Nikon is backwards

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

this is about thermostats, not meters.

No it's about smart devices and what's meant by smart.
Thermostats should be set by a human who knows what they want not a
smart
meter.

only once.

Why only once ? I like to set mine as I want it. I notice most
thermostates
have temerature guages and can be set to differnt temperatures too.
If you want to save money on your bill reduce the temp by 1C or so.

you do it once. configure it for home, away, vacation, etc. and then it
figures out what to do. you can always override it.

Still doesnlt seem worth the effort or expense. I'd rather have auto open
doors.

that's very possible, although a different product from a stat.


what the stat can do is detect you'll soon be home and call for
heat/cool so that it's at the desired set point when you arrive.

How willit detect that as even IO don't know from day to day.

because it's smart

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:45:04 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-15 19:00, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:26:52 -0000, Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 8 February 2019 19:29:49 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 11:04:05 -0000, Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 1 February 2019 19:37:40 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:51:00 -0000, Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 22:47:34 UTC, Commander Kinsey
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:51:29 -0000, David B. "David
wrote:

I confess that I don't go swimming in icy cold lakes - not
since I did
my aircrew survival course during a very cold and frost
November!

I've never worked out why people don't like being cold. All
that happens is you shiver (which is simply muscle movement, just
like running or cycling),

I don't like doing either of those, I just don't see the point
usually.

So you're a lazy bugger?

No I just believe in energy conservation.

Then you must have your central heating switched off. The least
energy usage would be sat at home with no heating wearing a thick
jacket.

Why would I want the heating on at home when I'm out most of the day ?
I see you don't know what energy conservation is.

So you don't heat the home when you're at home? I assume you come home
at some point.

You're pretty thick aren't you?

I have a programmable thermostat so that during week days, the
thermostat is set lower during the day and set higher about an hour
before we return. It doesn't stop heating of course - just a lower
temperature.

What a palava. So again, why don't you wear warmer clothes and lower the temperature when you're at home too? You're throwing away body heat.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 21:12:54 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-16 15:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I didn't say they could do it without their belts stopping them, I just
said they lean. Please learn basic English.

In your case the advice is much simpler: learn. Anything.

You need to learn how to quote properly and give context.

On 2019-02-19 20:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:48:39 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:02:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:
\
I don't turn the heating off when I leave home. I merely turn down the
thermostat. I find I don't save money by turning the heating rigt off
and letting the house cool down. If I do that I've got 30 tons of
house and contents to warm back up again at a time when outside
temperatures are falling.

Anybody with proper insulation finds their house won't cool much in the
8 hours they're at work.* Might as well just leave the stat set to
whatever temperature you want all the time.* Do you really think you
save much if you let your house be 14C above outside temperature instead
of 16C?* That's 2/16 you saved, for a third of the day, so **** all.

Hmm, let's see. Here where temperatures go much lower than in your Gulf
Stream relieved isle, houses are indeed very well insulated. Special
window panes too.

When it's -20°C outside, I get about 1°C of temperature drop per hour.
If it's very windy, then of course a little faster.

So if I left in the morning at 8:00 @ 20°C (indoors) and got home at
18:00, then the house would be decidedly uncomfortable.

So, let the programmed thermostat hold it to 16°C while we're away, and
ramp up to 20°C again from about 16:00 before we get home.

All very simple. But seems to be very much beyond you.

And yes, well worth it since the average temperature of the house is
lower, therefor less heat is lost. But that's just physics. I don't
expect you to ponder that very much.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 2019-02-20 20:06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:32:12 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I actually drop the set temperature from 20C to 17C with the outside
temperature generally being anywhere between 15C and 5C. It might not
save much but it does save. It only takes about 20 minutes to bring
the bulk of the house back up to temperature.

Two reasons I don't do that:
1) It's a hassle, it's easier to pick the temperature I like and have
the house like that all the time, 24/7.* I don't have to program
thermostats to times I'll be in and out of the house, which can vary often.
2) To have the heating able to raise the temperature quickly, you need
bigger bulkier radiators.* If I leave the temperature the same all the
time, I can have slimmer smaller radiators that take up less space.

A water heated system would be considered extremely inefficient here for
a house because it could never stay in phase with temperature
fluctuations. It would still be releasing heat when not needed and
unable to catch up when needed. Almost never seen in a house here.
(Apartment buildings are something else).

Here it's either forced air (oil, gas or electric) furnaces with
optional heat pumps, or electric baseboard or floor.

For that reason we can use programmable thermostats and have the temp
pretty much where needed almost all of the time.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 2019-02-21 16:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:41:48 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-15 17:18, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:20:13 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-11 11:31, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 20:46:36 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-02 15:38, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 20:40:00 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-31 17:24, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:44:49 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-30 17:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 01:05:49 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

Front brake calipers, $650.* Installed.* (at 15 years in...).

Holy ****, mine (on the Renault) were £300, at a very expensive
garage.
If I'd have bought them myself they would have been half that.

$650 CAD

CAD?* What is that?* Computer Aided Design?* Stop using acronyms.

Canadian dollars.* Something you would have found out in a
second of
thoughtful searching.

I shouldn't have to search.* It would have taken you less time to
type
"$650 Canadian".* Are you a slow typer or something?* And why can't
your
country invent a word for your own currency instead of taking the
USA
one?

Your asshat points continue to build.* Anyone in the UK with the
slightest international experience would know what $650 CAD meant.
(Usually written CAD$650.00, I admit).

Anyone in the UK would know how to spell arse.* An ass is a type of
animal.

And Canada isn't exactly a country commonly interacted with.

By ignoramuses like you who drive cars around making stops all day, I
suppose it would look that way.

What's ignorant about stopping a car?

Misunderstanding of what you meant by a 'stop'.* I construed it as an
"errand stop" not a stop (as in stop sign).

You construed correctly, I do make errand stops.* So, what's wrong with
that?

= £375.* Includes labour, disks, pads.

Get over yourself.

I can buy a calliper for £30 on Ebay.

Not the original parts which is what I spec'd.

Why use original parts?
1) They're going on an old car, they don't need to last so long.
It's a Honda.* Plenty left.

2) It was the originals that ****ed up in the first place.

The original ... after 14 years or so... not unhappy.

So you go and buy something which will last until the car is 28?!

There are stupid replies and extraordinarily stupid replies - that is
the later.

You mean "latter."

Quite right.* Congratulations on a spelling correction on usenet.
That's stellar.

More likely you just didn't know the word.

Wow late again. And yes I know the word well. I also make typos or
just plain don't read what I type before committing.


And it's not stupid.* You had an original last for 14 years, then
you pay for a part which will last another 14, past the
end of life of the vehicle.* What a stupid waste of money.

Not like there was a graded choice saying:

5 year part: x dollars
10 year part: y dollars
15 year part: z dollars

But I did have to explain that to you.* You truly are narrow minded.

There is a graded choice, you can assume the more expensive ones last
longer.

No choice was offered. You're truly thick. (And I know ...)

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 2019-02-22 14:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:45:04 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

I have a programmable thermostat so that during week days, the
thermostat is set lower during the day and set higher about an hour
before we return.* It doesn't stop heating of course - just a lower
temperature.

What a palava.* So again, why don't you wear warmer clothes and lower
the temperature when you're at home too?* You're throwing away body heat.

You're lack of imagination leads you to type some awfully silly things.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

On 23/02/2019 20.38, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-02-19 20:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:48:39 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:02:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:
\
I don't turn the heating off when I leave home. I merely turn down the
thermostat. I find I don't save money by turning the heating rigt off
and letting the house cool down. If I do that I've got 30 tons of
house and contents to warm back up again at a time when outside
temperatures are falling.

Anybody with proper insulation finds their house won't cool much in
the 8 hours they're at work.* Might as well just leave the stat set to
whatever temperature you want all the time.* Do you really think you
save much if you let your house be 14C above outside temperature
instead of 16C?* That's 2/16 you saved, for a third of the day, so
**** all.

Hmm, let's see.* Here where temperatures go much lower than in your Gulf
Stream relieved isle, houses are indeed very well insulated.* Special
window panes too.

When it's -20°C outside, I get about 1°C of temperature drop per hour.
If it's very windy, then of course a little faster.

If you measure it for a longer period you will see that as house temp
goes down it takes more time to drop one degree. At some temp it would
take two hours per degree, for instance.

The curve is the same to that of a capacitor discharging over a
resistor, the same type of equations.


So if I left in the morning at 8:00 @ 20°C (indoors) and got home at
18:00, then the house would be decidedly uncomfortable.

That's the key word: comfort. :-)

It saves fuel to let the house cool down when not needed as compared to
keeping it at a constant temp. It also saves fuel to let it cool down to
some intermediate temp, but less. It is simply your choice of comfort vs
economy.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:47:12 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-20 20:06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 02:32:12 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

I actually drop the set temperature from 20C to 17C with the outside
temperature generally being anywhere between 15C and 5C. It might not
save much but it does save. It only takes about 20 minutes to bring
the bulk of the house back up to temperature.

Two reasons I don't do that:
1) It's a hassle, it's easier to pick the temperature I like and have
the house like that all the time, 24/7. I don't have to program
thermostats to times I'll be in and out of the house, which can vary often.
2) To have the heating able to raise the temperature quickly, you need
bigger bulkier radiators. If I leave the temperature the same all the
time, I can have slimmer smaller radiators that take up less space.

A water heated system would be considered extremely inefficient here for
a house because it could never stay in phase with temperature
fluctuations. It would still be releasing heat when not needed and
unable to catch up when needed. Almost never seen in a house here.
(Apartment buildings are something else).

Here it's either forced air (oil, gas or electric) furnaces with
optional heat pumps, or electric baseboard or floor.

For that reason we can use programmable thermostats and have the temp
pretty much where needed almost all of the time.

Water based is nothing to do with it. There isn't much heat at all left in the radiators after the boiler turns off. Probably about enough to heat the house by a further 0.2C. And they start giving out heat only a few minutes after the boiler switches on.

But I just don't see the point in working out when you need the heat (especially if you don't stick to a rigid schedule), just to save a tiny amount of money. If the house is 20C warmer than outside, allowing it to cool by 2C saves you only 10%, and only for the times you're out! Who cares about 10% for a fraction of the day?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:50:46 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-21 16:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 14:41:48 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-15 17:18, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:20:13 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-11 11:31, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 20:46:36 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-02 15:38, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 20:40:00 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-31 17:24, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:44:49 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-30 17:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 01:05:49 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

Front brake calipers, $650. Installed. (at 15 years in....).

Holy ****, mine (on the Renault) were £300, at a very expensive
garage.
If I'd have bought them myself they would have been half that.

$650 CAD

CAD? What is that? Computer Aided Design? Stop using acronyms.

Canadian dollars. Something you would have found out in a
second of
thoughtful searching.

I shouldn't have to search. It would have taken you less time to
type
"$650 Canadian". Are you a slow typer or something? And why can't
your
country invent a word for your own currency instead of taking the
USA
one?

Your asshat points continue to build. Anyone in the UK with the
slightest international experience would know what $650 CAD meant.