From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026-09-27 10:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/9/27 2:55:14, c186282 wrote:
[]

"Crystal" radios were kinda interesting. If near
an antenna you didn't even need a battery. Don't

(I think the definition of a crystal radio is that it had no amplifying devices, so needed no battery; it could only _get_ strong stations,
unless a big aerial.)

I inherited two or three crystal radios, but they would not work. I
built my own for a school project, then had a hard time convincing the
teacher that my radio actually worked, the problem was that the station
was too far. Some 50 Km away.

Years later, they built an AM station in my city and they all worked. I
also used the bed metal spring frame as aerial :-)

think you can do that easily with FM band.

Not really, because it relies on detecting the envelope, which is fairly
flat with FM (it's the M not the band that matters); by tuning to the
edge of the band - so-called slope detection - you can get _something_,
but it's usually a much lower level, probably not enough to drive the earphone(s) of a crystal set.>

These days, the AARL manual is the go-to ... they
even covered a lot of valve circuits until recently.
Straight-up practical, not much wasted on esoteric
theory.

That's one of the criticisms I had of the UK amateur radio handbook (in
the 1970s/'80s anyway) - too much theory, especially on semiconductor physics. Theory is necessary though - how an amplifier stage (whether
valve, bipolar transistor, or FET) _works_ ... just giving "recipes", i.
e. circuits, might get you a working set, but you wouldn't know _why_ it works, or be able to troubleshoot it, or certainly modify it.

You don't really need to know the formulas on density of holes and the internal electric fields to build an amplifier.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/9/27 12:32:37, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-27 10:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/9/27 2:55:14, c186282 wrote:
[]

"Crystal" radios were kinda interesting. If near
an antenna you didn't even need a battery. Don't

(I think the definition of a crystal radio is that it had no amplifying
devices, so needed no battery; it could only _get_ strong stations,
unless a big aerial.)

I inherited two or three crystal radios, but they would not work. I
built my own for a school project, then had a hard time convincing the teacher that my radio actually worked, the problem was that the station
was too far. Some 50 Km away.

Years later, they built an AM station in my city and they all worked. I
also used the bed metal spring frame as aerial :-)

think you can do that easily with FM band.

Not really, because it relies on detecting the envelope, which is fairly
flat with FM (it's the M not the band that matters); by tuning to the
edge of the band - so-called slope detection - you can get _something_,

(I meant edge of the signal, not band.)

but it's usually a much lower level, probably not enough to drive the
earphone(s) of a crystal set.>

These days, the AARL manual is the go-to ... they
even covered a lot of valve circuits until recently.
Straight-up practical, not much wasted on esoteric
theory.

That's one of the criticisms I had of the UK amateur radio handbook (in
the 1970s/'80s anyway) - too much theory, especially on semiconductor
physics. Theory is necessary though - how an amplifier stage (whether
valve, bipolar transistor, or FET) _works_ ... just giving "recipes", i.
e. circuits, might get you a working set, but you wouldn't know _why_ it
works, or be able to troubleshoot it, or certainly modify it.

You don't really need to know the formulas on density of holes and the internal electric fields to build an amplifier.

That's what I meant - it wasn't necessary to know semiconductor theory,
at the particle physics level; however, having a grasp of what a
transfer curve looked like (i. e. meant) would help you understand how a
device amplifies (help you get the correct bias to put your signal in
the steep part of the curve, that sort of thing).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm not a great fan of new technology. I don't change my phone every
time the bell rings - Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/1/23-29
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 27/09/2026 16:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

That's what I meant - it wasn't necessary to know semiconductor theory,
at the particle physics level; however, having a grasp of what a
transfer curve looked like (i. e. meant) would help you understand how a device amplifies (help you get the correct bias to put your signal in
the steep part of the curve, that sort of thing).

I don't suppose stone age people had any idea of crystal structures,
shear planes or stress concentration, but they were more successful at crafting stone tools than any modern person would be .
--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first centuryrCOs developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026-09-27 18:23, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-09-27, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/9/27 2:55:14, c186282 wrote:
[]

"Crystal" radios were kinda interesting. If near
an antenna you didn't even need a battery. Don't

(I think the definition of a crystal radio is that it had no amplifying
devices, so needed no battery; it could only _get_ strong stations,
unless a big aerial.)

I once saw a schematic for a radio with two tuners. You tuned one
of them to the strongest local station, whose signal was rectified
and used to drive an amplifier for the other tuner, that tuned the
station you actually wanted to listen to. Still no battery.

I actually had this idea long ago, but did nothing about it :-)
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/9/27 17:36:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/09/2026 16:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

That's what I meant - it wasn't necessary to know semiconductor theory,
at the particle physics level; however, having a grasp of what a
transfer curve looked like (i. e. meant) would help you understand how a
device amplifies (help you get the correct bias to put your signal in
the steep part of the curve, that sort of thing).

I don't suppose stone age people had any idea of crystal structures,
shear planes or stress concentration, but they were more successful at crafting stone tools than any modern person would be .

I'm sure an exprerienced knapper (I used to live on a road called
Steinknappen, in M|+lheim/Ruhr!) had knowledge of shear planes and stress concentration. They just wouldn't call them by those terms.

Rejecting knowledge totally is as bad as over-applying it. As I said,
knowledge of semiconductor physics wasn't necessary for the average
tinkerer, or even designer - but having the data sheets for the devices (discrete or integrated) could certainly save design time. (Those data
sheets contain no discussion of holes and electrons, but _do_ include
lots of curves.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Its like the fools who think the earth is flat. If it were flat, cats
would have pushed everything over the edge by now.......
- @djd1121 on YouTube, 2025-12
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/9/27 18:34:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-27 18:23, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-09-27, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/9/27 2:55:14, c186282 wrote:
[]

"Crystal" radios were kinda interesting. If near
an antenna you didn't even need a battery. Don't

(I think the definition of a crystal radio is that it had no amplifying
devices, so needed no battery; it could only _get_ strong stations,
unless a big aerial.)

I once saw a schematic for a radio with two tuners. You tuned one
of them to the strongest local station, whose signal was rectified
and used to drive an amplifier for the other tuner, that tuned the
station you actually wanted to listen to. Still no battery.

I actually had this idea long ago, but did nothing about it :-)

does need a pretty strong local station though.
When the really powerful (LW and MW, I think - before FM) stations were
set up, there were people - and pubs - who made a show of running their lighting (no rectification needed for filament lighting!) off it; there
were claims that they were stealing the power, but I don't know if they
were ever successfully prosecuted for doing it, or even stopped at all.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 28/09/2026 16:55, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/9/27 17:36:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 27/09/2026 16:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

That's what I meant - it wasn't necessary to know semiconductor theory,
at the particle physics level; however, having a grasp of what a
transfer curve looked like (i. e. meant) would help you understand how a >>> device amplifies (help you get the correct bias to put your signal in
the steep part of the curve, that sort of thing).

I don't suppose stone age people had any idea of crystal structures,
shear planes or stress concentration, but they were more successful at
crafting stone tools than any modern person would be .

I'm sure an exprerienced knapper (I used to live on a road called Steinknappen, in M|+lheim/Ruhr!) had knowledge of shear planes and stress concentration. They just wouldn't call them by those terms.

Rejecting knowledge totally is as bad as over-applying it. As I said, knowledge of semiconductor physics wasn't necessary for the average
tinkerer, or even designer - but having the data sheets for the devices (discrete or integrated) could certainly save design time. (Those data
sheets contain no discussion of holes and electrons, but _do_ include
lots of curves.)

Knowing *why* things do what they do (in terms of more basics
descriptions and differential equations, is science.

Knowing *what* they do, is engineering.

We have been engineers millennia longer than scientists
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Mon, 9/28/2026 11:59 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/9/27 18:34:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-27 18:23, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-09-27, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/9/27 2:55:14, c186282 wrote:
[]

"Crystal" radios were kinda interesting. If near
an antenna you didn't even need a battery. Don't

(I think the definition of a crystal radio is that it had no amplifying >>>> devices, so needed no battery; it could only _get_ strong stations,
unless a big aerial.)

I once saw a schematic for a radio with two tuners. You tuned one
of them to the strongest local station, whose signal was rectified
and used to drive an amplifier for the other tuner, that tuned the
station you actually wanted to listen to. Still no battery.

I actually had this idea long ago, but did nothing about it :-)

does need a pretty strong local station though.

When the really powerful (LW and MW, I think - before FM) stations were
set up, there were people - and pubs - who made a show of running their lighting (no rectification needed for filament lighting!) off it; there
were claims that they were stealing the power, but I don't know if they
were ever successfully prosecuted for doing it, or even stopped at all.

If you were rural, I doubt you'd get enough signal to do anything.

Your equipment would have to be "pretty close to something",
to collect enough power to run a 20W per channel PA off the signal.

And I would want to put that energy, into making the second receiver
more selective. Rather than raising the power level of the kind of
noise that comes out of hobby crystal sets :-) My crystal set
(1N34A detector, not galena cats whisker), you could hear that
anywhere in the room. Powering something like this, might give
a cleaner signal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/9/28 17:10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[]

Knowing *why* things do what they do (in terms of more basics
descriptions and differential equations, is science.

Knowing *what* they do, is engineering.

Agreed on all points so far.

We have been engineers millennia longer than scientists

Even if true, that still does not make one good and the other bad - and,
I disagree anyway - there have always, surely, been people who ask "why".

(You could express it as a scientist tries to answer "why", and an
engineer "how".) Knowing _why_ certain things are as they are, _can_
generate new answers to how to achieve things, which empirical knowledge
might never have come up with.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026-09-28 17:59, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/9/27 18:34:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-27 18:23, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-09-27, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/9/27 2:55:14, c186282 wrote:
[]

"Crystal" radios were kinda interesting. If near
an antenna you didn't even need a battery. Don't

(I think the definition of a crystal radio is that it had no amplifying >>>> devices, so needed no battery; it could only _get_ strong stations,
unless a big aerial.)

I once saw a schematic for a radio with two tuners. You tuned one
of them to the strongest local station, whose signal was rectified
and used to drive an amplifier for the other tuner, that tuned the
station you actually wanted to listen to. Still no battery.

I actually had this idea long ago, but did nothing about it :-)

does need a pretty strong local station though.

When the really powerful (LW and MW, I think - before FM) stations were
set up, there were people - and pubs - who made a show of running their lighting (no rectification needed for filament lighting!) off it; there
were claims that they were stealing the power, but I don't know if they
were ever successfully prosecuted for doing it, or even stopped at all.

It is stealing, but it would have be legislated.

They could also say "put your cables elsewhere, not above my home; you
are polluting my home".
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 28/09/2026 22:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/9/28 17:10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[]

Knowing *why* things do what they do (in terms of more basics
descriptions and differential equations, is science.

Knowing *what* they do, is engineering.

Agreed on all points so far.

We have been engineers millennia longer than scientists

Even if true, that still does not make one good and the other bad - and,
I disagree anyway - there have always, surely, been people who ask "why".

But they tended to be shamans and nmystics, not practical peole

(You could express it as a scientist tries to answer "why", and an
engineer "how".) Knowing _why_ certain things are as they are, _can_
generate new answers to how to achieve things, which empirical knowledge might never have come up with.

No argument with that BUT technology has been around since the first
bored cavewoman twisted strands of her hair together to make a bowstring.

Even the cat's whisker diode preceded the quantum theory that explained it. Science is a branch of PHILOSOPHY = NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. and the idea of testing its hypotheses against reality never really existed till the Industrial revolution.

I don't think how or why are particularly relevant to science and engineering:L engineering is mostly a collection of useful facts that
are used in the construction of 'machines' . Nearly all of them are
rules of thumb.

Science is the attempt to arrive at a metaphysic that allows the
development of reality expressed as differential equations. So that a
state today reliably predicts the state tomorrow. And those differential equations are known as 'Natural' (as opposed to Divine) Law.

Sometimes this suggests new engineering technology. Mostly it does not.

Basic quantum theory gave us the semiconductor, vacuum tube, laser, the
atomic bomb and nuclear power.

Advanced quantum theory I cannot recall giving us anything useful, yet,

Whereas all the key breakthroughs in civilisation occurred more or less
as happenstance. People fiddling with materials they had access to and
making all manner of hunting weapons, like spears, arrows and bows,
slings, even boomerangs, as well as more domestic adjuncts like clothes,
woven mats, bags and sacks.

Later on hammers to bang in posts to stop cattle and domesticated
animals straying, piling rocks on top of one another to make shelters.
and of course fire. to allow tough meat to be tenderised and cold
climates to become survivable.

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.
--
"If you donrCOt read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

(UTB added)
On 2026/9/29 8:27:7, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-28 17:59, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[]

When the really powerful (LW and MW, I think - before FM) stations were
set up, there were people - and pubs - who made a show of running their
lighting (no rectification needed for filament lighting!) off it; there
were claims that they were stealing the power, but I don't know if they
were ever successfully prosecuted for doing it, or even stopped at all.

It is stealing, but it would have be legislated.

They could also say "put your cables elsewhere, not above my home; you
are polluting my home".

What, though, were they stealing?

I agree, it certainly _looks_ like they are, but unless it could be
_shown_ that the signal radiated in the direction past their premises
(or any other direction, for that matter, though I can see that being
hard to convince a jury!) was lessened, ...

The "pollution" aspect probably wouldn't wash if they hadn't objected at
the planning stage. (I don't think the premises in question were
actually _under_ the aerials anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying
to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly
succeed, and are right.
-H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't well known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

When he was trying to develop a domestic source of rubber he tried every
plant that looked vaguely promising. He eventually found a goldenrod
species that worked.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/07/03/Edison-had-a-set-of-tires-made- from-his/4172583905600/

The rest of the story was Britain was limiting natural rubber production
to drive up the price. They needed the money to repay the debt from WWI.
When they had asked for debt relief Coolidge replied rCyThey hired the
money, didnrCOt they?rCY

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-and-the-presidents- calvin-coolidge/

Edison's competitor, Tesla, had more formal education but he was winging
it most of the time too.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't well known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you could peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

...
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 30/09/2026 10:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even
played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

Yes, Then the cold war came along in earnest and everybody - especially
the Russians - wanted to big up the nuclear threat by making radiation invisible and very very scary, so that was that for casual x-rays.

And given that half the media and most of Hollywood and plenty of
academics were full blown commies, they did a superb job.
--
rCLThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 12:05:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Yes, Then the cold war came along in earnest and everybody - especially
the Russians - wanted to big up the nuclear threat by making radiation invisible and very very scary, so that was that for casual x-rays.

One of the magazines I read, Mechanix Illustrated, had a detained article
on radiation sickness with a cover illustration that looked like artwork
from 'The Walking Dead'. To add to the hysteria were plans for building fallout shelters in the cellar. In grade school we periodically went out
into the hall, crouched down, and kissed our asses goodbye. Public
buildings had shelters equipped with the ever popular 5 gallon cans of
water that converted into latrines.

I wonder why that gave rise to a generation that had a mistrust of
authority? Sadly as that generation aged out it lapped up every
pronouncement of the powers that be and raised a herd of sheep.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even
played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

I remember those machines ! By the time I might
have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
and shoved into a corner.

Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
of ultra-sound image.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't
well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026/10/1 0:7:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't
well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

I'm pretty sure my dentist still uses film and X-rays, though they seem
to develop (and scan) them _amazingly_ quickly - but they still go out
of the room (same principle as the shoe salesmen, I think) to fire the
machine.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said the Borg, "we assimilated a Pooh."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 9/30/26 19:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He
even
played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't
well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a-a and shoved into a corner.

-a-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

A sensitive grid of pressure sensors could likely
do a fair job of it - but might not show "pinched
toes" quite as well.

Some 'hybrid' tech - pressure sensors PLUS low-rez
ultrasound - would surely do the trick quite well
and maybe cheaper than those old X-ray units.

Have seen some news on medical devices that use
triple-tech ... low-field MRI plus ultrasound
plus low-rez CAT. Computers can now easily
combine the results and create a much higher
rez and richer result than any alone. Even Linux
has some standard packages for doing MRIs and
similar.

I wonder if any of those old x-ray units are stored
anywhere. Might be useful for imaging other materials
and devices and such. At 'salvage' prices, great !

Just keep yer distance a bit :-)

Bound to be lots of old DENTAL units in some
surplus warehouse too.

Building a relatively 'soft' x-ray tube using lab
glassware does not seem so difficult. Need a fairly
good vac pump. but nothing TOO extreme. You can buy
thin little moly metal squares. A 50KV DC supply
and you're set. Hey, it is 19th-century tech ...

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 9/30/26 21:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/10/1 0:7:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>>>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't >>>>> well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

I'm pretty sure my dentist still uses film and X-rays, though they seem
to develop (and scan) them _amazingly_ quickly - but they still go out
of the room (same principle as the shoe salesmen, I think) to fire the machine.

My dentists switched to e-sensors rather long back.

They now use a hand-held x-ray "gun". The old big
dedicated x-ray rigs are gone. Nobody uses the
lead aprons anymore.

Yes, this place does charge a bit more, a tad
'elite', but so far it's been worth a few extra
bucks fer sure. LAST thing you want is Bad Dental,
that'll make yer life CONSTANT HELL.

DID read somewhere of a new detector tech that is
about 10X as sensitive - not sure if it's commercial
quite yet however.

Film works, but requires much more exposure.

Back when film was used I had a standing order to
limit x-rays to "just essential". Now, not so
worried about it.

Wonder if 'cold neutrons' might yield superior
dental results. NOT sure they can be made using
cheap equipment however. Some 'hybrid' tech ...
low-energy x-rays plus low-field MRI plus some
ultrasound - smartly merged - would likely
produce THE best results and not just for dental.
Have seen a few articles/experiments with this.

Need med scans these days ? First you get the
ultra-high-dose CAT scan, then a very expensive
MRI. Ultrasound can be of use but the results
are mostly low-tech low-rez. Anyway, all designed
to totally DRAIN your insurance/wallet.

I don't have med insurance - except MediCare.
Too expensive/intrusive AND, as I saw with my
poor dead brother, the whole GOAL is to DRAIN
EVERY DIME with pointless tests/procedures/scans
and destructive CRAP "treatments".

So, I limit the cash supply. MUCH better !
Despite a few probs, I've SAVED a huge amount
of money over what I'd have paid insurers AND
kept the docs from going just nuts and 'helping'
me to a painful (but profitable) death.

Cynic ? HELL YES !!!

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 02:41:07 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I'm pretty sure my dentist still uses film and X-rays, though they seem
to develop (and scan) them _amazingly_ quickly - but they still go out
of the room (same principle as the shoe salesmen, I think) to fire the machine.

I get the lead blanket and the tech leaves the room but there is no film involved. The sensor positioned in my mouth is reused and the result shows
up on the screen immediately. Often the hygienist didn't get the angle she wanted and tries again.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 22:27:05 -0400, c186282 wrote:

They now use a hand-held x-ray "gun". The old big dedicated x-ray
rigs are gone. Nobody uses the lead aprons anymore.

Mine does the lead apron and the x-ray head is on a positioning arm but
it's all electronic. I think the computer runs Windows :)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:
On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't
well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

Old tube color TVs had a PD500 stabilizer tube in parallel with the high voltage.
Those emitted xrays and were always housed in a metal case.
At work some guy got some burn in his face after working on a monitor
with the metal shield removed.
All monitors at work were tested for radiation after that!

You can make your own Xray machine with those tubes:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=PD500+make+your+own+xray+generator

http://www.qrp.gr/page/xrays/pd500.htm


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 10/1/26 02:50, Jan Panteltje wrote:

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:
On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>>>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't >>>>> well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

Old tube color TVs had a PD500 stabilizer tube in parallel with the high voltage.
Those emitted xrays and were always housed in a metal case.
At work some guy got some burn in his face after working on a monitor
with the metal shield removed.
All monitors at work were tested for radiation after that!

You can make your own Xray machine with those tubes:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=PD500+make+your+own+xray+generator

http://www.qrp.gr/page/xrays/pd500.htm

Had a very old color TV ... it had nearly
an INCH of lead-glass over the tube to cut
the X-rays. The glass had become a bit cloudy
due to long exposure :-)

Yea, THAT bad.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 30/09/2026 20:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see
what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation.

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't
well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

The issue was the almost complete lack of data on the lethality, or
otherwise of long term low level radiation exposure. This led to people
making absurdly conservative rules 'in case' based on what turned out to
be entirely false assumptions and led to the whole issue being exploited
by powers inimical to the west to spread fear uncertainty and doubt
about everything nuclear, a fear which still exists, despite the data
that now shows the fears are completely unfounded
--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 01/10/2026 00:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He
even
played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't
well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a-a and shoved into a corner.

-a-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

ITYM fluoroscopes. Not x-ray machines. We still use x-ray machines

Plenty of older photo style machines still in use.

Although fluoroscopes (real time x-ray imagers) are now pulsed digital
for less radiactioacvity
--
ThererCOs a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 01/10/2026 02:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I'm pretty sure my dentist still uses film and X-rays, though they seem
to develop (and scan) them_amazingly_ quickly - but they still go out
of the room (same principle as the shoe salesmen, I think) to fire the machine.

The changeover to all digital stared about 20 years ago and is not yet complete. Because the kit is very expensive and photos work pretty well
--
"If you donrCOt read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 01/10/2026 03:27, c186282 wrote:

LAST thing you want is Bad Dental,
-a that'll make yer life CONSTANT HELL.

Until all your teeth have in fact fallen out...
--
"If you donrCOt read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-10

On 2026-10-01 03:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/10/1 0:7:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-09-30 21:28, c186282 wrote:

On 9/30/26 05:58, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-09-29 20:16, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:45:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

None of this was 'science' - it was just fiddling with things to see >>>>>> what happened and teaching the useful results to the next generation. >>>>>

https://ethw.org/Edison_Effect

Almost all of Edison's successes resulted from intense fiddling. He even >>>>> played a part in the development of the fluoroscope but gave up the
project when one of assistants died from exposure. The risks weren't >>>>> well
known. I remember the machines in shoe stores in the '50s where you
could
peer at an x-ray of your feet to see how well the shoes fit.

Progress :-)

-a I remember those machines ! By the time I might
-a have needed one though they'd all been unplugged
-a and shoved into a corner.

-a Apparently the prob wasn't with the customers, but
-a with the salesmen who might get a dozen doses a day.

-a Now ... MIGHT replace the net effect using some kind
-a of ultra-sound image.

X-Ray machines were high power, not even doctors use them nowdays. They
use photos instead, now made with a electronic sensors, not chemicals.
So very low power.

I'm pretty sure my dentist still uses film and X-rays, though they seem
to develop (and scan) them _amazingly_ quickly - but they still go out
of the room (same principle as the shoe salesmen, I think) to fire the machine.

Mine uses what looks the same machine, but the result is a 3D
computerized scan. He can look up a single tooth in the computer and
rotate it, find how deep goes the caries...

I don't believe they use chemicals.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2