A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

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

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

CRTs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 23rd 17, 06:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default CRTs



"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 22/05/2017 20:59, Ian Field wrote:

A rental company near me was the exact opposite.

What they scrapped usually ended up at the council tip and was highly
sought after.

They retired stock long before it got expensive to maintain - usually
easy to repair and I didn't get many returns.


I used to buy 100 ex-rental sets for 150. With only elementary knowledge
I'd get about half of them working. Hil used to do up the cabinets and
we'd sell them for 12 to 20.

I used to drip feed the rest to the council dustbin men. Each week I'd
give them a fiver between them and they'd take five sets, put them in the
lorry, and we'd stand back as the the crushing arm came across.


When our council tip was a bit more happy go lucky - I got the bloke running
it to edge the compactor ram forward while I wedged a 26" CRT diagonally.

Once I climbed out he hit the button, it was heaving and grunting
impressively - just as some bloke went up the steps to tip his rubbish, the
tube imploded - the ground shook and the bloke was showered by a flurry of
silver snow.

  #52  
Old May 23rd 17, 06:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Richmond[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default CRTs

Norman Wells writes:

On 23/05/2017 15:42, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:

It's similar to the thinking that allows the expression "5-times
smaller than so-and-so". "5-times larger", yes, but not smaller.


Why do you object to it? Smallness is the inverse of bigness. You
can measure smallness (e.g. in m^-3), and something a fifth as big
will be five times as small. It's no different from resistance and
conductance.


It's just mathematically illiterate. 'Times' means multiplication, not
division. It's a matter of language.


What about 100 times 0.2?
  #53  
Old May 23rd 17, 06:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default CRTs

On Tue, 23 May 2017 09:57:22 +0100, David Wade
wrote:

On 22/05/2017 17:57, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:13:45 +0100, Richmond
wrote:

I am keeping my Widescreen CRT until it dies, because I think CRT is
better than flat screen, or at least better than the non HD ones.


I was told there was no point in buying an HD decoder box for a CRT
television because SCART is not HD nor is a CRT screen.

I bought one anyway and I am very pleased with it. My logic is that a
better quality input converted to analogue will still provide better
output whether it is technically HD or not. Is there merit in this,
or is it just nonsense?

If I understand the proposed changes properley, the scheme for getting
regional content on BBC news involves removing the SD streams, so you
will need an HD capable box to watch BBC news and some other BBC channels.

Which means I will either have to either replace my Kitchen TV or buy an
external HD capable converter.

I have noew junked more useless digital TVs and boxes than I had analoge
sets. Well it feels like that.

Where are you getting this information from? A link would be helpful.
  #54  
Old May 23rd 17, 06:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default CRTs

On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:20:29 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2017 09:57:22 +0100
David Wade wrote:

On 22/05/2017 17:57, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:13:45 +0100, Richmond
wrote:

I am keeping my Widescreen CRT until it dies, because I think CRT
is better than flat screen, or at least better than the non HD
ones.

I was told there was no point in buying an HD decoder box for a CRT
television because SCART is not HD nor is a CRT screen.

I bought one anyway and I am very pleased with it. My logic is
that a better quality input converted to analogue will still
provide better output whether it is technically HD or not. Is
there merit in this, or is it just nonsense?

If I understand the proposed changes properley, the scheme for
getting regional content on BBC news involves removing the SD
streams, so you will need an HD capable box to watch BBC news and
some other BBC channels.

Which means I will either have to either replace my Kitchen TV or buy
an external HD capable converter.

I have noew junked more useless digital TVs and boxes than I had
analoge sets. Well it feels like that.

Dave


"It All Makes Work for the Working Man to Do".


The Chinese Working Man, presumably?
  #55  
Old May 23rd 17, 06:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Richard Tobin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default CRTs

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

It's similar to the thinking that allows the expression "5-times
smaller than so-and-so". "5-times larger", yes, but not smaller.


Why do you object to it? Smallness is the inverse of bigness. You
can measure smallness (e.g. in m^-3), and something a fifth as big
will be five times as small. It's no different from resistance and
conductance.


It's just mathematically illiterate. 'Times' means multiplication, not
division. It's a matter of language.


You can multiply smallness, just as you can multiply conductance.

An object with bigness 10 m^3 has smallness 0.1 m^-3. An object
five times smaller has smallness 0.5 m^-3, which corresponds to
a bigness of 2 m^3.

-- Richard
  #56  
Old May 23rd 17, 07:32 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Field
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default CRTs



"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 May 2017 09:57:22 +0100, David Wade
wrote:

On 22/05/2017 17:57, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:13:45 +0100, Richmond
wrote:

I am keeping my Widescreen CRT until it dies, because I think CRT is
better than flat screen, or at least better than the non HD ones.

I was told there was no point in buying an HD decoder box for a CRT
television because SCART is not HD nor is a CRT screen.

I bought one anyway and I am very pleased with it. My logic is that a
better quality input converted to analogue will still provide better
output whether it is technically HD or not. Is there merit in this,
or is it just nonsense?

If I understand the proposed changes properley, the scheme for getting
regional content on BBC news involves removing the SD streams, so you
will need an HD capable box to watch BBC news and some other BBC channels.

Which means I will either have to either replace my Kitchen TV or buy an
external HD capable converter.

I have noew junked more useless digital TVs and boxes than I had analoge
sets. Well it feels like that.

Where are you getting this information from? A link would be helpful.


You can probably find it under dodgy RoHS soldering - but they do seem to be
getting better at solving the reliability problems.

  #57  
Old May 23rd 17, 07:52 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default CRTs

On 23/05/2017 19:11, Ian Field wrote:

How can you let the absence of something out?


With an algebraic equation.


That proves what I told the maths teacher is true: Algebra is a load of
********.

Bill
  #58  
Old May 23rd 17, 08:12 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default CRTs

On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:32:18 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 May 2017 09:57:22 +0100, David Wade
wrote:

On 22/05/2017 17:57, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 14:13:45 +0100, Richmond
wrote:

I am keeping my Widescreen CRT until it dies, because I think CRT is
better than flat screen, or at least better than the non HD ones.

I was told there was no point in buying an HD decoder box for a CRT
television because SCART is not HD nor is a CRT screen.

I bought one anyway and I am very pleased with it. My logic is that a
better quality input converted to analogue will still provide better
output whether it is technically HD or not. Is there merit in this,
or is it just nonsense?

If I understand the proposed changes properley, the scheme for getting
regional content on BBC news involves removing the SD streams, so you
will need an HD capable box to watch BBC news and some other BBC channels.

Which means I will either have to either replace my Kitchen TV or buy an
external HD capable converter.

I have noew junked more useless digital TVs and boxes than I had analoge
sets. Well it feels like that.

Where are you getting this information from? A link would be helpful.


You can probably find it under dodgy RoHS soldering - but they do seem to be
getting better at solving the reliability problems.


I was referring to the claim that regional programming would move to
DVB-T2 rather than the reliabilty issue. I should have made this
clearer.
  #59  
Old May 23rd 17, 09:08 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default CRTs

On 23/05/2017 19:24, Richmond wrote:
Norman Wells writes:

On 23/05/2017 15:42, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Davey wrote:

It's similar to the thinking that allows the expression "5-times
smaller than so-and-so". "5-times larger", yes, but not smaller.

Why do you object to it? Smallness is the inverse of bigness. You
can measure smallness (e.g. in m^-3), and something a fifth as big
will be five times as small. It's no different from resistance and
conductance.


It's just mathematically illiterate. 'Times' means multiplication, not
division. It's a matter of language.


What about 100 times 0.2?


It's multiplication. It's what 'times' means.
  #60  
Old May 23rd 17, 09:20 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default CRTs

On 23/05/2017 19:48, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

It's similar to the thinking that allows the expression "5-times
smaller than so-and-so". "5-times larger", yes, but not smaller.


Why do you object to it? Smallness is the inverse of bigness. You
can measure smallness (e.g. in m^-3), and something a fifth as big
will be five times as small. It's no different from resistance and
conductance.


It's just mathematically illiterate. 'Times' means multiplication, not
division. It's a matter of language.


You can multiply smallness, just as you can multiply conductance.

An object with bigness 10 m^3 has smallness 0.1 m^-3


No it doesn't. It has a size. That size is 10 m^3.

An object five times smaller has smallness 0.5 m^-3,


No it doesn't, because 'five times smaller' is nonsensical, meaningless
twaddle.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.