Why do circuit breakers go up for on and down for off?...

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-02-18 02:47, Rod Speed wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 06:19:29 +1100, Carlos E. R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-02-17 20:12, Rod Speed wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 03:05:55 +1100, Carlos E. R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-02-17 04:52, Rod Speed wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 12:45:30 +1100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-02-16 16:26, Scott Lurndal wrote:
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> writes:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 16 Feb 2023 13:30:34 +0100, \"Carlos
E.R.\" <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-02-16 05:45, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 15 Feb 2023 23:32:44 +0100,
\"Carlos E.R.\" <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:


I think all houses have circuit breakers, but that doesn\'t mean
they
have a fully compliant installation.

I don\'t think they\'ve ever ordered that here.  Althought some
people
remodel and upgrade on their own.  A friend bought a 100-year old
farmhouse about 10 years ago and it still had knob and tube
wiring.  I
think it was connected and in use.
 A lot of insurance companies will exclude electric-caused issues
from the policy if the home has knob and tube here in the states.

I had to look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring

I\'ve never seen it here. Maybe, just maybe, something related from
before I was born. But we don\'t build houses with wood, like in
the photos. All brick, mortar, stone, concrete.
 Bullshit.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wooden+houses+spain&tbm=isch

Did you check the percent?
 You said DON\'T and ALL.

Less than a 0.01% error, probably.

Don\'t buy that with the prefabs and we can see that your number is a lie
using google street view.

In cities? In my city I don\'t remember seeing a single wood house. On
some beaches, yes. For political reasons:

It is very difficult to get a building permit in some places, so people
plant a prefab instead.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[Don Y]

On 2/20/2023 11:58 PM, Tabby wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 10:17:39 UTC, Don Y wrote:
On 2/20/2023 2:22 AM, James wrote:
On 19/02/2023 12:21, Don Y wrote:

Here, all food products cary a \"nutrition label\". It gives the consumer
information as to serving size (supposedly somewhat standardized within
product families), number of servings in container, calories, fat, sodium,
etc. per serving.

You\'d think that abundance of data would lead to a population that is
\"fit\" and \"healthy\"!

I certainly wouldn\'t. There is more to health than nutrition labelling. It
also requires at least good nutritional advice, education, motivation &
affordable options. As a society we fail on all of those.

There\'s scant little the powers that be can do to force people
to learn and make informed decisions.

But, they can force vendors to disclose what\'s in their products
so that people who *do* want to evaluate based on something more
than a picture of the item on the label can do so. And, summarize
what a typical person *needs* for those significant nutritional
issues (calories, fat, sodium, etc.). Particularly if you have
dietary constraints that make certain types of foods ill-advised.

Likewise for prepared foods (\"that hamburger has 100% of your
daily budget of sodium, fat, etc. -- and don\'t even think
about the fried onion rings!\")

Similarly, requiring food to be unit priced so customers
who can\'t do arithmetic in their head can compare apples
to apples between competing products.

But, there\'s no real way to use the data in day-to-day decisions

I do

So, you tabulate the calories, fat, saturated fat, sodium, etc.
for each of the items you plan on eating, that day, before
committing to that menu? How does that work if you\'re \"out\"?

-- other than choosing between similar items (\"This one has more fat per
serving...\").

I see no need to restrict choices to similar items

No one is RESTRICTING choice. Rather, if Bob wants to buy some
hotdogs, how do you give him information sufficient to decide
what value two competing products offer (monetarily as well as
nutritionally)? Should he buy the beef dogs? Turkey? Pork?
\"Imitation meat\"?

If he decides, instead, to buy a pork shoulder, shouldn\'t he be
able to understand how that changes his nutritional budget
(from that of the hotdogs)?

You can\'t use the data to plan a diet because there are simply too many
choices and opportunities, during a day, to MAKE those choices.

nonsequitur

(\"If I eat this, now, can I compensate for
it with my eating choices later, today?\")

the label info answers that pretty quickly. Typically it\'s no.

The label that you said didn\'t contain enough nutritional information?

You can compensate (without planning a whole day\'s food intake)
if you are diligent. If I have a steak for breakfast, I\'m not
going to have another big \"meat meal\" later that day. Nor am
I going to restrict myself to only eating steak late in the day.

When I am planning on doing my holiday baking, I invariably
eat less -- because I know I will be \"eating the rejects\"
(or discarding them). And, arrange for the things that I
do \"eat\" to be high protein (as the \"rejects\" are invariably
carbs)

Maybe energy shouldn\'t be importable -- every nation should have to live
within it\'s local means (why impose on neighbors for your shortfalls?).
Locally adopt changes to meet your available resources. Without
\"impinging\" on others who don\'t have them! You can impose whatever sort of
draconian measures your population will tolerate to solve *its* problem!

what problem do you think preventing international trade in energy would
solve? I can\'t think of one

Seems like you (EU/UK) have a problem because of your past reliance on
international trade in energy -- now disrupted! Had you been forced
to live within your means, the problem wouldn\'t exist.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:54:44 -0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 11/02/2023 18:30, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-11 13:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:58:23 -0000, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-02-11 10:00, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:48:06 -0000, Colin Bignell
cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/2023 08:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:


But reverse screws do exist.

They shouldn\'t.

Disassemble a house fan, and you will see one such reverse bolt, and
understand why they exist


Reverse screws are used in traditional taps to lift the washer assembly
off the seating to make it seem like you are unscrewing a traditional
tap when the head of the tap is not actually moving upward.

Taps are the wrong way round. Consider a gas and an electric cooker and their control knobs.

Reverse screws are used on steering links so you can adjust the
effective length by turning the link rod.

No reason that couldn\'t be done the other way.

Reverse screws are used on quadcopter rotor shafts for two of the motors
that are turning clockwise
etc etc.

If you use a nylock nut, you don\'t get loose screws anyway.

 

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-02-18 18:30, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:48:29 -0000, Vir Campestris
vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 11/02/2023 15:56, John Larkin wrote:
But I guess 240v is a lot nastier than 120, so more ground fault
sensing makes sense in europe.

It\'s a trade-off. More shocks with 240V; more fires with the higher
currents required at 120V.

More shocks doesn\'t mean more deaths.  You jump more at 240V, so are
more likely to let go.  Try touching a 6000V electric fence and you\'ll
see what I mean.

Because high voltage electric fences, except military fences, have a
resistor in series, or fed from a limited sized capacitor, so that the
voltage drops fast when a body touches them.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[Don Y]

On 2/20/2023 11:45 PM, Tabby wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 10:17:35 UTC, Don Y wrote:
On 2/20/2023 2:22 AM, James wrote:
On 19/02/2023 12:30, Don Y wrote:

No but your answers here should understand the problems others are
facing. Quote: \'My comment (above) was with regard to the
*increase* in cost (from \"rate hikes\") as being relatively modest.\'
They are not.

How much should I alter my behavior to reflect the conditions in
Ukraine, today?

Your behaviour should not be dismissive of others that may have
experienced tripled energy costs.
Why should your problems be mine? Are you going to do anything to refill
Lakes Meade & Powell? Or, address gun violence, here? Shouldn\'t you feel
morally obligated to do so? (as you seem to think USAins have to behave as
brits in our values and approaches to problems)

Drive smaller cars.

we do. They\'re over twice as safe as American cars, under half the cost and
about twice as fuel efficient.

If fuel was twice what it costs here, what have you saved?
How do you cart lumber home for a project? Or, purchase
oversized items? Rent a vehicle for the task?

Own smaller refrigerators.

we do

And must, therefore, be visiting the store more often.

Use less energy.

we do

You HAVE to! Because your energy costs are so outrageously
high! That\'s not a consequence of being \"morally superior\"
(as your tone seems to suggest).

Be more fit.

we are

Yet, you have no problem claiming that *we* should be!
(this list was a tabulation of the things YOU say of us;
you\'ve misinterpreted its intent)

Lose collective weight.

we are less obese than US

See above.

I can solve your energy problem: develop new energy sources! See how easy
that was?

oddly, it is not now solved

How much money did your government pump into private individuals\'
pockets to do so? We call that socialism, here.

How much energy did you have to import from the US?
<https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/trendsinukimportsandexportsoffuels/2022-06-29>
What would you have done without those sources?

I can solve your political problems: throw everyone out at the next
election and arrange for that to happen RSN. Repeat until the folks who
end up in office actually respond to your needs. Another simple fix!

the UK has been doing that for decades. It has not worked, and isn\'t going
to

Then you\'re doing it wrong. Obviously.

Should I be more *appreciative* of the fact that I have lights and
sanitation?

Probably yes. You are getting there.

A comment I hear from my right-wing friends is that the EU \"deserves\"
the (energy) problems they\'re facing because they cozied up to
Russia, (presumably for short-term savings at the expense of energy
independence). \"Why should *we* be shipping fuels to them and driving
up domestic prices? Shouldn\'t we try to capitalize on their dilemma?
Isn\'t that \'supply-and-demand\'? Maybe their markets will \'teach them\'
that lesson...\"

A valid although incomplete view point but that is politics over which I
have minimal control. I can influence my energy bill by reducing
consumption. In a technical group it is valid to be interested in that
consumption. We do not need quips.
\"Quips\" -- comments that you don\'t like. Regardless of how accurately
they reflect reality. Would you prefer if I cooed and reassured you that
it\'ll be OK, don\'t fret?

your idea of reality on this topic is too naive to be constructive. You show
no grasp of what\'s going on here. Energy costs are just one aspect of our
probable imminent complete loss of \'democracy\'.

Ah, but you are an *expert* on what\'s going on *here*, right?
You seem awfully preachy about it -- hence my snarky replies!

You can\'t fit big cars in your homes -- because you gutted some
ancient building and retrofitted JUST the interior to be
more modern (and didn\'t think creating a space for the car
was important... at least, not as important as making a
space for the toilet!).

And, your fuel costs are so high that you treat the smaller car
as a *virtue* -- yet refuse to downsize to an even more \"virtuous\"
size transport.

You\'re quick to claim us as unfit, overweight, etc. yet
have no idea what life in a nonsocialistic society is like.

You consider us wasteful of energy, in general, in our appliance
choices, vehicles, etc. Yet have no idea what it\'s like NOT
to pay outrageous prices for that energy. One wonders how
\"virtuous\" you would be if your energy costs were the same
as ours.

You mock our purchase decisions because they don\'t fit with YOUR
lifestyle choices -- as if YOUR choices are implicitly \"correct\".

Naive would be an understatement!

Or, is it envy?

I don\'t feel much sympathy for folks who rob banks and get shot by the
police. They screwed up (YOU screwed up with your energy policies).

we did not, our politicians did. Politics here is not the same as the US.

They\'re elected officials, right? Or, is it really a dictatorship
with a ceremonial figurehead (the real masters being Illuminati)?
We (the US population) would like to know as we\'d likely not be
as supportive of a dictatorship!

You could be spending your time working for pols who would get you out of
your problems.

you really don\'t get it. Those who could solve it are not going to get
elected.

Because the electorate won\'t elect them? Or, is it that secret
behind-the-scenes organization at work?

It must suck to live somewhere where you KNOW you don\'t have a
choice in your government! My god, what a sad existence you must
lead!

Or, is that someone *else\'s* problem? It seems like you\'re just opting for
the easy solution: \"I measure everything\". But, you likely still use more
energy than *essential* -- does that make you feel inadequate as a
person?

Or, *design* something that saves energy -- but, on a *significant* scale
(not some incremental reduction). India needs an economical refrigeration
solution -- on a massive scale. See what you can offer, there.

Or, figure out how you are going to convince entire national populations
that they should adopt your value system(s). And, test that approach on
each nation!

You remind me of the careers advice I got. It was patently obvious what my
career was going to be, I was already doing the relevant qualification &
involved with the relevant company. I protested but was required to go get
this \'advice\', which was more clueless than I had imagined possible.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 14:27:41 -0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

On 12/02/2023 11:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/02/2023 18:30, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-02-11 13:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:58:23 -0000, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-02-11 10:00, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 08:48:06 -0000, Colin Bignell
cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
On 11/02/2023 08:16, Commander Kinsey wrote:


But reverse screws do exist.

They shouldn\'t.

Disassemble a house fan, and you will see one such reverse bolt, and
understand why they exist


Reverse screws are used in traditional taps to lift the washer assembly
off the seating to make it seem like you are unscrewing a traditional
tap when the head of the tap is not actually moving upward.

Reverse screws are used on steering links so you can adjust the
effective length by turning the link rod.

Reverse screws are used on quadcopter rotor shafts for two of the motors
that are turning clockwise
etc etc.

In short there are dozens of places you need a reverse screw,

And sports cars with knock off hubs and wire wheels where a left hand
thread is used on one side (forget which) so it doesn\'t some undone if
the cap (or whatever) rubs against something.

Funny how most cars don\'t seem to need that.

And the pressure reducers used on LPG cylinders: propane is the opposite
way to butane so you can\'t connect the wrong one.

What\'s wrong with different sized connectors?

Thinking you\'re tightening a gas pipe and you\'re actually undoing it is dangerous.

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:14:47 -0600, Mark Lloyd, another absolutely brain
dead, troll-feeding, senile cretin, drivelled:

Yes.... me getting an electric shock could hurt my next door neighbour.
Just how stupid are you?
Will you promise to keep the fire from spreading?

I promise you that he will keep baiting you for as long as you keep feeding
him, you troll-feeding senile asshole!

 

[Don Y]

On 2/21/2023 12:01 AM, Tabby wrote:

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 12:07:24 UTC, Don Y wrote:
On 2/20/2023 4:19 AM, James wrote:
On 20/02/2023 10:17, Don Y wrote:
On 2/20/2023 2:22 AM, James wrote:
On 19/02/2023 12:21, Don Y wrote:

And, what do they do when they
don\'t like what they see, return it?

Yes or not switch it on.

You buy things to *use* them, not worship them.

Not 100% of the time. If it is an old existing device stop using it
or replace.

And *you* get to make that decision for *me*? Wow, full
of yourself, eh?

I will quote your text from above \"when *they* don\'t like\". The decision to
not like was not made by me. I was answering the \"And, what do they do when\".
You don\'t have to follow my answer. Please, Don...
Here is the entire quote:
\"So, instead of just *using* devices, you expect consumers
to quantify the costs of each. And, what do they do when
they don\'t like what they see, return it? Will you publish
a comprehensive catalog of every energy consuming device
with costs normalized so consumers can make informed choices?\"
So, the consumer has taken on the task of quantifying the
cost of each candidate device. Most stores don\'t let you walk
in and test devices on the showroom floor. So, you had to
*purchase* the device(s) and bring them home. Then, set up
a (repeatable) experiment that you could use to collect comparison
data. Thereafter, one (or both) will likely not meet their
goals (one will likely always be \"better\") so they must return
the device(s) that they found \"inadequate\".

And, do this for every device they might consider purchasing.
Noting, of course, that the manufacturer is under no obligation
to keep the design constant between units/purchases. So, any
\"results\" are only applicable to the units actually tested.
Repeat a \"satisfied\" purchase a month later and the results
may be different!

If (as in my original examples) you already own a device
(no store involved -- yet!), you still have to dedicate
considerable time to designing a repeatable experiment
and then running it. And, may not be able to make any
practical sense of the data you obtain!

Hot wash, delicate cycle: AAAA
Hot wash, heavy soil: BBBB
Cold wash, delicate cycle: CCCC
Cold wash, heavy soil: DDDD

First order of business, come up with a way of soiling
garments repeatably -- and hope the fabric\'s repeated
laundering doesn\'t affect it\'s ability to retain soil!

Second order of business, come up with a set of criteria
to judge how \"clean\" the results are, after wash. I.e.,
if cost1 < cost2 but remaining_soil1 > remaining_soil2,
which is the more efficient solution? Do I have to
wash #1, again, to meet the same cleanliness levels of #2?
Maybe #2 is cleaner than it needs to be??

[I can always opt NOT to launder in which case my energy
costs will always be lowest! But, cleanliness will suffer!]

What will the break-even point be for these tests as they
are each \"unnecessary\" in the lives of the garments being
tested? The energy expended during the tests is \"wasted\".

Third item, what constitutes a \"bad\" result? How much energy
is \"too much\" to remove a particular amount of soil? Do
you have normalized data from other appliances against
which you can compare your results? What if the soil is a
permanent *stain*?

Fourth item, how do you combine results for more optimal
utilization? E.g., if I wash my whites on hot, they tend to
come cleaner than in cold. But, if I have to run an extra
wash cycle JUST for whites (instead of combining with
something else that *could* be \"satisfactorily\" washed cold),
then I\'m being more wasteful than necessary.

And this is just *washing*. What about drying? Different
heat settings, steam, dryness levels, etc. And, relative
to drying on a line? Or, out of doors? (does time of day,
time of year affect the decision?)

People don\'t have the skills, patience or time to be \"amateur
scientists\". Nor do they want to. They want to spin a knob
to a particular setting and hit START. They are banking on the
manufacturer having decided that the soil-level/fabric-type
they\'ve selected will be cleaned adequately (which is not
necessarily the same as most energy efficiently!)

Wow. Here we just require retailers to have energy consumption on the label.

Which means absolutely nothing to anyone other than some fictional
consumer!

The fictional consumer purchasing a refrigerator of the \"type\"
we purchased will spend 71 - 83 dollars, per year, operating it.
Our particular model claims $76. Do I actually think that if I
left my KWHr meter connected to the refrigerator for a full
year that it would be $76? That *my* usage mirrors that of
the \"fictional consumer\"?

Do I *care*?

I didn\'t choose the refrigerator (over the $83 model or the $71 model)
because it used $76 worth of electricity. Am I afraid that the
manufacturer may have LIED about its energy requirements?


If you already *have* this information, what is James doing
beyond \"reading that label\"?

 

[rbowman]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:34:53 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Reverse screws are used on steering links so you can adjust the
effective length by turning the link rod.

No reason that couldn\'t be done the other way.

Think about it. How do you build a turnbuckle with both sides righthanded
thread?

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 21:29:34 +0100, cretinous Carlos E.R., another brain
dead troll-feeding senile ASSHOLE, blathered:

Because high voltage electric fences, except military fences, have a
resistor in series, or fed from a limited sized capacitor, so that the
voltage drops fast when a body touches them.

Your IQ certainly drops fast whenever you reply to the idiot, you senile
troll-feeding shithead! LOL

 

[NY]

On 16/02/2023 14:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:32:14 -0000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Sadly my dad lent all the Meccano to a work colleague for his son to play
with, and when he came to ask for it back some year later the
colleague said
\"Oh, I thought you\'d *given* it to me, not lent it to me. When [son] grew
too old for it, we took it to the tip.\" Grrrrrr. Old Meccano from the
1940s/50s would probably be worth a bit nowadays.

People who throw out usable stuff should be shot.  Have they not heard
of Gumtree, Ebay, Freecycle?  The government could make it a law against
the environment or something.

Yes, my dad was not best pleased. He was planning to pass the Meccano on
to my nephews when they were old enough to play with it. I had hours of
fun making models, and learning about spur and helical gears, and gear
ratios (reduce rotational speed but increase torque proportionally).

 

[James]

On 20/02/2023 16:43, Don Y wrote:

On 2/20/2023 5:29 AM, James wrote:
On 20/02/2023 12:07, Don Y wrote:
Here is the entire quote:

\"So, instead of just *using* devices, you expect consumers
to quantify the costs of each. And, what do they do when
they don\'t like what they see, return it? Will you publish
a comprehensive catalog of every energy consuming device
with costs normalized so consumers can make informed choices?\"

So, the consumer has taken on the task of quantifying the
cost of each candidate device.

\"Yes, if they don\'t want $10,000 bill.\" I replied. *If* you are
happy with your power bill carry on.

You keep missing the point; they WON\'T have a $10,000 power
bill! *You* might but we won\'t! As I said, it\'s *your* problem.

So? It is not all about *you*, or the USA. You have missed the point,
many people are getting exorbitant and/or unaffordable bills.

Your assertion that energy prices only go up slowly is wrong. If you
are not affected or just are not interested please have the grace to
shut up and stop belittling those that are.

The only behaviour change I request is you don\'t rant like this is
twitter, Ref \"Wow, you must be the life of the party -- not!\", \"Wow,
full of yourself, eh?\" etc.

Welcome to USENET.

Welcome to my kill file.

 

[NY]

On 16/02/2023 14:28, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 20:42:36 -0000, Carlos E. R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-02-13 20:57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
There is no reason, unless you think the blades must rotate in a
particular direction for some reason.

But actually, they do.

What is that reason?  There\'s nothing special about clockwise which
makes airflow better.

A quadcopter is a perfect example of this: four identical motors and
four identical propellers, except that two props have the same pitch but
opposite direction. A \"left-handed\" prop turning anti-clockwise and a
\"right-handed\" prop turning clockwise will generate identical lift if
the diameter and angle of pitch is the same. You don\'t need motors of
different power or props of different diameter/pitch to compensate for
one way being less efficient than the other.

Of course you must turn a prop in the direction that generates positive
lift rather than \"negative lift\". A \"left-handed\" prop and a
\"right-handed\" prop both turning clockwise would balance each other out
and don nothing (except generate a bit of rotational torque which would
turn the helicopter over, because the two props are displaced sideways
from each other. Actually if there were *four* props, I think even
rotational torque would be balanced: you\'d be expending a lot of energy
to have absolutely no effect ;-)

 

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-02-18 14:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/02/2023 12:43, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/02/2023 00:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:58:47 -0000, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:33:36 +0000, Max Demian
max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2023 03:59, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 13 Feb 2023 00:08:57 +0100, \"Carlos E.R.\" <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

Radios of that era had a setting named \"phone\". And a socket. You
connected the output of the \"electric gramophone\" pickup to the
phone

Every mains valve radio had a \"Gram\" or \"PU\" socket with switching,
usually combined with the waveband switch.

Every AC tube radio....  

Mains was always AC wasn\'t it?

If course it wasn\'t (in the UK). Mains was AC or DC, and 120V (or so)
to 250V (or so).


Mains was always AC post WWII and probably post the advent of consumer
tube radios and IIRC was always 240VAC post WWII.

\"The Electricity (Supply) Act 1919 merged the 600-odd local generating
companies into area boards, who in turn were centralised into the
Central Electricity Board by the Electricity Supply Act 1925. That is
when the voltage was standardised at 240V, and the National Grid created.

(But DC persisted, in some areas as late as the mid 60s. Refrigerators,
Vacuum Cleaners, Sewing Machines, Electric Drills, Radios and TVs were
available with universal input. They would all work on AC or DC 240V
(one or two DC areas were only 180V, like Dundee or Exeter))\"

how easy or dificult was it to obtain things to work on it? A different
voltage on a city would mean a bulb factory dedicated to that city, no?

I remember in the late sixties visiting my mother village (Spain). They
had _some_ electricity, and paid by the number of bulbs in the house. It
was not metered.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[SteveW]

On 16/02/2023 14:50, rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:34:53 -0000, Commander Kinsey wrote:


Reverse screws are used on steering links so you can adjust the
effective length by turning the link rod.

No reason that couldn\'t be done the other way.

Think about it. How do you build a turnbuckle with both sides righthanded
thread?

On my car, track rods (steering links) are on captive ball joints at the
steering rack end and so can be rotated in or out of the track-rod end
using the single, right-hand thread.

 

[NY]

On 18/02/2023 20:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:

«To be made to “kiss the gunner\'s daughter” is to be tied over a cannon
(the gunner\'s daughter) in order to be beaten, usually with a cat of
nine tails. The phrase dates back at least to 1785 but is probably
older.Oct 13, 2008»

Sailor Talk - \"Kissing the Gunner\'s Daughter\" and \"Sucking the ...
Old Salt Blog
https://www.oldsaltblog.com › 2008/10 › sailor-talk-kissi...

I know it because there is a novel by Ruth Rendell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_the_Gunner%27s_Daughter

What was the name for the far more gruesome (and fatal) punishment in
which an offender was tied over the *mouth* of the loaded cannon which
was then fired?

 

[Peeler]

On 16 Feb 2023 14:50:05 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

Think about it. How do you build a turnbuckle with both sides righthanded
thread?

Think about it, you notorious troll-feeding senile pig: Are you or aren\'t
you taking every dumb bait the Scottish wanker sets out for you?

--
More typical idiotic senile gossip by lowbrowwoman:
\"It\'s been years since I\'ve been in a fast food burger joint but I used
to like Wendy\'s because they had a salad bar and baked potatoes.\"
MID: <ivdi4gF8btlU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[NY]

On 18/02/2023 12:43, Max Demian wrote:

On 18/02/2023 00:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Mains was always AC wasn\'t it?

If course it wasn\'t (in the UK). Mains was AC or DC, and 120V (or so) to
250V (or so).

I knew that mains was sometimes DC, but I didn\'t know that it was
sometimes as low as 120 V. I that, AC or DC, it was always around 240 V
(actual for DC, or RMS for AC).

 

[Don Y]

On 2/21/2023 1:50 AM, James wrote:

On 20/02/2023 16:43, Don Y wrote:
On 2/20/2023 5:29 AM, James wrote:
On 20/02/2023 12:07, Don Y wrote:
Here is the entire quote:

   \"So, instead of just *using* devices, you expect consumers
   to quantify the costs of each.  And, what do they do when
   they don\'t like what they see, return it?  Will you publish
   a comprehensive catalog of every energy consuming device
   with costs normalized so consumers can make informed choices?\"

So, the consumer has taken on the task of quantifying the
cost of each candidate device.

\"Yes, if they don\'t want $10,000 bill.\"  I replied.  *If* you are
happy with your power bill carry on.

You keep missing the point; they WON\'T have a $10,000 power
bill!  *You* might but we won\'t!  As I said, it\'s *your* problem.

So?  It is not all about *you*, or the USA.

But it *is* about \"you\"?

Pot, kettle, black.

  You have missed the point, many
people are getting exorbitant and/or unaffordable bills.

And, that\'s THEIR problem.

> Your assertion that energy prices only go up slowly is wrong.

It may not be, for YOU, but you aren\'t \"everywhere\".

If you are not
affected or just are not interested please have the grace to shut up and stop
belittling those that are.

I\'m telling you why we don\'t care about the issues that affect you.
They don\'t affect us.

How much effort do you put into thinking, worrying, ACTING
about living conditions in third world countries? Aren\'t
you writing them off in much the same way that I\'m dismissing
your energy concerns?

The only behaviour change I request is you don\'t rant like this is
twitter, Ref \"Wow, you must be the life of the party -- not!\", \"Wow,
full of yourself, eh?\" etc.

Welcome to USENET.

Welcome to my kill file.

Yay! So I won\'t see any more replies from you!
Isn\'t that wonderful??

Now, be a good boy and go measure some other appliance...

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:41:54 UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 04:12:55 +0000, Brian Gregory
void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 14/02/2023 21:55, Don Y wrote:
A colleague sent along a copy of an article espousing a 2KW/hr/person
energy consumption rate as if it was a practical goal.

I think they mean 2kW/person.

The hour in there does not make sense.

Or maybe they meant to say in in this rather weird way:

2kWh/h/person
The average US household uses an average of about 1200 watts
electrical. So a \"goal\" of 2 KW per person would be strange.

The 2kW per person average includes all primary forms of energy such as natural gas and gasoline, not just electricity.

In the US I expect a large proportion of the 12kW or so US average is for transportation.

kw