cfl's

[Damian]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l0cnse$olk$1@dont-email.me...

Damian wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8cst3FojfcU1@mid.individual.net...
On 31-August-2013 1:55 AM, Damian wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.
It was mandated anyway.

I believe it's a choice, so far.
You're wrong, as always.
I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in
areas
where I rarely switch them on.

I still have a box full

I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it
yet.

now that you've outed yourself on usenet expect a SWAT team anytime
soon..

Crap! Why don't I think before I talk?!! ;-)


And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.

eBay too


Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?!
BTW, Rod is a home brewer.
I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. )

Home brewing is not illegal and as far as I know selling old filament
lamps is not illegal, the importing of them is.

It's not illegal here in Oz. But, I know it's illegal in many countries.
Even in here, with all the federal & state law mess we have here, I dunno
whether it's legal in all the states, for example in NT.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Phil Allison]

"F Murtz"

Home brewing is not illegal and as far as I know selling old filament
lamps is not illegal, the importing of them is.

** The sale of GLS lamps has been illegal in most states since November
2009.

http://ee.ret.gov.au/energy-efficiency/lighting

http://ee.ret.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/energy-efficiency/Regulatory-Ruling-Incandescent-Final-v1.pdf

NZ opted out of this nonsense long ago.



.... Phil

 

[Trevor]

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l0ls1h$3sk$1@dont-email.me...

Actually, the halogens are invented for heat, not for light.

And proudly proclaim 30-40% increased efficiency over standard filament
globes!
Not saying much of course!

Probably, they were referring to it's efficiency as a bathroom heater, I
reckon. ;-)

Yep, they work pretty well for that, not so good if you want light in summer
though! :-(

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b963upF2ph2U1@mid.individual.net...

On 08-September-2013 4:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8v7f7FkjrvU1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually had
to
pay for them!

Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
fixing the problem.

NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly! You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at the
tv.

You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(

Trevor.

 

[felix_unger]

On 11-September-2013 4:06 PM, Trevor wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b963upF2ph2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08-September-2013 4:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8v7f7FkjrvU1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly! You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(

Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.

Trevor.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.
they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.
they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.
or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
more.

Mine have been quite literally free.
they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
something I'm not sure yet.

Your problem.

That need some reading of research papers.

Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.

You cant.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

No its not with the glass used with cfls.

That’s why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
instead.

I know you are no big in physics,

You're just plain wrong there.

but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
who has done any of that knows that UV doesn’t get
thru the glass used with cfls.

which should give you enough background knowledge on that.
We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.

It isnt to keep the UV out.

I wouldn't dare to wear sunglasses that doesn't provide UV filtering. Does
more damage than any good.
What is the purpose of sunglasses, then?
>

 

[SG1]

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l0rcfk$9c7$1@dont-email.me...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.
they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.
they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.
or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
more.

Mine have been quite literally free.
they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don't. UV doesn't get thru glass.

Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
something I'm not sure yet.

Your problem.

That need some reading of research papers.

Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.

You cant.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn't get thru glass.

Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

No its not with the glass used with cfls.

That's why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
instead.

I know you are no big in physics,

You're just plain wrong there.

but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
who has done any of that knows that UV doesn't get
thru the glass used with cfls.

which should give you enough background knowledge on that.
We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.

It isnt to keep the UV out.

I wouldn't dare to wear sunglasses that doesn't provide UV filtering. Does
more damage than any good.
What is the purpose of sunglasses, then?

Until polarised and then UV filtering sunglasses were to look cool. My specs
have a UV filter film.
My sunnies are polarised so I'm covered, literally...

 

[Damian]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:b97cm6Fb1noU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz"

Home brewing is not illegal and as far as I know selling old filament
lamps is not illegal, the importing of them is.

I bet they are still getting through the ports.

** The sale of GLS lamps has been illegal in most states since November
2009.

http://ee.ret.gov.au/energy-efficiency/lighting

http://ee.ret.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/energy-efficiency/Regulatory-Ruling-Incandescent-Final-v1.pdf

NZ opted out of this nonsense long ago.



... Phil

 

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b97f2uFbfboU1@mid.individual.net...

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l0lsbr$569$1@dont-email.me...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l0cnse$olk$1@dont-email.me...
Damian wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8cst3FojfcU1@mid.individual.net...
On 31-August-2013 1:55 AM, Damian wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.
It was mandated anyway.

I believe it's a choice, so far.
You're wrong, as always.
I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in
areas
where I rarely switch them on.

I still have a box full

I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it
yet.

now that you've outed yourself on usenet expect a SWAT team anytime
soon..

Crap! Why don't I think before I talk?!! ;-)


And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.

eBay too


Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?!
BTW, Rod is a home brewer.
I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. )

Home brewing is not illegal and as far as I know selling old filament
lamps is not illegal, the importing of them is.

It's not illegal here in Oz. But, I know it's illegal in many countries.
Even in here, with all the federal & state law mess we have here, I dunno
whether it's legal in all the states, for example in NT.

Corse it is.

Yeah. There should be a special legal exception to ban you from makng home
brew.
You've been boozing too much and been too rabit lately. ;-))

>

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9bc9mF5mgvU1@mid.individual.net...

On 11-September-2013 4:06 PM, Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b963upF2ph2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08-September-2013 4:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8v7f7FkjrvU1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly! You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(

Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.

Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done so!
*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Trevor.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:l0rcfk$9c7$1@dont-email.me...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f9g6F9iuqU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvprn6$et1$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...


"Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

The govt conned themselves...

must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
not only are they an environmental hazed,

Bullshit.
they are simply not cost effective.

Bullshit.
they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

The best of them do.
or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps
more.

Mine have been quite literally free.
they emit UV radiation too.

Bullshit.

Yes. they do,

No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is
something I'm not sure yet.

Your problem.

That need some reading of research papers.

Nope, just try seeing if you can get anything to fluoresce using one.

You cant.

whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

Come on man. You should know that's incorrect.

No its not with the glass used with cfls.

That’s why the black light UV tubes and bug zappers use quartz glass
instead.

I know you are no big in physics,

You're just plain wrong there.

but you still suppose to have chemistry experties,

And physical chemistry use spectroscopy and anyone
who has done any of that knows that UV doesn’t get
thru the glass used with cfls.

which should give you enough background knowledge on that.
We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.

It isnt to keep the UV out.

I wouldn't dare to wear sunglasses that doesn't provide UV filtering.

They all do, because normal glass filters UV.

> Does more damage than any good.

Even sillier.

> What is the purpose of sunglasses, then?

They reduce the intensity of the light getting into the eyes.

 

[felix_unger]

On 12-September-2013 4:47 PM, Trevor wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9bc9mF5mgvU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11-September-2013 4:06 PM, Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b963upF2ph2U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08-September-2013 4:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b8v7f7FkjrvU1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly! You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.

Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done so!

Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before it
switches the tv off. so all you have to do is position it so you can see
it and point the remote at it and press some key when it flashes.

*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.

and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution
than bitching

Trevor.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9hleaFf72aU1@mid.individual.net...

position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly!
You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly
designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still
fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at
the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it
to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.

Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done
so!

Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before it
switches the tv off.

YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
turns the TV off!
Perhaps you are lucky and got one from a good batch, neither of mine are!
:-(

*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.

and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution than
bitching

Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony!
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a *suitable*
solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products, and I'd be right
because obviously you don't!

Trevor.

 

[felix_unger]

On 16-September-2013 4:38 PM, Trevor wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9hleaFf72aU1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly!
You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly
designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still
fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at
the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it
to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.
Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done
so!
Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before it
switches the tv off.
YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
turns the TV off!

That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby. If you are
watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like ten mins
as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is after the
time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.

Perhaps you are lucky and got one from a good batch, neither of mine are!
:-(

I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device. What TV is it
anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be that the device
is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?

*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.
and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution than
bitching
Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony!
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a *suitable*
solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,

yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.

and I'd be right
because obviously you don't!

Trevor.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Right now you're the youngest you'll ever be, and the oldest you've ever been. So embrace life, and make the most of the time that remains"

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9nt11Fnh8qU1@mid.individual.net...

position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than
actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly!
You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly
designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still
fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at
the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design
it
to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.
Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as
you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the
first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done
so!
Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before it
switches the tv off.
YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
turns the TV off!

That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.

And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument you
seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?

If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.

That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED to
do I wouldn't have complained in the first place! You really are having
trouble understanding what is written, but of course that will never stop
you continuing to argue for the sake of it will it!


> I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.

Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??

What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be that
the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?

Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless it
is faulty of course.

*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.
and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution
than
bitching
Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony!
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
*suitable*
solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,

yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.

Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your money
back. That's the way it's supposed to work. IF an adjustment is needed for
different TV's, one should be provided, simple as that.

Trevor.

 

[felix_unger]

On 17-September-2013 2:17 PM, Trevor wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9nt11Fnh8qU1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than
actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly!
You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly
designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still
fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at
the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design
it
to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.
Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as
you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the
first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done
so!
Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before it
switches the tv off.
YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
turns the TV off!
That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.
And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument

You originally said that it "wants to turn the TV off every time you
switch channels, after flashing for only a few seconds" . I offered a remedy

> you seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?

that's what you're doing, as well as hurling insults. I offered a
remedy, ie. to position the receiver so that it doesn't receive IR when
you change channels, and rather than admit that it would solve the
problem, you just poo-hoo'd the idea, and continued to bitch about the
device

If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.
That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED to
do I wouldn't have complained in the first place!

see above comments

You really are having
trouble understanding what is written, but of course that will never stop
you continuing to argue for the sake of it will it!


I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.
Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??

$100. but I wouldn't trust you to be honest

What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be that
the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?
Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless it
is faulty of course.

you've already swapped it out once, and the other one does the same
thing. What are the chances that two devices are faulty? very little.
Keep swapping it out then and see if EVERY one you get does the same
thing. If you ever get one that doesn't then you've proved that there
are faulty devices. Bet you wont tho, you would rather just bitch about
the product.

*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.
and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution
than
bitching
Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony!
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
*suitable*
solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,
yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.
Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your money
back.

but you never paid for it

That's the way it's supposed to work. IF an adjustment is needed for
different TV's, one should be provided, simple as that.

Trevor.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Right now you're the youngest you'll ever be, and the oldest you've ever been. So embrace life and make the most of the time that remains"

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9q5sdF7j33U1@mid.individual.net...

position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the
remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you
still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than
actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works
properly!
You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly
designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can
still
fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote
at
the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design
it
to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than
solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.
Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as
you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the
first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already
done
so!
Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before
it
switches the tv off.
YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
turns the TV off!
That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.
And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument

You originally said that it "wants to turn the TV off every time you
switch channels, after flashing for only a few seconds" . I offered a
remedy

No you didn't, you offered a useless suggestion, a different thing
altogether.

you seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?

that's what you're doing, as well as hurling insults.

If you accepted what I said rather than calling me a liar, there would have
been no argument at all.

I offered a remedy, ie. to position the receiver so that it doesn't
receive IR when you change channels,

A useless suggestion which stops the device working as intended.

and rather than admit that it would solve the problem, you just poo-hoo'd
the idea, and continued to bitch about the device

Because it DOESN'T *SOLVE* the problem, simply introduces a different
problem! That YOU fail to see that but still keep arguing is rather
pointless.

If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.
That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED
to
do I wouldn't have complained in the first place!


I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.
Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??

$100. but I wouldn't trust you to be honest

I'll take your bet, come see for yourself! I bet you won't!

What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be
that
the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?
Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless
it
is faulty of course.

you've already swapped it out once, and the other one does the same thing.
What are the chances that two devices are faulty? very little.

EXACTLY why I said it was a faulty DESIGN in the first place. You are still
having trouble keeping up!

Keep swapping it out then and see if EVERY one you get does the same
thing. If you ever get one that doesn't then you've proved that there are
faulty devices. Bet you wont tho, you would rather just bitch about the
product.

You seem to have infinite time to do that perhaps, and to argue as well, but
I couldn't be bothered.

*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.
and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution
than
bitching
Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony!
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
*suitable*
solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,
yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.
Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your
money
back.

but you never paid for it

MY TAXES DID!

Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up crap
as you like *IF* you don't intend to take up your bet!

Trevor.

 

[felix_unger]

On 17-September-2013 3:16 PM, Trevor wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9q5sdF7j33U1@mid.individual.net...
position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the
remote
when
you change channels
IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you
still
have
to
be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
switching
off
every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
solution
is
to
do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
actually
had
to
pay for them!
Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than
actually
fixing the problem.
NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works
properly!
You
really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly
designed
device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.

It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can
still
fire
the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote
at
the
tv.
You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design
it
to
work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than
solving
*your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.
Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as
you
use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the
first
you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already
done
so!
Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before
it
switches the tv off.
YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
turns the TV off!
That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.
And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument
You originally said that it "wants to turn the TV off every time you
switch channels, after flashing for only a few seconds" . I offered a
remedy
No you didn't, you offered a useless suggestion, a different thing
altogether.

It's not useless, it works, stupid

you seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?
that's what you're doing, as well as hurling insults.
If you accepted what I said rather than calling me a liar,

never called you a liar

> there would have been no argument at all.

yes there would, because you didn't want to remedy the situation, just
complain about everything, even my suggestion that works

I offered a remedy, ie. to position the receiver so that it doesn't
receive IR when you change channels,
A useless suggestion which stops the device working as intended.

but you're complaining that it already doesn't work as intended

and rather than admit that it would solve the problem, you just poo-hoo'd
the idea, and continued to bitch about the device
Because it DOESN'T *SOLVE* the problem, simply introduces a different
problem!

oh yeah, big problem.. you have to point the remote at it and press a
button when it flashes. Huge problem, HUGE!

That YOU fail to see that but still keep arguing is rather
pointless.


If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.
That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED
to
do I wouldn't have complained in the first place!

I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.
Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??
$100. but I wouldn't trust you to be honest
I'll take your bet, come see for yourself! I bet you won't!

where are you?

What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be
that
the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?
Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless
it
is faulty of course.
you've already swapped it out once, and the other one does the same thing.
What are the chances that two devices are faulty? very little.
EXACTLY why I said it was a faulty DESIGN in the first place. You are still
having trouble keeping up!


Keep swapping it out then and see if EVERY one you get does the same
thing. If you ever get one that doesn't then you've proved that there are
faulty devices. Bet you wont tho, you would rather just bitch about the
product.
You seem to have infinite time to do that perhaps, and to argue as well, but
I couldn't be bothered.


*NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.
and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution
than
bitching
Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony!
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
*suitable*
solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,
yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.
Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your
money
back.
but you never paid for it
MY TAXES DID!

Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up crap
as you like *IF* you don't intend to take up your bet!

well don't post your bitching problems if you don't want ppl to respond
with suggestions

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9qck7F8ri2U1@mid.individual.net...

Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up
crap as you like

 

[felix_unger]

On 18-September-2013 12:48 PM, Trevor wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b9qck7F8ri2U1@mid.individual.net...
Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up
crap as you like

last time I'll ever offer you any help with anything