| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340467 is a reply to message #340460] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 00:21   |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1174851121.512364698.022441.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/03/2017 17:57, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> > Not when the antenna has to be built in. Low frequencies would need a
>>>> > big antenna, high frequencies would be getting close to line of sight.
>>>> >
>>>> > Michael
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> In the 1970s it was easy to get radio signals from Luxembourg on a 2" x 2"
>>>> pocket radio receiver.
>>>>
>>> But how big a transmitting antenna did they use?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>> From memory, big, before pop music got politically acceptable. it was
>> the main pop music broadcaster in Western Europe.
>>
>>
>
> Had to be smaller than Luxembourg ;-)
Luxembourg is not THAT small.
The Radio Lux transmitter complex did not have the largest
antenna farm, they generally just pumped so much juice through
the transmitter that they saturated the athmosphere.
The only three more powerful transmitters I know of are
the submarine array somewhere in the upper midwest, probably
still have bits if it classified, the Kiev transmitter for
below-the-horizon radar and one station up in Canada that
did the same as Radio Lux. I think Radio Lux won the
transmitted effect race, but they were upping each other
again and again.
They were way beyond what would have been permitted for
civilians in the UK, Germany, France and the US.
This only went on for ~5-6 years, then they had to reduce
the radiated energy. ISTR they settled somewhere around 400kW.
Which would still be 4x what the Brits permit, and 8x what
the USians do.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340483 is a reply to message #340467] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 05:42 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-28, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1174851121.512364698.022441.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> This only went on for ~5-6 years, then they had to reduce
> the radiated energy. ISTR they settled somewhere around 400kW.
>
> Which would still be 4x what the Brits permit, and 8x what
> the USians do.
>
> -- mrr
For some daft reason, an outfit put up a longwave transmitter,
near Tara, Co. Meath. What impressed me was that they went around
the local farmers, or anyone who had large metal buildings, and
re-earthed them. The mast is still there, AFAIK.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340498 is a reply to message #340483] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 08:08 |
|
|
Originally posted by: mrr
In article <slrnodk8dj.1ae.mausg@smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-28, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
> <1174851121.512364698.022441.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> This only went on for ~5-6 years, then they had to reduce
>> the radiated energy. ISTR they settled somewhere around 400kW.
>>
>> Which would still be 4x what the Brits permit, and 8x what
>> the USians do.
>>
>> -- mrr
>
> For some daft reason, an outfit put up a longwave transmitter,
> near Tara, Co. Meath. What impressed me was that they went around
> the local farmers, or anyone who had large metal buildings, and
> re-earthed them. The mast is still there, AFAIK.
That is indeed an odd place to put a long distance transmitter.
If I were to place such a thing in Ireland I would go for something
like the flat-ish area west of Galway-Limerick. That should be
properly watersoaked and have a good horisontal plane out into
the sea to the west and over similar terrain south.
The Scandinavian ones are placed in Kvits"oy, just west of
Stavanger, in Aland and just north or Gothenburg. All with
well soaked ground and clear way into the sea.
OT:
We had a cottage/cabin at the old Reistad farm with an iron
mesh fence against the cows from the farm. Righ next to an old,
unbalanced 60kV line that was upgraded to 134kV. Build in the
1890s it was a wonder of engineering, and it was used as a last
resort backup for the grid into Bergen. (and that was needed
more often than they and we liked).
We had the steel mesh fence go within centimeters from the required
distance (6 meters) from the quite sagging conduits. We measured
~200 volts in between the two sections of the fence. So we
grounded one part, and put a 220V light bulb between them as
an indicator that this was dangerous. It shone quite brightly,
but still orange-ish when they ran the line at full capacity.
The energy company went ballistic and accused us of stealing
power. We had to remind them that the fence was, indeed, older
than the high voltage line, and they had gone right up to
permissible limits for their line in the upgrade, and that the
lines were indeed sagging around three times the standard.
The farm had lost two cows due to electrocution before we
put in the bulb, so it was not unwarrented. Besides, if we
had grounded the line really throughly they would have had
~5x the losses, and we would have warm grounding points.
They came right over and tightened the lines, lifting them
~3 meters, up to 9+. The bulb barely lit when that was done,
so we did the grounding exercise. But we still measured
~20 volts when they ran the line.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340519 is a reply to message #340498] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 10:31 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-28, Morten Reistad <mrr@sambook.reistad.name> wrote:
>
> In article <slrnodk8dj.1ae.mausg@smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-28, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article
>> <1174851121.512364698.022441.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
> OT:
>
> We had a cottage/cabin at the old Reistad farm with an iron
> mesh fence against the cows from the farm. Righ next to an old,
> unbalanced 60kV line that was upgraded to 134kV. Build in the
> 1890s it was a wonder of engineering, and it was used as a last
> resort backup for the grid into Bergen. (and that was needed
> more often than they and we liked).
>
> We had the steel mesh fence go within centimeters from the required
> distance (6 meters) from the quite sagging conduits. We measured
> ~200 volts in between the two sections of the fence. So we
> grounded one part, and put a 220V light bulb between them as
> an indicator that this was dangerous. It shone quite brightly,
> but still orange-ish when they ran the line at full capacity.
>
> The energy company went ballistic and accused us of stealing
> power. We had to remind them that the fence was, indeed, older
> than the high voltage line, and they had gone right up to
> permissible limits for their line in the upgrade, and that the
> lines were indeed sagging around three times the standard.
>
> The farm had lost two cows due to electrocution before we
> put in the bulb, so it was not unwarrented. Besides, if we
> had grounded the line really throughly they would have had
> ~5x the losses, and we would have warm grounding points.
>
> They came right over and tightened the lines, lifting them
> ~3 meters, up to 9+. The bulb barely lit when that was done,
> so we did the grounding exercise. But we still measured
> ~20 volts when they ran the line.
>
> -- mrr
A local line, part of the Shannon-Dublin connection built
by a German company in the early 1920's, would light a flourescent
tube slightly,( I suppose that the company was Siemans). It must be fifty
years since I tried it, its been updated since.There was a line built
to a storage facility in Wicklow fairly recently, passing by the
public school in Hollywood, against the protests of the teachers and
parents. One of the cables snapped, falling on a sheep in a field
beside the school, cutting it neatly in half, cauterising the cut.
The line was changed then.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340537 is a reply to message #340460] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 12:49 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/03/2017 17:57, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> > Not when the antenna has to be built in. Low frequencies would need a
>>>> > big antenna, high frequencies would be getting close to line of sight.
>>>> >
>>>> > Michael
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> In the 1970s it was easy to get radio signals from Luxembourg on a 2" x 2"
>>>> pocket radio receiver.
>>>>
>>> But how big a transmitting antenna did they use?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>> From memory, big, before pop music got politically acceptable. it was
>> the main pop music broadcaster in Western Europe.
>>
>>
>
> Had to be smaller than Luxembourg ;-)
>
Can't they rent land in adjacent countries?
When shortwave radio was a big thing, often there were relay stations in
"foreign" countries so the home transmitter didn't have to be so strong.
I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if they just used colonies
elsewhere, or actually did have relays on foreign soil. I guess they did,
I seem to recall that Canada relayed Chinese shortwave signals at one
time.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340554 is a reply to message #340537] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 14:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> When shortwave radio was a big thing, often there were relay stations
> in "foreign" countries so the home transmitter didn't have to be so
> strong. I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if they just used
> colonies elsewhere, or actually did have relays on foreign soil. I
> guess they did, I seem to recall that Canada relayed Chinese shortwave
> signals at one time.
>
There still exist (but far fewer, and dwindling) stations in the
caribbean that are 100% "brokered time" operators. They have multiple
frequency-agile transmitters and antenna farms with differing patterns,
and you can hire the band and pattern you want for your programming by
the hour. Even some of the large name national flagship stations use
some these operations to fill in coverge to South America.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340558 is a reply to message #340537] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 15:26 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1703281247310.6654@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 27/03/2017 17:57, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> >> Not when the antenna has to be built in. Low frequencies would need a
>>>> >> big antenna, high frequencies would be getting close to line of sight.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Michael
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > In the 1970s it was easy to get radio signals from Luxembourg on a 2" x 2"
>>>> > pocket radio receiver.
>>>> >
>>>> But how big a transmitting antenna did they use?
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>> From memory, big, before pop music got politically acceptable. it was
>>> the main pop music broadcaster in Western Europe.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Had to be smaller than Luxembourg ;-)
>>
> Can't they rent land in adjacent countries?
Sure. And then they have to abide by the laws and regulations
of those countries too. The whole reason Radio Lux was in Luxembourg
was that the effect regulations, as well as content, advertising and
transmit hours were a LOT more liberal there.
> When shortwave radio was a big thing, often there were relay stations in
> "foreign" countries so the home transmitter didn't have to be so strong.
> I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if they just used colonies
> elsewhere, or actually did have relays on foreign soil. I guess they did,
> I seem to recall that Canada relayed Chinese shortwave signals at one
> time.
Those who have remnants of empire still do.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340564 is a reply to message #340558] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 16:51 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:26:52 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> Sure. And then they have to abide by the laws and regulations
> of those countries too. The whole reason Radio Lux was in Luxembourg
> was that the effect regulations, as well as content, advertising and
> transmit hours were a LOT more liberal there.
The result was something a lot more listenable than the BBC
offerings of the time, but not as good as Caroline.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340569 is a reply to message #340453] |
Tue, 28 March 2017 18:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <m8fjdc9s6ri3ndalc3q341epkog31vfl1a@
4ax.com>, solosam90@gmail.com says...
>
> On 27 Mar 2017 10:46:09 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ob7vne$bvd$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> no.sp@m.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 26/03/2017 04:44, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> > In article <51de0eab-47c1-4470-bda4-b4774a42adb8
>>>> > @googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
>>>> > says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> A recently aired episode covered industrial espionage by disloyal employees.
>>>> >> There was extensive use of tiny electronic microphone/transmitters, as
>>>> >> well as a relatively small TV camera. The episode was originally 254/13
>>>> >> from December 1965.
>>> We are not talking about the history of cameras,
>>> we are talking about devices depicted in works
>>> of fiction and whether such devices could, at
>>> the time in which the fictional events were
>>> supposed to take place, be made using the
>>> technology available at the time.
>>>
>>> We are not talking about "cameras that are small
>>> relative to cameras that came 30 years before",
>>> we are talking about "cameras that can be
>>> concealed in a jewelry item". And we are not
>>> talking about film cameras, before you go there,
>>> we are talking about video cameras.
>>>
>>>
>> I remember a `Minox' ( I think) tiny camera from 50s-60s. They
>> were widely advertised
>
> 16 mm film but expensive to develop. They had to mail it off. I only
> used the camera once to take some family photos. Resolution was awful.
If it was 16mm it wasn't a Minox--Minox used a
9mm wide film format unique to them.
> --
> Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340580 is a reply to message #340537] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 06:35 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-28, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 27/03/2017 17:57, Michael Black wrote:
>>>> >> Not when the antenna has to be built in. Low frequencies would need a
>>>> >> big antenna, high frequencies would be getting close to line of sight.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Michael
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > In the 1970s it was easy to get radio signals from Luxembourg on a 2" x 2"
>>>> > pocket radio receiver.
>>>> >
>>>> But how big a transmitting antenna did they use?
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>> From memory, big, before pop music got politically acceptable. it was
>>> the main pop music broadcaster in Western Europe.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Had to be smaller than Luxembourg ;-)
>>
> Can't they rent land in adjacent countries?a
AFAIK, Luxemburg was offered land from Germany after one of the World Wars,
refused it. They, as far as I know, speak a German Dialect, as do
many places in Germany. They have always had an `innovative' outlook, and is
a well know tax haven, and recently, I am toldm is the favourite country for
UK citizens who work in the EU, to change their citizenship to..
>
> When shortwave radio was a big thing, often there were relay stations in
> "foreign" countries so the home transmitter didn't have to be so strong.
> I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if they just used colonies
> elsewhere, or actually did have relays on foreign soil. I guess they did,
> I seem to recall that Canada relayed Chinese shortwave signals at one
> time.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340581 is a reply to message #340244] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 08:12 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Whiskers
On 2017-03-28, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 3/27/2017 8:33 PM, JimP. wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2017 10:46:09 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <ob7vne$bvd$1@dont-email.me>, no.sp@m.com says...
>>>> >
>>>> > On 26/03/2017 04:44, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> >> In article <51de0eab-47c1-4470-bda4-b4774a42adb8
>>>> >> @googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A recently aired episode covered industrial espionage by
>>>> >>> disloyal employees. There was extensive use of tiny electronic
>>>> >>> microphone/transmitters, as well as a relatively small TV
>>>> >>> camera. The episode was originally 254/13 from December 1965.
>>>> We are not talking about the history of cameras, we are talking
>>>> about devices depicted in works of fiction and whether such devices
>>>> could, at the time in which the fictional events were supposed to
>>>> take place, be made using the technology available at the time.
>>>>
>>>> We are not talking about "cameras that are small relative to
>>>> cameras that came 30 years before", we are talking about "cameras
>>>> that can be concealed in a jewelry item". And we are not talking
>>>> about film cameras, before you go there, we are talking about video
>>>> cameras.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I remember a `Minox' ( I think) tiny camera from 50s-60s. They were
>>> widely advertised
>>
>> 16 mm film but expensive to develop. They had to mail it off. I only
>> used the camera once to take some family photos. Resolution was
>> awful.
>
> Huh. For a while I had a Japanese clone (Mamiya or Minolta, one o'
> those "M" brands) and I didn't think resolution was that bad. Of
> course, I was shooting something fine-grained like PlusX and wasn't
> making big prints.
The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little cartridges.
The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home developing and
printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to 'postcard' size
aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras did use 16mm film,
and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the main Japanese brands
made some good ones - and there were many not so good.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340589 is a reply to message #340554] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 10:09 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:26:59 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
<lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>> When shortwave radio was a big thing, often there were relay stations
>> in "foreign" countries so the home transmitter didn't have to be so
>> strong. I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if they just used
>> colonies elsewhere, or actually did have relays on foreign soil. I
>> guess they did, I seem to recall that Canada relayed Chinese shortwave
>> signals at one time.
>>
>
> There still exist (but far fewer, and dwindling) stations in the
> caribbean that are 100% "brokered time" operators. They have multiple
> frequency-agile transmitters and antenna farms with differing patterns,
> and you can hire the band and pattern you want for your programming by
> the hour. Even some of the large name national flagship stations use
> some these operations to fill in coverge to South America.
When I tried to do short wave listening a few years ago I found that
many of the SW radio stations had shut down. Many, mostly religious
stations, are now in the US and they do mention on their web sites
about hourly rental of air time, and you tell them which continent and
language you want to broadcast in.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340593 is a reply to message #340589] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 12:47 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, JimP. wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:26:59 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>>> When shortwave radio was a big thing, often there were relay stations
>>> in "foreign" countries so the home transmitter didn't have to be so
>>> strong. I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if they just used
>>> colonies elsewhere, or actually did have relays on foreign soil. I
>>> guess they did, I seem to recall that Canada relayed Chinese shortwave
>>> signals at one time.
>>>
>>
>> There still exist (but far fewer, and dwindling) stations in the
>> caribbean that are 100% "brokered time" operators. They have multiple
>> frequency-agile transmitters and antenna farms with differing patterns,
>> and you can hire the band and pattern you want for your programming by
>> the hour. Even some of the large name national flagship stations use
>> some these operations to fill in coverge to South America.
>
> When I tried to do short wave listening a few years ago I found that
> many of the SW radio stations had shut down. Many, mostly religious
> stations, are now in the US and they do mention on their web sites
> about hourly rental of air time, and you tell them which continent and
> language you want to broadcast in.
I haven't really listened, but I keep seeing notices about this country or
that country's shortwave broadcasts shutting down, or at least cutting
back.
I thought stations often sold time, and religious shows often were what
bought time. There were all those legendary Mexican stations close to the
US border, pretty much US stations except they broadcast from the US, and
I thought their time was all brokered, so you get the religious
programming and the quacks, and Wolfman Jack.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340597 is a reply to message #340581] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 13:14 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:12:22 AM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
> The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little cartridges.
> The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home developing and
> printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to 'postcard' size
> aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras did use 16mm film,
> and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the main Japanese brands
> made some good ones - and there were many not so good.
Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a
popular 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
(Kodak's subsequent "DISC" film wasn't so good.)
As an aside, Kodak's venture into instant cameras was an expensive
boondoggle for it and Polaroid. After a long court battle, Kodak
lost the patent suit to Polaroid and had to pay out a lot of money,
plus anger consumer with a discontinued product line. But the court
battle was costly for Polaroid and lost a lot of sales. Sadly, two
once great companies went bankrupt and are now mere shadows of
their former selves.
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340599 is a reply to message #340597] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 13:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Whiskers
On 2017-03-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:12:22 AM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little
>> cartridges. The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home
>> developing and printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to
>> 'postcard' size aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras
>> did use 16mm film, and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the
>> main Japanese brands made some good ones - and there were many not so
>> good.
>
> Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a popular
> 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
There were some excellent 110 cameras (13x17mm on 16mm film) but sadly
there were many that were not good and they gave the format a bad name.
> (Kodak's subsequent "DISC" film wasn't so good.)
That was such a bizarre idea. 8x10mm images on a large clumsy disc.
The cartridge and camera were marketed as 'slim' and 'easy to handle',
but in practice it was an awkward design - and to get the best out of
the thick film base and emulsion, you needed a special enlarger which
few D&P services bothered with so the prints tended to be blurred and
grainy.
> As an aside, Kodak's venture into instant cameras was an expensive
> boondoggle for it and Polaroid. After a long court battle, Kodak lost
> the patent suit to Polaroid and had to pay out a lot of money, plus
> anger consumer with a discontinued product line. But the court battle
> was costly for Polaroid and lost a lot of sales. Sadly, two once
> great companies went bankrupt and are now mere shadows of their
> former selves.
But Fuji and Lomo seem to be keeping the flame alive.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340607 is a reply to message #340599] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 15:14 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2017-03-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:12:22 AM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little
>>> cartridges. The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home
>>> developing and printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to
>>> 'postcard' size aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras
>>> did use 16mm film, and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the
>>> main Japanese brands made some good ones - and there were many not so
>>> good.
>>
>> Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a popular
>> 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
>
> There were some excellent 110 cameras (13x17mm on 16mm film) but sadly
> there were many that were not good and they gave the format a bad name.
>
Is that because they were "point and shoot" with no adjustments? And
lenses made of plastic?
IN the seventies, one company offered a 110 SLR, complete with lenses one
could change. I think a friend got one. Nice and small.
At the same time, there were some interesting variants on the "standard"
110 camera. I recall some that could be used underwater.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340609 is a reply to message #340599] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 15:44 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-03-29, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> (Kodak's subsequent "DISC" film wasn't so good.)
>
> That was such a bizarre idea. 8x10mm images on a large clumsy disc.
> The cartridge and camera were marketed as 'slim' and 'easy to handle',
> but in practice it was an awkward design - and to get the best out of
> the thick film base and emulsion, you needed a special enlarger which
> few D&P services bothered with so the prints tended to be blurred and
> grainy.
Come to think of it, it sounds sort of like Viewmaster minus the 3D.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340618 is a reply to message #340597] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 15:53 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:12:22 AM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little cartridges.
>> The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home developing and
>> printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to 'postcard' size
>> aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras did use 16mm film,
>> and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the main Japanese brands
>> made some good ones - and there were many not so good.
>
> Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a
> popular 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
> (Kodak's subsequent "DISC" film wasn't so good.)
>
> As an aside, Kodak's venture into instant cameras was an expensive
> boondoggle for it and Polaroid. After a long court battle, Kodak
> lost the patent suit to Polaroid and had to pay out a lot of money,
> plus anger consumer with a discontinued product line.
Actually, it made me a lot angrier at Polaroid. They should have (or been
forced to) manufacture the film for the discontinued cameras.
But the court
> battle was costly for Polaroid and lost a lot of sales. Sadly, two
> once great companies went bankrupt and are now mere shadows of
> their former selves.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340641 is a reply to message #340607] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 20:14 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Whiskers
On 2017-03-29, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:12:22 AM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
>>>
>>>> The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little
>>>> cartridges. The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home
>>>> developing and printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to
>>>> 'postcard' size aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras
>>>> did use 16mm film, and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the
>>>> main Japanese brands made some good ones - and there were many not so
>>>> good.
>>>
>>> Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a popular
>>> 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
>>
>> There were some excellent 110 cameras (13x17mm on 16mm film) but sadly
>> there were many that were not good and they gave the format a bad name.
>>
> Is that because they were "point and shoot" with no adjustments? And
> lenses made of plastic?
And often not to very close tolerances either so even if the lens was
adequate the film wasn't in the focal plane.
> IN the seventies, one company offered a 110 SLR, complete with lenses one
> could change. I think a friend got one. Nice and small.
Pentax. Very nice little kit. Minolta made a good solid SLR with a
zoom lens. I think Rollei even made a 110 TLR (or was it for Minox
cartridges?)
> At the same time, there were some interesting variants on the "standard"
> 110 camera. I recall some that could be used underwater.
>
> Michael
There were some that could be fitted to model planes or rockets too.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340642 is a reply to message #340641] |
Wed, 29 March 2017 20:24 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> writes:
> On 2017-03-29, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-03-29, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:12:22 AM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The real Minox 'spy' camera uses 9.5mm wide film, in little
>>>> > cartridges. The image size is 8x11mm. You could get kit for home
>>>> > developing and printing, and there was a projector too. Prints up to
>>>> > 'postcard' size aren't too bad. Most other 'subminiature' cameras
>>>> > did use 16mm film, and correspondingly larger images. Rollei and the
>>>> > main Japanese brands made some good ones - and there were many not so
>>>> > good.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a popular
>>>> 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
>>>
>>> There were some excellent 110 cameras (13x17mm on 16mm film) but sadly
>>> there were many that were not good and they gave the format a bad name.
>>>
>> Is that because they were "point and shoot" with no adjustments? And
>> lenses made of plastic?
>
> And often not to very close tolerances either so even if the lens was
> adequate the film wasn't in the focal plane.
>
>> IN the seventies, one company offered a 110 SLR, complete with lenses one
>> could change. I think a friend got one. Nice and small.
>
> Pentax. Very nice little kit. Minolta made a good solid SLR with a
> zoom lens. I think Rollei even made a 110 TLR (or was it for Minox
> cartridges?)
>
>> At the same time, there were some interesting variants on the "standard"
>> 110 camera. I recall some that could be used underwater.
>>
>> Michael
>
> There were some that could be fitted to model planes or rockets too.
Though the Estes Camroc (the 110 version) was sort of a poster child for
lousy lenses and tolerances. The keychain "spy" cameras you can tape to
the side now are infinitely better -- and are video!
(there was also an Estes Cineroc which filmed on 8mm film IIRC. Way too
expensive for me...)
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340653 is a reply to message #340607] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 01:56 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 1:07:01 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> IN the seventies, one company offered a 110 SLR, complete with lenses one
> could change. I think a friend got one. Nice and small.
There were actually _two_ such products offered.
Pentax made one that looked like a smaller version of a 35mm SLR. However, unlike _most_ 35mm SLRs (not unlike one made by Kodak, though) instead of a shutter in the film plane (which the 110 mm cartridge would interfere with) the shutter was in the lens.
But there was also a 110
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340654 is a reply to message #340653] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 01:57 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 11:56:25 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 1:07:01 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
>
>> IN the seventies, one company offered a 110 SLR, complete with lenses one
>> could change. I think a friend got one. Nice and small.
>
> There were actually _two_ such products offered.
>
> Pentax made one that looked like a smaller version of a 35mm SLR. However, unlike _most_ 35mm SLRs (not unlike one made by Kodak, though) instead of a shutter in the film plane (which the 110 mm cartridge would interfere with) the shutter was in the lens.
>
> But there was also a 110
SLR made by Minolta, which didn't look much like a 35mm
one. However, it just had a zoom lens, the lens couldn't be
changed.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340673 is a reply to message #340607] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 14:16 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>> Too bad the Minox fell out of fashion since Kodak introduced a popular
>>> 110 consumer film to replace its 126. Worked fine for snapshots.
>>
>> There were some excellent 110 cameras (13x17mm on 16mm film) but sadly
>> there were many that were not good and they gave the format a bad name.
>>
> Is that because they were "point and shoot" with no adjustments? And
> lenses made of plastic?
No. I had a plain 110. Obviously it wasn't as good as my SLR,
but then it was easy for anyone to use, and it was inexpensive enough
so that I didn't have to worry about breakage or theft (as I did
with my SLR). As mentioned, at family stuff it was great for snapshots.
> IN the seventies, one company offered a 110 SLR, complete with lenses one
> could change. I think a friend got one. Nice and small.
>
> At the same time, there were some interesting variants on the "standard"
> 110 camera. I recall some that could be used underwater.
Over the years, Kodak's consumer-grade cameras came in several
varieties, from cheap non-adjustable to adjustable with features.
Likewise with Polaroid.
Years ago, good photography could be expensive. To take really
good pictures, one needed an SLR, tripod, three lens (wide, normal,
telephoto), good flash, and filters. It added up.
I did a lot of indoor stuff, such as computer rooms, but they all
had that greenish cast from the fluorescent lighting. I didn't have
an FLD filter, and it would take up too much light for handheld
pictures anyway. A tripod would've been a big help, but they were
cumbersome to schlep around.
My digital is nice in that it electronically handles different
light sources and has a stabilizer for low shutter speeds. However,
it does not handle high-contrast scenes as well as film did.
I do like the automatic kiosks to make prints as they allow for
some correction and cropping.
|
|
|
|
| Re: mini film Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340674 is a reply to message #340599] |
Thu, 30 March 2017 14:18 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-4, Whiskers wrote:
>> As an aside, Kodak's venture into instant cameras was an expensive
>> boondoggle for it and Polaroid. After a long court battle, Kodak lost
>> the patent suit to Polaroid and had to pay out a lot of money, plus
>> anger consumer with a discontinued product line. But the court battle
>> was costly for Polaroid and lost a lot of sales. Sadly, two once
>> great companies went bankrupt and are now mere shadows of their
>> former selves.
>
> But Fuji and Lomo seem to be keeping the flame alive.
While Kodak never had a monopoly in the U.S., it was by far the
best and most popular film. Fuji came along with high quality
competition and really hurt Kodak.
As mentioned, back in the 1970s I used Agfa with good results.
But then they went to E-6, and all those slides are faded to nothing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340826 is a reply to message #340244] |
Sat, 01 April 2017 12:28 |
Jon Elson
Messages: 646
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> A recently aired episode covered industrial espionage by disloyal
> employees. There was extensive use of tiny electronic
> microphone/transmitters, as
> well as a relatively small TV camera. The episode was originally 254/13
> from December 1965.
>
> It was surprising to see such tiny sophisticated devices in use as far
> back as 1965
Sometime during the Viet Nam war, probab ly between 1965 and 1969, the US
bugged a phone line between Hanoi and Beijing. Ho Chi Minh had long talks
with Mao Ze Dong over that line.
The CIA rigged some helicopters with low-noise kits (lower rotor speed,
modified tail rotor and engine mufflers) and trained some Hmong tribesmen
for the mission. They built a bug INSIDE a glass phone pole insulator, and
made a solar cell array that lay on top of the crossarm. Then, in a tree a
few hundred yards away, they put a repeater that sent the signal to, I
think, Laos. They had to go to all this trouble because the line was
checked periodically from the air and ground. The bug on the pole was
totally invisible from the ground, and all you could see was the solar cells
from the air, which might have had some sort of cover or surface treatment
to make it the same color as the crossarm.
There was a story about this in Air & Space magazine about a decade ago.
The US presumably got a LOT of good intelligence out of this before the
thing was found.
Jon
|
|
|
|
| Re: Perry Mason TV show--bugs with micro-electronics [message #340835 is a reply to message #340826] |
Sat, 01 April 2017 13:13 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> writes:
> Sometime during the Viet Nam war, probab ly between 1965 and 1969, the US
> bugged a phone line between Hanoi and Beijing. Ho Chi Minh had long talks
> with Mao Ze Dong over that line.
>
> The CIA rigged some helicopters with low-noise kits (lower rotor speed,
> modified tail rotor and engine mufflers) and trained some Hmong tribesmen
> for the mission. They built a bug INSIDE a glass phone pole insulator, and
> made a solar cell array that lay on top of the crossarm. Then, in a tree a
> few hundred yards away, they put a repeater that sent the signal to, I
> think, Laos. They had to go to all this trouble because the line was
> checked periodically from the air and ground. The bug on the pole was
> totally invisible from the ground, and all you could see was the solar cells
> from the air, which might have had some sort of cover or surface treatment
> to make it the same color as the crossarm.
>
> There was a story about this in Air & Space magazine about a decade ago.
> The US presumably got a LOT of good intelligence out of this before the
> thing was found.
then there is "spook base"
While undergraduate in the 60s I was brought in as fulltime (one of the
first half dozen) employees into hdqtrs to help form Boeing Computer
Services ... consolidate dataprocessing into independent business unit
to better monetize the investment (even offering services to non-Boeing
entities). I thought Renton was possibly the largest IBM mainframe
datacenter in the world ... 360/65s were arriving faster than they could
be installed and being staged in the hallways around the machine
room. They were getting ready to replicate Renton datacenter up at the
new 747 plant in Everett ... disaster scenario where Mt. Rainier heats
up and mudslide takes out Renton datacenter. 747#3 was flying the skies
of seattle getting FAA flt. certification. Tour of the 747 passenger
mockup (south of Boeing field) included statement that there would be so
many passengers on 747, that it would never be served by fewer than four
jetways (how many people have been on 747 that were even served by 4
jetways?)
Much later I sponsored Boyd's briefings at IBM ... and he would refer to
being put in charge of "spook base" (possibly as punishment because he
would talk about constantly claiming that it wouldn't work) about the
time I was at Boeing. One of his biographies claims that "spook base"
was $2.5B windfall for IBM (approx ten times the late 60s estimate of
mainframe computers in Renton datacenter), "spook base" reference gone
404, but lives on at wayback machine ... including drones:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030212092342/http://home.att.ne t/~c.jeppeson/igloo_white.html
Batcat flights were replaced by a joint USAF/DARPA program code-named
Pave Eagle that was phased in for operational field trials in
1970. Under the program, six Beech A-36 Debonaire airframes were
modified as YQU-22A development aircraft. Later, one was designated as
YAU-22A, and twenty seven were produced as QU-22B aircraft, intended to
be operated as pilotless drones.
.... snip ...
Boyd posts & URLs
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
