wrote:
....

not worth the effort

Yep.

After all, I still have FPE breakers...

--

George wrote:
....
You have to wonder why stubborn people even announce what they are going
to do. ...

Actually, it came to me "why" in many cases, particularly ones like this...

It's just _so_ much sport to tweak the nanny-cops and watch/read the
(utterly predictable) righteous outrage and indignation...

--

wrote:
....
well if a lost kid happens to get trapped by your door ...

OK, let's consider this scenario a little...

A "lost" kid is going to wander by this particular farmstead that is
some several miles from any residential area or highway in an area that
is topographically flat and treeless to the point one can see telephone
poles clearly on the horizon in any direction 5 miles away and then once
having gotten here rather than approach the house is instead going to go
into a fully detached garage, locate the garage door opener button that
is at least 4-ft off the floor (probably close to 5-ft as it is mounted
about a foot above the light switch) so this poor unfortunate lost
tyke of a soul has to be a decent-sized/aged kid and open it then push
it and then deliberately go stand or lie down in its path and wait for
it to close on him/her.

OK, yeah, I'm worryin' now...

--

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:31:59 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:28:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 25, 2:02?pm, wrote:


actually statitics prove the longer something hasnt happened the
greater bthe risk it will

No. Past events have no effect on the chance of a future event.

Neither statement is 100% valid.

It depends on all kinds of things. In this instance, consider what
happens to the prob. of crushed kid after a "Now, go out and play in
the traffic, kids"-type mom moves in next door.

And if that doesn't convince ya, try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

Willie

Willie The Wimp wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:31:59 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:28:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 25, 2:02?pm, wrote:
actually statitics prove the longer something hasnt happened the
greater bthe risk it will
No. Past events have no effect on the chance of a future event.

Neither statement is 100% valid.

It depends on all kinds of things. ...

Precisely. Specifically on the characteristics underlying probabilistic
model (for random events) which is why I used the earlier
easier-to-see-than-some-others example...

--

wrote:
....

...30 minutes and a doorbell button ...not worth the effort...

That isn't, agreed, but--got me thinkin'. I _might_ just velcro the
remote to the header outside...then wouldn't have to walk around the
fence into the yard and around to the other in order to get in from the
farmyard side...I like it!!!

--

Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go down,
why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.


No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a kid was
stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether to rescue him (or
her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50 house on the
street, only one of which has the garage door open in the middle of the
night, which of the 50 do you think will be the most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:02?pm, wrote:
? ? ? ? Do you really want to explain why you chose delibertly to not
use a required safety device if the rare, but possible accident
occures?

? ? ? ? Yea, it has not happend to you in the last 20 years so it
won't happen next year......

actually statitics prove the longer something hasnt happened the
greater bthe risk it will

Hmm. What you're describing is known as "The Maturation of the Odds."

It doesn't exist. I hope.

You're saying we should worry about the moon crashing into the earth?
Bolivia declaring war on the U.S.? Ted Turner accepting Jesus as his
personal savior? The Washington Monument falling over in a high wind and
crushing a tourist from Lithuania who had just bought a tutti-fruity ice
cream cone?

The mind reels! Thousands - nay millions - of new things to worry about.

On Nov 26, 1:38*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go down,
why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a kid was
stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether to rescue him (or
her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50 house on the
street, only one of which has the garage door open in the middle of the
night, which of the 50 do you think will be the most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working around
the place? that is where your logic falls apart.

Harry K

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:06:01 -0600, Willie The Wimp
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:31:59 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:28:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 25, 2:02?pm, wrote:


actually statitics prove the longer something hasnt happened the
greater bthe risk it will

No. Past events have no effect on the chance of a future event.

Neither statement is 100% valid.

It depends on all kinds of things. In this instance, consider what
happens to the prob. of crushed kid after a "Now, go out and play in
the traffic, kids"-type mom moves in next door.

And if that doesn't convince ya, try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem

Willie


Well it was not stated, but I believe everyone was speaking of
random events. With randon events prior events have zerro effect on
future events.

Harry K wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:38 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go down,
why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a
kid was stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether to
rescue him (or her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50
house on the street, only one of which has the garage door open in
the middle of the night, which of the 50 do you think will be the
most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working around
the place? that is where your logic falls apart.


Oh. Inasmuch as the whole discussion had to do with the door coming down (or
refusing to do so), leaving the door up intentionally does not enter the
equation nor, for that reason, did I consider it.

That said, if I intentionally leave the door open while I'm working around
the house AND some thieves start to haul off my stuff AND I discover same, I
will scoop out their lungs with my bulb-planting tool.

On Nov 27, 5:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:38 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go down,
why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a
kid was stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether to
rescue him (or her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50
house on the street, only one of which has the garage door open in
the middle of the night, which of the 50 do you think will be the
most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working around
the place? that is where your logic falls apart.

Oh. Inasmuch as the whole discussion had to do with the door coming down (or
refusing to do so), leaving the door up intentionally does not enter the
equation nor, for that reason, did I consider it.

That said, if I intentionally leave the door open while I'm working around
the house AND some thieves start to haul off my stuff AND I discover same, I
will scoop out their lungs with my bulb-planting tool.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The 'crushed kid', which is most of the reason for the safety lights,
is not usually due to your intentional closign of the door but with
kids playing and _them_ closign the door.

You can look at it as "nanny state" but it is a safety issue. The so-
called 'nuisance' of the door stopping because you interrupted the
beam is a straw man. In 20 years of my new door, it has never done
that to me and I make no effort to evade the eyes. Hmmm...I wonder if
there is a slight delay before it activates, i.e., a momentary
disruption not activating it?

Harry K

Harry K

On Nov 27, 5:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:38 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go down,
why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a
kid was stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether to
rescue him (or her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50
house on the street, only one of which has the garage door open in
the middle of the night, which of the 50 do you think will be the
most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working around
the place? that is where your logic falls apart.

Oh. Inasmuch as the whole discussion had to do with the door coming down (or
refusing to do so), leaving the door up intentionally does not enter the
equation nor, for that reason, did I consider it.

That said, if I intentionally leave the door open while I'm working around
the house AND some thieves start to haul off my stuff AND I discover same, I
will scoop out their lungs with my bulb-planting tool.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I tested my door this morning, yes, there _is_ a short delay built
in. I can stand there and wave my boot back and forth with no
effect. I have to hold it steady for a short time before the door
reversal kicks in. Since mine is around 20 years old, I would assume
(yes I know) that all modern ones do. There goes your 'nuisance'

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:05 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:38 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go
down, why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a
kid was stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether
to rescue him (or her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50
house on the street, only one of which has the garage door open in
the middle of the night, which of the 50 do you think will be the
most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working
around the place? that is where your logic falls apart.

Oh. Inasmuch as the whole discussion had to do with the door coming
down (or refusing to do so), leaving the door up intentionally does
not enter the equation nor, for that reason, did I consider it.

That said, if I intentionally leave the door open while I'm working
around the house AND some thieves start to haul off my stuff AND I
discover same, I will scoop out their lungs with my bulb-planting
tool.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I tested my door this morning, yes, there _is_ a short delay built
in. I can stand there and wave my boot back and forth with no
effect. I have to hold it steady for a short time before the door
reversal kicks in. Since mine is around 20 years old, I would assume
(yes I know) that all modern ones do. There goes your 'nuisance'


Not mine. I never said anything about "nuisance."

You're erecting a straw man argument for someone else entirely.

On Nov 27, 6:21*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:05 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:38 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Of course the purist would say "It's your own damn fault for not
making sure the door stayed down!" But the obvious flaw in THAT
argument is: "If I were in the habit of watching the door go
down, why would I need an electric-eye monitor?"

Ummm...for kids? Your argument stretches logic beyond all bounds.

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a
kid was stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether
to rescue him (or her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50
house on the street, only one of which has the garage door open in
the middle of the night, which of the 50 do you think will be the
most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is
"stretched"?

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working
around the place? that is where your logic falls apart.

Oh. Inasmuch as the whole discussion had to do with the door coming
down (or refusing to do so), leaving the door up intentionally does
not enter the equation nor, for that reason, did I consider it.

That said, if I intentionally leave the door open while I'm working
around the house AND some thieves start to haul off my stuff AND I
discover same, I will scoop out their lungs with my bulb-planting
tool.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I tested my door this morning, yes, there _is_ a short delay built
in. *I can stand there and wave my boot back and forth with no
effect. *I have to hold it steady for a short time before the door
reversal kicks in. *Since mine is around 20 years old, I would assume
(yes I know) that all modern ones do. *There goes your 'nuisance'

Not mine. I never said anything about "nuisance."

You're erecting a straw man argument for someone else entirely.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are correct. You inserted the "thieves" bit which is about as
absurd a reason as 'nuisance'.

As to "not mine". How do you know? Remember you apparently have them
installed so you couldn't check it.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
....

I tested my door this morning, yes, there _is_ a short delay built
in. I can stand there and wave my boot back and forth with no
effect. I have to hold it steady for a short time before the door
reversal kicks in. Since mine is around 20 years old, I would assume
(yes I know) that all modern ones do. There goes your 'nuisance'
....

Well, I can confirm that assumption isn't true -- the pair on the one I
just installed were/are interrupted simply by the manual pull cord rope
passing between the beam. I had initially just set the two on the rail
supports while finishing the installation/adjustment and the rope
traveling w/ the carrier was/is sufficient. It's roughly a 1/2-sec
interruption based on door travel speed and rope diameter. No way could
wave a foot back and forth and not interrupt it.

--

dpb wrote:
....
... interrupted simply by the manual pull cord rope
passing between the beam. ... roughly a 1/2-sec
interruption based on door travel speed and rope diameter. No way could
wave a foot back and forth and not interrupt it.

Actually, on reflection it's much shorter time than that -- when first
started testing to adjust up/down travel limits, etc., didn't realize
the rope was crossing the beam at first as I had thought I had placed
them beyond it's travel point so kept thinking it was a binding/force
problem preventing closing/causing reversal.

Finally, after deciding couldn't be that, took the rope itself and flung
it across the beam and it still caused the unit to reverse. At that
speed it couldn't have intersected and occluded the beam for more than a
few tenths of a second. I'd conclude from that there's no time delay at
all in the standard-duty models anyway.

I've not taken time to figure out what input it expects but I'm
wondering if the present-day ones aren't a current loop instead of
simple continuity as a jumper alone isn't enough. I presume a
properly-sized resistor across the terminals would do the trick to fake
the correct input impedance but it is, of course, simpler to just make
the circuit...

--

On Nov 28, 7:47*am, dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:

...

... interrupted simply by the manual pull cord rope
passing between the beam. *... roughly a 1/2-sec
interruption based on door travel speed and rope diameter. *No way could
wave a foot back and forth and not interrupt it.

Actually, on reflection it's much shorter time than that -- when first
started testing to adjust up/down travel limits, etc., didn't realize
the rope was crossing the beam at first as I had thought I had placed
them beyond it's travel point so kept thinking it was a binding/force
problem preventing closing/causing reversal.

Finally, after deciding couldn't be that, took the rope itself and flung
it across the beam and it still caused the unit to reverse. *At that
speed it couldn't have intersected and occluded the beam for more than a
few tenths of a second. *I'd conclude from that there's no time delay at
all in the standard-duty models anyway.

I've not taken time to figure out what input it expects but I'm
wondering if the present-day ones aren't a current loop instead of
simple continuity as a jumper alone isn't enough. *I presume a
properly-sized resistor across the terminals would do the trick to fake
the correct input impedance but it is, of course, simpler to just make
the circuit...

--

Hmmm...Now I wonder if when I ws waving my boot it was actually in the
beam. I may have been above it. I'll try it again next time I'm out
there.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
I tested my door this morning, yes, there _is_ a short delay built
in. I can stand there and wave my boot back and forth with no
effect. I have to hold it steady for a short time before the door
reversal kicks in. Since mine is around 20 years old, I would assume
(yes I know) that all modern ones do. There goes your 'nuisance'

Not mine. I never said anything about "nuisance."

You're erecting a straw man argument for someone else entirely.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are correct. You inserted the "thieves" bit which is about as
absurd a reason as 'nuisance'.

As to "not mine". How do you know? Remember you apparently have them
installed so you couldn't check it.


My garage door opener doesn't have "safety sensors" or a delay of any kind
[it's like 30+ years old] so instead of you evidently thinking I apparently
have them, I really can't check.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

My garage door opener doesn't have "safety sensors" or a delay of any kind
[it's like 30+ years old]


OMG, your entire town is at risk ! ! ! ! Think of the children.

On Nov 28, 9:42�pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

My garage door opener doesn't have "safety sensors" or a delay of any kind
[it's like 30+ years old]

OMG, your entire town is at risk ! ! ! ! � Think of the children.

actually at home resale time it will be flagged by the home inspector,
and the homeowner will be required to replace the opener with a modern
one....

lots of stuff like this comes up

wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 9:42?pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

My garage door opener doesn't have "safety sensors" or a delay of any
kind
[it's like 30+ years old]

OMG, your entire town is at risk ! ! ! ! ? Think of the children.

actually at home resale time it will be flagged by the home inspector,
and the homeowner will be required to replace the opener with a modern
one....

lots of stuff like this comes up

I'd just disconnect the old one and let the new owner do what he wants. It
was code when installed.

On Nov 28, 12:58*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:47*am, dpb wrote:





dpb wrote:

...

... interrupted simply by the manual pull cord rope
passing between the beam. *... roughly a 1/2-sec
interruption based on door travel speed and rope diameter. *No way could
wave a foot back and forth and not interrupt it.

Actually, on reflection it's much shorter time than that -- when first
started testing to adjust up/down travel limits, etc., didn't realize
the rope was crossing the beam at first as I had thought I had placed
them beyond it's travel point so kept thinking it was a binding/force
problem preventing closing/causing reversal.

Finally, after deciding couldn't be that, took the rope itself and flung
it across the beam and it still caused the unit to reverse. *At that
speed it couldn't have intersected and occluded the beam for more than a
few tenths of a second. *I'd conclude from that there's no time delay at
all in the standard-duty models anyway.

I've not taken time to figure out what input it expects but I'm
wondering if the present-day ones aren't a current loop instead of
simple continuity as a jumper alone isn't enough. *I presume a
properly-sized resistor across the terminals would do the trick to fake
the correct input impedance but it is, of course, simpler to just make
the circuit...

--

Hmmm...Now I wonder if when I ws waving my boot it was actually in the
beam. *I may have been above it. *I'll try it again next time I'm out
there.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just re-checked it. No, it does _not_ have an appreciable delay. My
boot must have been passing over the beam. It is installed
(professional) very near the floor.

Harry K

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:16:09 -0600, Willie The Wimp
wrote:


I have a new Chamberlain 1/2 hp chain opener, hope to install tomorrow.

Instructions say I gotta install elec. safety lites inside door. Questions:

1.) What (if any) code requires safety lites?
2.) Practical to install and use opener without 'em?

Replacing failed opener. Did fine w/o safety lites on old openers for 20+
years. Tired of playing ladder-monkey, stapling wires in gar. rafters.

Thx,
Willie

Why not make them serve double duty, or 1.5 duty. What I do is
install them at bumper height instead of way down 6" off the ground.
Then I can't close the garage door and hit the car's bumper and
scratch it if it's not in all the way. I like to only put my cars in
just barely enough to clear the door so I maximize the room in front
of them.

wrote:
On Nov 28, 9:42?pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

My garage door opener doesn't have "safety sensors" or a delay of
any kind [it's like 30+ years old]

OMG, your entire town is at risk ! ! ! ! ? Think of the children.

actually at home resale time it will be flagged by the home inspector,
and the homeowner will be required to replace the opener with a modern
one....


And the home inspector will be flogged by me.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

My garage door opener doesn't have "safety sensors" or a delay of
any kind [it's like 30+ years old]


OMG, your entire town is at risk ! ! ! ! Think of the children.

I am. I want all the children on my block (approximately zero) to have all
the opportunities I had as a kid.

That's why I get medicine in non-childproof caps and leave my guns lying
about with nary a trigger-guard in the house.

Luckily, the U.S. did not ratify the recent UN treaty on landmines...

Ashton Crusher wrote:

Why not make them serve double duty, or 1.5 duty. What I do is
install them at bumper height instead of way down 6" off the ground.
Then I can't close the garage door and hit the car's bumper and
scratch it if it's not in all the way. I like to only put my cars in
just barely enough to clear the door so I maximize the room in front
of them.

I recommend the high-tech solution of a hanging tennis ball.

I think you can get the kit, complete with ball, thumb tack, and string, at
Best Buy for $9.95.

HeyBub wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:

Why not make them serve double duty, or 1.5 duty. What I do is
install them at bumper height instead of way down 6" off the ground.
Then I can't close the garage door and hit the car's bumper and
scratch it if it's not in all the way. I like to only put my cars in
just barely enough to clear the door so I maximize the room in front
of them.

I recommend the high-tech solution of a hanging tennis ball.

I think you can get the kit, complete with ball, thumb tack, and string,
at Best Buy for $9.95.

I always hear this suggestion, but who wants tennis balls hanging down in
the middle of their garage?

wrote:
....
... will be required to replace the opener...

BS...

==

Harry K wrote:
....
...It is installed (professional) very near the floor.
....

I surely hope it's within +/-1/16" of the recommended (6" iirc?) height.
Otherwise, undoubtedly it's a hazard.

--

HeyBub wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
....
just barely enough to clear the door so I maximize the room in front
of them.

I recommend the high-tech solution of a hanging tennis ball.
....
Even more high tech, there's a parking bumper on the floor in ours.
When granddad built the garages, the length was significantly longer
than most/all today so have an extra spacers in front now...

--

On Nov 29, 9:17�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... will be required to replace the opener...

BS...

==

as the realtor told me when i sold a home everything is negoitable.

the buyer gets what they want or the buyer walks.

or a big discount on purchase price. either way you pay.....

for those who have no kids in neighborhood, a kid can visit a neighbor
at any time.

wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:17�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... will be required to replace the opener...
BS...

==

as the realtor told me when i sold a home everything is negoitable.
....
Precisely. As opposed to "required".

The claim is simply another of your typical made up for the occasion
scenarios that sets my teeth on edge and fingers a-typing...

--

Rick Brandt wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
-snip-

I recommend the high-tech solution of a hanging tennis ball.

I think you can get the kit, complete with ball, thumb tack, and string,
at Best Buy for $9.95.

I always hear this suggestion, but who wants tennis balls hanging down in
the middle of their garage?

I only use the garage for a car in the winter- and I don't spend a lot
of time out there when it is cold. But if I'm working there in the
winter- or for the summer- I have a hook on the rafter a few feet away
that hold the tennis ball above my head.

We do it more for the crap on the sides of the garage than the depth-
but it is nice to have the car in the exact same spot always.

Jim

On Nov 29, 6:20*am, dpb wrote:
Harry K wrote:

... ...It is installed (professional) very near the floor.

...

I surely hope it's within +/-1/16" of the recommended (6" iirc?) height.
* Otherwise, undoubtedly it's a hazard.

--

No hazard as it is _exactly 6". I just confirmed it with my
calibrated eyeball from 10 ft away

Harry K

On Nov 29, 4:49*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:

Why not make them serve double duty, or 1.5 duty. *What I do is
install them at bumper height instead of way down 6" off the ground.
Then I can't *close the garage door and hit the car's bumper and
scratch it if it's not in all the way. *I like to only put my cars in
just barely enough to clear the door so I maximize the room in front
of them.

I recommend the high-tech solution of a hanging tennis ball.

I think you can get the kit, complete with ball, thumb tack, and string, at
Best Buy for $9.95.

Hmmm...I wonder if one can get a second set. My wife is disabled and
I have to park with the car backed in with the trunk in the door to
pick her up. Wife has absentmindedly closed the door on the trunk
lid.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On Nov 29, 6:20 am, dpb wrote:
Harry K wrote:

... ...It is installed (professional) very near the floor.

...

I surely hope it's within +/-1/16" of the recommended (6" iirc?) height.
Otherwise, undoubtedly it's a hazard.

--

No hazard as it is _exactly 6". I just confirmed it with my
calibrated eyeball from 10 ft away

I'm so relieved...I'll send any lost tykes your way when they wander off
and come by here...

--

Harry K wrote:
....

Hmmm...I wonder if one can get a second set. ...

They're readily available as spare parts; I have no idea what the cost is.

Since afaik no opener has separate inputs for two sets they wouldn't
work wired in parallel for anything that didn't simultaneously break
both beams of course, so would have to be in series[1].

That would then raise the question of whether the drive voltage/current
from the power supply has the ability to power both at once. But, other
than that, ottomh don't see any fundamental reason couldn't work.


--

On Nov 29, 10:01�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:17 am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... will be required to replace the opener...
BS...

==

as the realtor told me when i sold a home everything is negoitable.

...
Precisely. �As opposed to "required".

The claim is simply another of your typical made up for the occasion
scenarios that sets my teeth on edge and fingers a-typing... �

--

actually its required you make nice with the buyer.......

I had big hassle selling mine, it was unreal what home inspectors
found.

the first buyer walked, saying your home is in terrible shape. one of
his inspectors gripes?

no GFCI on the garagew sump outlet.

the nnext buyers inspector flagged it stating this outlet shouldnt be
GFCI protected...

had to get middle group to reinspect the main service installed 8
years earlier because the signature had faded.

for those who cheap out on repairs good luck if you try to
sell..........

youll be saying gee maybe i should of done some of this as I went
along......

rather than a insermountable job at sales time that may require money
you dont have........

wrote:
....
actually its required you make nice with the buyer.......

Only up to a point.

Sometimes the customer simply isn't right so unless you're in a distress
sale situation be reasonable but no reason to be a wuss, either. And,
if the former then probably just as well to give the price break and
walk away, anyway.

I had big hassle selling mine, it was unreal what home inspectors
found.

....snip list of petty grievances...

rather than a insermountable job at sales time that may require money
you dont have........

None of that listed above is anything other than minor stuff as are the
safety lights in question. If a potential purchaser is going to reject
on the basis of this; fix it and they'll find something else. They're
not interested and are just making excuses.

--