Nikon is backwards

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:36:32 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 03:50:51 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

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! ---

Oh my god!

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.

No, just a normal car without the fancy safety ****.

These days that's not a normal 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.

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.

Why does your belt lock when you jerk it? If you have a seperate sensor to detect a crash, why does it need a mechanical mechanism to detect the same thing? I'd prefer one with an external sensor, which didn't trigger with a jerk, that way I can lean forwards quickly without it thinking I've crashed.

Belt and braces?

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.

There was also no point in saying you'd snipped it. If I snip, I just delete the unneeded lines. Did you want congratulated on your tidying up or something?

Although that is unfortunately common now it has never been considered
good nettiquette. It helps avoid the situation where arguments can be
distorted by selective quoting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 22:49:18 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

It might save fuel, but you get problems like damp, mould,
expansion and contraction of furniture etc. Not worth the hassle
whatsoever.

expansion and contraction of furniture???

wtf

It does happen, but more importantly it also happens to the house
framing. However it does require much more than a trivial reduction in
temperature. I think it was Toronto which about 50 years ago had a
severe attack of this kind when the city ran out of heating fuel.

there weren't any reports of building failures during the polar vortex
last month, where the differential was as much as 100 degrees f.

True, but as far as I know, buildings have been kept heated.

the insides were. the outside was exposed to the cold.

I dimly
remember details from the repot I read many years ago to the effect
that while many houses in Toronto had been constructed in the depths
of winter, the had been built inside a heated canopy which was not
removed until the house was completed and it's heating system started.
When in whatever year it was the city ran out of heating fuel and the
furnaces shut down the buildings found themselves suddenly subject to
-25F temperatures for the first time in their life with disastrous
results.

then they were poorly designed. it gets cold in toronto.

Once the furnace stopped, so too were the insides: for the first time
ever.

and that has nothing to do with the idiotic claim of expansion and
contraction of furniture.

Think of the moisture content of the timber. The normal equilibrium
would have been between 12% and 19%. Suddenly it's exposed to bone dry
air at -25F. What moisture didn't evaporate (timber usually warps when
dried) would have expanded in place as it froze.

lowering the indoor temp 5-10 deg isn't going to make any difference
whatsoever, and mold needs moisture, which is very low in winter
months.

he is trolling.

Dampness sufficient to enable mold needs a significant amount of
water, usually caused by the condensation on cold walls of moisture
evaporated within the house by activities such as cooking, laundry,
bathing etc. Ventilation can help but so too does heating.

otherwise known as high humidity, which is not common in winter months,
when heat would be used.

But the Commander was talking about lowering the temperature. This
would increase the relative humidity and could well give rise to
condensation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there weren't any reports of building failures during the polar vortex
last month, where the differential was as much as 100 degrees f.

True, but as far as I know, buildings have been kept heated.

the insides were. the outside was exposed to the cold.

I dimly
remember details from the repot I read many years ago to the effect
that while many houses in Toronto had been constructed in the depths
of winter, the had been built inside a heated canopy which was not
removed until the house was completed and it's heating system started.
When in whatever year it was the city ran out of heating fuel and the
furnaces shut down the buildings found themselves suddenly subject to
-25F temperatures for the first time in their life with disastrous
results.

then they were poorly designed. it gets cold in toronto.

Once the furnace stopped, so too were the insides: for the first time
ever.

this is in new york:
https://twitter.com/NatalieKucko/status/1100785036415197184

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:48:53 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:44:41 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:52:38 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 01:43:34 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:54:46 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote:

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.

It might save fuel, but you get problems like damp, mould, expansion and contraction of furniture etc. Not worth the hassle whatsoever.

You are making things up unless you live in the arctic circle and
leave the windows open before you go away for several weeks.

Even 10C makes damp and mould.

It depends on the moisture content of the air.

If the external temperature is less than 10C then condensation in the
house can only occur as a result additional water being generated
inside the house. If it occurs while you have gone away for several
weeks then you have a water leak or some other supply somewhere.

You get extra moisture from breathing by people and pets. Anyway, the windows can be colder and condense the air.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 04:00:58 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:47:36 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:58:00 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:12:05 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:28:59 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:31:48 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 19 February 2019 21:49:04 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:02:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 00:00:21 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:26:52 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:



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?

Yes when at home.

I assume you come home at some point.

Yes and like most do have a switch that turns on to heat the home, switches are things thatr can be off or on and for teh most part I prefer my heating off from about 8am to around 4pm during the week because I am not there.

I suppose you leave your car heater and the engine on when you're not using your car.

I don't turn the heating off when I leave home. I merely turn down the
thermostat.

So why do you do that ?

See below.

I find I don't save money by turning the heating rigt off
and letting the house cool down.

really most people do and it helps with teh global warming thing.

Here in the UK we are encouraged to turn down our heating by just 1C to both save money and the enviroment, but then I guess if you're a Trump supporter then you don't believe in such things.


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.

So you think keeping a house warm when yuo're not there is more efficient ?

Yes.

My house is hated with a heat pump. If I leave it during the ay and
turn it on in the evening I am giving it a major load when the outside
temperatures are approaching coolest. That means the heat pump runs at
a lower efficiency which means more power has to be used. That costs
me more. And then there is problem of the icing of the outside coil.
Deicing heaters come into use and that costs more money also.

Where do you live? I'm in the UK and for some reason heat pumps haven't taken off here, we're still using gas boilers! Maybe heat pumps became more popular out in the middle of nowhere in the USA because piped gas isn't usually available? I'm shortly going to replace my gas boiler (you call them furnaces if you're American - we think of a furnace as a huge commercial thing for burning waste etc) with a heat pump - mainly because I want to be able to run it in reverse as an air conditioner.

I live in Auckland. I would be very careful before installing a
conventional heat pump if you expect the temperature to fall much
below 6C for more than a few days in the year.

Most American houses use them without bother. They work well below 6C. I'll obviously read the specs first. I think some of them are **** at low temperatures, but not all of them. After all they work the same as a fridge or freezer, where the cold side can be -18C or less.

The problem is that the evaporator (outside coil) has to be cooler
than the outside air. Otherwise you would never extract heat from the
outside air. Nominally the temperature difference is only 2C but with
cheaper units the size of the evaporator has bee stinted and it needs
a hiher temperature diffeence to work. The problem is that as the
temperature of the outside air falls moisture starts to condense on
the evaporator and s it falls further the water freezes on the
evaporator. The answer to this is to shut down the heat pump and
switch on heating elements to melt the ice. Once the ice is gone the
heat pump can start up and continue until the next freezing event.

Depending on the heat pump you can run into coil freezing at outside
air temperatures of 6C. However, if the air temperature is less than
0C there should be insignificant water vapour in the air and continual
freezing is not a problem. So 6C to 0C is the temperature band you
usually have to watch. Bear in mind that heat output is considerably
throttled if the unit has to keep shutting down to thaw out. Also, the
heating elements will cause power consumption to rise sharply when you
get into the evaporator freezing zone.

Then explain to me how my freezer can function with the coils inside the freezer at -18C or below, and constantly frozen up.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 04:04:12 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:36:32 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 03:50:51 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

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! ---

Oh my god!

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.

No, just a normal car without the fancy safety ****.

These days that's not a normal car.

Only if you're stupid enough to buy a top of the range modern car with massive depreciation. Buy a second hand one or a lower range one, and it won't have all that ****e.

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.

Why does your belt lock when you jerk it? If you have a seperate sensor to detect a crash, why does it need a mechanical mechanism to detect the same thing? I'd prefer one with an external sensor, which didn't trigger with a jerk, that way I can lean forwards quickly without it thinking I've crashed.

Belt and braces?

So one health and softy girly feature isn't enough?

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.

There was also no point in saying you'd snipped it. If I snip, I just delete the unneeded lines. Did you want congratulated on your tidying up or something?

Although that is unfortunately common now it has never been considered
good nettiquette. It helps avoid the situation where arguments can be
distorted by selective quoting.

Bull****. If part of the conversation is no longer being added to, you can delete it. If it's 10 levels deep, you can just keep the last 5.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:27:03 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 03:48:53 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:44:41 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:52:38 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 01:43:34 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 19:54:46 -0000, Carlos E.R. wrote:

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.

It might save fuel, but you get problems like damp, mould, expansion and contraction of furniture etc. Not worth the hassle whatsoever.

You are making things up unless you live in the arctic circle and
leave the windows open before you go away for several weeks.

Even 10C makes damp and mould.

It depends on the moisture content of the air.

If the external temperature is less than 10C then condensation in the
house can only occur as a result additional water being generated
inside the house. If it occurs while you have gone away for several
weeks then you have a water leak or some other supply somewhere.

You get extra moisture from breathing by people and pets. Anyway, the windows can be colder and condense the air.

I supposed that when you wrote 'you have gone away' you meant
'everyone' had gone away. Or are you suggesting that when you go away
you turn down the heat to leave everyone remaining behind to shiver?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:28:30 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 04:00:58 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:47:36 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:58:00 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:12:05 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:28:59 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:31:48 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 19 February 2019 21:49:04 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:02:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 00:00:21 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:26:52 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:



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?

Yes when at home.

I assume you come home at some point.

Yes and like most do have a switch that turns on to heat the home, switches are things thatr can be off or on and for teh most part I prefer my heating off from about 8am to around 4pm during the week because I am not there.

I suppose you leave your car heater and the engine on when you're not using your car.

I don't turn the heating off when I leave home. I merely turn down the
thermostat.

So why do you do that ?

See below.

I find I don't save money by turning the heating rigt off
and letting the house cool down.

really most people do and it helps with teh global warming thing.

Here in the UK we are encouraged to turn down our heating by just 1C to both save money and the enviroment, but then I guess if you're a Trump supporter then you don't believe in such things.


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.

So you think keeping a house warm when yuo're not there is more efficient ?

Yes.

My house is hated with a heat pump. If I leave it during the ay and
turn it on in the evening I am giving it a major load when the outside
temperatures are approaching coolest. That means the heat pump runs at
a lower efficiency which means more power has to be used. That costs
me more. And then there is problem of the icing of the outside coil.
Deicing heaters come into use and that costs more money also.

Where do you live? I'm in the UK and for some reason heat pumps haven't taken off here, we're still using gas boilers! Maybe heat pumps became more popular out in the middle of nowhere in the USA because piped gas isn't usually available? I'm shortly going to replace my gas boiler (you call them furnaces if you're American - we think of a furnace as a huge commercial thing for burning waste etc) with a heat pump - mainly because I want to be able to run it in reverse as an air conditioner.

I live in Auckland. I would be very careful before installing a
conventional heat pump if you expect the temperature to fall much
below 6C for more than a few days in the year.

Most American houses use them without bother. They work well below 6C. I'll obviously read the specs first. I think some of them are **** at low temperatures, but not all of them. After all they work the same as a fridge or freezer, where the cold side can be -18C or less.

The problem is that the evaporator (outside coil) has to be cooler
than the outside air. Otherwise you would never extract heat from the
outside air. Nominally the temperature difference is only 2C but with
cheaper units the size of the evaporator has bee stinted and it needs
a hiher temperature diffeence to work. The problem is that as the
temperature of the outside air falls moisture starts to condense on
the evaporator and s it falls further the water freezes on the
evaporator. The answer to this is to shut down the heat pump and
switch on heating elements to melt the ice. Once the ice is gone the
heat pump can start up and continue until the next freezing event.

Depending on the heat pump you can run into coil freezing at outside
air temperatures of 6C. However, if the air temperature is less than
0C there should be insignificant water vapour in the air and continual
freezing is not a problem. So 6C to 0C is the temperature band you
usually have to watch. Bear in mind that heat output is considerably
throttled if the unit has to keep shutting down to thaw out. Also, the
heating elements will cause power consumption to rise sharply when you
get into the evaporator freezing zone.

Then explain to me how my freezer can function with the coils inside the freezer at -18C or below, and constantly frozen up.

1. They will ice up in the normal course of operation and there
usually is a defrost cycle to cope with that.

2. They are designed (including sized) to operate in that condition.

3. There is probably something wrong if if the coils are permanently
heavily iced up. But possibly, it is either a very old or cheap
design. In any case, it will be more expensive to run if it is
permanently operating with the coils severely iced up.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 04:57:35 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 21:45:06 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 02:01:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 25 February 2019 23:09:43 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:31:48 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:


I find I don't save money by turning the heating rigt off
and letting the house cool down.

really most people do

Why? It's inconvenient to plan what times you'll be in.

Not for me, I know I work 5 days a week and the time I have to leave for work and roughly want time I'll get home. even my cat knows.

Not all jobs are like that. I know mine certainly never was.

But the majority are and most have some idea when they'll get home.
Most people are given some sort of work shedule so they know when to turn up for work.

I had the flexibility of being self employed.


and it helps with teh global warming thing.

That doesn't exist. Why do you believe the treehuggers? Do you believe in god aswell?

Are you claiming God is stoping global warming or is he the one responsible.
I hear even scotland has had the warmest febuary on record. We've had the highest winter temperature of 20.6C .

One season does not make a climate. That takes 30 years.

But when it repeats such high temperatures ,

For 30 years? I agree.

even amimals get this but obviously some humans aren't as inteligent or in tune with their enviorment.

What data have you got on animals awareness of climate changes?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:44:03 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 04:04:12 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 01:36:32 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 03:50:51 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

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! ---

Oh my god!

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.

No, just a normal car without the fancy safety ****.

These days that's not a normal car.

Only if you're stupid enough to buy a top of the range modern car with massive depreciation. Buy a second hand one or a lower range one, and it won't have all that ****e.

You have to try very hard to buy a modern car without all the
protective stuff. See
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-...itmen t=false
or http://tinyurl.com/y9rngalt

In fact you are advocating buying the worst of used cars possibly more
than 10 years old.

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.

Why does your belt lock when you jerk it? If you have a seperate sensor to detect a crash, why does it need a mechanical mechanism to detect the same thing? I'd prefer one with an external sensor, which didn't trigger with a jerk, that way I can lean forwards quickly without it thinking I've crashed.

Belt and braces?

So one health and softy girly feature isn't enough?

Why do you keep referring to such things as 'girly'? Is it a
reflection on your sexuality or do you think that it is the role of
men to go into the way of otherwise avoiable harm?

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.

There was also no point in saying you'd snipped it. If I snip, I just delete the unneeded lines. Did you want congratulated on your tidying up or something?

Although that is unfortunately common now it has never been considered
good nettiquette. It helps avoid the situation where arguments can be
distorted by selective quoting.

Bull****. If part of the conversation is no longer being added to, you can delete it. If it's 10 levels deep, you can just keep the last 5.

And by selectively and surreptitiously editing what someone wrote you
can appear to defeat him in an argument using his own words.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens