Warning:

Much drivel follows.
BUT it's also a tutorial/mind-filter-opener of sorts for how things
might be achieved. Skating along the EE/OT boundary probably but
possible useful.

_________________


> It seems to me that it is only a distinction to someone who doesn't
> prefer the correct solution. =A0;)

Almost serious comment - that's, perhaps, the or a major point about
Occam's Razor, I think I think. It's not actually a comment on
probable correctness but on the most preferable possibility to choose
when probable correctness in unknowable.

If you know what is most likely to be the correct solution then by all
means choose it.

"Preferring" the correct solution is fine. Occam is IMHO commenting on
cases when we cannot achieve this sensibly.

When several solutions seem equiprobable at the level that it is
prudent or sensible to inquire at   (eg "One of the 6 men standing
nearby in a tightly grouped cluster, all with identical and smoking
pistols, and all with mean looks on their faces just shot my horse out
from under me ...". It may be useful to know who it was, but ...). [It
may be that 5 were trying to scare you and if one decided to shoot
your horse, or ...]

I suspect Occam would 'prefer" the assumption that it may have been
any one of them, even though that MAY be wrong with a 5/6 probability,
depending on what their intentions are or were. Here a simple solution
(choose a probabilistic assessment when determining the correct
solution may be difficult, time consuming, costly and/or fatal) that
is known to probably produce THE wrong solution if the cat is ever let
out of Shcroedinger's box,may be "preferred".

> But, all American (or non-American) Embassies and consulates are spy
> stations. =A0And they are everywhere. =A0They would certainly be more
> reliable than skip.

You've met Skip? :-).

But I only started with sporadic E by happenstance.
My "suggestion" was that Napoleon uses not skip but Synthesised
Poynting Vector to create the effect of a physically much larger
normal antenna.

> And presumably, when the radio wasn't working
> because of no US installation in range or because of skip conditions, he
> simply didn't use it.

Also when it wasn't working for any other reason :-).

Device he used with eg bleeding edge non-SPV technology of the day
probably managed Watts at best and almost certainly at UHF/VHF. Line
of site range at very best and probably only a few km.

It would be interesting to see how what range eg Jodrell Bank would
allow on say ~ 28 Mhz and ~14 MHz with an optimised MFU communicator
at those frequencies.

Maybe I've been a bit limiting. TMFU ran from 1964 on.
Satellite technology available from about 1958.

The Garry Powers U2  incident occurred in 1960.
By 1964 a U2 would be a very compromised platform in Soviet territory
but pre 1960 it was a very safe one. The Soviets would have known
exactly where the platform was but if this level of disclosure was
acceptable this gives a vertical range of only 20 miles when overhead
and out to perhaps hundreds of miles for above horizon use.

U2 plus SPV gives a very plausible albeit totally implausible mechanism.
Occam would definitely reject it :-).


        Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.