so far complained..?
: : Are you posting your articles for your personal
: : edification, or are they intended to be read by an
: : audience? Who should you format them for, yourself or
: : the audience?
Both.
: : Your non-standard quote characters are *not* appreciated
: : by the audience, and indeed the more sophisticated
: : members that you might want to appeal to the most are
: : the ones most likely to make use of software options
: : based on the quote marks.
So why, in my 10+ years of Usenet use, is this the first complaint..?
: : What your formatting style does, is tell the reader what
: : your priorities are, and that your ability to comprehend
: : the effect is apparently impaired.
Your ability to comprehend my reply appears to be impaired also.
<plonk>
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-06, 1:25 pm |
| "ehsjr" <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3HTzj.19815$ES.6877@trnddc05
[snip]
: : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to
: : understand, and more difficult for others. Apparently,
: : you don't care. I'm just adding one more response to
: : let you know that your non-standard usage is not
: : appreciated.
Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure gets to a
noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.
Ivor
: :
: : Ed
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2008-03-06, 1:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | Ivor Jones wrote:
> |
> |>
> |> With no respect,
> |
> |
> | Plonk
>
> You should do that more often.
I plonk for arrogance, not ignorance. You have NOTHING to worry
about.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
| |
| PCPaul 2008-03-06, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:04:57 +0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
> "ehsjr" <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:3HTzj.19815$ES.6877@trnddc05
>
> [snip]
>
> : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to : : understand, and
> more difficult for others. Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just
> adding one more response to : : let you know that your non-standard
> usage is not : : appreciated.
>
> Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure gets to
> a noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.
>
> Ivor
>
> : :
> : : Ed
Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
| |
|
| In article <87d4q8sc5k.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> It's a "wonderful" antenna regardless. But it's a
> single conductor long wire antenna. Changing the
> spacing is merely changing the effective diameter of the
> single conductor. To get any other effect requires
> spacing that is significant in terms of wavelength
> (greater than perhaps 1/8th of a wavelength, for
> example).
Absolute nonsense.
>
> It picks up as much, or as little, as unshielded twisted
> pair of smaller gauge and closer spacing. That's the
> point... there isn't any difference. In either case
> what you have is a single conductor longwire antenna, not
> a loop antenna, until the spacing is a significant fraction
> of a wavelength.
Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.
--
Keith
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-06, 8:25 pm |
| krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>In article <87d4q8sc5k.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
>
>Absolute nonsense.
Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
transmission line.
>
>Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.
I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
Start with Kraus.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-07, 3:25 am |
| PCPaul wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
The only problem with a straight plonk is that other peoples quotes
of the plonkee shine through. The advantage of that is that one
has a chance to decide the plonk should be retracted.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-07, 9:25 am |
|
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47D0B5CD.55C84978@yahoo.com
: : PCPaul wrote:
: : : Ivor Jones wrote:
: : : : "ehsjr" <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
: : : :
: : : : [snip]
: : : :
: : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
: : : : : : to : :
: : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
: : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
: : : : more response to : : let you know that your
: : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
: : : :
: : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
: : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
: : : : might sit up and take notice.
: : :
: : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
: :
: : The only problem with a straight plonk is that other
: : peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The
: : advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide
: : the plonk should be retracted.
Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on
the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post
a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even
register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.
BTW nobody has yet mentioned which piece of flaky software gets upset by a
: instead of a >
Ivor
| |
|
| In article <87skz3qscg.fld@apaflo.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
> transmission line.
Sure, it's a transmission line for the t-wave on the line. It's
also an antenna, with the gain proportional to the area of the loop.
Try running that open line next to a power line.
>
> I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
> Start with Kraus.
Get real Floyd!
--
Keith
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-07, 9:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
|
|
| "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:47D0B5CD.55C84978@yahoo.com
| : : PCPaul wrote:
| : : : Ivor Jones wrote:
| : : : : "ehsjr" <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
| : : : :
| : : : : [snip]
| : : : :
| : : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
| : : : : : : to : :
| : : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
| : : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
| : : : : more response to : : let you know that your
| : : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
| : : : :
| : : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
| : : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
| : : : : might sit up and take notice.
| : : :
| : : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
| : :
| : : The only problem with a straight plonk is that other
| : : peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The
| : : advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide
| : : the plonk should be retracted.
|
| Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on
| the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post
| a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even
| register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.
|
| BTW nobody has yet mentioned which piece of flaky software gets upset by a
| : instead of a >
It looks like maybe PCPaul's software, which identifies itself as
"Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)" might be getting them confused. I don't
know if it because it is a ":" or because you are using double ": :".
I don't see a logical reason for the software to get confused. Once
it has parsed passed the headers and into the content body, the logic
should simply be to look for any special character that is repeated
at the beginning of every line. I believe a "." might have problems
because it gets used as an escape during transmission in NNTP. But
even that has generally worked for me (so most software still handles
it OK).
Apparently what his software did was dismiss line breaks of the message
he quoted, and mingle the ": :" into the message.
What can be confusing to people is the double ": :" usage. That makes
it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous poster quoted with
":". So instead of that quoted text being understood as the part of
the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the grandparent post.
It also looks like you or your software replaced other people's quoting
character with ":" or ": :". Whatever anyone uses, that should be
left as is (unless it is clearly broken).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-07-0842@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| daestrom 2008-03-07, 9:25 am |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:63940jF26jn3fU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47CF3D42.810AA5C9@yahoo.com
> : : Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : : I replaced your non-standard (: quote markers with
> : : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
> : : characters. They foul up other software.
>
> With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem. I
> use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope with
> that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been using
> the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to complain.
>
Here's a third complaint. The only thing worse is those that post in html
and so some newsreaders won't automatically mark the quoted text at all.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2008-03-07, 9:25 am |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:63cq0bF26robtU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47D0B5CD.55C84978@yahoo.com
> : : PCPaul wrote:
> : : : Ivor Jones wrote:
> : : : : "ehsjr" <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> : : : :
> : : : : [snip]
> : : : :
> : : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
> : : : : : : to : :
> : : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
> : : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
> : : : : more response to : : let you know that your
> : : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
> : : : :
> : : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
> : : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
> : : : : might sit up and take notice.
> : : :
> : : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
> : :
> : : The only problem with a straight plonk is that other
> : : peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The
> : : advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide
> : : the plonk should be retracted.
>
> Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on
> the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post
> a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even
> register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.
>
Most folks just ignore you instead of bothering getting sucked into
arguments. Life's too short to waste my time on you and your 'non-standard'
stuff.
<plonk>
| |
| daestrom 2008-03-07, 1:25 pm |
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87pru8sgae.fld@apaflo.com...
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I don't recall any system in North America that put ring
> voltage on a separate wire. The yellow wire is
> generally not connected unless one 4-wire cable is used
> for two separate telephone lines.
>
> In North America the "normal" line uses only 2 wires.
> The audio signal is applied between the "tip" and the
> "ring" of a single pair. "Ring Current" and "Loop
> Current" are also applied between the Tip and the Ring
> of the same pair.
>
> Commonly used drop cable has four wires: Green is the
> Tip and Red is the Ring (positive and negative,
> repectively for the DC loop current), while the Yellow
> and the Black wires are not used. (Note that the DC
> voltages used by telephone companies are negative with
> respect to ground, hence for DC the Tip wire is at
> ground potential, and the Ring wire has a negative
> potential. But the Tip is not at ground potential for
> Ring Current or for the audio signal.)
>
> One configuration often seen includes a second line on
> the same cable, using Yellow and Black as Tip and Ring.
>
> Historically the Yellow wire was, for a few years, used
> for a small AC voltage (nominally 6.8 volts) to power a
> lamp circuit on some telephone set models.
>
Spot on. My parents had a 'princess phone' in the bedroom and a small AC
transformer in the basement fed the light with yellow/black. But all the
phones in my house are just R-G.
daestrom
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-07, 1:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>
> It looks like maybe PCPaul's software, which identifies itself as
> "Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)" might be getting them confused. ...
Piggy-backing, because Jones is plonked. Obviously he doesn't get
complaints, since all those who would complain have been ignored
and have plonked him. Most plonkers don't bother to advise the
plonkee.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:23:55 -0500, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
>news:63940jF26jn3fU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>Here's a third complaint. The only thing worse is those that post in html
>and so some newsreaders won't automatically mark the quoted text at all.
>
>daestrom
I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it should
not be someone else's burden to cope with non-standard quote
marks - even if many newsreader apps can do so.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-07, 9:25 pm |
|
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fqrka301cph@news1.newsguy.com
[snip]
: > What can be confusing to people is the double ": :"
: > usage. That makes
: > it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous
: > poster quoted with ":". So instead of that quoted text
: > being understood as the part of
: > the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the
: > grandparent post.
: > It also looks like you or your software replaced other
: > people's quoting character with ":" or ": :". Whatever
: > anyone uses, that should be
: > left as is (unless it is clearly broken).
It's OE Quotefix and I've found the setting that caused it to convert the
existing quote marks and I've disabled that, so they should now be as they
were.
Hope this helps.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-07, 9:25 pm |
|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
[snip]
: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
: > can do so.
It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.
Ivor
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-08, 3:25 am |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
>: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
>: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
>: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
>: > can do so.
>
>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.
My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with
idiots who misconfigure their software.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
|
| On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
>: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
>: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
>: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
>: > can do so.
>
>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.
>
>Ivor
Yes it should because the whole point of usenet is the
simple and standard format it is presented in, versus say a
web forum.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-08, 9:25 am |
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:8763vxrhze.fld@apaflo.com
: > "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
: >>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
: >>news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
: >>
: >>[snip]
: >>
: >>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are
: >>: > lots of worse things but make it a 4th complaint
: >>: > because it should not be someone else's burden to
: >>: > cope with non-standard quote marks - even if many
: >>: > newsreader apps can do so.
: >>
: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: >>cope.
: >
: > My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with
: > idiots who misconfigure their software.
It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-08, 9:25 am |
|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:qn94t3di3ucrod0pqi0om416i6v87frqdj@4ax.com
: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: > <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
:
[snip]
: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: >>cope.
: >>
: >>Ivor
: >
: > Yes it should because the whole point of usenet is the
: > simple and standard format it is presented in, versus
: > say a web forum.
Plain text. If you have a problem with that, then I'm sorry but it *is*
your problem. It's people who post in HTML and other strange formats that
are the problem.
Although even Outlook Express can cope with that.
Ivor
| |
| Graham. 2008-03-08, 1:25 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:63ecq9F26luhuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
> [snip]
>
> : > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
> : > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
> : > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
> : > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
> : > can do so.
> It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.
>
> Ivor
I think software developers sometimes call this kind of dilemma Postel's Law
..
--
Graham
%Profound_observation%
| |
|
| In article <63ecq9F26luhuU1@mid.individual.net>,
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
>
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
>
> [snip]
>
> : > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
> : > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
> : > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
> : > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
> : > can do so.
>
> It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.
Yes, if your intention here is to post for some reason other than to
read your own writing. That can be done without the expense of an
Internet connection.
BTW, make that five, six, twenty, or whatever.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <63ffhgF27r9utU1@mid.individual.net>,
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
>
>
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:8763vxrhze.fld@apaflo.com
> : > "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
> : >>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> : >>news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
> : >>
> : >>[snip]
> : >>
> : >>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are
> : >>: > lots of worse things but make it a 4th complaint
> : >>: > because it should not be someone else's burden to
> : >>: > cope with non-standard quote marks - even if many
> : >>: > newsreader apps can do so.
> : >>
> : >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
> : >>cope.
> : >
> : > My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with
> : > idiots who misconfigure their software.
>
> It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.
In this case, "differently" = "non-standard" => misconfigured.
--
Keith
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-08, 1:25 pm |
|
"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.223c9d106b41550b9898df@news.individual.net
: > In article <63ffhgF27r9utU1@mid.individual.net>,
: > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
[snip]
: >> It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.
: >
: > In this case, "differently" = "non-standard" =>
: > misconfigured.
How do I know it's not your system that's misconfigured..? If it were
configured correctly, surely it could cope with a : instead of a > ??
Ivor
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>news:MPG.223c9d106b41550b9898df@news.individual.net
>: > In article <63ffhgF27r9utU1@mid.individual.net>,
>: > ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
>
>[snip]
>
>: >> It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.
>: >
>: > In this case, "differently" = "non-standard" =>
>: > misconfigured.
>
>How do I know it's not your system that's misconfigured..? If it were
>configured correctly, surely it could cope with a : instead of a > ??
So just how many different possible quote characters is
my software supposed to work for? Idiots who want to
use a non-standard quote character can choose from 100
or so...
You may, or may not, be able to recognize the problem
with accepting any character as the quote character...
It's exactly the same as not recognizing any quote
character at all. Or, recognizing the standard and
looking at an article formatted with a non-standard
character.
See?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| JosephKK 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
>transmission line.
>
>
>I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
>Start with Kraus.
I have built many twin lead antennas for VHF use. The distinction is
not so clear as you are advertising.
| |
| JosephKK 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:04:57 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>"ehsjr" <ehsjr@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:3HTzj.19815$ES.6877@trnddc05
>
>[snip]
>
>: : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to
>: : understand, and more difficult for others. Apparently,
>: : you don't care. I'm just adding one more response to
>: : let you know that your non-standard usage is not
>: : appreciated.
>
>Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure gets to a
>noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.
>
>Ivor
>
>: :
>: : Ed
Not one of the three news clients i have regularly used have any
problem with these quotes.
| |
| JosephKK 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:26:05 -0500, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>PCPaul wrote:
>
>The only problem with a straight plonk is that other peoples quotes
>of the plonkee shine through. The advantage of that is that one
>has a chance to decide the plonk should be retracted.
>
>--
> [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
> [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
> Try the download section.
One of the major reasons that i do not plonk anything but pure spam.
| |
| JosephKK 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:41:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
>
><phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
>news:fqrka301cph@news1.newsguy.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: > What can be confusing to people is the double ": :"
>: > usage. That makes
>: > it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous
>: > poster quoted with ":". So instead of that quoted text
>: > being understood as the part of
>: > the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the
>: > grandparent post.
>: > It also looks like you or your software replaced other
>: > people's quoting character with ":" or ": :". Whatever
>: > anyone uses, that should be
>: > left as is (unless it is clearly broken).
>
>It's OE Quotefix and I've found the setting that caused it to convert the
>existing quote marks and I've disabled that, so they should now be as they
>were.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Ivor
The prudes are not listening any more.
| |
| JosephKK 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:08j3t3pi9cmhi3ci5r1lgvei4fmdg1l0po@4ax.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
>: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
>: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
>: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
>: > can do so.
>
>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.
>
>Ivor
That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because some
newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or right. Your stuff
don't bother me none. News clients that produce non-quotable posts do
bother me, it makes trying to reply worthless.
| |
| JosephKK 2008-03-08, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:56:39 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On 5 Mar 2008 14:42:21 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>It depends on how old the phones, or these days with modern
>electrically powered phones, cordless/etc, the REN, number
>may be very low per phone. IMO, no good reason not to get a
>cordless phone these days as some are dirt cheap, except
>it's nice to have at least one non-electric in case the
>power goes out.
I think i still have an old trimline. If i can find it, maybe i
should plug it in. Not much advantage though, i will still have my
cell. I wonder how long the cell towers will function in a power
outage. The telco backup may not be any better. Maybe it is time to
get my amateur licence and a radio.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-08, 8:25 pm |
| "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87k5kcq5u6.fld@apaflo.com
[snip]
: > So just how many different possible quote characters is
: > my software supposed to work for? Idiots who want to
: > use a non-standard quote character can choose from 100
: > or so...
My software (OE Quotefix, also OE as supplied) has a choice of three - the
standard > or : or |
: > You may, or may not, be able to recognize the problem
: > with accepting any character as the quote character...
: > It's exactly the same as not recognizing any quote
: > character at all. Or, recognizing the standard and
: > looking at an article formatted with a non-standard
: > character.
: >
: > See?
No. Sorry.
Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed to your eyes) does
with quote marks anyway..?
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-08, 8:25 pm |
| "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f156t3d2h5t6gn0vpqfn7css57k13acd49@4ax.com
: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: > <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: >>cope.
: >>
: >>Ivor
: >
: > That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because
: > some newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or
: > right. Your stuff don't bother me none. News clients
: > that produce non-quotable posts do bother me, it makes
: > trying to reply worthless.
Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If your software can't
do what you want it to, get software that can.
Ivor
| |
|
| On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:45:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87k5kcq5u6.fld@apaflo.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: > So just how many different possible quote characters is
>: > my software supposed to work for? Idiots who want to
>: > use a non-standard quote character can choose from 100
>: > or so...
>
>My software (OE Quotefix, also OE as supplied) has a choice of three - the
>standard > or : or |
>
>: > You may, or may not, be able to recognize the problem
>: > with accepting any character as the quote character...
>: > It's exactly the same as not recognizing any quote
>: > character at all. Or, recognizing the standard and
>: > looking at an article formatted with a non-standard
>: > character.
>: >
>: > See?
>
>No. Sorry.
>
>Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed to your eyes) does
>with quote marks anyway..?
Explain why we should need software with certain feature
sets to reinterpret something so you don't have to follow
standards. The whole point of usenet is to NOT need to do
these things!
| |
|
| On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:58:41 -0800, JosephKK
<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I think i still have an old trimline. If i can find it, maybe i
>should plug it in. Not much advantage though, i will still have my
>cell. I wonder how long the cell towers will function in a power
>outage. The telco backup may not be any better. Maybe it is time to
>get my amateur licence and a radio.
I've never had the telco power go out with a power outtage,
FWIW, but I've never had to endure one that was lengthly
(more than about a day). Since most outtages tend to be
localized to a small area a cellphone would certainly be
useful in most outtages.
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-08, 8:25 pm |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87k5kcq5u6.fld@apaflo.com
>
>[snip]
>
>: > So just how many different possible quote characters is
>: > my software supposed to work for? Idiots who want to
>: > use a non-standard quote character can choose from 100
>: > or so...
>
>My software (OE Quotefix, also OE as supplied) has a choice of three - the
>standard > or : or |
My software allows me to use virtually *anything*. It
could be a single character, or a string of characters.
Incidentally, it doesn't appear that you software is
using ":". It is using ": ". The added space isn't as
bad as the non-standard ':', but it's a waste of a
precious column, and leads to incorrectly wrapped lines
with many readers.
>: > You may, or may not, be able to recognize the problem
>: > with accepting any character as the quote character...
>: > It's exactly the same as not recognizing any quote
>: > character at all. Or, recognizing the standard and
>: > looking at an article formatted with a non-standard
>: > character.
>: >
>: > See?
>
>No. Sorry.
>
>Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed to your eyes) does
>with quote marks anyway..?
I thought you knew all about this???
Specifically my software is the gnus package running
under XEmacs. I have it configured to display each
level of quoted text with a distinct font face. In this
case the significant difference is just the color of the
text.
It can also do things like reformat quoted text, and
will maintain the appropriate quote prefix. The
paragraph quoted above, with your ':' quotes, ends up
like this if it is reformatted:
>: > So just how many different possible quote
>characters is : > my software supposed to work for?
>Idiots who want to : > use a non-standard quote
>character can choose from 100 : > or so...
If it had used standard quotes, it could be
reformatted to look like this:
[color=darkred]
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2008-03-08, 8:25 pm |
| JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:40:31 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>
>I have built many twin lead antennas for VHF use. The distinction is
>not so clear as you are advertising.
In fact, it is. What is an folded dipole? As opposed to a loop?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| CBFalconer 2008-03-08, 9:25 pm |
| "Graham." wrote:
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
>
> I think software developers sometimes call this kind of dilemma
> Postel's Law
It certainly establishes that my PLONK filter is correctly set.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:tdb6t356173885k40fpi1ti8kem6ptq9e8@4ax.com
[snip]
: > Explain why we should need software with certain feature
: > sets to reinterpret something so you don't have to
: > follow standards. The whole point of usenet is to NOT
: > need to do these things!
I don't understand why you need *software* (other than any standard
newsreader) to interpret what you're reading on the screen. I type words,
you read them - where does software come into it..? You can see perfectly
well which parts of the message I am quoting.
I ask again - what is *software* doing with my quote marks that upsets you
so much..?
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2008-03-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87bq5opudb.fld@apaflo.com
: > "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
: >>Explain again what exactly your *software* (as opposed
: >>to your eyes) does with quote marks anyway..?
: >
: > I thought you knew all about this???
: >
: > Specifically my software is the gnus package running
: > under XEmacs. I have it configured to display each
: > level of quoted text with a distinct font face. In this
: > case the significant difference is just the color of the
: > text.
: >
: > It can also do things like reformat quoted text, and
: > will maintain the appropriate quote prefix. The
: > paragraph quoted above, with your ':' quotes, ends up
: > like this if it is reformatted:
: >
: > >: > So just how many different possible quote
: > >characters is : > my software supposed to work for?
: > >Idiots who want to : > use a non-standard quote
: > >character can choose from 100 : > or so...
: >
: > If it had used standard quotes, it could be
: > reformatted to look like this:
: >
: > >> > So just how many different possible quote
: > >> > characters is my software supposed to work for?
: > >> > Idiots who want to use a non-standard quote
: > >> > character can choose from 100 or so...
Ok, fine. But you are over-complicating things IMHO. Why do you need
different fonts for different levels of quotes..? The beauty of Usenet to
me is it is (theoretically at any rate) in *plain ASCII text* so all this
mucking about with fonts, colours or whatever that people do on the web
is, or so I thought, mercifully absent.
Seems I was wrong. But I'm not changing my quote marks. Live with it or
plonk me, it's all the same to me.
Ivor
| |
|
| In article <63gmrhF27s269U1@mid.individual.net>,
ivor@thisaddressis.invalid says...
> "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f156t3d2h5t6gn0vpqfn7css57k13acd49@4ax.com
> : > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> : > <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
> : >>cope.
> : >>
> : >>Ivor
> : >
> : > That depends on how non-standard you are. Just because
> : > some newsreaders can cope does not make it standard or
> : > right. Your stuff don't bother me none. News clients
> : > that produce non-quotable posts do bother me, it makes
> : > trying to reply worthless.
>
> Which makes it the *software's* problem, not mine. If your software can't
> | | |