On May 24, 1:06 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Marc wrote:
snip
Tom Anderson wrote:
snip
Cyclists back then must have been made of cast iron. Nobody had anything
more advanced than a Sturmey-Archer three-speed [1], and yet they still
tackled open roads, hills, whatever. Makes my 27-speed setup seem a bit
wimpish really.

Belay that! In part two, they have to get off and push up a hill!

tom

[1] Some, of course, would deny that any such thing exists.

--
Re-enacting the future

Unbelay that! Depsite a similarly unnecessary number of gears, I've
been reduced to walking a couple of times too.
Evidently I'm not made of cast-iron either. snif

bookieb.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

Part of the festival was the amusement park at Battersea - with the
Emmet Railway.


It was the Far Tottering and Oyster Creek Railway designed by Rowland
Emett. Emett was so fed up of people mis-spelling his name that he no
longer corrected people, nor cared, and many references therefore have
it wrong.

MatSav wrote:

Indeed they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batters...ersea_fun_fair
explains. I was there just a week before the collapse of the
roller-coaster, and the very thought of that puts me off using
one ever again.

I was also at Lulworth Cove, Dorset, on a Geology field trip -
just a week before a land slip killed a teacher and pupils (also
on a field trip). I'm seeing a pattern :-(

Would you be kind enough to post a list of your movements for the next ten
years please. This is purely to give everyone else the chance to be
somewhere different. :-)

Tom Anderson wrote

Cyclists back then must have been made of cast iron. Nobody had
anything
more advanced than a Sturmey-Archer three-speed [1], and yet they
still
tackled open roads, hills, whatever. Makes my 27-speed setup seem a
bit
wimpish really.

Belay that! In part two, they have to get off and push up a hill!

[1] Some, of course, would deny that any such thing exists.


Surely even those who incline that way would regard a Sturmey-Archer
four-speed as more advanced ?

--
Mike D

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote

Cyclists back then must have been made of cast iron. Nobody had
anything
more advanced than a Sturmey-Archer three-speed [1], and yet they
still
tackled open roads, hills, whatever. Makes my 27-speed setup seem a
bit
wimpish really.

Belay that! In part two, they have to get off and push up a hill!

[1] Some, of course, would deny that any such thing exists.


Surely even those who incline that way would regard a Sturmey-Archer
four-speed as more advanced ?


More advanced, yes, but not in keeping with tradition. ;-)

"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...
MatSav wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote
in
message ...

the NPL which was, and is, in Teddington.

Indeed it is - I work there!

Ah! I have an idea for how the NPL could use the spare bits in
the MSF signal to improve the service... Do you think they
might be up for that, or are they a Not-Invented-Here
organisation? (I guess the answer to that should be emailed
rather than, er, broadcast.)

With apologies for having missed your suggestion - NPL are a
Government-Owned, Company-Operated business - so I suspect they'd
welcome an opportunity to increase their profit. However, there
are constraints on what can be broadcast in particulat parts of
the spectrum - and I think the MSF frequency is prescribed by
statute, so it can't carry anything else. But I could be wrong,
of course. Try e-mailing them directly - contact details
available from their web site, http://www.npl.co.uk/time

--
MatSav

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:52:33 +0100, "MatSav" matthew | dot | savage |
at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com wrote:


"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...
MatSav wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote
in
message ...

the NPL which was, and is, in Teddington.

Indeed it is - I work there!

Ah! I have an idea for how the NPL could use the spare bits in
the MSF signal to improve the service... Do you think they
might be up for that, or are they a Not-Invented-Here
organisation? (I guess the answer to that should be emailed
rather than, er, broadcast.)

With apologies for having missed your suggestion - NPL are a
Government-Owned, Company-Operated business - so I suspect they'd
welcome an opportunity to increase their profit. However, there
are constraints on what can be broadcast in particulat parts of
the spectrum - and I think the MSF frequency is prescribed by
statute, so it can't carry anything else. But I could be wrong,
of course. Try e-mailing them directly - contact details
available from their web site, http://www.npl.co.uk/time

the coding is described in :-
http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/MSF_Time_Date_Code.pdf

If I'm reading various bits of info correctly the standard used by MSF
(UK) and DCF (DE) is an AFNOR (Association Française de
Normalisation)/ISO standard derived from an IRIG (Inter-Range
Instrumentation Group (USA) ) standard originally used for rocket
range testing purposes. It looks like there might now also be some ITU
involvement :-
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/oth...040001MSWE.doc

The MSF frequency IMU will be set by international agreement along
with other radio frequency allocations.

On Jun 8, 11:35*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:52:33 +0100, "MatSav" matthew | dot | savage |
at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote:

[snip]

Ah! I have an idea for how the NPL could use the spare bits in
the MSF signal to improve the service... Do you think they
might be up for that, or are they a Not-Invented-Here
organisation? (I guess the answer to that should be emailed
rather than, er, broadcast.)

With apologies for having missed your suggestion - NPL are a
Government-Owned, Company-Operated business - so I suspect they'd
welcome an opportunity to increase their profit. However, there
are constraints on what can be broadcast in particulat parts of
the spectrum - and I think the MSF frequency is prescribed by
statute, so it can't carry anything else. But I could be wrong,
of course. Try e-mailing them directly - contact details
available from their web site,http://www.npl.co.uk/time

the coding is described in :-
http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/MSF_Time_Date_Code.pdf

If I'm reading various bits of info correctly the standard used by MSF
(UK) and DCF (DE) is an AFNOR (Association Française de
Normalisation)/ISO standard derived from an IRIG (Inter-Range
Instrumentation Group (USA) ) standard originally used for rocket
range testing purposes. It looks like there might now also be some ITU
involvement :
-http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/oth/0A/08/R0A080000040001MSWE.doc

After I read the above, the old Motown lyrics raced through my mind...
"War, what is it good for..."


The MSF frequency IMU will be set by international agreement along
with other radio frequency allocations.