OT: Words from a great man

  • Thread starter Kurgan Gringioni
  • Start date



On 11/14/2007 07:50 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom
Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> Steven loves the idea of supporting people who would murder him for
>>> his own values. And he is strange enough not to even understand that.
>>>
>>> If you're going to support a penny ante louse (and we're forced to do
>>> that whether we like it or not - you might actually read some of the
>>> writings of Lyndon Johnson where he expressed complete surprise that
>>> you could buy off some of the world's worst dictators rather cheaply)
>>> you might as well get one that will actually support you and not one
>>> who wants to destroy the world.

>>
>> The problem with this is when they look good now (such as the
>> mujahideen in Afghanistan, supported by both political parties
>> since they were doing a nice job of stopping the Soviets) but then
>> a few years later they turn out not to be such good guys (bin
>> Laden, indirectly the Taleban).

>
> Pete, if you're going to comment on these things at least know something
> about it. The Mujahadeen were not "a" group but a loose association of a lot
> of groups. The Taliban were only one that actually worked to overthrow
> everyone else while the rest of the Mujahadeen's members worked to defeat
> the Soviets. Pretending that this was a single entity is completely
> incorrect.
>
>>> Liberals supported Stalin to the point where they printed complete
>>> and utter lies in the New York Times about the great life under
>>> Stalin. And virtually every tin horn lunatic that had the
>>> intelligence to quote socialist propaganda since then has been
>>> supported without question by Liberals here.

>>
>> There is a difference between communism and socialism. It doesn't help
>> that communists tend to claim they're socialists because it sounds
>> nicer, but there is a difference. Then there is the issue of government on
>> top of that.

>
> Indeed, but as some have said, most socialisms that managed to obtain a way
> to retain power were no better than communism in the long run.




Seems like Sweden has been run by Socialists (or rather, the Social
Democratic Worker's Party) for years.

And I seem to recall that our good friends in the United Kingdom have been
lead by the Labour Party (whose political ideology is one of democratic
socialism). In fact, the Labour Party's official European Parliament
affiliation is with the Party of European Socialists, and international
affiliation is with the Socialist International.

Other major European and U.S. allies affiliated with the Socialist
International are currently governing:

Austria - Social Democratic Party of Austria
Belgium - Socialist Party
Estonia - Social Democratic Party
Hungary - Hungarian Socialist Party
Italy - Democrats of the Left & Italian Democratic Socialists
(coalition under Olive Tree)
Lithuania - Lithuanian Social Democratic Party
Netherlands - Labour Party
New Zealand - New Zealand Labour Party
Norway - Norwegian Labour Party
Portugal - Socialist Party
San Marino - Party of Socialists and Democrats
Slovakia - Direction - Social Democracy
Spain - Spanish Socialist Workers' Party
South Africa - African National Congress
Switzerland - Social Democratic Party of Switzerland



>> Socialism assumes that the richer people in society will pay for the
>> poorer people to have certain basics.

>
> Funny and all this time I thought that socialism essentially attempts to put
> EVERYONE on the same economic level with the exception of those holding the
> reins of power.
>


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
 
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:52:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On Nov 12, 8:22 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:01:55 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...

>>
>> >> Those who are ignorant of history..or give the actors a pass...are
>> >> doomed to repeat it.

>>
>> >> Liberals for the most party..the doomer antiwar ones at the least,
>> >> should be taken promptly out and hung before they condeme the entire
>> >> Middle East to that which they condemed South East Asia, all for the
>> >> sake of partisan power play.

>>
>> >The Liberals take the easy road - they deny that any of this happened. Then
>> >they claim that Socialism in the guise of "Liberalism" is a good thing.

>>
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?

>
>Tell us "Cliff" - how much time did the Iraqis have to send such
>things over the border into neighboring countries?


These would be the very same "neighboring countries" the
US was protecting from Saddam?
LMAO !!!
--
Cliff
 
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:24:45 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 12, 11:22 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:01:55 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...

>>
>> >> Those who are ignorant of history..or give the actors a pass...are
>> >> doomed to repeat it.

>>
>> >> Liberals for the most party..the doomer antiwar ones at the least,
>> >> should be taken promptly out and hung before they condeme the entire
>> >> Middle East to that which they condemed South East Asia, all for the
>> >> sake of partisan power play.

>>
>> >The Liberals take the easy road - they deny that any of this happened. Then
>> >they claim that Socialism in the guise of "Liberalism" is a good thing.

>>
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?


>How're the Utopias you helped create working put in Vietnam, and Cuba?
>They score real well in all the human rights, and freedoms reports,
>right? That Mugabe guy who was your biggest hero in the 70s is raking
>in the Nobel peace prizes, and Chavez is Mother Theresa, andthe worlds
>greatest humantitarian rolled into one, right?
> Pot, Kettle, Black, except it's damned near impossible to find a
>'Liberal" willing to take any responsibility for the actions of those
>they supported and empowered, and in many cases continue to support
>despite the tortures, murders, and total lack of freedom to dissent.
>The same people bashing Bush, who's a jackass, are cheering on Mugabe,
>Castro, and Chavez. As long as the scum hate America, "Liberals" sill
>cheer them on and support them no matter what they do.
> Bill C


Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
 
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:15:38 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 12, 10:43 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:41:00 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >The Germans never located most of the Brit
>> >radar sights because they had no clue they existed

>>
>> Actually, the early British electronic aircraft detection systems were
>> not radars at all IIRC.
>> --
>> Cliff

>
>They used listening stations for vectoring by sound, but that was much
>less efficient.
>
> They did have radar staions though:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2ckeds
>
>Chain Home - a network of British early warning radars used to defend
>Britain in the Battle Of Britain. It was an early and primitive radar,
>but it was powerful and reliable, and was efficiently operated by
>experienced operators, and therefore was a critical asset which
>allowed the British Fighter Command to optimally engage incoming
>German bomber formations. (range: 185 miles)
>
>Bill C


Bill,
I seem to recall it as being short-wave RDF of some sort. The
incoming planes would mess up the wave patterns/signals
or something.
No time now to search.
--
Cliff
 
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:57:18 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:41:00 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Germans never located most of the Brit
>>>radar sights because they had no clue they existed

>>
>> Actually, the early British electronic aircraft detection systems were
>> not radars at all IIRC.

>
>You seem to recall a whole lot incorrectly. But then, Liberals generally do.


[
Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892-1973), a descendant of James Watt, received a
degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
and in 1915 began a career in the British civil service, He patented his first
radio location device, a device for locating atmospheric discharges, in 1919. In
1935, he received his eleventh radio-location patent, a device for detecting and
locating an approaching aircraft. In the following years he was the leader of
the intensive development of aircraft radio-location, the secret weapon of the
Battle of Britain.
]
Operated in the meter wavelengths. Pre-microwave RADAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home
[
Chain Home looked nothing like the radar sets found at modern commercial
airports. There was no rotating antenna sending out a "searchlight" beam of
radio energy, but instead an array of fixed antennas. The transmitting array was
formed of wires strung between high (110 m) metal towers, and this array sent
out a "floodlight" of radio energy covering a swath over the ground of about 100
degrees.[1] The receiving array was on wood towers (about 73 m high) and
consisted of two antennas at right angles to each other.[2] The receiving
antennas were directional in their sensitivity, so the signal strength received
by each depended on the angle between it and the target. An operator would
manually adjust a comparator device to find what angle to the target best
matched the relative strengths of the two received signals. The angle of
elevation to the target was estimated by similar comparisons to the signal
strengths from a second pair of receiving antennas. This second pair was located
closer to the ground, which produced a different sensitivity in elevation.[3]
The time delay of the echo determined the range to the target.

The Chain Home stations were designed to operate at 20-50 MHz although typical
operations were at 20-30 MHz, or about a 12 metre wavelength.[4] The
availability of multiple operating frequencies gave some protection from
jamming. The detection range was typically 120 miles, but could be better.[5]
]

The Brits won the Battle of Britan mostly because they only had to know
that the Germans were coming (and roughly where) & then send up their
fighters in advance of them.

Battle of the Beams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_beams
--
Cliff
 
On Nov 15, 12:19 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > Bertrand tapped his mom-in-law. Another great frenchman!

>
> If he was so great why didn't he tap his mom-in-laws granddaughter ?


The standards are different for great texans.


o Disperse costs, concentrate benefits.
 
Cliff wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:57:18 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >"Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Actually, the early British electronic aircraft detection systems were
> >> not radars at all IIRC.

> >
> >You seem to recall a whole lot incorrectly. But then, Liberals generally do.

>
> [
> Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892-1973), a descendant of James Watt, received a
> degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
> and in 1915 began a career in the British civil service, He patented his first
> radio location device, a device for locating atmospheric discharges, in 1919. In
> 1935, he received his eleventh radio-location patent, a device for detecting and
> locating an approaching aircraft. In the following years he was the leader of
> the intensive development of aircraft radio-location, the secret weapon of the
> Battle of Britain.
> ]
> Operated in the meter wavelengths. Pre-microwave RADAR.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home
> [
> Chain Home looked nothing like the radar sets found at modern commercial
> airports.


Radar = RAdio Detection And Ranging.

Chain Home operated on radio frequencies, provided direction and
range. Fine, it was more of a pain to operate than a modern radar, but
then we still say an old flintlock musket is a gun, despite the fact
that a modern rifle is easier to operate.

Pete
 
On Nov 15, 11:25 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:15:38 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Nov 12, 10:43 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:41:00 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >The Germans never located most of the Brit
> >> >radar sights because they had no clue they existed

>
> >> Actually, the early British electronic aircraft detection systems were
> >> not radars at all IIRC.
> >> --
> >> Cliff

>
> >They used listening stations for vectoring by sound, but that was much
> >less efficient.

>
> > They did have radar staions though:

>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2ckeds

>
> >Chain Home - a network of British early warning radars used to defend
> >Britain in the Battle Of Britain. It was an early and primitive radar,
> >but it was powerful and reliable, and was efficiently operated by
> >experienced operators, and therefore was a critical asset which
> >allowed the British Fighter Command to optimally engage incoming
> >German bomber formations. (range: 185 miles)

>
> >Bill C

>
> Bill,
> I seem to recall it as being short-wave RDF of some sort. The
> incoming planes would mess up the wave patterns/signals
> or something.
> No time now to search.
> --
> Cliff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yeah that rings a bell too. Same here, I'd have to go digging since
the wetware is not as reliable as it could be.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 11:25 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:15:38 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Nov 12, 10:43 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:41:00 -0800, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >The Germans never located most of the Brit
> > >> >radar sights because they had no clue they existed

> >
> > >> Actually, the early British electronic aircraft detection systems were
> > >> not radars at all IIRC.
> > >> --
> > >> Cliff

> >
> > >They used listening stations for vectoring by sound, but that was much
> > >less efficient.

> >
> > > They did have radar staions though:

> >
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2ckeds

> >
> > >Chain Home - a network of British early warning radars used to defend
> > >Britain in the Battle Of Britain. It was an early and primitive radar,
> > >but it was powerful and reliable, and was efficiently operated by
> > >experienced operators, and therefore was a critical asset which
> > >allowed the British Fighter Command to optimally engage incoming
> > >German bomber formations. (range: 185 miles)

> >
> > >Bill C

> >
> > Bill,
> > I seem to recall it as being short-wave RDF of some sort. The
> > incoming planes would mess up the wave patterns/signals
> > or something.
> > No time now to search.
> > --
> > Cliff- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> Yeah that rings a bell too. Same here, I'd have to go digging since
> the wetware is not as reliable as it could be.
> Bill C


The common name for the early radar was bedspring radar. The antennas
looked like bedsprings mounted vertically. The radar itself could only
give a range signal but not an asimuth angle but with a whole chain of
radar stations along the coast the ranges from each antenna system was
plotted and an accurate position was calculated by where the range
returns of two stations crossed. The freq/wavelenth that they operated
on I believe was 10 cm. but it could have been a lower freq. Radar was
developed from seeing tv signals change and flutter as an aircraft went
overhead. From that beginning it was theroized that you could get the
distance to a remote aircraft by bouncing a signal off the aircraft and
measuring the time delay of the return signal.


John
 
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Here's something to consider - when the Soviets took over a lot of
>> prisoner camps in the German occupied eastern Europe a whole lot of those
>> in those camps simply disappeared without a trace.

>
> Yes, I've read that as well. It is consistent with everything else Stalin
> did. It is consistent with the Soviet Army stalling outside of Warsaw,
> waiting for the Germans to finish up in the ghetto before moving in.


In principle there was very little difference between Stalin and ******.
Though ****** was probably a bit more moral.

>> But then the Liberals would forgive Stalin for anything because he was a
>> socialist.

>
> I've only known one person who ever did that and he was a special case.


The difference between him and some of the posters here is only a matter of
scale and not intent.
 
"John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The common name for the early radar was bedspring radar. The antennas
> looked like bedsprings mounted vertically. The radar itself could only
> give a range signal but not an asimuth angle but with a whole chain of
> radar stations along the coast the ranges from each antenna system was
> plotted and an accurate position was calculated by where the range
> returns of two stations crossed. The freq/wavelenth that they operated
> on I believe was 10 cm. but it could have been a lower freq. Radar was
> developed from seeing tv signals change and flutter as an aircraft went
> overhead. From that beginning it was theroized that you could get the
> distance to a remote aircraft by bouncing a signal off the aircraft and
> measuring the time delay of the return signal.


10 Meter would be more like it. That's 30 MHz and would have been just
inside the capability of the Magnetron that Watson-Watt had to use. I think
later the frequency of the radar about doubled which gave great range and
accuracy.
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4ebdb215-a626-4e9e-8295-ab71de83b1b6@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Cliff wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:57:18 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> Actually, the early British electronic aircraft detection systems
>> >> were
>> >> not radars at all IIRC.
>> >
>> >You seem to recall a whole lot incorrectly. But then, Liberals generally
>> >do.

>>
>> [
>> Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892-1973), a descendant of James Watt,
>> received a
>> degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of St. Andrews,
>> Scotland
>> and in 1915 began a career in the British civil service, He patented his
>> first
>> radio location device, a device for locating atmospheric discharges, in
>> 1919. In
>> 1935, he received his eleventh radio-location patent, a device for
>> detecting and
>> locating an approaching aircraft. In the following years he was the
>> leader of
>> the intensive development of aircraft radio-location, the secret weapon
>> of the
>> Battle of Britain.
>> ]
>> Operated in the meter wavelengths. Pre-microwave RADAR.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home
>> [
>> Chain Home looked nothing like the radar sets found at modern commercial
>> airports.

>
> Radar = RAdio Detection And Ranging.
>
> Chain Home operated on radio frequencies, provided direction and
> range. Fine, it was more of a pain to operate than a modern radar, but
> then we still say an old flintlock musket is a gun, despite the fact
> that a modern rifle is easier to operate.


This was called something like a Type A radar when I worked on them. we used
C-scan I believe it was called and those old A's and B's were antiques.

By the way - Watson-Watt had already used a real radar to calculate the
height of the ionosphere by the early 30's if memory serves. And these
weren't "sort of" radars but the real thing.
 
"Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:52:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Nov 12, 8:22 am, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:01:55 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Gunner Asch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> >> Those who are ignorant of history..or give the actors a pass...are
>>> >> doomed to repeat it.
>>>
>>> >> Liberals for the most party..the doomer antiwar ones at the least,
>>> >> should be taken promptly out and hung before they condeme the entire
>>> >> Middle East to that which they condemed South East Asia, all for the
>>> >> sake of partisan power play.
>>>
>>> >The Liberals take the easy road - they deny that any of this happened.
>>> >Then
>>> >they claim that Socialism in the guise of "Liberalism" is a good thing.
>>>
>>> Found those "WMDs" yet?

>>
>>Tell us "Cliff" - how much time did the Iraqis have to send such
>>things over the border into neighboring countries?

>
> These would be the very same "neighboring countries" the
> US was protecting from Saddam?


Which countries were those again?
 
"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> When you screw up in
> politics you get your ass kicked. National Republicans are setting
> new standards for associating the word 'Republican' with the phrase
> 'screw up'.


I wonder why you don't delineate some of these screw-up's.

Were they anything like Clinton letting a spy from the Chinese Army complete
access to the White House and all of the files?

Wait a minute - was it anything like Kennedy leaving those Cubans on the
beach in the Bay of Pigs?

Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin?

Was it like Jimmy Carter sending a half-assed assault group into Iran only
to pull them out failed as failed could be?

By all means let's discuss your ideas.
 
"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill C wrote:
>> I sincerely hope I NEVER hear you complain about Red States, because
>> if Mass, and this location in particular isn't blue, then there are NO
>> red states, either.
>> I stand amazed, or you're intentionally being obtuse to try and make
>> the point that political discussion is futile.

>
> - I never said Massachusetts or where you live isn't blue. What I
> said is that it isn't as far left as you constantly portray it.
> That's what the numbers say. Argue with the numbers.


30% Republican in the republican areas seems to me to be a little bit out of
balance but then you occasional posters here only come by to demonstrate
your complete disconnect with reality.
 
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you're thinking about pretty much any rule-by-force country which
> at the moment has 'socialist' in the name, then that is simply the
> local dictator trying to look good internationally and has no relation
> to his policies, same way that countries with 'democratic' in the name
> virtually always aren't.


You know, just as I was about to start a list you printed that. That's the
trouble with socialists. If you point out the blood thirsty bastards you
simply claim that they were "real" socialists.

And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists Party.
You say they were socialists despite the fact that they were voted in as
Socialists.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's something to consider - when the Soviets took over a lot of
>>> prisoner camps in the German occupied eastern Europe a whole lot of
>>> those in those camps simply disappeared without a trace.

>>
>> Yes, I've read that as well. It is consistent with everything else
>> Stalin did. It is consistent with the Soviet Army stalling outside of
>> Warsaw, waiting for the Germans to finish up in the ghetto before
>> moving in.

>
> In principle there was very little difference between Stalin and ******.
> Though ****** was probably a bit more moral.
>


Not that statistics are a reliable indicator of morality, but I believe
they'd support that position too.

>>> But then the Liberals would forgive Stalin for anything because he
>>> was a socialist.

>>
>> I've only known one person who ever did that and he was a special case.

>
> The difference between him and some of the posters here is only a matter
> of scale and not intent.


Perhaps. Scale is important, though. I believe the lengths to which one
will go in order to justify to be a reasonable measure of self-delusion.
 
"Fred Fredburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> The difference between him and some of the posters here is only a matter
>> of scale and not intent.

>
> Perhaps. Scale is important, though. I believe the lengths to which one
> will go in order to justify to be a reasonable measure of self-delusion.


I read, I study and one thing I've discovered long ago is that you can't
outfox a fox. Those who work in the government know a whole lot more about
what's going on that someone reading the Times (OK, someone reading
something that isn't complete garbage - hell remember when the Times was an
authority even if a tainted one?).

I don't pretend to have any answers other than try try again. And as a
student of history that does appear to be the thing that has worked to most
reliably.
 
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If you're thinking about pretty much any rule-by-force country which
>> at the moment has 'socialist' in the name, then that is simply the
>> local dictator trying to look good internationally and has no relation
>> to his policies, same way that countries with 'democratic' in the name
>> virtually always aren't.

>
> You know, just as I was about to start a list you printed that. That's the
> trouble with socialists. If you point out the blood thirsty bastards you
> simply claim that they were "real" socialists.

-----
>
> And of course there's no sense in mentioning the National Socialists
> Party. You say they were socialists despite the fact that they were voted
> in as

-----
> Socialists.


weren't and weren't
 
On 16 Nov, 01:55, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > The common name for the early radar was bedspring radar. The antennas
> > looked like bedsprings mounted vertically. The radar itself could only
> > give a range signal but not an asimuth angle but with a whole chain of
> > radar stations along the coast the ranges from each antenna system was
> > plotted and an accurate position was calculated by where the range
> > returns of two stations crossed. The freq/wavelenth that they operated
> > on I believe was 10 cm. but it could have been a lower freq. Radar was
> > developed from seeing tv signals change and flutter as an aircraft went
> > overhead. From that beginning it was theroized that you could get the
> > distance to a remote aircraft by bouncing a signal off the aircraft and
> > measuring the time delay of the return signal.

>
> 10 Meter would be more like it. That's 30 MHz and would have been just
> inside the capability of the Magnetron that Watson-Watt had to use. I think
> later the frequency of the radar about doubled which gave great range and
> accuracy.


Chain Home (which was like you say meter band) weren't magnetron
radars; not surprising when you consider a magnetron has to be
comparable in size to the wavelength (it's a resonance chamber of
sorts). Magnetrons were later in the war; they went through several
types of radar of steadily increasing frequency. The airborne ones
IIRC ended up around 10cm.

Pete