Nikon is backwards

On 2019-02-23 15:34, Commander Kinsey wrote:
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?

Except here the delta-T can easily exceed 40°C. If I left the furnace
off in those conditions it could drop to 10°C inside the house over the
course of the day while we're out. Maintaining 20°C would require more
furnace hours.

How much? To maintain 20°C during the day, I would be heating for 4-6
hours more at 20 kWh per hour which would be 100 kWh @ $0.09 = $9/day in
heating. Do that 30 - 60 days per year. (The 20 kWh is the electric
furnace).

To be sure it's not always -20°C in the daytime here. -15 .. -5 is more
like it over the winter. The heating season begins around mid-November
(or earlier) and extends to late April (or later).

Our schedule is rigid enough to let the programmable thermostat manage
it. It's easily set to another temperature if needed. But leave it
alone and it never forgets to let the temp fall in the daytime. Go away
for the weekend and it can be set to hold a lower temp.

By the way, at night we let it fall to 17°C. More comfortable sleeping.
The thermostat sets to 29°C around 6 to get the place warm again.

So - controlling the house temperature saves on the order of $200 - $400
per year - maybe more. I paid about $80 for the programmable thermostat
about 15 years ago. I'll leave the rest as an exercise...

--
"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 2019-02-24 14:28, Alan Browne wrote:

By the way, at night we let it fall to 17°C.* More comfortable sleeping.
*The thermostat sets to 29°C around 6 to get the place warm again.

19°C --weekdays
20°C --weekends.

--
"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 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 20:17:48 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-16 14:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:37:19 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-11 13:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 19:08:04 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-06 20:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 20:36:38 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-03 20:10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:07:41 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-02 18:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:27:31 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-01 17:31, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:27:45 -0000, Alan Browne

Drive w/o a seatbelt here and it's a fine.

It's only a fine if you're caught. I get caught once a year,
£100 a
year is a small price to pay for:

Hmm, for someone who moans about the price of everything, that
seems a
strange thing to write.

It's only the cost of 2 tanks of petrol. And I buy way more
than 2
tanks a year.
1) No annoyance when leaning forwards.

I wear mine and it's no annoyance to lean forward.

Then you must lean very slowly. Are you one of those annoying
buggers
who sits at junctions for ages, not pulling out when there's
enough
room
for a bus?

I pull out when it's safe and courteous to do so.

Which you can't tell without leaning forwards to look.

I went over to the account's office this afternoon and I tested your
notions:

1. With the view from my car I don't need to lean forward at all for
most of the drive. This is sub/extra-urban so nothing blocking the
view
towards approaching traffic most of the time.

In the city, esp. the older, narrower road areas, probably would
need to
lean forward more.

There you go.

Of course it had to be pointed out to you because your narrow view of
life doesn't permit much imagination.

You didn't point anything out, you just confirmed the point I originally
made.

I thought (knew actually) that might confuse you. What had to be
pointed out was that out here in the sub/extra-urbs, lines of sight are
far better than in the old parts of cities with their narrow streets,
lanes, parked vans and so on. So leaning forward is not needed much..
But again - when it is, in my car it does not lock up unnecessarily.

Every car I've been in (including brand new ones) lock up when I lean
forwards. I guess you move very slowly. They have to lock up, they

Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

(I've explained this before but it always goes over your head. I guess
your crappy cars are crappy all around...)

If your belt doesn't lock when you jerk it with your hand, it should fail the annual safety test. How do you think it knows when you've crashed?

can't tell if you've jammed on the brakes / hit something / leaned
forwards. The seatbelt is a very simple mechanism sensing the
acceleration of the belt out of the reel.

The real world is not at all your very narrow experience.

Most junctions in the UK require leaning forwards.

How nice for you. That would be the same here in the city (as
mentioned), but not out here in the boonies except in small old
villages. Don't do much of that.

Well that's the reason I don't use the belt. Plus I don't tend to crash..

2. As to leaning, no matter how fast I leaned forward, the
seatbelt did
not lock at all. It took quite a good jerk with my hand to get it to
lock.

Conclusion, your narrow experience with crappy French built cars,
maintained poorly, on a miserly budget, is not at all close to a
reference for most of us.

Actually, it's been the same on all my cars, let me list them:

list of crappy 3rd hand cars deleted

Not my fault you're stupid enough to pay depreciation.

It's irrelevant when you drive a car as long as I do,

Depreciation is a fact of life with cars, look it up. Or are your cars
magically different form everyone else's? Just look up Parker's Guide
etc for prices of a 5 year old car compared to the new price.

I've always bought new, with one exception and never regretted it. Nice
driving for 10 years with only oil changes or other minor things to
attend to.

Have you ever stopped to think how much money it costs to do that?

keep them up to resell at a good value in any case.

If you can sell it at a good value, why are you selling it? As it must
surely be in good working order.

Yep. But time to move on. Little bits of rust here and there now,
burning a little oil (still trying to track that down - probably the
VTEC solenoid gasket or blowby - both have easy-enough-fixes, but I'm
tired of fixing).

It will make someone a good winter burner. (Some people with nice
Benz's and so on put them in the garage for the winter and buy a good
'old burner to get through...).

What I sometimes do is have two old bangers. If one breaks, give it to a mechanic and use the other one. The small amount extra in insurance, tax, etc is way less than the depreciation of a single newer car.

Maybe, just maybe, you're such a slow dopey **** that you take half an
hour to lean forwards. Some of us want to leave the junction in this
century. You're one of those folk that sits there while I'm behind
you
waiting to get to my destination aren't you?

Nope. But it's amusing that you attack others when your behaviour
is so
stupid.

Why wouldn't I attack someone who takes twice as long to get to their
destination, and thinks it's ok to hold everyone else up too? If you
want to go slowly, get a ****ing bicycle.

Your assumptions have no basis in fact. Just bad speculation to support
your fantasy position. Pretty sad.

You manage to lean forwards without triggering the belt crash mechanism,
therefore you're slow, therefore you're in my ****ing way. Tell me, do
you stick to the speed limits?

You're thick. I've told you before it works quite fine.

On the way to work I go nice and sedately 85 - 100. Too much traffic in
the morning to rush in any case.

On the way home? 120 in a 100 zone.

100mph zone?! Or are you in one of those metric countries?

Too many police watching that highway, alas, to go quicker.

I have all their favourite spots on my satnav. I downloaded a database. £19 for a year's subscription, but you can still use it after that, it just might be slightly out of date. But you get a free year if you spot a new camera like I did.

You're an idiot for not wearing your seat belt, but that's your
problem.

Why would I wear something to protect me from something which only
happens to dangerous drivers? I've never needed a belt and probably

When someone rams into you (no fault of yours ahem) that seatbelt may
safe your life or you from serious injury. The stats are abundantly
clear.

Thanks for confirming you're stupid enough to believe stats.

I happen to know someone whose father died because he was trapped by his
seatbelt after a crash. And I know three people who were thrown clear
of a large crash with no seatbelt. I'd much rather get away from the
flaming wrecks.

1) You have no clue about stats. (Hint: a sample of one)

I know stats lie. They show what the author wants you to see. For
example the police seem to think speeding is dangerous, yet another
bunch of stats show that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding.
Someone is lying.

Someone isn't paying much attention to source material. That would be you.

They don't tend to reveal that, it would ruin the point they're trying to make.

2) Injuries from being "thrown clear" can be fatal or paralyzing.

Try not crashing in the first place. Do you wear one of those pansy
helmets when you get on a bicycle?

Your songs were boring the first time and not improving by repetition.

Answer the question.

3) Seatbelts save lives - and are easily cut with the appropriate tool -

Tool?! ****ing hell man. So you've crashed your car, you're half
unconscious, and need to escape some flames, and you're going to be able
to find a tool and cut the belt. Moron.

If one is conscious enough to escape, locating the tool and cutting a
belt will come quite naturally, urgently, purposefully. You really
don't think much before writing, huh?

Meanwhile I just open the door and leave, then watch you frantically trying to destroy your "life saving device".

also breaks glass. Keep the tool on a lanyard.

ROTFPMSL! You have these things round your neck while driving? You
must look a right prat.

No. But you are definitely an ass.hat for making ass.umptions.

The lanyard is attached to the center console so the widget cannot get
lost during an accident.

It'd be funny to see that smash you in the nuts on a tight bend.

4) Cars don't burn often in crashes in any case

I happen to know an entire family saved by seatbelts when a drunk drove
into them on a winter night... (And wow! Two destroyed vehicles and no
fire at all. What are the odds!?

Maybe they should have avoided the collision. I've lost count of how
many useless drivers I've got out of the way of. It requires two
incompetant fools to cause a crash.

You're pretty stupid. It only required one drunk in the case above.

Nope, the sober ones could have avoided it.

You're stupid (well established) to believe the myths in your tiny
brain ...

No, the myth is that seatbelts are safe.

If you believe that then I guess you're just hoping for a Darwin Award.

No, I'm just not a pessimist.

Good for you. But it's irrelevant to accidents.

Worrying about what might happen is called pessimism, by definition.

never will. I don't wear armbands or a lifejacket when I swim in the
sea either, because I'm not a pathetic pussy like you.

... and then ascribe it to cowardice in the pathetic ad hominem attacks
that you launch. True loser.

Of course it's cowardice. Learn to swim if you go swimming.

As usual, missing the point and ascribing it to something unrelated.

Both swimming and driving cause deaths. It's a fair analogy. But
obviously it went over your head.

I've been swimming (a lot) since I was a young child. Raced. Scuba
dive these days. Yep, good way to die, so you learn to take care when
doing so. Especially scuba.

Pussy.

You make Trump look like a genius.

Trump is a genius. He's getting rid of the subhumans that don't deserve
to be in America.

Yes, the subhumans around him like Manafort, Cohen and so on are going
to prison. So, yep, ya got me there.

I just looked up Manafort, and it seems he didn't commit real crimes, just some tax evasion. We all do that.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:59:04 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-18 05:08, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 16 February 2019 20:19:37 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:



Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

Commander Kinsey spends most of his waking hours doing that back and forth.

Failing at it too, I 'spect.

Just because your knob's past its best.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:08:25 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 20:19:37 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:



Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

Commander Kinsey spends most of his waking hours doing that back and forth.

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:08:25 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 20:19:37 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:



Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

Commander Kinsey spends most of his waking hours doing that back and forth.

I shouldn't have shown you that video, now you dream about me every day.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:15:35 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:


--- This is the snipped version! ---

Every car I've been in (including brand new ones) lock up when I lean
forwards. I guess you move very slowly. They have to lock up, they

Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

(I've explained this before but it always goes over your head. I guess
your crappy cars are crappy all around...)

If your belt doesn't lock when you jerk it with your hand, it should fail the annual safety test. How do you think it knows when you've crashed?

In my case the impact sensor fired off a charge which tightened all
in-use safety belts at the same time as it triggered the airbags,
unlocked the doors and disconnected the battery.

can't tell if you've jammed on the brakes / hit something / leaned
forwards. The seatbelt is a very simple mechanism sensing the
acceleration of the belt out of the reel.

The real world is not at all your very narrow experience.

--- Rest of GIANT snip ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:41:51 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:15:35 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:


--- This is the snipped version! ---

Every car I've been in (including brand new ones) lock up when I lean
forwards. I guess you move very slowly. They have to lock up, they

Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

(I've explained this before but it always goes over your head. I guess
your crappy cars are crappy all around...)

If your belt doesn't lock when you jerk it with your hand, it should fail the annual safety test. How do you think it knows when you've crashed?

In my case the impact sensor fired off a charge which tightened all
in-use safety belts at the same time as it triggered the airbags,
unlocked the doors and disconnected the battery.

Ahhh, a girly car. Most cars just lock the belts with a simple mechanism inside each reel. In fact AFAIK the UK MOT test passes the seatbelts if they jam when yanked hard. So yours would fail.

can't tell if you've jammed on the brakes / hit something / leaned
forwards. The seatbelt is a very simple mechanism sensing the
acceleration of the belt out of the reel.

The real world is not at all your very narrow experience.

--- Rest of GIANT snip ---

And you felt the need to write that why?

Eric Stevens wrote:

--- This is the snipped version! ---


In my case the impact sensor fired off a charge which tightened all
in-use safety belts at the same time as it triggered the airbags,
unlocked the doors and disconnected the battery.


You have a 1980s Saab?

I thought you were a Honda guy?


--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:46:20 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:41:51 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:15:35 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:


--- This is the snipped version! ---

Every car I've been in (including brand new ones) lock up when I lean
forwards. I guess you move very slowly. They have to lock up, they

Nope. Quickly. And to test it further, jerked it with my hand.

(I've explained this before but it always goes over your head. I guess
your crappy cars are crappy all around...)

If your belt doesn't lock when you jerk it with your hand, it should fail the annual safety test. How do you think it knows when you've crashed?

In my case the impact sensor fired off a charge which tightened all
in-use safety belts at the same time as it triggered the airbags,
unlocked the doors and disconnected the battery.

Ahhh, a girly car.

I suppose you drive one of these cars where the driver is out in the
fron, exposed to the weather, and in a position to protect the bumper
in the event of a collision.

Most cars just lock the belts with a simple mechanism inside each reel. In fact AFAIK the UK MOT test passes the seatbelts if they jam when yanked hard. So yours would fail.

Mine would not fail. It does lock when you jerk it. But I was
answering your question about how it knows when I have crashed.

can't tell if you've jammed on the brakes / hit something / leaned
forwards. The seatbelt is a very simple mechanism sensing the
acceleration of the belt out of the reel.

The real world is not at all your very narrow experience.

--- Rest of GIANT snip ---

And you felt the need to write that why?

There was no point in me quoting all that rubbish just to enable me to
make the comment on seatbelt activation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens