If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#372
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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 |
#373
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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. |
#374
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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. |
#375
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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. |
#376
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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. |
#377
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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 |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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? |
#379
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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 |
#380
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon is backwards
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Going backwards, DSLR to Fixed Lens. | J. B. Dalton | Digital Photography | 3 | August 14th 06 04:45 AM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
[eBay] Nikon F80 Nikon MB-16 Nikon flash SB23 Like New In Box * MINT | Patty | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 22nd 04 12:37 AM |