Nikon is backwards

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:49:20 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:39:50 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:47:29 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:13:33 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 04:21:01 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:01:59 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:41:31 -0000, Ron C wrote:

On 1/28/2019 5:15 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:47:37 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:52:38 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:46:24 -0000, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:16:09 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 00:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:03:04 -0000, RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:32:41 UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more
than annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me
£200, simply by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise
manner. The rental company was not amused.

The bayonet is fine if you never go from one system to another and
back, but it grates if you do.

Not for me. Everything in life tightens to the right. Taps, screws,
etc, etc. Having to do one thing the other way simply will never
work
for me. It's one of those things I expect to be intuitive.. If I
want
to tighten something, it goes clockwise. If that snaps a fragile
component inside the camera, I'll never buy their product again.
There's simply no need to be different to the rest of the entire
world.

cough Sounds to me as if you've never connected a gas hose to a
propane bottle! ;-)

Or changed a lawn mower blade.

No need for either of those to be backwards either. The designers
were clearly dimwits.

Gas bottle threads are left handed to prevent dimwits from using
inappropriate connections. Especially strong dimwits.

That's illogical. What are these "inappropriate connections" and why
can't they be left handed too? Anyway, all the dimwits will do is start
using adhesive tape.

This thread has drifted quite far afield.

We're still talking about thread directions.

Anyway:

A CGA fitting is the standardized system for the attachment of a
compressed gas
cylinder to the required regulator or transfer line. Examples of CGA
fittings would
be CGA-580 for Non-flamable, Non-oxidizing gasses such as Nitrogen, Argon,
or Helium. CGA-590 is used for compressed air and CGA-326 is used for
Nitrous Oxide. There are approximately a dozen commonly used CGA-fittings,
with others used for special purposes.

For more on this see:
https://www.concoa.com/cgachart.html

Without wanting to digest the whole article, how do reverse threads fit into this?

That's the point. They don't if you try to match them up with an
otherwise similar thread of the opposite rotation.

So they have forward and reverse threads for different gases?

Yes. And different diameters. And different details of fittings. The
idea is to make it impossible to connect gas bottles to the wrong gas
systems.

How stupid do you have to be to feed oxygen into your caravan's cooker inlet?

How about mixing up cylinders in an oxy-acetylene set? Or in a
hospital service bay mixing up cylinders and connecting nitrous oxide
to an oxygen line? How about filling an LPG cylinder with a relief
valve set at 375psi using liquid CO2 which will settle down to 750 psi
on a hot day?

And if I want to be stupid, I can deliberately drive my car along the pavement and kill 50 people. There's no point in trying to prevent stupidity.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 04:25:26 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

which is whayt I said but I;d like to know why, where does the tradition comne from did it really start with sundials which is what I heard years ago.

Which raises the question of 'does widdershins reverse rotation in the
southern hemisphere?'. I fear it does, which also raises questions
about some of the more obscure ceremonies of the Christian church.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:41:26 -0500, nospam
wrote:

the disadvantage is not being able to control the vehicle should it
lose traction, such as is common on slippery roads, far more so than
stopped on a patch of ice.

You will have to tell that to Fangio.

That's a sustained high-speed slide under full power. You couldn't do
that in a front-wheel-drive.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:30:30 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Traction on snow: far better with FWD than rear. A lot.

the only advantage is having weight over the drive wheels, which helps
accelerate from a stop on a patch of ice. such situations are easily
avoided.

the disadvantage is not being able to control the vehicle should it
lose traction, such as is common on slippery roads, far more so than
stopped on a patch of ice.

an fwd vehicle is front heavy with the front wheels controlling
everything. the rear wheels go along for the ride. if the front wheels
lose traction, there is nothing that can be done to control the vehicle
until it stops after colliding with something.

an rwd vehicle has a more neutral weight balance with all four wheels
controlling it. if one set of wheels loses traction, the other can be
used. only if *all* wheels lose traction is it a problem, which is very
rare.

rwd offers far more control, thereby making it safer, particularly in
slippery conditions.

Utter horse****.

nope.

it's very easy to control an rwd vehicle at the limits of adhesion,
which is why performance vehicles are almost entirely rwd.

In fact RWD vehicles can be driven harder than RWD while maintaining
directional control.


2 of those reasons benefit most drivers worldwide. The 3rd, a lot of us.

none of them are safety related.

Not to say it's not _fun_ driving rear wheel drive cars, hard to beat.
But that's not the purpose of cars for 99% of people.

fun isn't the issue.

It's the only thing RWD has going for it.

nope.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


it's very easy to control an rwd vehicle at the limits of adhesion,
which is why performance vehicles are almost entirely rwd.

In fact RWD vehicles can be driven harder than RWD while maintaining
directional control.

in fact, you make no sense.

the second one should be fwd.

the moment the front wheels lose traction in fwd is the moment physics
takes over and takes you wherever it wants you to go.

rwd vehicles can be driven much harder (and often are) because control
is split and weight balance is more neutral (sometimes even 50-50).

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the disadvantage is not being able to control the vehicle should it
lose traction, such as is common on slippery roads, far more so than
stopped on a patch of ice.

You will have to tell that to Fangio.

That's a sustained high-speed slide under full power. You couldn't do
that in a front-wheel-drive.

in other words, rwd offers more control, exactly as i said.

there are a lot of things that can be done with rwd that are dangerous
in an fwd, if they can be done at all, and controlling a skid is one of
them.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:24:39 -0600, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:17:57 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

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

I'd rather have it.Â* Never know.Â* Didn't cost anything to get fixed.

Airbags, like seatbelts, cause as much harm as good.Â* I never wear a
seatbelt unless there's a cop nearby.Â* My friend's father died because
he was trapped by his seatbelt in an accident.Â* They're also damn
annoying - whenever you lean forwards at a junction to see if any
traffic is coming, the damn thing locks!Â* Then you've got to slowly lean
back and forwards again, trying to encourage it to believe you weren't
thrown forwards in an accident.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Yeah, mostly, but even though you're replying to a troll, he's partly
right about the belts locking in some cars. It's the way some are
designed, and you sometimes have to push yourself back in the seat to
release them. He's certainly right about "annoying".

My Honda does that. You get used to it.

Some years ago I blacked out while driving another Honda Legend and
went straight on under cruise control at 60mph into a tree. At the
first contact the safetybelt pulled tight. I didn't even move far
enough forward to reach the airbag. I was badly bruised but not
otherwise hurt. After an experience like that you tend to value seat
belts which care about your safety.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/97mrg4m039..._0104.JPG?dl=0
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:12:05 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-30 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:07:36 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-29 17:44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:19:27 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Honda's are amongst the best value cars there are. My Honda Accord is
16 years old this year. Looking to buy a new one this March/April.

My Honda Legend (Acura R) is a 2003 model and still runs almost like
new.

Since I've been visiting dealerships shopping for a new Accord, my old
Accord is suddenly running better than ever. Strange.

I've done hundreds of thousands of miles in Accords. They are very
good cars. Interestingly, the current Civics are now at a level higher
than were Accords when they first started.

My first Accord was the '89. A lot smaller than today's Civic. Nice,
tight, if underpowered, car.

I had one of those. My favourite was a later one with a 2litre fuel
injected engine and a lovely close ratio gearbox. It went like the
clappers of hell!. It is the only car I have ever owned which would
reach the rev limiter in top gear, somewhere off the end of the speedo
scale which went to 220 kph (136mph).

This model
https://www.carspecs.us/photos/95c2e...18929-2000.jpg
but with a different engine and wheels.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


it's very easy to control an rwd vehicle at the limits of adhesion,
which is why performance vehicles are almost entirely rwd.

In fact RWD vehicles can be driven harder than RWD while maintaining
directional control.

in fact, you make no sense.

the second one should be fwd.

the moment the front wheels lose traction in fwd is the moment physics
takes over and takes you wherever it wants you to go.

rwd vehicles can be driven much harder (and often are) because control
is split and weight balance is more neutral (sometimes even 50-50).


I can't speak for law enforcement in other countries, but here in the US
(in my case California) we have favored RWD for a number of reasons
starting with handling and controllability. Many of us mourn the demise of
the Crown Vic Police Interceptor.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 14:20:22 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:24:39 -0600, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:17:57 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

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

I'd rather have it.* Never know.* Didn't cost anything to get fixed.

Airbags, like seatbelts, cause as much harm as good.* I never wear a
seatbelt unless there's a cop nearby.* My friend's father died because
he was trapped by his seatbelt in an accident.* They're also damn
annoying - whenever you lean forwards at a junction to see if any
traffic is coming, the damn thing locks!* Then you've got to slowly lean
back and forwards again, trying to encourage it to believe you weren't
thrown forwards in an accident.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Yeah, mostly, but even though you're replying to a troll, he's partly
right about the belts locking in some cars. It's the way some are
designed, and you sometimes have to push yourself back in the seat to
release them. He's certainly right about "annoying".

My Honda does that. You get used to it.

Some years ago I blacked out while driving another Honda Legend and
went straight on under cruise control at 60mph into a tree. At the
first contact the safetybelt pulled tight. I didn't even move far
enough forward to reach the airbag. I was badly bruised but not
otherwise hurt. After an experience like that you tend to value seat
belts which care about your safety.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/97mrg4m039..._0104.JPG?dl=0

Ooh - nice one... Oddly, my Honda doesn't do it, but the 2013 Mustang
before it did. I didn't get used to it.