On Oct 26, 1:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

You really are a half wit. *I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.

Au contraire, mon ferret, I quite clearly called you non compos mentis
_and_ that you were wrong in both specifics and details.

Take for instance one of your other inane posts where you spout about
gross efficiency and buy into some claim of heating efficiency greater
than 100%. *Regardless of how _you_ look at it, it is misleading.
You're buying the amp with the volume control that goes to 11. *Google
it.

Run it by me again how a TRV works. *Someone is cold in the house and
everyone else is warm, how does the TRV call for heat in that one
radiator? *More importantly, why would you want to fire a boiler for
one radiator? *Talk about wasteful.

You also ignore, conveniently, the costs of installation and
maintenance of a needlessly more complex system.

The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in *a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? *You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? *You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? *Oops. *Sorry.

I don't dither with things. *If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. *If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. *No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. *I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. *I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. *That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. *Sorry.

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. *Sure - that I can
buy.

I don't buy the 25% savings nonsense. Let's say we have 8 rooms.
Harry, being a sensitive wall flower, demands the temperature be
72F. With one thermostat, let's say it instead winds up like this:

75 in one room
74 in one room
72 in 4 rooms
70 in one room
69 in one room

Now with a lot more complexity and cost, we install a system
that keeps it at 72 in all 8 rooms. How the hell does that save
25%? It doesn't. The energy usage will be about the same.

Even using a setback thermostat at night, where the temp
is lowered by 10 or more degrees in the whole house,
only saves 10-15%.

In other words, harry is once again the village idiot.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:02:53 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

The single point that you consistantly seem to miss throughtout this
discussion is that NO SINGLE SYSTEM can be all things to all people
and there is more than one effective and efficient way to heat and /
or cool a residence.

Heh. When harry tells you the huckleberries are ripe, grab your bucket
and run...

Well, harry's dingleberries are sure ripe.

Now you'll say we on the colonies have been having a ball
with him, old chap?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...


Heh. When harry tells you the huckleberries are ripe, grab
your bucket
and run...

Well, harry's dingleberries are sure ripe.

On Oct 26, 6:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. *Sure - that I can
buy.

I don't buy the 25% savings nonsense. *Let's say we have 8 rooms.
Harry, being a sensitive wall flower, demands the temperature be
72F. *With one thermostat, let's say it instead winds up like this:

75 in one room
74 in one room
72 in 4 rooms
70 in one room
69 in one room

Now with a lot more complexity and cost, we install a system
that keeps it at 72 in all 8 rooms. *How the hell does that save
25%? * It doesn't. *The energy usage will be about the same.

Even using a setback thermostat at night, where the temp
is lowered by 10 or more degrees in the whole house,
only saves 10-15%.

In other words, harry is once again the village idiot.

You forgot to factor in Hot House Harry's 110% efficiency. You know -
the one that violates the laws of thermodynamics and creates a
perpetual motion machine.

But you've got to admit - the guy is entertaining. He's the village
idiot that all of the other villages are envious of. They _wish_
their village idiots could be another harry.

R

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:55:46 -0500, "
wrote:

Heh. When harry tells you the huckleberries are ripe, grab your bucket
and run...

Well, harry's dingleberries are sure ripe.

Does Susan already know about this?

I think the Chinese stole our technology, not passed it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry

wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor
Freight.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

everything snipped

Today, Krugman was partially (oh, crap, forget the word that means "proved
to be correct") ah - vindicated (all I could think of was venerated - more
proof that words are stored at least partially alphabetically).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us...-cbo-says.html

said: . . . federal benefit payments are doing less to even out the
distribution of income, as a growing share of benefits, like Social
Security, goes to older Americans, regardless of their income. The report,
requested several years ago, was issued as lawmakers tussle over how to
reduce unemployment, a joint committee of Congress weighs changes in the tax
code and protesters around the country rail against disparities in income
between rich and poor.

In its report, the budget office found that from 1979 to 2007, average
inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent for the 1 percent of
the population with the highest income. For others in the top 20 percent of
the population, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
By contrast, the budget office said, for the poorest fifth of the
population, average real after-tax household income rose 18 percent.

And for the three-fifths of people in the middle of the income scale, the
growth in such household income was just under 40 percent.

The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue
Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some
private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the
imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major
impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and
spending policies.

The poor and the middle class are losing ground to the uber-rich who are
clearly using their "bonus" income to buy more politicians and more laws and
exemptions favorable to them. That's an avalanche-type process that's
snowballing to a point where social inequality becomes a dangerous factor in
the equation. I've lived through two serious sets of rioting in my life.
I'd rather not see a third. Everyone loses. The parts of DC torn apart by
rioting decades ago are only now, hesitatingly making a recovery.

--
Bobby G.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 1:26 am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it
seems
inevitable) reversal. We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead of
staying on or off until room temperature has varied by a few degrees.

Largely because the thermostat is not in the right room.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

The Illuminati is alive and well. Lyndon LaRouche would be ecstatic to see
it proved. It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that wealth concentrates
absent nearly confiscatory taxation. And when it gets to Louis Quatorze
levels, revolts occur. We've already had one civil war that was in part
about economics. As they say on Wall St. "past performance is no guarantee
of future activity" but given that history nearly always repeats itself
what's happening worries me because in ways in parallels the lead up to the
Civil War. Geographically distinct areas having strong political
preferences. HeyBub's been itching to be the King Of Texas for the longest
time . . . (-:

Elections are important to the big players, but not as important as to
the little players. Short term corrections kill off the little
players, and as long as the long term trend is in the "right"
direction, the big players aren't greatly affected.

Reminds me of what Frankie Pentangeli said in the Godfather II film: "The
little guys got knocked off and all their estates went to the Emperors."

--
Bobby G.

On 10/22/11 10:33 am, RicodJour wrote:

stuff snipped

Me? I got a $100 ticket for being on the phone in the car while I was
talking to my brother. What did I do? Stop talking to my brother!
JK But I am more aware.

In Switzerland they have a progressive fine structure for speeding.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/s...ing-fine-ever/

Of course that's the record, but the fine is proportionate to income.
Take this guy (excerpt from that article):
"in Finland where the fine is calculated based on the vehicle's speed
and the driver's income. Back in 2002, Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki
had to pay a fine of $103,600 for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone."

Can you imagine what the Finns would have done to Teddy Kennedy after his
little car problem in Chappaquiddick?

--
Bobby G.

"tom" wrote in message ...
Occupy Wall Street: My One Demand

By Jinger Dixon

stuff snipped


We stand outside the
ever shrinking circle, yelling fixes, throwing band-aids, making demands
that the ever shrinking circle expand! at least big enough to include us
so
that we can go back to not giving a **** about the people outside, but
alas,
it will not. The circle does not expand, it does not know how. It only
knows
how to contract, concentrate, condense, like a dark star collapsing in on
itself. There is no “demand” that will drag the borders of the circle back
around us. And even if you could, would you? Would you go back to ****ing
the rest of the world to have your cable TV and your steel belted radials?
I
hope not. I hope the world is ready to say no more. No more. Therefore,
since it is my sincere belief that the circle is/was and always will be
****ed up, I say, surround them and demand that they collapse in on
themselves and disappear into their own black hole.

That is my One Demand.

The process happens almost automatically. When the circle becomes a tiny
dot, as it did in France during the reign of Louis XIV or in the 1900's with
the incredible wealth of the Czar inside the circle of the appalling poverty
of the Russian peasants, "stuff happens." I had always hoped America might
be different and able to learn from history, but it didn't take long to
forget every lesson of Vietnam. It took only slightly longer to forget
every lesson of the Great Depression. We brought back balloon mortgages
(should be outlawed outright) and over-leveraging. Those mistakes, along
with so many others, dragged us down once again.

OWS should adopt the motto: "Squeeze the circle!"

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:23:10 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

That's the "oh the rate is so high for the uber rich" but as Warren
Buffet
has shown, that's just on paper too. With all the tax shelters and other
games the super wealthy can play, that "higher effect rate" is just a
political theater to make the middle class citizen feel better about
paying
more in taxes than some of the uber rich.

Warren Buffett is a special case since he makes all of his money from
long term capital gains. There may only be a few people in the
country doing that as successfully as him. If you go after that group,
you end up hitting a lot of seniors, living on their savings.
Your typical hedge fund manager makes a lot of money from money but it
is usually short term capital gains that get taxed as ordinary income
although they still duck FICA that is actually higher than the income
tax for most people by the time you take into account both sides.
A couple making $100k, no kids, no mortgage, using the standard
deduction only pays about 11% in income tax but they pay over 12% in
FICA, even with the current payroll tax cut.

What you say is true, but I am sure that the Tax Weenies at the IRS could
figure out how to differentiate from seniors with a nest egg (which the
government shoud encourage, because it takes a burden off them) from the
Buffets, Waltons and Kochs who are amassing enormous empires and using that
money to change the course of American government to their liking and
advantage with huge campaign "bribes."

I'm sure we have more that a few millionaires in this group, but doubt we
have billionaires. That's probably where at least one line could be drawn.
If you've got a billion bucks, you're not likely "just a senior with some
good investments." It's likely you're in the group whose assets have grown
at nearly 300% while most of us piddled along with a 40 to 60% growth in
income. The wedge is forming.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

And Part D
(1). Cut the prices for seniors substantially because the individual
insurance companies were able to negotiate better prices than Grandma
and Grandpa could on their own. In the first 3 years, it actually came
in UNDER projections.

Projections are interesting, but as you pointed out with Krugman, they may
be constructed poorly and not really reveal the true state "on the ground."

What I noticed helping my neighbor with her Part D problems (they are
substantial) was that the veryt same meds she was taking in 1998 have almost
tripled in price. I believe that a lot of that rise was meant to compensate
for any future discount the drug companies might have to give to Medicare.
As I said before, I am going to carefully review all her meticulously stored
receipts and paperwork and graph out the costs and reimbursements. I've
built spreadsheets for most of it and she's got one of my old 500MHz PC's so
I don't have to take any papers with me (which upsets her). I am really
curious. Of course, one person's list of specific drugs does not make a
universal conclusion but it could provide an interest data point.
Fortunately, her insurer had been provided a lot more detailed information
than was available during Part D's first years.

FWIW, she's finally spent so much out of pocket that she's out of the donut
hole and into what Medicare calls "catastrophic" coverage. She smiled when
I said that the government says she's a catastrophe, now.

When I went to pick up her substanial meds for her this week, I noticed her
copays had finally dropped from nearly $500 a month but they were still
pretty pricey. Though I didn't listen to my mother when she noticed in 2007
that her dividend checks from her investments were getting smaller and
smaller I am listening to my neighbor. She is convinced: "I am paying more
for my meds than before and that's with the drug companies getting a huge
payment on my behalf from Uncle Sam." Maybe she's confused, but just
possibly, like my mother, she's on to something.

--
Bobby G.

On Oct 26, 12:24*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:09*am, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes *Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor Freight.

GOOD ONE! *Cheap does not equate to good technology, it's just cheap.

Had my car radiator replaced recently. Mechanic said he would not
put in a Chinese one.

HB

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
stuff snipped

Most of the money from other than Fannie and Freddie
has been REPAID.


Do you know where they got the money to "repay" the bailout?
From the Fed.

Oops. You have a way of cutting to the quick, Vic.

Fed printed money, "loaned" it to the banks a zero or almost zero
interest.
Banks bought U.S. securities paying an average spread of about 3%.

So the taxpayer loaned the banks bailout money.
Then the taxpayer paid in inflation to print and loan low interest
money to the banks.
Then the taxpayer paid higher interest to them on gov securities so
the banks could "pay back" the taxpayer.
What a circle jerk.
And you wonder why people are ****ed at big banks?

The trouble came, I think, when banks slowly shifted their source of income
from interest on loans to fees, fees and more fees. Did any of us get a
break when the banks abandoned processing paper checks and switched to a
much cheaper, much faster electronic clearing system? No, of course not.
We got charged more fees. When people ended up paying $400 in fees for
writing a five dollar check to Starbucks that bounced due to the peculiar
rules banks processed checks by, Congress stepped in. If you don't police
yourself, expect someone to step in and do it for you in a way you may not
like as much as reasonable self-regulation.

Kudos to Ron Paul and others who pushed to get revealed the heretofore
secret Fed machinations.

Ron does have some very good ideas along with the nutty ones. It was
disgusting to see how much secrecy was involved in that game. My journalism
professor was of the unrestrained opinion that when governments operate in
secrecy, they will inevitably do something bad and use more secrecy claims
to try to hide it.

When the SEC keeps charges against auditing firms secret until they are
sanctioned, perhaps three years later, how is the "free market" ever
supposed to work if you can't find out about potential wrongdoing of free
market operators? They want their cake, your cake and mine, and want to eat
it in secrecy and then claim there never was any cake at all and that they
should be given more cake. Just because.

The only valid reason I can see to keep such deals secret is to keep panicky
Wall Street from having a hissy fit, identifying the weaker players and
selling them short. Wall Street went from a method to provide capital to
growing US businesses to a place where "players" could shave an obscene
living from the money that mom and pop investors were *trying* to direct to
the businesses they bought stock in. The shavers don't contribute to the
healthy growth of American businesses, they actually hinder it by
redirecting money meant for investment into their own pockets. They pretty
much match the description of parasites, and our nation is seriously
infected with parasitical traders without much in the way of morality.
That's hurting us badly now, and looks to only get worse in the future.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:VoGdnc-Ne-
"Robert Green" wrote:

The health insurance mess is a "gift" from WWII, which is just another
reason to be circumspect about engaging in war after war. They almost
always entail "gifts" that keep on giving.

This has nothing to do with the war.

Whoa, Nelly. That's just not right.

This "gift" is 100% related to government expediency. The natives were
getting
restless about the wage freeze.

The wage freeze was put in place because of the war. It would not have
happened absent WWII.

So the government decided that paying for health insurance wasn't REALLY a
wage increase.

And so, because of WWII wage freezes, businesses had to find another way to
attract workers from other employers and being allowed to give away
insurance as if it had no "wage value" filled the bill.

The rest is history. It is definitely a
reason to be circumspect about governmental expediency.

That came about trying to react to an unusual situation - a wage freeze put
in place to help the war effort. You're getting perilously close to the
"were you wearing your glasses that night?" example I gave where not asking
if they were, in fact sunglasses and not clear corrective lenses would leave
jurors with a totally wrong conclusion. (-:

The association of health insurance with wages got its biggest boost because
of WWII's wage freezes. You might want to excise the causation, but I want
to win a $200M Powerball without even buying a ticket. Neither is going to
happen.

Next you'll be trying to claim that the first income tax wasn't a response
to the mounting bills from the Civil War many decades later. Wars are
expensive and societally disruptive in many dimensions.

In 1862 and 1863 the government covered less than 15 percent of its total
expenditures through taxes. With the imposition of a higher tariff, excise
taxes, and the introduction of the first income tax in American history,
this situation improved somewhat, and by the war's end 25 percent of the
federal government revenues had been collected in taxes. But what of the
other 75 percent? In 1862 Congress authorized the U.S. Treasury to issue
currency notes that were not backed by gold. By the end of the war, the
treasury had printed more than $250 million worth of these "Greenbacks" and,
together with the issue of gold-backed notes, the printing of money
accounted for 18 percent of all government revenues. This still left a huge
shortfall in revenue that was not covered by either taxes or the printing of
money. The remaining revenues were obtained by borrowing funds from the
public. Between 1861 and 1865 the debt obligation of the Federal government
increased from $65 million to $2.7 billion (including the increased issuance
of notes by the Treasury). The financial markets of the North were strained
by these demands, but they proved equal to the task. In all, Northerners
bought almost $2 billion worth of treasury notes and absorbed $700 million
of new currency. Source:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us

--
Bobby G.

On Oct 26, 6:22*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:46:31 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 26, 4:09*pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes *Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor Freight.

I heard it was full of Chinese technology. *Is that right?

No, it is full of American (and other western) technology copied by
Chinese slave workers. Usually it is a poor copy. They sell junk.

No doubt you are right. But people buy it.

It is the Chinese economic warfare plan to destroy Western economies.

"BobR" wrote in message
news:25476093-2694-4484-8192-

Sorry, but that is a bunch of crap. It was far from just the rich
elite that went running to the big daddy government for handouts. It
was all up and down the ladder and everyone with something to lose was
in line, just some got more than others and some got nothing at all.
Take the unions at GM, they got a huge share in the company while all
the stockholders who may have depended on the income from their stock
for a living got NOTHING. All the 401k and retirement funds who had
stakes in GM got nothing. The pain was not evenly distributed and
neither was the payoff.

I remember Hank Paulson talking about stockholders being "zeroed out" as if
he were talking about turning out the kitchen light. As you note, the pain
was clearly not evenly divided, as it might have been. The ones that got
the shaft had no lobbyists to bribe the goverment into protecting their
interests, as the others did. I am still astounding that so many people got
looted of so much money and still very few people are going to jail. It
warmed my heart to see a Goldman-Sachs exec get indicted.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2383...er-trading.htm

The Citigroup traders that sold bad mortgages to their clients and then bet
against them should be horsewhipped in public on pay-per-view with the
profits going to restore some of the investors they defrauded.

--
Bobby G.

On Oct 26, 6:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

You really are a half wit. *I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.

Au contraire, mon ferret, I quite clearly called you non compos mentis
_and_ that you were wrong in both specifics and details.

Take for instance one of your other inane posts where you spout about
gross efficiency and buy into some claim of heating efficiency greater
than 100%. *Regardless of how _you_ look at it, it is misleading.
You're buying the amp with the volume control that goes to 11. *Google
it.

Run it by me again how a TRV works. *Someone is cold in the house and
everyone else is warm, how does the TRV call for heat in that one
radiator? *More importantly, why would you want to fire a boiler for
one radiator? *Talk about wasteful.

The thermostat can be set to the temperature needed in that room. Not
all rooms need to be a the same temperature. Hallways for example can
be set down a few degree slower.

If other heat forms cause heating (eg sun shining in the window,
electrical appliances-TV, refrigerator) the thermostat will turn the
heating down or off in that room.

Wind changes can cause a change in the temperature in one part of more
than others. Thermostats will compensate for this,

Individuals can set (say bed)room temperatures to their own
preference.

I would have thought all this was perefctly obvious to al lbut the
most dense.



You also ignore, conveniently, the costs of installation and
maintenance of a needlessly more complex system.

The system is no more complex, the thermostatic valve cost a couple of
pounds more than a manual valve.

The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in *a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? *You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? *You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? *Oops. *Sorry.


Don't revert to drivel. You mean you go leaping for the heat control
every time you eat a hamburger?
If i want, I can buy a thermostat accurate to1/10 of a degree well
outside human perception.. As for your remark about perception, this
is a case for the use of thermostats.The temperature needs to be
controlled by objective means not subjective means

I don't dither with things. *If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. *If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. *No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. *I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. *I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. *That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. *Sorry.

More drivel. So y'all sit about the house in overcoats if it happens
to get cold. Is this some American cult thingI haven't heard about?
The object of the exercise is to maintain each room at the set
temperature regardless of weather and activities within the house.
The closer temperature is maintained to set temperature the better
comfort will be and the more energy saved.

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. *Sure - that I can
buy.

I have explained the "balancing" is ********.
Even supposing it was possible to "balance" a sytem for one set of
conditions, it would be wrong when these conditions changed.
Try to keep up!

You could also save 25% on your heating bill by burning some of that
excess adipose swaddling your carcass, and not sit in your recliner
with your TV remote wondering when someone will bring some food for
you to stuff into your gob.

Tch tch. Resorting to abuse again. I have never been out of work. In
my spare time I have extensively renovated/constructed several houses.
What was my work? Oh, energy efficiency/hospital engineer for forty
years.



The problem with "balancing" is that the boiler needs a constant water
flow and the heating system needs a constant pressure.

Really? *So it's pointless to use mass as a heat sink? *Pointless to
incorporate passive means to retain and distribute heat? *Remind me to
tell that to the Earth.

An irrelevent remark.
My house uses zero net energy, it is entirely solar heated. I make
extensive use of thermal mass.
I export electricity from a solar array. So the energy company pays
me three times more than I pay them.
Thermal mass can help or hinder depending on the usage of the heated
space.


There are many other heating/cooling technologies too such as optimum
start, weather prediction etc. *Equally unknown to you I imagine.

So, instead of using the actual temperature, an accurate measurement
at the thermostat location, you would prefer to use some right-50%-of-
the-time weather prediction algorithm. *Sure, makes perfect sense.

Predictive heating controls can save a further 10% off the heating
bill. They analyse the rate of rise/fall of outdoor temperature and
make descisions about boiler startup/temperature.
They also self learn the heating characteristics of the building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program... ID_controller
http://www.heatmiser.co.uk/support/article-145.html

If you're talking about some heat storage mechanism and electrical
heat where buying power in the off hours saves money, _then_ you
wouldn't be talking out of your fundamental orifice.

Makes perfect sense in certain circumstanses.



Humans have simple needs. *You have simple thoughts.
Buy technology and fix everything! *Yep, sure, never fails. *Sheesh.

Everything's simple to the simple-minded.
Buy technology and save money.
You have had energy (too) cheap in America for years.
Now you're gonna have to learn some new tricks if you want to afford
to keep your houses warm.

Anyway, you grow wearisome. *Feel free to blather as I ignore you
until I feel a further need to poke you with a stick.

Free free any time :-)

On Oct 26, 8:12*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:52*am, "
wrote:





On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient.

Tell that to the 95% efficient forced air furnace in
my house. *Forced air furnaces with efficiencies from
90 to 95% are reasonably priced and have been widely
available from all manufacturers for years now. *They
are in the same efficiency range as boilers.

Again, why do you make a fool of yourself about things
you know nothing about?

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating..

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

I wondered that too but then I saw the "Some CLAIM over 100%" and know
that claims and reality often vary greatly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is theoretically possible and so cannot be discounted.

On Oct 26, 8:31*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:32*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing..

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

BTW the idea that "balancing" a heating sytem somehow makes it energy
efficent shows how clueless YOU are.
Balancing a system merely ensures that the heating water is able to
get to all parts of the sytem. *It is not a means of temperature
control.

There is more than one effective and efficient heating system and I
can assure you that your heating water isn't worth **** to people that
live in climates where cooling is used more than your single purpose
heating system. *A well balanced system, be it forced air or heated
water will ensure that the heat is not going to areas that don't need
it leaving them cold while over heating other areas. *Your individual
room thermostat may be an attempt to compensate with individual
controls for a system that was not properly designed and balanced to
start with.

The single point that you consistantly seem to miss throughtout this
discussion is that NO SINGLE SYSTEM can be all things to all people
and there is more than one effective and efficient way to heat and /
or cool a residence.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes it can. If it is suffciently flexible and simple to set up by the
user.
What you mean is you have not experienced one.

On Oct 26, 8:20*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:22*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing..

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.
Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

I don't know why you lecture me on a topic which cleariy you have zero
knowledge, haven't even thought about and come from a proliferate/
wasteful and backward society..
American heating engineering has stood still for sixty years. I see
equipment described as "new" on this forum that is long obsolete
elsewhere. *As for new house construction, standards are unbelievably
low.
All arises out of a reluctance to do basic research for which America
is now paying the price in terms of jobs lost.
Even the Chinese have passed America in technology.. (In fact they own
you).

Short termism has killed the likes of for example GM. All down to
greed and the pursuit of instant wealth.

The only branch of engineering America is up to date on is weapons
manufacture. *Hence the needfor endless war

Yes sir, Europe is really showing us how it's done. *How many of the
European countries are on the verge of going bankrupt? *Don't give us
that line of crap until you have your own house in order.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) are in
trouble.
We may be.
Heh Heh I have just seen that the Euro banks are going to have to take
a 50% "haircut" on their Greek debt.. There is some justice.

But unless you can learn to be more efficient you will be worse.

What happens to Americans when they loset heir home BTW?
An American friend tells me his kid/grandkids are living in his
basement.
Is this common?

On Oct 26, 8:24*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:09*am, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes *Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor Freight.

GOOD ONE! *Cheap does not equate to good technology, it's just cheap.

It it only there to subvert your economy.

On Oct 26, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic..

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat..
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings..

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

You really are a half wit. *I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.

Au contraire, mon ferret, I quite clearly called you non compos mentis
_and_ that you were wrong in both specifics and details.

Take for instance one of your other inane posts where you spout about
gross efficiency and buy into some claim of heating efficiency greater
than 100%. *Regardless of how _you_ look at it, it is misleading.
You're buying the amp with the volume control that goes to 11. *Google
it.

Run it by me again how a TRV works. *Someone is cold in the house and
everyone else is warm, how does the TRV call for heat in that one
radiator? *More importantly, why would you want to fire a boiler for
one radiator? *Talk about wasteful.

You also ignore, conveniently, the costs of installation and
maintenance of a needlessly more complex system.

The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in *a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? *You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? *You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? *Oops. *Sorry.

I don't dither with things. *If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. *If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. *No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. *I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. *I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. *That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. *Sorry.

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. *Sure - that I can
buy.

I don't buy the 25% savings nonsense. *Let's say we have 8 rooms.
Harry, being a sensitive wall flower, demands the temperature be
72F. *With one thermostat, let's say it instead winds up like this:

75 in one room
74 in one room
72 in 4 rooms
70 in one room
69 in one room

Now with a lot more complexity and cost, we install a system
that keeps it at 72 in all 8 rooms. *How the hell does that save
25%? * It doesn't. *The energy usage will be about the same.

Even using a setback thermostat at night, where the temp
is lowered by 10 or more degrees in the whole house,
only saves 10-15%.

In other words, harry is once again the village idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An uncontrolled system cannnot maintain these settings . So, what
happens is one room is somewhere near, the rest are too high. (Human
nature being what it is)

I'll try to make it easier for you.

Suppose the outside temperature is 60 and you want it to be 70
indoors.
Suppose the temperature goes up to 72 indoors through bad control.
The temperature difference is 12 instead of 10.
You are using 20% more energy than you need to.
So that 2 deg over temperature is costing you 20% extra fuel.

On Oct 26, 1:54*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:06*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 25, 12:26*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the winter.

Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. *I read them and marvel.-

Total BS!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee, if everything is built so fine in Europe, why is it that
everytime
there is an earthquake in Greece, so many buildings just fall apart
killing tens of thousands of people?

As for one thermostat per room being essential, I've been to
Europe and can tell you that there is no noticeable positive
difference in comfort there vs the USA. *IF anything, it's
worse in Europe. *In Italy, for example, the AC sucks, hotels,
restaurants, etc tend to be hot and
you can't even get a cold beverage at a convenience store.

Harry talks about one thermostat per room as if that is
all that's needed. *When you have a residential AC
system, having a thermostat in each room would
require an automated damper system that would add
significantly to the cost, complexity and maintenance
of the system. *Would it be nice to have? *Sure.
Would most people here want it given what it adds
versus the cost? * I think not. *Nor do I think they would
want it or have it in the UK.

What you do have in Europe are more mini-splits.
Here in the USA we tend to avoid them because one
central unit is more cost effective and architecturally,
it's ugly having mini-splits hanging around everywhere.
And in most cases you can balance a central system close
enough that it's fine with one thermostat per system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everything sucks in Italy. Haven'tyou seen the news?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Today, Krugman was partially (oh, crap, forget the word that means "proved
to be correct") ah - vindicated (all I could think of was venerated - more
proof that words are stored at least partially alphabetically).

Not hardly. This hasn't been much of argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us...d-share-of-nat


The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue
Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some
private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the
imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major
impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and
spending policies.

But again, we have never (except for the estate tax) had a tax that
looks at wealth. So this is just an attempt to confuse people by
integrating the two. Tax policy doesn't generally address issues of
Congresscritters and constituents being ****ed off because someone is
too wealthy and should be punished. It is all based on Congresscritters
and constituents getting ****ed off because someone makes too much in
income and must be punished.


The poor and the middle class are losing ground to the uber-rich who are
clearly using their "bonus" income to buy more politicians and more laws and
exemptions favorable to them. That's an avalanche-type process that's
snowballing to a point where social inequality becomes a dangerous factor in
the equation. I've lived through two serious sets of rioting in my life.
I'd rather not see a third. Everyone loses. The parts of DC torn apart by
rioting decades ago are only now, hesitatingly making a recovery.

Most of which is coming from the unintended consequences of the
LAST time Congress tried to reign in executive pay.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 27, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"tom" wrote in ...
Occupy Wall Street: My One Demand

By Jinger Dixon

stuff snipped







We stand outside the
ever shrinking circle, yelling fixes, throwing band-aids, making demands
that the ever shrinking circle expand! at least big enough to include us
so
that we can go back to not giving a **** about the people outside, but
alas,
it will not. The circle does not expand, it does not know how. It only
knows
how to contract, concentrate, condense, like a dark star collapsing in on
itself. There is no “demand” that will drag the borders of the circle back
around us. And even if you could, would you? Would you go back to ****ing
the rest of the world to have your cable TV and your steel belted radials?
I
hope not. I hope the world is ready to say no more. No more. Therefore,
since it is my sincere belief that the circle is/was and always will be
****ed up, I say, surround them and demand that they collapse in on
themselves and disappear into their own black hole.

That is my One Demand.

The process happens almost automatically. *When the circle becomes a tiny
dot, as it did in France during the reign of Louis XIV or in the 1900's with
the incredible wealth of the Czar inside the circle of the appalling poverty
of the Russian peasants, "stuff happens." *I had always hoped America might
be different and able to learn from history, but it didn't take long to
forget every lesson of Vietnam. *It took only slightly longer to forget
every lesson of the Great Depression. *We brought back balloon mortgages
(should be outlawed outright)

What exactly is your problem with balloon mortgages?
If a free person wants to use such financing because
it suits THEIR needs, and another party chooses to lend
it, why should they not be allowed to do so? Who are
guys like you to decide what is right for the rest of us
and to slowly take our freedoms away, one by one?
That's what free Americans worry about, not the
idiotic thing you liberals try to ban each day.


and over-leveraging.

And who is one party that encouraged that overleveraging?
The govt and it's regulators. Yet, you give them a pass
and constantly advocate MORE govt, while trying to fix
all the blame on the private sector.



*Those mistakes, along
with so many others, dragged us down once again.

There is little evidence that balloon mortgages were
a significant part of the problem. Some people just
bought houses they could not keep up with the payments
on. Others just walked away because the houses
were worth less than the money they owed. And the
vast majority of them were not balloon mortgages.
As always, if you have real data that shows otherwise,
we'd be happy to see it.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

And Part D
(1). Cut the prices for seniors substantially because the individual
insurance companies were able to negotiate better prices than Grandma
and Grandpa could on their own. In the first 3 years, it actually came
in UNDER projections.

Projections are interesting, but as you pointed out with Krugman, they may
be constructed poorly and not really reveal the true state "on the ground."
But still it went against pretty much every recent policy addition
(including the original projections for SS and MCare where the outlying
decade projections were met after two years). Or even the short term
projections that they use to put one year's budget together. That alone
made it newsworthy.


What I noticed helping my neighbor with her Part D problems (they are
substantial) was that the veryt same meds she was taking in 1998 have almost
tripled in price. I believe that a lot of that rise was meant to compensate
for any future discount the drug companies might have to give to Medicare.
You have to use this drug's profits to pay for the next drug's
development. The costs of that have been going up, too. I am reminded of
a line from West Wing. Josh and Toby are discussing drug prices. One of
them holds up a pill and notes that this one cost 14 cents. The other
agrees but then added that the first one cost over $500 million (and
that was years ago).
Also most of the low hanging fruit has been picked in the
pharmaceutical industry as we can see by the more expensive to find, get
approved and then make biologics and similar medications. We have seen
the obstacles just over the last couple months when drug companies have
pulled the New Drug Applications for 3 late-stage drugs because the
studies did not show efficacy. VERY expensive failures.
When price fixing occurs (and no matter how you want to paint the
picture when government decides how much they will that is price fixing)
in the US one of two things HAS to happen. Prices elsewhere will have to
go up or innovation will dry up. (And either way we might get an answer
to the nagging question of exactly to what extent has the US consumer
been subsidizing overseas drug costs.) There are no other viable
alternatives.
Drug costs should go down substantially over the next few years
anyway. Of the top 10 meds, something like 5 go off patent in the next 3
years (starting this week with Lilly's Zyprexa.


FWIW, she's finally spent so much out of pocket that she's out of the donut
hole and into what Medicare calls "catastrophic" coverage. She smiled when
I said that the government says she's a catastrophe, now.

The legislative history of the donut hole is sorta interesting. That
was essentially put in there for Dem votes as a sop to not paying for
the bill through other means.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" wrote in
:

On Oct 27, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"tom" wrote in ...
Occupy Wall Street: My One Demand

By Jinger Dixon

stuff snipped







We stand outside the
ever shrinking circle, yelling fixes, throwing band-aids, making
demand
s
that the ever shrinking circle expand! at least big enough to
include u
s
so
that we can go back to not giving a **** about the people outside,
but
alas,
it will not. The circle does not expand, it does not know how. It
only
knows
how to contract, concentrate, condense, like a dark star collapsing
in
on
itself. There is no “demand” that will drag the borders of the circ
le back
around us. And even if you could, would you? Would you go back to
****i
ng
the rest of the world to have your cable TV and your steel belted
radia
ls?
I
hope not. I hope the world is ready to say no more. No more.
Therefore, since it is my sincere belief that the circle is/was and
always will be ****ed up, I say, surround them and demand that they
collapse in on themselves and disappear into their own black hole.

That is my One Demand.

The process happens almost automatically. *When the circle becomes a
ti
ny
dot, as it did in France during the reign of Louis XIV or in the
1900's w
ith
the incredible wealth of the Czar inside the circle of the appalling
pove
rty
of the Russian peasants, "stuff happens." *I had always hoped America
m
ight
be different and able to learn from history, but it didn't take long
to forget every lesson of Vietnam. *It took only slightly longer to
forget every lesson of the Great Depression. *We brought back balloon
mortgage
s
(should be outlawed outright)

What exactly is your problem with balloon mortgages?
If a free person wants to use such financing because
it suits THEIR needs, and another party chooses to lend
it, why should they not be allowed to do so? Who are
guys like you to decide what is right for the rest of us
and to slowly take our freedoms away, one by one?
That's what free Americans worry about, not the
idiotic thing you liberals try to ban each day.

There is nothing inherently wrong with balloon mortgages. Except that
you push off the problem of financing (large) amounts of debt into an
inherently uncertain future. If you're not absolutely sure that that
financing WILL be available, you're gambling on the death of a rich aunt,
or something equivalent.

and over-leveraging.

And who is one party that encouraged that overleveraging?
The govt and it's regulators. Yet, you give them a pass
and constantly advocate MORE govt, while trying to fix
all the blame on the private sector.

Why are you discounting the greed of the bankers and agents who are
trying to get a fat commission? That seems to me far closer to the
immediate seduction than government trying to curb discrimination in
awarding mortgages to (fill in your own group).

Also, take it from this view: I bought a house in 1980 for 67K, sold it
in 1998 for over 200K (I don't exactly remember now). Why can't I buy
another house in 2007 that exceeds my capabilities of paying a mortgage.
because I'm counting on selling that home in 2020 for a big fat profit.
Of course I didn't do that, but many people thought or were induced to
think that that was the way to go, and wanted another McMansion.

*Those mistakes, along
with so many others, dragged us down once again.

There is little evidence that balloon mortgages were
a significant part of the problem. Some people just
bought houses they could not keep up with the payments
on. Others just walked away because the houses
were worth less than the money they owed. And the
vast majority of them were not balloon mortgages.
As always, if you have real data that shows otherwise,
we'd be happy to see it.

See above. Many people were led to believe that home prices would keep
going straight up, and that they could sell at a profit a few years
hence. Stupid? Yes! Did it happen? You tell me. And those people
(IMNSHO) were feeding into a chain reaction - buy, sell, buy, sell. Then
suddenly they couldn't sell at a profit and - kaboom!!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:VoGdnc-Ne-
"Robert Green" wrote:

The health insurance mess is a "gift" from WWII, which is just another
reason to be circumspect about engaging in war after war. They almost
always entail "gifts" that keep on giving.

This has nothing to do with the war.

Whoa, Nelly. That's just not right.

Of course it is.

This "gift" is 100% related to government expediency. The natives were
getting
restless about the wage freeze.

The wage freeze was put in place because of the war. It would not have
happened absent WWII.
Yeah, but the government finding this way to pretend the w&p controls
did not really exist has nothing to do with the war and everything to do
with governmental expediency. The natives were restless and the
government decided to placate them. Besides the wage freeze was just
another breads and circuses moment to get the population on board. I
never have seen any econonmic justification other than another PR point


So the government decided that paying for health insurance wasn't REALLY a
wage increase.

And so, because of WWII wage freezes, businesses had to find another way to
attract workers from other employers and being allowed to give away
insurance as if it had no "wage value" filled the bill.
They did not have to anything of the sort. ALL wages were under the
freezes. There was no place else for workers to go so there was economic
need. It was just the politicians being their usual gutless selves.


The rest is history. It is definitely a
reason to be circumspect about governmental expediency.

That came about trying to react to an unusual situation - a wage freeze put
in place to help the war effort. You're getting perilously close to the
"were you wearing your glasses that night?" example I gave where not asking
if they were, in fact sunglasses and not clear corrective lenses would leave
jurors with a totally wrong conclusion. (-:

A wage freeze put in place for PR purposes so the Masses would feel
like they were making their contribution to war effort. All of a sudden
when the natives started getting restless, this part of the war effort
was less important than keeping the politicians employed and this work
around was found. Anybody REALLY trying to make the case that this
wasn't a raise in wages since it took a cost borne by the person and put
it on the employer? That is like the person who was trying to convince
me that the employer mandate under HealthCare reform won't hurt hiring
at the lower levels of the economy since it isn't part of their pay. But
it IS part of the cost of the job.



The association of health insurance with wages got its biggest boost because
of WWII's wage freezes. You might want to excise the causation, but I want
to win a $200M Powerball without even buying a ticket. Neither is going to
happen.

I am not arguing that point, indeed that this lynch pin of my
argument. I am saying that the cause was the government trying to calm
down the masses

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 27, 7:30*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

Today, Krugman was partially (oh, crap, forget the word that means "proved
to be correct") ah - vindicated (all I could think of was venerated - more
proof that words are stored at least partially alphabetically).

* * * Not hardly. This hasn't been much of argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us...rs-doubled-sha...

The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue
Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some
private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the
imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major
impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and
spending policies.

* *But again, we have never (except for the estate tax) had a tax that
looks at wealth. So this is just an attempt to confuse people by
integrating the two. Tax policy doesn't generally address issues of
Congresscritters and constituents being ****ed off because someone is
too wealthy and should be punished. It is all based on Congresscritters
and constituents getting ****ed off because someone makes too much in
income and must be punished.



The poor and the middle class are losing ground to the uber-rich who are
clearly using their "bonus" income to buy more politicians and more laws and
exemptions favorable to them. *That's an avalanche-type process that's
snowballing to a point where social inequality becomes a dangerous factor in
the equation. *I've lived through two serious sets of rioting in my life.
I'd rather not see a third. *Everyone loses. *The parts of DC torn apart by
rioting decades ago are only now, hesitatingly making a recovery.

* * *Most of which is coming from the unintended consequences of the
LAST time Congress tried to reign in executive pay.


The big flaw in all this that libs like Robert and Krugman ignore is
that they
pretend everyone is static and that all those that were poor in 1979
are still
poor in 2007. The reality is many of those that were poor in 1979
have
worked their way up and are no longer poor. And many of those that
are
rich in 2007 were poor, middle class, or not even born yet in 1979.

On Oct 27, 4:37*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:12*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 26, 6:52*am, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient.

Tell that to the 95% efficient forced air furnace in
my house. *Forced air furnaces with efficiencies from
90 to 95% are reasonably priced and have been widely
available from all manufacturers for years now. *They
are in the same efficiency range as boilers.

Again, why do you make a fool of yourself about things
you know nothing about?

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

I wondered that too but then I saw the "Some CLAIM over 100%" and know
that claims and reality often vary greatly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is theoretically possible and so cannot be discounted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Explain to us the physics whereby a boiler heating system can
be built today that is over 100% efficient.

On Oct 27, 4:59*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:





On Oct 26, 1:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them.. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

You really are a half wit. *I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.

Au contraire, mon ferret, I quite clearly called you non compos mentis
_and_ that you were wrong in both specifics and details.

Take for instance one of your other inane posts where you spout about
gross efficiency and buy into some claim of heating efficiency greater
than 100%. *Regardless of how _you_ look at it, it is misleading.
You're buying the amp with the volume control that goes to 11. *Google
it.

Run it by me again how a TRV works. *Someone is cold in the house and
everyone else is warm, how does the TRV call for heat in that one
radiator? *More importantly, why would you want to fire a boiler for
one radiator? *Talk about wasteful.

You also ignore, conveniently, the costs of installation and
maintenance of a needlessly more complex system.

The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in *a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? *You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? *You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? *Oops. *Sorry.

I don't dither with things. *If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. *If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. *No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. *I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. *I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. *That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. *Sorry.

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. *Sure - that I can
buy.

I don't buy the 25% savings nonsense. *Let's say we have 8 rooms.
Harry, being a sensitive wall flower, demands the temperature be
72F. *With one thermostat, let's say it instead winds up like this:

75 in one room
74 in one room
72 in 4 rooms
70 in one room
69 in one room

Now with a lot more complexity and cost, we install a system
that keeps it at 72 in all 8 rooms. *How the hell does that save
25%? * It doesn't. *The energy usage will be about the same.

Even using a setback thermostat at night, where the temp
is lowered by 10 or more degrees in the whole house,
only saves 10-15%.

In other words, harry is once again the village idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An uncontrolled system cannnot maintain these settings . So, what
happens *is one room is somewhere near, the rest are too high. (Human
nature being what it is)

I'll try to make it easier for you.

Suppose the outside temperature is 60 and you want it to be 70
indoors.
Suppose the temperature goes up to 72 indoors through bad control.
The temperature difference is 12 instead of 10.
You are using 20% more energy than you need to.
So that 2 deg over temperature is costing you 20% extra fuel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe that's your problem harry. You're running the heat when
it's 60 outside and frying your brain. Around here, when it's 60,
the heat hardly comes on at all. And when it does, it runs
couple times a day for a few minutes. In other words, what
happens during those periods contributes very little to a years
worth of heating.

Lets look at a more typical situation when it's winter and the
heating system is using the vast majority of the energy it will
use during the year. Let's say it's 30 deg outside and apply
your above situation. You want it 70 in one room and to get there,
it's 72 in the rest of the house. So, instead of maintaining a
40 deg delta, it's maintaining a 42 deg delta. That's a 5%
difference, not your claimed 25% or 20%. And those are
the periods when the annual heating bill is run up, not
when it's 60 outside.

Top that off with the fact that in most cases, anyone with
a brain could rectify the above by just partially closing
some registers in the hotter rooms. It's called balancing
and it works.

On Oct 27, 1:03*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

...
On Oct 24, 1:26 am, "Robert Green" wrote:



We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it
seems
inevitable) reversal. We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead of
staying on or off until room temperature has varied by a few degrees.

Largely because the thermostat is not in the right room.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capi...

The Illuminati is alive and well. *Lyndon LaRouche would be ecstatic to see
it proved. *It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that wealth concentrates
absent nearly confiscatory taxation.

Once again, the commie's true agenda comes out.


*And when it gets to Louis Quatorze
levels, revolts occur. *We've already had one civil war that was in part
about economics. *As they say on Wall St. "past performance is no guarantee
of future activity" but given that history nearly always repeats itself
what's happening worries me because in ways in parallels the lead up to the
Civil War.

Oh please! What nonsense.



*Geographically distinct areas having strong political
preferences. *HeyBub's been itching to be the King Of Texas for the longest
time . . . (-:

Elections are important to the big players, but not as important as to
the little players. *Short term corrections kill off the little
players, and as long as the long term trend is in the "right"
direction, the big players aren't greatly affected.

More nonsense without any facts to support it.




Reminds me of what Frankie Pentangeli said in the Godfather II film: "The
little guys got knocked off and all their estates went to the Emperors."

--
Bobby G.

But that's exactly what you want, is it not? You want to confiscate
wealth and
give it to those who govern.

On Oct 27, 3:51*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

news:25476093-2694-4484-8192-

Sorry, but that is a bunch of crap. *It was far from just the rich
elite that went running to the big daddy government for handouts. *It
was all up and down the ladder and everyone with something to lose was
in line, just some got more than others and some got nothing at all.
Take the unions at GM, they got a huge share in the company while all
the stockholders who may have depended on the income from their stock
for a living got NOTHING. *All the 401k and retirement funds who had
stakes in GM got nothing. *The pain was not evenly distributed and
neither was the payoff.

I remember Hank Paulson talking about stockholders being "zeroed out" as if
he were talking about turning out the kitchen light.


Boy, you are a piece of work. You constantly bitch about
the wealthy and how you want to confiscate their wealth. Now
you want to reimburse shareholders? You mean those large
pension funds, where GM was a tiny part of the asset mix?
The rich guy who had $100K in his portfolio? The guy who
bought it two weeks before the end because it was trading
like a penny stock?

Anyone that took a loss on GM stock it was their own fault.
The stock took a long slide into oblivion and they could
have sold it at any point along the way. Had the govt not
bailed out GM, the company would have gone bankrupt
and in bankruptcy the stockholders would have received
nothing. Now, if you want to find folks who were really
and unconstitutionally screwed, that would be the bond
holders. Unlike the stockholders, they were secured
creditors and should have been first in line. Instead,
big govt, which you clearly like and support, shoved
them out of the line and put the unions in front.





*As you note, the pain
was clearly not evenly divided, as it might have been. *The ones that got
the shaft had no lobbyists to bribe the goverment into protecting their
interests, as the others did. *I am still astounding that so many people got
looted of so much money and still very few people are going to jail. *It
warmed my heart to see a Goldman-Sachs exec get indicted.

Who at GM should have gone to jail and for what crime? Or
being a commie, do you want to just decide which capitalist
pig should be shot today?





http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2383...upta-arrest-fi...

The Citigroup traders that sold bad mortgages to their clients and then bet
against them should be horsewhipped in public on pay-per-view with the
profits going to restore some of the investors they defrauded.

--
Bobby G.

Obviously you are ignorant of the derivative markets. Instruments
are sold everyday in this country where the party selling it to you
bets against it. Futures traded in NYC and Chicago being prime
examples. Options on stocks being another. Want to ban those
too?

On Oct 27, 1:14*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:59*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 26, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 26, 1:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

You really are a half wit. *I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.

Au contraire, mon ferret, I quite clearly called you non compos mentis
_and_ that you were wrong in both specifics and details.

Take for instance one of your other inane posts where you spout about
gross efficiency and buy into some claim of heating efficiency greater
than 100%. *Regardless of how _you_ look at it, it is misleading.
You're buying the amp with the volume control that goes to 11. *Google
it.

Run it by me again how a TRV works. *Someone is cold in the house and
everyone else is warm, how does the TRV call for heat in that one
radiator? *More importantly, why would you want to fire a boiler for
one radiator? *Talk about wasteful.

You also ignore, conveniently, the costs of installation and
maintenance of a needlessly more complex system.

The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in *a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? *You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? *You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? *Oops. *Sorry.

I don't dither with things. *If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. *If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. *No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. *I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. *I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. *That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. *Sorry.

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. *Sure - that I can
buy.

I don't buy the 25% savings nonsense. *Let's say we have 8 rooms.
Harry, being a sensitive wall flower, demands the temperature be
72F. *With one thermostat, let's say it instead winds up like this:

75 in one room
74 in one room
72 in 4 rooms
70 in one room
69 in one room

Now with a lot more complexity and cost, we install a system
that keeps it at 72 in all 8 rooms. *How the hell does that save
25%? * It doesn't. *The energy usage will be about the same.

Even using a setback thermostat at night, where the temp
is lowered by 10 or more degrees in the whole house,
only saves 10-15%.

In other words, harry is once again the village idiot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An uncontrolled system cannnot maintain these settings . So, what
happens *is one room is somewhere near, the rest are too high. (Human
nature being what it is)

I'll try to make it easier for you.

Suppose the outside temperature is 60 and you want it to be 70
indoors.
Suppose the temperature goes up to 72 indoors through bad control.
The temperature difference is 12 instead of 10.
You are using 20% more energy than you need to.
So that 2 deg over temperature is costing you 20% extra fuel.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe that's your problem harry. *You're running the heat when
it's 60 outside and frying your brain. *Around here, when it's 60,
the heat hardly comes on at all. *And when it does, it runs
couple times a day for a few minutes. *In other words, what
happens during those periods contributes very little to a years
worth of heating.

Lets look at a more typical situation when it's winter and the
heating system is using the vast majority of the energy it will
use during the year. *Let's say it's 30 deg outside and apply
your above situation. *You want it 70 in one room and to get there,
it's 72 in the rest of the house. *So, instead of maintaining a
40 deg delta, it's maintaining a 42 deg delta. *That's a 5%
difference, not your claimed 25% or 20%. *And those are
the periods when the annual heating bill is run up, not
when it's 60 outside.

Top that off with the fact that in most cases, anyone with
a brain could rectify the above by just partially closing
some registers in the hotter rooms. *It's called balancing
and it works.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It was just an example using two degrees.
If the temperature outside rose to 70 and the heating sytem overan to
72 why then you would be wasting 100% of your energy.
It could be ten or fifteen degrees over temperature. Also depends on
what fraction of the time extreme external temperatures are
experienced. Also the external temperature differences between day
and night.
This is all elementary stuff, well known in Europe but apparently not
in America. Or hidden from you by the fuel companies.

On Oct 27, 1:04*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:37*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 26, 8:12*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 26, 6:52*am, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient.

Tell that to the 95% efficient forced air furnace in
my house. *Forced air furnaces with efficiencies from
90 to 95% are reasonably priced and have been widely
available from all manufacturers for years now. *They
are in the same efficiency range as boilers.

Again, why do you make a fool of yourself about things
you know nothing about?

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

I wondered that too but then I saw the "Some CLAIM over 100%" and know
that claims and reality often vary greatly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is theoretically possible and so cannot be discounted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Explain to us the physics whereby a boiler heating system can
be built today that is over 100% efficient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Read the link I posted.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bo...ncy-d_438.html
It is an historical thing. In days of yore cooling the fuel gases to
the point of condensation was a no no. So the latent heat of the
water in the combustion gases was never taken into account. So 100%
would be when the fuel was completely burned and energy removed (but
not the latent heat bit)
When condensing boilers became feasible the was an extra bit of energy
could be recovered.
So manufacturers like to quote efficieccies using the gross calorific
value of the fuel because it sounds more. So it can theoretically
exceed 100%
So it is a sales trick essentially to baffle the public. There's one
here for example.

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/robur-...99-428210.html

With the cunning proviso that the water temperature is 50 (c).
This essentially means that the super high efficiency can only be
achieved utilising an underfloor heating system.
Could be done in a new house but on a retro-fit installation probably
only achieve 95-97%.

On Oct 27, 1:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:51*am, "Robert Green" wrote:





"BobR" wrote in message

news:25476093-2694-4484-8192-

Sorry, but that is a bunch of crap. *It was far from just the rich
elite that went running to the big daddy government for handouts. *It
was all up and down the ladder and everyone with something to lose was
in line, just some got more than others and some got nothing at all.
Take the unions at GM, they got a huge share in the company while all
the stockholders who may have depended on the income from their stock
for a living got NOTHING. *All the 401k and retirement funds who had
stakes in GM got nothing. *The pain was not evenly distributed and
neither was the payoff.

I remember Hank Paulson talking about stockholders being "zeroed out" as if
he were talking about turning out the kitchen light.

Boy, you are a piece of work. *You constantly bitch about
the wealthy and how you want to confiscate their wealth. Now
you want to reimburse shareholders? *You mean those large
pension funds, where GM was a tiny part of the asset mix?
The rich guy who had $100K in his portfolio? *The guy who
bought it two weeks before the end because it was trading
like a penny stock?

Anyone that took a loss on GM stock it was their own fault.
The stock took a long slide into oblivion and they could
have sold it at any point along the way. *Had the govt not
bailed out GM, the company would have gone bankrupt
and in bankruptcy the stockholders would have received
nothing. *Now, if you want to find folks who were really
and unconstitutionally screwed, that would be the bond
holders. *Unlike the stockholders, they were secured
creditors and should have been first in line. *Instead,
big govt, which you clearly like and support, shoved
them out of the line and put the unions in front.

*As you note, the pain

was clearly not evenly divided, as it might have been. *The ones that got
the shaft had no lobbyists to bribe the goverment into protecting their
interests, as the others did. *I am still astounding that so many people got
looted of so much money and still very few people are going to jail. *It
warmed my heart to see a Goldman-Sachs exec get indicted.

Who at GM should have gone to jail and for what crime? *Or
being a commie, do you want to just decide which capitalist
pig should be shot today?



http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2383...upta-arrest-fi...

The Citigroup traders that sold bad mortgages to their clients and then bet
against them should be horsewhipped in public on pay-per-view with the
profits going to restore some of the investors they defrauded.

--
Bobby G.

Obviously you are ignorant of the derivative markets. *Instruments
are sold everyday in this country where the party selling it to you
bets against it. *Futures traded in NYC and Chicago being prime
examples. *Options on stocks being another. *Want to ban those
too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Booby G is quite right. These people are parasites. They create
nothing.
Your grandchildren will be paying for what they have done.
The dullest hamburger flipper is of more value than the entire gamut
of these scum. He/she is doing useful work.
The "99%" are the backbone of America.

BTW the Oaklands affair has gone worldwide on Al Jazeera. They seem
to have a permanent camera crew monitoring events there. As do the
Russians.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:04:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:37*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:12*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 26, 6:52*am, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient.

Tell that to the 95% efficient forced air furnace in
my house. *Forced air furnaces with efficiencies from
90 to 95% are reasonably priced and have been widely
available from all manufacturers for years now. *They
are in the same efficiency range as boilers.

Again, why do you make a fool of yourself about things
you know nothing about?

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

I wondered that too but then I saw the "Some CLAIM over 100%" and know
that claims and reality often vary greatly.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is theoretically possible and so cannot be discounted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Explain to us the physics whereby a boiler heating system can
be built today that is over 100% efficient.

Show me someone who claims 100% efficiency and I'll show you a liar (sound
like anyone we know?).

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:01:00 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Oct 26, 1:54*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:06*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 25, 12:26*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the winter.

Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. *I read them and marvel.-

Total BS!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee, if everything is built so fine in Europe, why is it that
everytime
there is an earthquake in Greece, so many buildings just fall apart
killing tens of thousands of people?

As for one thermostat per room being essential, I've been to
Europe and can tell you that there is no noticeable positive
difference in comfort there vs the USA. *IF anything, it's
worse in Europe. *In Italy, for example, the AC sucks, hotels,
restaurants, etc tend to be hot and
you can't even get a cold beverage at a convenience store.

Harry talks about one thermostat per room as if that is
all that's needed. *When you have a residential AC
system, having a thermostat in each room would
require an automated damper system that would add
significantly to the cost, complexity and maintenance
of the system. *Would it be nice to have? *Sure.
Would most people here want it given what it adds
versus the cost? * I think not. *Nor do I think they would
want it or have it in the UK.

What you do have in Europe are more mini-splits.
Here in the USA we tend to avoid them because one
central unit is more cost effective and architecturally,
it's ugly having mini-splits hanging around everywhere.
And in most cases you can balance a central system close
enough that it's fine with one thermostat per system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everything sucks in Italy. Haven'tyou seen the news?

s/Italy/Europe/

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:45:01 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I think the Chinese stole our technology,

Some of it was sold to them (Clinton).

not passed it.

Some of the stuff in Harbor freight looks like they passed it.