On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "
wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.

On Oct 27, 10:25*am, harry wrote:
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.


In other words, they are lying out their asses.


http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/robur-...ndensing-gas-b...

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%.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "





wrote:
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.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:01:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "
wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.

Nonsense.

We only use wet systems.

Particularly behind the ears. That much is obvious.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.

Wet ones? LOL. You're some piece of work, harry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.

What a maroon!

On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Please explain how your wet system air conditioning works. You hang
mini-splits off of a building in a bunch of locations and call it
good. That always dresses up a neighborhood.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.

Funny you should mention Hee Haw having his head in the sand (probably
taking a break from having it buried up his ass). I'm surprised he
hasn't seen all of the natural gas we have down there, and all of the
oil that Canada has. He doesn't read his own news outlets and prefers
to pretend he's a US news outlet instead of the cranky, ignored in his
own country, old pensioner he really is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...o-America.html

This is an interesting read:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...ernment-report
It would be destabilizing for the world if the US eliminated its debt
entirely - I never really thought about it that way. Most people try
to come to terms with things by scaling things up from their own
personal experiences. The problem is that nobody can scale up their
personal financial objectives and solutions to a world power scale.

R

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:01:58 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "





wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.

It is *not* sand.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:01:58 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -


Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.

So is cooling. harry's "socialist gov" is keeping him down. Being
used in Nevada now by business / government at some levels.

Sample:

http://geothermal-pa.com/

On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the village idiot is dead wrong on forced air systems not
being efficient. The efficiencies are comparable to boiler systems.
I have a 95% one here. I guess he looks at mythical marketing crap
claiming over 100% efficienncy and then compares that to
95% AFUE ratings in the USA. So far, it's everyone here in
agreement that the village idiot is wrong once again.....

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

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

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.

No you don't any more than you have to use the revenue gained from
(say) an oil well to search for new oil elsewhere. Even worse, in the
pharma area it's like using the profits from an oil well somewhere to
look for copper ore in another part of the world. Bringing it back to
the pharma area why should someone who needs (say) BP medication pay
an excessive price for it so the drug company can search for a drug
for an unrelated illness.

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).

So what. The 14 cents is just the immediate raw material, production,
and selling cost and will be burdened with its share of the
amortization of the original research cost. Plenty of industries like
this. A case in point is the movie business where billions are
invested in movies that will not earn their keep until the future.

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.

Just the usual lousy job of the researchers.

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.

So I suppose the financing of development of a promising new drug (or
avenue) can't be done by the entrepreneur going to the venture
capitalist (or Wall Street, or the banks, or some other money source)
and presenting a proposal and obtaining financing? Isn't this the way
new ideas come to fruition (and the product to market) in most
industries? The situation is complicated in the pharmaceutical
industry because the current players have all the expertise, contacts,
politicians in their pockets etc. and drug development requires oodles
of money. But even if it's the current players doing the new
development there's no reason (other than a "gimmie more" gambit) the
new drug or idea should be subsidized by an older drug. Big bucks from
(say) Lisinopril should simply give the drug company the idea that
some other product can also make a fortune. It's not some socialist
equalizing of the cost between (say) the high BP people and those
suffering from senile decay.

As to the subsidizing of overseas drug costs this is another red
herring showing just how little most people know about business. If
you have a product that has a finite life span (here drug patents but
it could be tomatoes rotting in the fields) you have an interest in
getting what you can for the product as long as it covers the marginal
cost of production and distribution. In the case of tomatoes there's
not much capitalized cost to recover but in the case of drugs (and
movies) there are huge amounts. Sell the product for what you can get
as long as you don't detract from the sales at full price. Anything
over the marginal cost will go to reduce (or repay) the capitalized
development cost. You're only subsidizing the overseas consumer if you
could make more elsewhere (which you can't). In fact, by selling to
(say) Bangladesh at half price really does the American consumer a
favor; the drug can be priced lower in the US than it otherwise would
be.

On Oct 27, 6:59*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:25*am, harry wrote:





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.

In other words, they are lying out their asses.



http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/robur-...ndensing-gas-b...

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%.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not exactly, it is achievable if you compare it with say a previous
boiler and install underfloor heating. They aren't allowed to do lie
when selling over here.
Nevertheless. misleading to persons unaware of how the numbers work.

On Oct 27, 7:01*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have been here too. The government is trying to get more of them
installed in domestic houses.
It's been usual only to install them where gas was not available but
electricity was. (Not that many over here and propane competes)
They are quite a bit more expensive than a gas heaating system over
here with all the digging/hole boring.
They are not supporting air source or ground source that are
reversible.

Gas was in the past very cheap, it came from off-shore wells but they
are nearly exhausted. Hence all the excitement.

On Oct 27, 7:10*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:01:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:38 pm, "
wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.

Nonsense.

We only use wet systems.

Particularly behind the ears. *That much is obvious.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.

Wet ones? *LOL. *You're some piece of work, harry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.

What a maroon!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hello retard,
Back to abuse then I see.
Maroon is a colour BTW

On Oct 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/Hyster...ontrol_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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the village idiot is dead wrong on forced air systems not
being efficient. *The efficiencies are comparable to boiler systems.
I have a 95% one here. *I guess he looks at mythical marketing crap
claiming over 100% efficienncy and then compares that to
95% AFUE ratings in the USA. * So far, it's everyone here in
agreement that the village idiot is wrong once again.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Make and model?

On Oct 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/Hyster...ontrol_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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the village idiot is dead wrong on forced air systems not
being efficient. *The efficiencies are comparable to boiler systems.
I have a 95% one here. *I guess he looks at mythical marketing crap
claiming over 100% efficienncy and then compares that to
95% AFUE ratings in the USA. * So far, it's everyone here in
agreement that the village idiot is wrong once again.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Forced air sytems apart from inefficiency cannot be easlly/
economically controlled. especially domestic sized ones.
"Balancing" them is even more problematical than wet systems.

On Oct 28, 2:30*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:





On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the village idiot is dead wrong on forced air systems not
being efficient. *The efficiencies are comparable to boiler systems.
I have a 95% one here. *I guess he looks at mythical marketing crap
claiming over 100% efficienncy and then compares that to
95% AFUE ratings in the USA. * So far, it's everyone here in
agreement that the village idiot is wrong once again.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Forced air sytems apart from inefficiency cannot be easlly/
economically controlled. especially domestic sized ones.
"Balancing" them is even more problematical than wet systems.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you don't have one, HTF would you know? I've got 40+ years
experience with them and they work fine. Not a single person
here agrees with you, including pros who service them,
yet you drone on. And what do you then in the UK
for AC? Hmmm? Oh, I know, in Europe you hang a bunch
of those mini-splits all over the house. Which, in total, cost a
lot more than one central AC. The cost of one is about the
same as adding AC to a forced air furnace. Suppose you
have allergies and want to add an electronic air cleaner?
Or a high efficiency MERV filter? I can do that easily and
for little cost with a forced air furnace. What do you do
with your mini-splits and boiler?

Your two mistakes are that you rant on about things you
don't understand and that you assume one solution is
always best and anyone that chooses another is wrong.
And boy are they ugly, both outside and inside.

On Oct 28, 2:23*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 7:01*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/Hyster...ontrol_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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have been here too. *The government is trying to get more of them
installed in domestic houses.
It's been usual only to install them where gas was not available but
electricity was. (Not that many over here and propane competes)
They are quite a bit more expensive than a gas heaating system over
here with all the digging/hole boring.
They are not supporting air source *or ground source that are
reversible.

So much for the claimed technical advancements and smarts of
Britts. According to the above, they are putting in heat pump systems
that only heat, not cool? How dumb is that?



Gas was in the past very cheap, it came from off-shore wells but they
are nearly exhausted. Hence all the excitement.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 27, 10:34*pm, wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

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

No you don't any more than you have to use the revenue gained from
(say) an oil well to search for new oil elsewhere. Even worse, in the
pharma area it's like using the profits from an oil well somewhere to
look for copper ore in another part of the world. Bringing it back to
the pharma area why should someone who needs (say) BP medication pay
an excessive price for it so the drug company can search for a drug
for an unrelated illness.

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).

So what. The 14 cents is just the immediate raw material, production,
and selling cost and will be burdened with its share of the
amortization of the original research cost. Plenty of industries like
this. A case in point is the movie business where billions are
invested in movies that will not earn their keep until the future.

* *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.

Just the usual lousy job of the researchers.

* *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.

So I suppose the financing of development of a promising new drug (or
avenue) can't be done by the entrepreneur going to the venture
capitalist (or Wall Street, or the banks, or some other money source)
and presenting a proposal and obtaining financing?

There are so many things wrong with the above, that I don't know
where to begin. First, let's for the moment just accept the premise
given that the govt is going to somehow fix the price of drugs at a
low
level producing low or no profits.

First, for the most part, you'd never get to the stage of having
a promising drug to seek financing for. The drug companies
today spend huge sums on speculative research trying to find
drugs. Everything from sending teams into rainforests to
search for plants, to advanced bio labs. Usually, only after
huge expenditures do you get to the point where you THINK
you might have a new viable drug. And even then many, if
not most wind up failures.

And given that prices are going to be fixed artificially
low, what entrepeneur is going to seek to go into business
with a new drug? Even in today's environment, how many
entrepeneurs show up with a new drug seeking financing
to start a new company. It's rare indeed. Compare that
to other businesses, like the internet or software and the
barriers to entry are clearly very high.

And finally, even if they did seek financing, what fools
would invest knowing the govt was going to screw around
and set the price for the drugs?



Isn't this the way
new ideas come to fruition (and the product to market) in most
industries?

I'd like to see the percentage of new drugs that were approved
over say the last 3 years that came from new companies formed
within say the last 10 years. I agree they are there, but I'll bet
they are dwarfed by the drugs brought to market by the established
drug companies. Also, the assumption per the above discussion
is the govt is going to fix prices artificially low. If that happens,
goodbye to the new companies.


The situation is complicated in the pharmaceutical
industry because the current players have all the expertise, contacts,
politicians in their pockets etc. and drug development requires oodles
of money. But even if it's the current players doing the new
development there's no reason (other than a "gimmie more" gambit) *the
new drug or idea should be subsidized by an older drug. Big bucks from
(say) Lisinopril should simply give the drug company the idea that
some other product can also make a fortune. It's not some socialist
equalizing of the cost between (say) the high BP people and those
suffering from senile decay.

This is one of the stupidist things the resident commie has posted
yet.
It's like saying the profits from Apple's MACs should not have
been used to develop the iPOD. Or the profits from the iPOD should
not have been used to develop and market the iPhone. Obviously
totally clueless about business. Even the local bakery uses profits
from the bakery to expand into a cafe or add a deli, etc.




As to the subsidizing of overseas drug costs this is another red
herring showing just how little most people know about business.

After posting the above, we know the really clueless one is you.



If
you have a product that has a finite life span (here drug patents but
it could be tomatoes rotting in the fields) you have an interest in
getting what you can for the product as long as it covers the marginal
cost of production and distribution. In the case of tomatoes there's
not much capitalized cost to recover but in the case of drugs (and
movies) there are huge amounts. Sell the product for what you can get
as long as you don't detract from the sales at full price.

Wrong again. From economics 101 we know that the correct
goal is to sell goods at the price that maximizes profits.


Anything
over the marginal cost will go to reduce (or repay) the capitalized
development cost. You're only subsidizing the overseas consumer if you
could make more elsewhere (which you can't). In fact, by selling to
(say) Bangladesh at half price really does the American consumer a
favor; the drug can be priced lower in the US than it otherwise would
be.

On Oct 28, 12:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:23*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 27, 7:01*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have been here too. *The government is trying to get more of them
installed in domestic houses.
It's been usual only to install them where gas was not available but
electricity was. (Not that many over here and propane competes)
They are quite a bit more expensive than a gas heaating system over
here with all the digging/hole boring.
They are not supporting air source *or ground source that are
reversible.

So much for the claimed *technical advancements and smarts of
Britts. *According to the above, they are putting in heat pump systems
that only heat, not cool? *How dumb is that?





Gas was in the past very cheap, it came from off-shore wells but they
are nearly exhausted. Hence all the excitement.- Hide quoted text -


It is an energy saving thing, not technical. They don't want people
running cooling here. It is unneccesary for 99.999% of the time.
The whole business is about reducing energy imports

On Oct 28, 12:37*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:30*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the village idiot is dead wrong on forced air systems not
being efficient. *The efficiencies are comparable to boiler systems..
I have a 95% one here. *I guess he looks at mythical marketing crap
claiming over 100% efficienncy and then compares that to
95% AFUE ratings in the USA. * So far, it's everyone here in
agreement that the village idiot is wrong once again.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Forced air sytems apart from inefficiency cannot be easlly/
economically controlled. especially domestic sized ones.
"Balancing" them is even more problematical than wet systems.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you don't have one, HTF would you know? *I've got 40+ years
experience with them and they work fine. *Not a single person
here agrees with you, including pros who service them,
yet you drone on. *And what do you then in the UK
for AC? *Hmmm? *Oh, I know, in Europe you hang a bunch
of those mini-splits all over the house. *Which, in total, cost a
lot more than one central AC. *The cost of one is about the
same as adding AC to a forced air furnace. *Suppose you
have allergies and want to add an electronic air cleaner?
Or a high efficiency MERV filter? *I can do that easily and
for little cost with a forced air furnace. *What do you do
with your mini-splits and boiler?

Your two mistakes are that you rant on about things you
don't understand and that you assume one solution is
always best and anyone that chooses another is wrong.
And boy are they ugly, both outside and inside.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When I was an apprentice we were pulling them out and junking them .
I haven't seen one for years now.
I have worked on AC of all sizes from domestic to commercial.
The systems you describe are not Air Conditioning because they do not
control humidity. And don't whine on about domestic "humindifiers".
That is not air conditioning either as they are uncontrolled.
People buy them because the primitive airhandling sytems you have
produce very uncomfortable levels of humidity. Or lack of.
People should also bear inmind the strong possibilty of introducing
leggionnela into their home with such primitive devices not to mention
various fungal spores.
They are just heating/cooling on the cheap, not AC. Well not actually
cheap any more, because they are so inefficient and uncontrollable in
the domestic sizes.

On Oct 28, 1:30*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:49*pm, "
wrote:





On Oct 27, 2:01*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the village idiot is dead wrong on forced air systems not
being efficient. *The efficiencies are comparable to boiler systems.
I have a 95% one here. *I guess he looks at mythical marketing crap
claiming over 100% efficienncy and then compares that to
95% AFUE ratings in the USA. * So far, it's everyone here in
agreement that the village idiot is wrong once again.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Forced air sytems apart from inefficiency cannot be easlly/
economically controlled. especially domestic sized ones.
"Balancing" them is even more problematical than wet systems

NO damn difference in balancing them compared to wet systems. Quite
frankly, I have been in homes with your so called wet systems and they
weren't worth a damn. The temperature range was from hot to cold,
floor to ceiling. Yes, heat rises but not very effective in
maintaining a uniform temperature. The only place I found it
comfortable was in a small bathroom. Personally, I try to NOT spend
my entire day in the bathroom.

On Oct 28, 6:39*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:23*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 27, 7:01*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have been here too. *The government is trying to get more of them
installed in domestic houses.
It's been usual only to install them where gas was not available but
electricity was. (Not that many over here and propane competes)
They are quite a bit more expensive than a gas heaating system over
here with all the digging/hole boring.
They are not supporting air source *or ground source that are
reversible.

So much for the claimed *technical advancements and smarts of
Britts. *According to the above, they are putting in heat pump systems
that only heat, not cool? *How dumb is that?



Hey, you got to realize that all the Brits need to cool is their
head. They can do that by sticking their heads in those tiny little
friges.

" wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:34*pm, wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

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

No you don't any more than you have to use the revenue gained from
(say) an oil well to search for new oil elsewhere. Even worse, in the
pharma area it's like using the profits from an oil well somewhere to
look for copper ore in another part of the world. Bringing it back to
the pharma area why should someone who needs (say) BP medication pay
an excessive price for it so the drug company can search for a drug
for an unrelated illness.

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).

So what. The 14 cents is just the immediate raw material, production,
and selling cost and will be burdened with its share of the
amortization of the original research cost. Plenty of industries like
this. A case in point is the movie business where billions are
invested in movies that will not earn their keep until the future.

* *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.

Just the usual lousy job of the researchers.

* *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.

So I suppose the financing of development of a promising new drug (or
avenue) can't be done by the entrepreneur going to the venture
capitalist (or Wall Street, or the banks, or some other money source)
and presenting a proposal and obtaining financing?

There are so many things wrong with the above, that I don't know
where to begin. First, let's for the moment just accept the premise
given that the govt is going to somehow fix the price of drugs at a
low
level producing low or no profits.

No. I don't accept the premise that the government is setting the
price of drugs at a low or high level. The confusing thing (for you)
is the paragraph above:

"
What I noticed helping my neighbor with her Part D problem (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.
"

I'm not commenting one way or the other about Medicare, part D or any
similar interference in the market. I'm simply using the post to
correct the two erroneous assertions: that new drugs have to be
financed from inflated prices for old drugs and that we're subsidizing
the drug cost for other countries.

First, for the most part, you'd never get to the stage of having
a promising drug to seek financing for. The drug companies
today spend huge sums on speculative research trying to find
drugs. Everything from sending teams into rainforests to
search for plants, to advanced bio labs. Usually, only after
huge expenditures do you get to the point where you THINK
you might have a new viable drug. And even then many, if
not most wind up failures.

And this differs in principle from other industries how? Don't the
extractive industries have the same problem? Lots of dry holes? Have
you not noticed on a much smaller scale someone starting a business
(say a retail store) in the hope of making a profit and finding that
the customers aren't coming in? This is perfectly normal for all
businesses.

And given that prices are going to be fixed artificially
low, what entrepeneur is going to seek to go into business
with a new drug?

Why do you keep going on about prices being fixed? I'll do what you do
and say: "Let's just accept that the drug company can set its prices
for what the market will bear just as in any other industry." That's
certainly the case for the drugs I use.

Even in today's environment, how many
entrepeneurs show up with a new drug seeking financing
to start a new company. It's rare indeed. Compare that
to other businesses, like the internet or software and the
barriers to entry are clearly very high.

Try an extractive industry or an energy producer where the financial
barriers to entry are high too.

And finally, even if they did seek financing, what fools
would invest knowing the govt was going to screw around
and set the price for the drugs?

And once again you bring in a red herring. But even here where there's
the constant threat of government intervention, oil exploration
companies (for example) continue to search for new fields.

Isn't this the way
new ideas come to fruition (and the product to market) in most
industries?

I'd like to see the percentage of new drugs that were approved
over say the last 3 years that came from new companies formed
within say the last 10 years. I agree they are there, but I'll bet
they are dwarfed by the drugs brought to market by the established
drug companies. Also, the assumption per the above discussion
is the govt is going to fix prices artificially low. If that happens,
goodbye to the new companies.

You're fixated on these price controls eh?

The situation is complicated in the pharmaceutical
industry because the current players have all the expertise, contacts,
politicians in their pockets etc. and drug development requires oodles
of money. But even if it's the current players doing the new
development there's no reason (other than a "gimmie more" gambit) *the
new drug or idea should be subsidized by an older drug. Big bucks from
(say) Lisinopril should simply give the drug company the idea that
some other product can also make a fortune. It's not some socialist
equalizing of the cost between (say) the high BP people and those
suffering from senile decay.

This is one of the stupidist things the resident commie has posted
yet.
It's like saying the profits from Apple's MACs should not have
been used to develop the iPOD. Or the profits from the iPOD should
not have been used to develop and market the iPhone. Obviously
totally clueless about business. Even the local bakery uses profits
from the bakery to expand into a cafe or add a deli, etc.

It's not the profits from the MAC (do they actually make a profit?)
that are used but the cash flow that is generated by the MAC which
allows Apple to produce the iPhone etc. You're using the wrong word!
The profits have nothing to do with it except in the generalized sense
that profits are generally part of revenue and the revenue generally
represents inward cash and of course if you can't make a profit
eventually you'll go out of business.

Apple is in a competitive environment at least to some degree. It
can't jack up the prices of the MAC beyond what the market will bear
so it can't say that it has to charge a higher price so that it can
fund either a new MAC or a new line of business (or iPhone). This is
exactly what the drug companies are doing or say they're doing.

One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

As to the subsidizing of overseas drug costs this is another red
herring showing just how little most people know about business.

After posting the above, we know the really clueless one is you.

If
you have a product that has a finite life span (here drug patents but
it could be tomatoes rotting in the fields) you have an interest in
getting what you can for the product as long as it covers the marginal
cost of production and distribution. In the case of tomatoes there's
not much capitalized cost to recover but in the case of drugs (and
movies) there are huge amounts. Sell the product for what you can get
as long as you don't detract from the sales at full price.

Wrong again. From economics 101 we know that the correct
goal is to sell goods at the price that maximizes profits.

And that's exactly what the drug company is doing when it sells the
product at a lower price in a poorer foreign country.

To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand) manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time
-- i.e., they sell it for a lower price than it normally is sold for
-- but in doing so they actually make more money. Not only do they
sell to customers who would otherwise buy a competitor's product and
some additional sales will be made to people who would buy neither but
also they amortize the fixed costs (like machinery cost, or insurance
for their factory or repair costs or accountant's fees, or any of
hundreds of items that do not depend on number of sales) over a
greater number of items thus reducing the per-unit cost. Revenue for
each item minus unit cost (fully burdened in this case) equals profit.
Lower price = maximumized profit! Or, as an intermediate step for the
drug companies, lower price (but not below marginal cost) = earlier
recovery of the R&D cost and in future greater profits.

Anything
over the marginal cost will go to reduce (or repay) the capitalized
development cost. You're only subsidizing the overseas consumer if you
could make more elsewhere (which you can't). In fact, by selling to
(say) Bangladesh at half price really does the American consumer a
favor; the drug can be priced lower in the US than it otherwise would
be.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:25:49 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:10*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:01:38 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Oct 27, 4:38 pm, "
wrote:
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/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.

Nonsense.

We only use wet systems.

Particularly behind the ears. *That much is obvious.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.

Wet ones? *LOL. *You're some piece of work, harry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.

What a maroon!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hello retard,

Your most intelligent argument yet - IKWYABWAI.

Back to abuse then I see.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Maroon is a colour BTW

Stupid Brit!

In article ,
wrote:


So I suppose the financing of development of a promising new drug (or
avenue) can't be done by the entrepreneur going to the venture
capitalist (or Wall Street, or the banks, or some other money source)
and presenting a proposal and obtaining financing?

There are so many things wrong with the above, that I don't know
where to begin. First, let's for the moment just accept the premise
given that the govt is going to somehow fix the price of drugs at a
low
level producing low or no profits.

No. I don't accept the premise that the government is setting the
price of drugs at a low or high level. The confusing thing (for you)
is the paragraph above:

Governents are currently doing that is most countries. Canada, for
instance, sets the price for new drugs based on a basket of other
country's prices (mostly European who also set the prices).
Interestingly enough, at least in the case of Canada, is that generic
prices aren't price controlled and generally higher than the brand name
medications.
Also, price setting is the model currently being used in the US to
pay the docs and hospitals under the government programs. Has been since
at least the mid-80s and the institute of Diagnostic Related Groups and
their progeny.



I'm not commenting one way or the other about Medicare, part D or any
similar interference in the market. I'm simply using the post to
correct the two erroneous assertions: that new drugs have to be
financed from inflated prices for old drugs and that we're subsidizing
the drug cost for other countries.

How else are you going to finance the drugs. You have to have profits
from somewhere to pay for it, either in house or some possibility that
the investors will be paid back.

First, for the most part, you'd never get to the stage of having
a promising drug to seek financing for. The drug companies
today spend huge sums on speculative research trying to find
drugs. Everything from sending teams into rainforests to
search for plants, to advanced bio labs. Usually, only after
huge expenditures do you get to the point where you THINK
you might have a new viable drug. And even then many, if
not most wind up failures.

And this differs in principle from other industries how? Don't the
extractive industries have the same problem? Lots of dry holes? Have
you not noticed on a much smaller scale someone starting a business
(say a retail store) in the hope of making a profit and finding that
the customers aren't coming in? This is perfectly normal for all
businesses.


Won't. Thus you see, to use your own example, oil drilling and
exploration go up or down based on the price of oil. WHen it gets more
expensive (outrageous profits) the rigs get going, when it goes down the
drilling does too. Same with most mining operations.

And given that prices are going to be fixed artificially
low, what entrepeneur is going to seek to go into business
with a new drug?

Why do you keep going on about prices being fixed? I'll do what you do
and say: "Let's just accept that the drug company can set its prices
for what the market will bear just as in any other industry." That's
certainly the case for the drugs I use.
In the US, but not always in other places. Canada has a Patent
Medicine Price Review Board. The mandate is to make sure the prices
charged are not "excessive". If that isn't price fixing, I don't know
what is.



And finally, even if they did seek financing, what fools
would invest knowing the govt was going to screw around
and set the price for the drugs?

And once again you bring in a red herring. But even here where there's
the constant threat of government intervention, oil exploration
companies (for example) continue to search for new fields.

But there is not a study showing that that isn't related to the price
of the commodity. WHen the price goes up, so does the number of wells
and people looking for it. WHen it goes down, many pack up and leave. If
the government picks the prices of drugs, you may have a feast or
famine, too.



Apple is in a competitive environment at least to some degree. It
can't jack up the prices of the MAC beyond what the market will bear
so it can't say that it has to charge a higher price so that it can
fund either a new MAC or a new line of business (or iPhone). This is
exactly what the drug companies are doing or say they're doing.
You saying that the drug companies are jacking things up past what
the market will bear? How do they do that? Maybe past what you offends
your sensibilities, but not above what the market will bear.


One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!
Socialism as both a political and economic system focuses only on
the means of production and not the price.


To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand) manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time
-- i.e., they sell it for a lower price than it normally is sold for
-- but in doing so they actually make more money. Not only do they
sell to customers who would otherwise buy a competitor's product and
some additional sales will be made to people who would buy neither but
also they amortize the fixed costs (like machinery cost, or insurance
for their factory or repair costs or accountant's fees, or any of
hundreds of items that do not depend on number of sales) over a
greater number of items thus reducing the per-unit cost. Revenue for
each item minus unit cost (fully burdened in this case) equals profit.
Lower price = maximumized profit! Or, as an intermediate step for the
drug companies, lower price (but not below marginal cost) = earlier
recovery of the R&D cost and in future greater profits.
Show me the first company that does that before they have to. They
make more ONLY in the cases where it is sitting on the shelf otherwise.
(Unless for a time to get marketshare, and even then most of that is
"paid" for elsewhere. WalMart, for instance, has a specific budget for
their rollbacks.

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

On Oct 28, 11:58*pm, wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:34 pm, wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

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

No you don't any more than you have to use the revenue gained from
(say) an oil well to search for new oil elsewhere. Even worse, in the
pharma area it's like using the profits from an oil well somewhere to
look for copper ore in another part of the world. Bringing it back to
the pharma area why should someone who needs (say) BP medication pay
an excessive price for it so the drug company can search for a drug
for an unrelated illness.

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).

So what. The 14 cents is just the immediate raw material, production,
and selling cost and will be burdened with its share of the
amortization of the original research cost. Plenty of industries like
this. A case in point is the movie business where billions are
invested in movies that will not earn their keep until the future.

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.

Just the usual lousy job of the researchers.

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.

So I suppose the financing of development of a promising new drug (or
avenue) can't be done by the entrepreneur going to the venture
capitalist (or Wall Street, or the banks, or some other money source)
and presenting a proposal and obtaining financing?
There are so many things wrong with the above, that I don't know
where to begin. *First, let's for the moment just accept the premise
given that the govt is going to somehow fix the price of drugs at a
low
level producing low or no profits.

No. I don't accept the premise that the government is setting the
price of drugs at a low or high level. The confusing thing (for you)
is the paragraph above:

" What I noticed helping my neighbor with her Part D problem (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.

"

I'm not commenting one way or the other about Medicare, part D or any
similar interference in the market. I'm simply using the post to
correct the two erroneous assertions: that new drugs have to be
financed from inflated prices for old drugs and that we're subsidizing
the drug cost for other countries.

First, for the most part, you'd never get to the stage of having
a promising drug to seek financing for. *The drug companies
today spend huge sums on speculative research trying to find
drugs. *Everything from sending teams into rainforests to
search for plants, to advanced bio labs. *Usually, only after
huge expenditures do you get to the point where you THINK
you might have a new viable drug. *And even then many, if
not most wind up failures.

And this differs in principle from other industries how? Don't the
extractive industries have the same problem? Lots of dry holes? Have
you not noticed on a much smaller scale someone starting a business
(say a retail store) in the hope of making a profit and finding that
the customers aren't coming in? This is perfectly normal for all
businesses.

It differs in regard to other industries because it takes huge amounts
of research that may lead nowhere to find one drug. Markl Zuckerberg
started Facebook and had a product in a dorm room. Same thing with
Michael Dell. You can get into the wildcat oil drilling business for
a
small fraction of what it takes to start from scratch and find a new
drug.

If it's so easy to make drugs from scratch, then just show us the
percentage
of drugs that came out in the last 3 years from new startup companies.
Some industries have huge barriers to entry, and the drug business,
for
the most part, is one of them.




And given that prices are going to be fixed artificially
low, what entrepeneur is going to seek to go into business
with a new drug?

Why do you keep going on about prices being fixed?

Because that was the premise of the post.



I'll do what you do
and say: "Let's just accept that the drug company can set its prices
for what the market will bear just as in any other industry." That's
certainly the case for the drugs I use.

*Even in today's environment, how many
entrepeneurs show up with a new drug seeking financing
to start a new company. *It's rare indeed. *Compare that
to other businesses, like the internet or software and the
barriers to entry are clearly very high.

Try an extractive industry or an energy producer where the financial
barriers to entry are high too.

And just like the drug business, you won't have many new products
coming from new companies.



And finally, even if they did seek financing, what fools
would invest knowing the govt was going to screw around
and set the price for the drugs?

And once again you bring in a red herring.

No, just the premise of the post that I responded to.


But even here where there's
the constant threat of government intervention, oil exploration
companies (for example) continue to search for new fields.

The process to find a wildcat oil well is well understood and
straightforward. The process to find the next successful
drug is far more complex and costly.





Isn't this the way
new ideas come to fruition (and the product to market) in most
industries?

I'd like to see the percentage of new drugs that were approved
over say the last 3 years that came from new companies formed
within say the last 10 years. * I agree they are there, but I'll bet
they are dwarfed by the drugs brought to market by the established
drug companies. * Also, the assumption per the above discussion
is the govt is going to fix prices artificially low. *If that happens,
goodbye to the new companies.

You're fixated on these price controls eh?



No, it was the premise of the post I replied to. Where is the list
showing that startuup drug companies are producing any
substantial portion of the new drugs that come out?







The situation is complicated in the pharmaceutical
industry because the current players have all the expertise, contacts,
politicians in their pockets etc. and drug development requires oodles
of money. But even if it's the current players doing the new
development there's no reason (other than a "gimmie more" gambit) the
new drug or idea should be subsidized by an older drug. Big bucks from
(say) Lisinopril should simply give the drug company the idea that
some other product can also make a fortune. It's not some socialist
equalizing of the cost between (say) the high BP people and those
suffering from senile decay.
This is one of the stupidist things the resident commie has posted
yet.
It's like saying the profits from Apple's MACs should not have
been used to develop the iPOD. Or the profits from the iPOD should
not have been used to develop and market the iPhone. *Obviously
totally clueless about business. *Even the local bakery uses profits
from the bakery to expand into a cafe or add a deli, etc.

It's not the profits from the MAC (do they actually make a profit?)
that are used but the cash flow that is generated by the MAC which
allows Apple to produce the iPhone etc. You're using the wrong word!

BS. If they did not have profits over decades there would be
no development money. It doesn't get any simpler than that.


The profits have nothing to do with it except in the generalized sense
that profits are generally part of revenue and the revenue generally
represents inward cash and of course if you can't make a profit
eventually you'll go out of business.

Profits have everything to do with it. You don't even think they
make a profit on Macs? How clueless are you?



Apple is in a competitive environment at least to some degree.

You really think so?


It
can't jack up the prices of the MAC beyond what the market will bear
so it can't say that it has to charge a higher price so that it can
fund either a new MAC or a new line of business (or iPhone). This is
exactly what the drug companies are doing or say they're doing.

What the drug companies are doing is EXACTLY what Apple is
doing. The selling price of the Macs funded the development of
the next product, eg iPOD.




One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

Nothing socialist about it.




As to the subsidizing of overseas drug costs this is another red
herring showing just how little most people know about business.
After posting the above, we know the really clueless one is you.
If
you have a product that has a finite life span (here drug patents but
it could be tomatoes rotting in the fields) you have an interest in
getting what you can for the product as long as it covers the marginal
cost of production and distribution. In the case of tomatoes there's
not much capitalized cost to recover but in the case of drugs (and
movies) there are huge amounts. Sell the product for what you can get
as long as you don't detract from the sales at full price.
Wrong again. *From economics 101 we know that the correct
goal is to sell goods at the price that maximizes profits.

And that's exactly what the drug company is doing when it sells the
product at a lower price in a poorer foreign country.

No **** Sherlock



To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand) manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time ...


When you figure out that Apples selling price of the Mac generated
profits that funded the development of the next product, just like the
drug companies, get back to us, OK?

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:26:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 28, 11:58*pm, wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:34 pm, wrote:

snip

The profits have nothing to do with it except in the generalized sense
that profits are generally part of revenue and the revenue generally
represents inward cash and of course if you can't make a profit
eventually you'll go out of business.

Profits have everything to do with it. You don't even think they
make a profit on Macs? How clueless are you?

Of course they do. A Mac is no more than a PC in a white plastic case at 2x
the price. PC companies make profits at half the retail. Why wouldn't APPL?

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

No. I don't accept the premise that the government is setting the
price of drugs at a low or high level.

Governents are currently doing that is most countries. Canada, for
instance, sets the price for new drugs based on a basket of other
country's prices (mostly European who also set the prices).
Interestingly enough, at least in the case of Canada, is that generic
prices aren't price controlled and generally higher than the brand name
medications.

I'm sorry (being sarcastic) I thought we were talking about the USA.
AFAIK the US government does not set the prices of drugs. Even the
Veteran's Administration only "negotiates" the price.

Also, price setting is the model currently being used in the US to
pay the docs and hospitals under the government programs. Has been since
at least the mid-80s and the institute of Diagnostic Related Groups and
their progeny.

Keep your eye on the ball. DRG's and payments for services of MD's and
hospital are not price setting for drugs.

I'm not commenting one way or the other about Medicare, part D or any
similar interference in the market. I'm simply using the post to
correct the two erroneous assertions: that new drugs have to be
financed from inflated prices for old drugs and that we're subsidizing
the drug cost for other countries.

How else are you going to finance the drugs. You have to have profits
from somewhere to pay for it, either in house or some possibility that
the investors will be paid back.

I explained before how the drug companies should be just like others:
go to the market. Of course the investors expect to be repaid and to
make a profit. I have no objection to internal financing -- it happens
all the time in all industries -- but to use the excuse that the
company has to charge an inflated price on an old product because it
has to finance a new one is wrong but apparently swallowed even by the
supposed proponents of a competitive free market (i.e. you lot).

First, for the most part, you'd never get to the stage of having
a promising drug to seek financing for. The drug companies
today spend huge sums on speculative research trying to find
drugs. Everything from sending teams into rainforests to
search for plants, to advanced bio labs. Usually, only after
huge expenditures do you get to the point where you THINK
you might have a new viable drug. And even then many, if
not most wind up failures.

And this differs in principle from other industries how? Don't the
extractive industries have the same problem? Lots of dry holes? Have
you not noticed on a much smaller scale someone starting a business
(say a retail store) in the hope of making a profit and finding that
the customers aren't coming in? This is perfectly normal for all
businesses.

Won't. Thus you see, to use your own example, oil drilling and
exploration go up or down based on the price of oil. WHen it gets more
expensive (outrageous profits) the rigs get going, when it goes down the
drilling does too. Same with most mining operations.

So?

And given that prices are going to be fixed artificially
low, what entrepeneur is going to seek to go into business
with a new drug?

Why do you keep going on about prices being fixed? I'll do what you do
and say: "Let's just accept that the drug company can set its prices
for what the market will bear just as in any other industry." That's
certainly the case for the drugs I use.

In the US, but not always in other places. Canada has a Patent
Medicine Price Review Board. The mandate is to make sure the prices
charged are not "excessive". If that isn't price fixing, I don't know
what is.

And WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES!!! Sheesh!

And finally, even if they did seek financing, what fools
would invest knowing the govt was going to screw around
and set the price for the drugs?

And once again you bring in a red herring. But even here where there's
the constant threat of government intervention, oil exploration
companies (for example) continue to search for new fields.

But there is not a study showing that that isn't related to the price
of the commodity. WHen the price goes up, so does the number of wells
and people looking for it. WHen it goes down, many pack up and leave. If
the government picks the prices of drugs, you may have a feast or
famine, too.

The price for oil (ignoring price fixing cartels and so-called
speculators) rises and falls based on demand. Demand for drugs in an
oblique way does too. More people with senile decay, more effort to
find and sell drugs to treat it. Fashion and ease of production also
have an effect. For example, at the moment senile decay is fashionable
but BP and Cholesterol are about tapped out.

Apple is in a competitive environment at least to some degree. It
can't jack up the prices of the MAC beyond what the market will bear
so it can't say that it has to charge a higher price so that it can
fund either a new MAC or a new line of business (or iPhone). This is
exactly what the drug companies are doing or say they're doing.

You saying that the drug companies are jacking things up past what
the market will bear? How do they do that? Maybe past what you offends
your sensibilities, but not above what the market will bear.

Patents! But it's not so much what they're doing (we don't have an
alternate universe so I can't determine exactly to what level prices
would fall) but it's the assertion by the companies themselves and
apologists such as you that the reason for high prices is to finance
future drugs.

One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

Socialism as both a political and economic system focuses only on
the means of production and not the price.

Nonsense. Don't you scream "socialism" when the government tries to
raise the minimum wage (price of labor)?

To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand) manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time
-- i.e., they sell it for a lower price than it normally is sold for
-- but in doing so they actually make more money. Not only do they
sell to customers who would otherwise buy a competitor's product and
some additional sales will be made to people who would buy neither but
also they amortize the fixed costs (like machinery cost, or insurance
for their factory or repair costs or accountant's fees, or any of
hundreds of items that do not depend on number of sales) over a
greater number of items thus reducing the per-unit cost. Revenue for
each item minus unit cost (fully burdened in this case) equals profit.
Lower price = maximumized profit! Or, as an intermediate step for the
drug companies, lower price (but not below marginal cost) = earlier
recovery of the R&D cost and in future greater profits.

Show me the first company that does that before they have to.

Almost every company in the food business, for example. Pepsi and Coke
alternate weekly in price reduction (you'd think it was arranged but
naah, that'd be price fixing, something unknown in American industry).
Any company that has elastic demand (IIRC that's the term for demand
that rises or falls based on price) can profit here and most products
have elastic demand at least for a while. In the drug companies case
when they run out of people suffering from the disease the drug
purports to treat then demand will become mainly inelastic thus the
importance of foreign markets when they've corralled all the domestic
sufferers.

They
make more ONLY in the cases where it is sitting on the shelf otherwise.

It's not sitting on the shelf. It hasn't been produced yet.

(Unless for a time to get marketshare, and even then most of that is
"paid" for elsewhere. WalMart, for instance, has a specific budget for
their rollbacks.

Gaining market share doesn't have to be "paid for" elsewhere if you
don't sell below marginal cost. You still make a profit it's just less
per unit but the extra volume makes greater overall profit.

What I explained above (the dead horse paragraph) is classic Marketing
101 leavened with a little of Cost Accounting 102. I'm not going to
give you or Trader 4F an entire course on the subject.