On 02/03/2022 20:14, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Britain didn't really need to jam Haw-Haw, because most of his
> propaganda was so absurd that few (if any) of his listeners believed a
> word of it (or at least they could distinguish the lies from those parts
> that did have some grains of truths in them).

My mum was in the Land Army during the war, and she said they
deliberately listened to Lord Haw-Haw because he was hilarious.

It is also worth noting that his name was William Joyce. The name Lord
Haw-Haw was deliberately chosen to undermine his credibility.

Jim

In article <j8a858FahpkU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

> I know one person who seems to regard RT as a good source of dirt on
> "our corrupt conservative government".

Some irony in that given the links between Russian kleptocrats and the
Tories!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j8balbFginuU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Ofcom did nothing. They are still procrastinating, so whatever they
> eventually decide will be academic now.

OfCrap are a chocolate fireguard. They simply sell airspace to whoever bids
high enough.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <svpu2d$ant$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> I suppose one difference is that during WWII, people might tell their
> neighbours what Lord Haw-Haw had been saying and have a laugh about it.

> Now the propaganda from the Russian equivalent can spread much quicker
> by being quoted on the Internet so some will believe it.

The obverse of this is that these days I suspect many Russians have mobile
devices and can see material from outwith Russia. That may, erm. perhaps
'clash' whith what the 'official' media they have tells them.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 03/03/2022 09:59, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The obverse of this is that these days I suspect many Russians have mobile
> devices and can see material from outwith Russia. That may, erm. perhaps
> 'clash' whith what the 'official' media they have tells them.

Though that has the disadvantage that the authorities know what they are
looking at. Was it Iran where there were claims about how the Internet
allowed protesters to communicate and access external sources but they
found they were arrested by the authorities who had tracked them down.

On 03/03/2022 09:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j8balbFginuU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Ofcom did nothing. They are still procrastinating, so whatever they
>> eventually decide will be academic now.
> OfCrap are a chocolate fireguard. They simply sell airspace to whoever bids
> high enough.
>
I agree. As I said elsewhere, I suspect Ofcom dragged their feet knowing
that as far UK broadcasts were concerned, the situation would be
eclipsed by the EU actions regarding the satellite distrubution feeds.

That's exactly what happened

On 03/03/2022 08:22, MB wrote:
> On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
>> So they could not be used as beacons?  I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
>> all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
>> not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
>
> I thought that the German transmitters were only shutdown during local
> air raids just as the BBC ones were though there were the lower power
> Group H ones here.
>

Can't recall the source of my recollection. But I see Briggs compares
the BBC in Nov 1940 with Germany where

"Many medium-wave German stations were regularly closed early in the
evening, and on a bad day, like 21 October, all but four German and
German-controlled long and medium-wave stations in Europe were off the
air for a significant period."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
>> On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>> On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
>>>> unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
>>>> worrying.  I wonder what happened to the country where the
>>>> government never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2
>>>> because people could be trusted to judge for themselves.  And what
>>>> will be taken off air by future governments.
>
> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
> historical time that I am aware of.  Rather it is a myth usually spouted
> parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and
> propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
> whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been
> multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such
> decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.

Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
"Government view" may be right sometimes.

--
Max Demian

On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
>> historical time that I am aware of.  Rather it is a myth usually
>> spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
>> disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of
>> the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too
>> frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and
>> misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
>> damaged this country best interests.
>
> Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
> judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
> example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
> blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
> "Government view" may be right sometimes.

Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
thereby mislead the public.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/03/2022 09:33, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 02/03/2022 20:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Britain didn't really need to jam Haw-Haw, because most of his
>> propaganda was so absurd that few (if any) of his listeners believed a
>> word of it (or at least they could distinguish the lies from those parts
>> that did have some grains of truths in them).
>
> My mum was in the Land Army during the war, and she said they
> deliberately listened to Lord Haw-Haw because he was hilarious.
>
> It is also worth noting that his name was William Joyce. The name Lord
> Haw-Haw was deliberately chosen to undermine his credibility.
>
> Jim
The British executed him illegally.

Bill

On 03/03/2022 15:28, williamwright wrote:
> The British executed him illegally.

That is debatable but I don't think he will be mounting an appeal.

On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
> On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
>>> historical time that I am aware of.  Rather it is a myth usually
>>> spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
>>> disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests
>>> of the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too
>>> frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news and
>>> misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
>>> damaged this country best interests.
>>
>> Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
>> judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
>> example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
>> blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
>> "Government view" may be right sometimes.
>
> Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
> Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
> thereby mislead the public.

Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
lying or not. And most issues that people care about are matters of
opinion not matters of fact.

--
Max Demian

On 03/03/2022 17:28, Max Demian wrote:
> On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
>>>> historical time that I am aware of.  Rather it is a myth usually
>>>> spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in
>>>> disseminating lies and propaganda, often against the best interests
>>>> of the wider country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far
>>>> too frequently, there have been multiple occasions when fake news
>>>> and misinformation have led to such decisions or behaviour that have
>>>> damaged this country best interests.
>>>
>>> Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
>>> judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
>>> example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
>>> blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
>>> "Government view" may be right sometimes.
>>
>> Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
>> Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
>> thereby mislead the public.
>
> Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
> lying or not.

You can when they deny scientific findings or economic facts, as is
all-too-frequently the case.

> And most issues that people care about are matters of
> opinion not matters of fact.

That in itself is your own personal opinion, not a matter of fact, and,
on the contrary, by definition the issues that are most often lied about
are well-established facts, because that's how we know they're being
lied about.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <59c30b6d15charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <svoecq$6fn$1@dont-email.me>,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 02/03/2022 17:59, Robin wrote:
>> >
>> > On 02/03/2022 17:18, Brian Gregory wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 02/03/2022 16:41, Robin wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You - like so many - celebrate censorship of lawful speech. (If
>> >>> unlawful then criminal sanctions are available.) I find that
>> >>> worrying. I wonder what happened to the country where the government
>> >>> never jammed William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") in WW2 because people
>> >>> could be trusted to judge for themselves. And what will be taken off
>> >>> air by future governments.
>
>> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
>> historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually spouted
>> parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating lies and
>> propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider country as a
>> whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently, there have been
>> multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation have led to such
>> decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country best interests.
>
>> >> And if lord haw-haw had started to be believed?
>> >> Wouldn't they have tried to do something about it?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe they were trying to stop lord haw-haw.
>> >> If not Why did the Germans go to such lengths, creating incredibly
>> >> powerful mobile transmitters and moving them around?
>> >
>> > So they could not be used as beacons? I recall Goering in 1940 ordered
>> > all medium and long wave transmitters off air overnight so they could
>> > not be used as beacons in UK night raids.
>
>> Read, if you haven't already, R V Jones - "Most Secret War". Direction
>> finding beacons were discussed in it, but it was a long time ago now
>> since it read it, so I can't remember any details, but I do seem to
>> recall that there was some problem with them.
>
>The beams got bent, so intersection between two (the target) ended up in
>the wrong place.
>

Have a Google for "the battle of the beams"

We had that very powerful TV transmitter at Alexandra palace came in
very useful that:)
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

Mark Carver wrote:

>On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:

>> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
>> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
>> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
>> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
>> which wasn't particularly comfortable.
>>
>> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
>> couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
>> out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
>> confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
>> adequate until we were nearer home.
>>
>Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
>and Burghead have muddled the signal ?

I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
I wouldn't like to say which year.

I am in no doubt about what happened on the flight, as I was
sitting in the right-hand seat, making sure not to touch
anything. ;-)

The radar was in weather mode, and "interesting" clouds flashed
on the display, and we avoided them like one does potholes.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:g-Kdnb8OwLRaZ73_nZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
>>>> historical time that I am aware of. Rather it is a myth usually
>>>> spouted parrot-fashion by those with a vested interest in disseminating
>>>> lies and propaganda, often against the best interests of the wider
>>>> country as a whole, and, as we've discussed here far too frequently,
>>>> there have been multiple occasions when fake news and misinformation
>>>> have led to such decisions or behaviour that have damaged this country
>>>> best interests.
>>>
>>> Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
>>> judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
>>> example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
>>> blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
>>> "Government view" may be right sometimes.
>>
>> Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
>> Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
>> thereby mislead the public.
>
> Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
> lying or not. And most issues that people care about are matters of
> opinion not matters of fact.

Allowing people (eg broadcasters) to express a variety of opinions is
"freedom of speech", and that should be allowed.

But telling lies of the form "Russia has bombed this city and destroyed this
building" when the building is still standing is lying - it *factually*
incorrect, as opposed to a different opinion or a different filtering of
what to show and what not to show. And lying *should* be prevented.

In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>,
Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:

> >On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:

> >> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
> >> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
> >> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
> >> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
> >> which wasn't particularly comfortable.
> >>
> >> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
> >> couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
> >> out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
> >> confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
> >> adequate until we were nearer home.
> >>
> >Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
> >and Burghead have muddled the signal ?

> I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
> I wouldn't like to say which year.

Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
Burghead were added..

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/03/2022 18:57, tony sayer wrote:
> Have a Google for "the battle of the beams"
>
> We had that very powerful TV transmitter at Alexandra palace came in
> very useful that:)

"Beam Bending" was done from Meaconing sites which were small relatively
low power sites. Alexandra was prepared for use jamming German tank
communications after an invasion and later for disrupting German
ground-to-air communications (from what I remember).

In article <g-Kdnb8OwLRaZ73_nZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 03/03/2022 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 03/03/2022 12:06, Max Demian wrote:
> >> On 02/03/2022 18:52, Java Jive wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Freedom of speech, as an absolute right, has never existed in any
> >>> historical time that I am aware of.
> >>
> >> Freedom of speech enables us to decide what is true using our own
> >> judgment of the ideas presented. If we only have one version, for
> >> example the Government one, we can't decide so easily, apart from a
> >> blanket rejection of the official view, which would be unwise, as the
> >> "Government view" may be right sometimes.
> >
> > Indeed, but that is a different thing from saying that the "Freedom of
> > Speech" argument should allow people to lie in public discussion and
> > thereby mislead the public.

> Yes it does, as, unless you are God, you can't tell whether people are
> lying or not.

Erm, that depends on the case I'd think. But I agree that some people are
stubbornly deluded about their contra-factual beliefs and reject evidence
that clashes with it out of hand. However they remain responsible for any
harm caused if they persist. Wilful delusions can be just as dangerous as
knowingly telling serious lies.

> And most issues that people care about are matters of
> opinion not matters of fact.

"Freedom of Speech" doesn't justify allowing someone to shout "Fire!" in a
crowded theatre when there is no fire. Even if they thought it a 'fact',

The point is that false statements and beliefs can do harm. So people have
a responsibility to ensure their comments are correct when an error may
cause serious harm.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

charles wrote:

>In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>,
> Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>> Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> >On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>
>> >> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
>> >> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
>> >> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
>> >> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
>> >> which wasn't particularly comfortable.
>> >>
>> >> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
>> >> couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
>> >> out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
>> >> confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
>> >> adequate until we were nearer home.
>> >>
>> >Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
>> >and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
>
>> I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
>> I wouldn't like to say which year.
>
>Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
>Burghead were added..

Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never
heard of the transmitters.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 04/03/2022 10:07, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> charles wrote:
>
>> In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>,
>> Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
>>>>> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
>>>>> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
>>>>> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress,
>>>>> which wasn't particularly comfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot
>>>>> couldn't get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping
>>>>> out. However, after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected,
>>>>> confirmed by the familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly
>>>>> adequate until we were nearer home.
>>>>>
>>>> Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't Westerglen
>>>> and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
>>> I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but
>>> I wouldn't like to say which year.
>> Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
>> Burghead were added..
> Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never
> heard of the transmitters.
>
In short, up until Nov 1978 BBC 200 kHz was just a single service from
Droitwich.

On 23rd November 78 (the day the BBC shuffled all their national MW and
LW services) two transmitters were added, also on 200 kHz.
Westerglen (halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh) and Burghead (east of
Inverness)

So after that date, the use of Droitwich as a navigation beacon would
have become 'blurred'

In article <m5p32hdnqlpq32h3ovu2sppdjpun8rme4t@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
<chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> charles wrote:

> >In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
> > <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> >> Mark Carver wrote:
> >
> >> >On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> >
> >> >> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
> >> >> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
> >> >> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
> >> >> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress, which
> >> >> wasn't particularly comfortable.
> >> >>
> >> >> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot couldn't
> >> >> get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping out. However,
> >> >> after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected, confirmed by the
> >> >> familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly adequate until we
> >> >> were nearer home.
> >> >>
> >> >Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't
> >> >Westerglen and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
> >
> >> I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but I
> >> wouldn't like to say which year.
> >
> >Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
> >Burghead were added..

> Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never heard of
> the transmitters.

Probably because they are both in Scotland and, therefore, of no interest
to you.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <j8e79mF31v4U1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 10:07, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> > charles wrote:
> >
> >> In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
> >> <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> >>> Mark Carver wrote:
> >>>> On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> >>>>> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
> >>>>> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
> >>>>> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
> >>>>> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress, which
> >>>>> wasn't particularly comfortable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot couldn't
> >>>>> get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping out. However,
> >>>>> after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected, confirmed by the
> >>>>> familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly adequate until we
> >>>>> were nearer home.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't
> >>>> Westerglen and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
> >>> I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but I
> >>> wouldn't like to say which year.
> >> Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
> >> Burghead were added..
> > Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never heard of
> > the transmitters.
> >
> In short, up until Nov 1978 BBC 200 kHz was just a single service from
> Droitwich.

> On 23rd November 78 (the day the BBC shuffled all their national MW and
> LW services) two transmitters were added, also on 200 kHz. Westerglen
> (halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh) and Burghead (east of Inverness)

> So after that date, the use of Droitwich as a navigation beacon would
> have become 'blurred'

I suspect it depends of how far south of Hadrian's Wall you were. That's
where big blurring happens.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In message <59c3dc77fdcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
>In article <j8e79mF31v4U1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2022 10:07, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> > charles wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <ei722hpmfbrooqgmghmru4vujjsjfe03ri@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
>> >> <chris@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
>> >>> Mark Carver wrote:
>> >>>> On 03/03/2022 08:13, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> >>>>> A firm I once worked for had a Cessna 421, which I flew in a few
>> >>>>> times. The most memorably occasion was from Västerås to East
>> >>>>> Midlands in headwinds which were so strong that we had to stay
>> >>>>> below about 10,000 ft in order to make significant progress, which
>> >>>>> wasn't particularly comfortable.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> At this height, way out over the North Sea, the auto pilot couldn't
>> >>>>> get a very good radio beacon signal and kept dropping out. However,
>> >>>>> after a few adjustments, Droitwich was selected, confirmed by the
>> >>>>> familiar sound of the BBC, which was perfectly adequate until we
>> >>>>> were nearer home.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Was this before or after Nov 1978, because after 78 wouldn't
>> >>>> Westerglen and Burghead have muddled the signal ?
>> >>> I can't be absolutely sure. It was certainly in the late 70s, but I
>> >>> wouldn't like to say which year.
>> >> Novemer 1978 - the Great Wavelenght Changes - was when Westerglan &
>> >> Burghead were added..
>> > Sorry, I was commenting on the date of my flight, I have never heard of
>> > the transmitters.
>> >
>> In short, up until Nov 1978 BBC 200 kHz was just a single service from
>> Droitwich.
>
>> On 23rd November 78 (the day the BBC shuffled all their national MW and
>> LW services) two transmitters were added, also on 200 kHz. Westerglen
>> (halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh) and Burghead (east of Inverness)
>
>> So after that date, the use of Droitwich as a navigation beacon would
>> have become 'blurred'
>
>I suspect it depends of how far south of Hadrian's Wall you were. That's
>where big blurring happens.
>
I don't know how the Radio 2 signal is at Hadrian's Wall, but with a
non-directional receiving aerial (eg in your car) it's just a load of
mush around the north east Borders area. Burghead is probably a lot
weaker. With a transistor portable you can null out Westerglen, and it's
at least intelligible (probably good enough to hear the cricket!).
However, as Droitwich is distinctly the most powerful, at a distance to
the east it's possible it might still provide a general indication of
the direction the UK lies.
--
Ian

On 04/03/2022 11:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I don't know how the Radio 2 signal is at Hadrian's Wall, but with a
> non-directional receiving aerial (eg in your car) it's just a load of
> mush around the north east Borders area. Burghead is probably a lot
> weaker. With a transistor portable you can null out Westerglen, and
> it's at least intelligible (probably good enough to hear the
> cricket!). However, as Droitwich is distinctly the most powerful, at a
> distance to the east it's possible it might still provide a general
> indication of the direction the UK lies.
You mean Radio 4 of course :-)

When Droitwich has had periods of being off air, the signal from the
other two sites in Scotland is very weak down here in Southern England.
Would be interesting to see what the relative strengths might be on the
Dutch coast for instance ?