Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4287 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2003 01:04:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO netmail01.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.219) by mailstore with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 01:04:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 7365 invoked by uid 10001); 20 Nov 2003 01:04:15 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.20) by netmail01.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 01:04:02 -0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AMdD8-0005zI-WC for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:02:18 +0000 Received: from [203.109.254.44] (helo=grunt4.ihug.co.nz) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AMdD7-0005z9-6j for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:02:17 +0000 Received: from 203-173-240-37.adsl.ihug.co.nz (athlon) [203.173.240.37] by grunt4.ihug.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AMdD1-0007RV-00; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:02:11 +1300 X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (athlon) Message-ID: <1d0201c3af01$dfdbd4e0$6a00a8c0@athlon> From: "Dave Brown" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <000601c3aee7$723ec2e0$2bc428c3@erica> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:01:47 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: Re: LF: CT1/G3KEV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Rating: 2 Had a play with one of the 'x-ray' machines recently 'cos of an EIP counter I was hand luggaging home that caused a few raised eyebrows- I was quite early for the flight and there was no-one else in the queue so I spent about 5 minutes with the machine operator trying all the options out-after I showed them what it was. They can use varying degrees of apparent visual depth and different artificial colours, so the screen picture can be quite complex. It's a bit like having a camera with a small depth of field and adjusting the zoom so you can start at the top of something and look at all the 'layers' on the way through to the bottom as the 'zoom' gets changed. The end result is that the innards of most items can be seen in quite some detail. But thick solid metallic things that can't be readily seen inside of (e.g. the power transformer in the counter in this case) are definitely subject to more than the average scrutiny! 73 Dave ZL3FJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "g3ldo" To: Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:52 AM Subject: Re: LF: CT1/G3KEV > > Dave, G0MRF said: > > >I find that the X-ray machines hate the solid metal base of some morse > keys. > >Apparently the density of block of Semtex has a similar effect on > >the image displayed on the security monitors. > > Can these machines tell the difference between a metal box of components, > such as a rig, ATU or PSU and a solid block of a CW key? > I was more concerned about weight (as the XYL seemed to want to pack her > entire wardrobe) so I used a lightweight CW paddle that was fixed to a > clipboard that contained all the amateur radio papers. > I put all my ham radio gear into a separate small case which I never saw > again until it reluctantly appeared at baggage reclaim. I carried my laptop > and antenna mast (fibre glass telescopic roach pole, used as a walking > stick) as hand luggage. I specifically asked that the laptop didn't go > through the xray machine so that was the only item that got looked at. > > Peter G3LDO > > >