Scam or Contravention of the Principle of Conservation of En

Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:53 pm   

There is no provision for powering the 'electronics'
Originally aired on Usenet , uk.legal etc February 2005,on thread heading
"Scam product for sale in Guardian newspaper, allegedly"
Adverts for this 'product' continue to appear
19 adverts in 2005 and those ad appearances for 2006
19 Jan, p20 of G2
04 Feb , p30
11 Feb, p68 Weekend
15 Feb, p20

Quote
the guardian reader offer
Crystal Clear television
Indoor TV Aerial
just £14.95 inc UK mainland p&p
When you find there's something good to watch on TV, there's nothing worse
than having it spoiled by poor reception. But now you can receive a better
picture and sound with this innovative indoor TV aerial. Featuring new
technology, the aerial simply plugs into your TV, removing the need for ugly
outdoor or clumsy indoor aerials. Can also be used with your AM/FM radio.
Measures just 10 x 12 x 1.5cm.

End Quote

Explored more fully on
http://www.nutteing.2.freeservers.com/scam.htm

Covered 10 years ago in earlier form of the scam
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1996/1.pdf
pages 40 and 43 if you can pre-select pdf pages for download

part quote for the technical
"The contents consist of a triangular printed- circuit board bearing a set
of three conductive tracks, two 5600- ohm resistors, a 20-picofarad
capacitor"
....
"So how about the claim that it is an electronic device? The unit contains
only passive elements (resistors and a capacitor). It has no active elements
nor any power source to activate them. The operation of the device is
therefore not electronic within the accepted usage of the term. "


What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:58 pm   

Corrections for latest Guardian ad appearances

11 Mar, p68 Weekend
15 Mar, p20

Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:05 pm   

In uk.legal Paul Nutteing <nutteing_at_quickfindit.com> wrote:

Bullshit.
Antenna matching networks are unquestionably electronic.
They do not have to have external power, and claiming they are not
electronic because they have no power other than the signal is
completely false.
It's quite unlikely that the device actually functions adequately, but
as long as they accept returns, they are probably not doing anything
illegal.

Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:13 pm   

Paul Nutteing <nutteing_at_quickfindit.com> wrote:


Wrong. Electrons are involved in how it works, so its electronic.

Most antennas only have passive elements in them.

The main exception is with mast head amplifiers.

There's nothing new about properly designed indoor
antennas and most of the outdoor antennas you see
on the roof etc only have passive elements in them.

Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:28 pm   

Ian Stirling wrote:


I'd have said it is IMPOSSIBLE to "remove the need for an outdoor
aerial"
by repacing it with ANY indoor aerial!

Used to see these idiots living in tower blocks get taken in with this
crap
all the time in an attempt to cure ghosting by buying a "battery
powered
aerial" but at the time it was Argos flogging them.

It is as scammy as scams come and relies on the total lack of any
knowledge of electronics by yer average Joe.

Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:18 pm   

Paul Nutteing wrote:


There are no end of "too good to be true" products on the market,
including most women's skin care preparations.

In theory, "caveat emptor" is long gone, but in practice, if people are
stupid enough to fall for these things, they really have only themselves
to blame.

Sylvia.

Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:54 pm   

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:13:42 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:


Hmmmmm. Electrons are involved in how everything works. So, everything is
electronic?

Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:33 pm   

Heretic <cathars_at_montaillou.com.fr> wrote:

Wota silly little desperately wanking child.

Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:48 pm   

No contravention of the conservation of energy until the second coming.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:21 am   

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:33:39 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:


Back to your shit-cans, my silly little cretin.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:30 am   

dcjtee_at_aol.com wrote:

Anyone foolish enough to fall for that deserves to loose money, but then I
think the unintelligent should be taxed more heavily.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:53 am   

Ian Stirling wrote:



My interpretation of an electronic device is one that contains 'active'
devices such as valves or transistors.

So in my books the police blundered when they said that the telephone was
the most effective electronic crime fighting device - at that time
telephones did not use transistors.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:18 am   

Sylvia Else <sylvia_at_not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:441dcaa3$0$7533$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...

Yes, a fool and their money are soon parted.

If everyone over the years had just ignored or
deleted all that phishing, get rich quick,
stock tips, penis enlargement,
viagara supply etc in emails then there would be
a hell of a lot less junk emails around today.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:30 am   

Paul Nutteing wrote:


The down side is that if someone comes up with the real McCoy in any of
these areas (eg, a common cold treatment that actually works), marketing
is going to be a nightmare - particarly as they may well be expensive
compared with the fakes.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:03 am   

dcjtee_at_aol.com wrote:

How odd. We've managed for several years with an indoor aerial. It sits
on a bookshelf in front of me. Its fairly directional -- so there will
always be one channel which has poorish reception (though adequate) but
any channels of one's choice (out of 5) are fine. So I think
"impossible" puts things too strongly.

Francis