In message om, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:30:22 GMT, raden wrote:

Several frames - 1/8th of a second, I can handle that

Oh gawd, most people will spot at poor lip sync at 1 frame out and
think something is "odd", 2 frames is obvious and fairly easy to tell
if the pictures are late or early. 3 frames is terrible and most off
putting.

You're talking to someone who's lived many years in various foreign
countries where films are dubbed and what's spoken and what you actually
hear bear no resemblance to each other

Besides on Digi TV, the sound track (as someone else just mentioned) is
quite often way out of sync with the picture anyway, It might be
something you'll have to get used to

--
geoff

In message , Ian
Stirling writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:58:25 +0100, Dave Gibson wrote:

Things seem to have changed more rapidly than I realised. I've just
found a Barco projector with a contrast ration 15,000:1!!!!!

Mind you it does cost ?8,000 so it should be good

How does it do that then?
Seeing as the blackest black you get will be the intensity of the
white screen under your ambient lighting!

Easy, no ambient lighting. B-)

Even that's basically a lie.
You're going to get only a contrast of a few hundred at most in most
houses, as the light will reflect off the walls.
15000:1 is only going to be achieved if your walls are decorated in
razor-blade chiq.

It's really not a serious problem

--
geoff

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:49:07 +0100, G&M wrote:

And the red 'on' led on the back of the projector ?

Gaffer tape, but there is probably far more spill from the ventilation
slots for the bulb(s).

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 15 Jul 2004 22:30:07 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:

Seeing as the blackest black you get will be the intensity of the
white screen under your ambient lighting!

Easy, no ambient lighting. B-)

Even that's basically a lie.
You're going to get only a contrast of a few hundred at most in most
houses, as the light will reflect off the walls.

What light? I said "no ambient lighting" no picture from the projecter
you can't see your hand at all, not if when it touches your nose. ie
real dark, something that most people have never really experienced
these days. With light pollution, street lights, maintained emergancy
lights etc etc.

15000:1.
If the projector puts out 700 lumens, then on black, it produces
..05 lumens.
In other words, about the same amount of light as one of the brighter
(not superbright) LEDs, as used for indicators.
This is plenty of light to see by.
Not well, but it's plenty for a 'not fall over things' light.
With a 2.5m (across) display, it's about a tenth as bright as full moonlight.

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
raden wrote:
Another problem with LCD and plasma screens is the several frame delay
they introduce into the picture. AFAIK not many come with audio delay
lines to similary delay the audio, you may find you have to get yet
another box to delay the audio. Unless picture late by sevral frames
doesn't bother you.

Several frames - 1/8th of a second, I can handle that

The trouble is the sound is early - which just doesn't happen in nature.
Slightly late is less of a problem.

You'll just have to sit further away :-)

Hey, it's a feature!
"Designed for large projectors".

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:49:07 +0100, G&M wrote:

And the red 'on' led on the back of the projector ?

Gaffer tape, but there is probably far more spill from the ventilation
slots for the bulb(s).


I think the one mentioned uses a scanning CRT, doesn't it ? At least
their pub version always used to.

Wonder if there are rubber seals around the doors ?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:55:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
strung together this:

but there is probably far more spill from the ventilation
slots for the bulb(s).

More gaffer tape then!
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

"Lurch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:55:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
strung together this:

but there is probably far more spill from the ventilation
slots for the bulb(s).

More gaffer tape then!


Hmm. 'Ventilation' and 'gaffer tape' in the same context.

Just as a quick footnote to this thread: see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp089.html for interesting background
reading on the subject of flat TV displays in general.

--
Andy

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
jonni wrote:

"Mungo "one shed" Toadfoot" wrote in message
...

Steve Firth wrote:

dave wrote:


Now reaching the end of some works to my house I am thinking of
fitting a 42" plasma screen t.v.


Waste of time and money, five year lifespan.


*Interested*

Really?

Si



Depending on use but yes, plasma will be superceded by LCD TVs


I think you will find it a race: There is better flat screen technology
than LCD - and cheaper - in the pipleine. Estimated 5 years to market.


No problem then.

Buy a Plasma now, and in 6 years time when you want to replace it you'll
have the advantge of a 12 months old market to purchase a new one with
this new technology...



Jonni

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grunff wrote:

dave wrote:

Now reaching the end of some works to my house I am thinking of
fitting a 42" plasma screen t.v. I recall reading on an old thread,
that I can't find, that they produce some heat. I don't intend to
mount it in an enclosure so don,t think this will be a problem. What
does concern me is its possible weight and type of fixing to the wall.
I was considering using m10 expanding type rawbolt.
It will be fixed above an unused chimney opening to old stock type
bricks.



They aren't that heavy - nowhere near as heavy as a biggish radiator
full of water. The brackets that come with them usually allow for 3
screws per bracket. As long as you use sensible sized screds (say
60mm+ no8/10) with wall plugs it will be more than adequate.

As for he heat, yes, they do produce some heat. Maybe 400W at a guess
for a 42". But again, this isn't anywhere near as much as a radiator :-)

But is about the same as an aga, which heats the whole house at this
time of year...and a 30 sq meter kitchen in winter...


Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps... From
when we last built a computing lab at one of my old jobs, a PERSON puts
out about 400W... (Used for calculating how much aircon you require).

H

Hamie wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grunff wrote:

dave wrote:

Now reaching the end of some works to my house I am thinking of
fitting a 42" plasma screen t.v. I recall reading on an old thread,
that I can't find, that they produce some heat. I don't intend to
mount it in an enclosure so don,t think this will be a problem. What
does concern me is its possible weight and type of fixing to the wall.
I was considering using m10 expanding type rawbolt.
It will be fixed above an unused chimney opening to old stock type
bricks.



They aren't that heavy - nowhere near as heavy as a biggish radiator
full of water. The brackets that come with them usually allow for 3
screws per bracket. As long as you use sensible sized screds (say
60mm+ no8/10) with wall plugs it will be more than adequate.

As for he heat, yes, they do produce some heat. Maybe 400W at a guess
for a 42". But again, this isn't anywhere near as much as a radiator :-)

But is about the same as an aga, which heats the whole house at this
time of year...and a 30 sq meter kitchen in winter...


Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps... From
when we last built a computing lab at one of my old jobs, a PERSON puts
out about 400W... (Used for calculating how much aircon you require).

Only when excersising hard, or on fire.
400W =100 calories/sec = .1 Calories/sec * 86400 (s/day) = 8640 calories.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:55:46 +0100, Hamie
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Grunff wrote:

dave wrote:

Now reaching the end of some works to my house I am thinking of
fitting a 42" plasma screen t.v. I recall reading on an old thread,
that I can't find, that they produce some heat. I don't intend to
mount it in an enclosure so don,t think this will be a problem. What
does concern me is its possible weight and type of fixing to the wall.
I was considering using m10 expanding type rawbolt.
It will be fixed above an unused chimney opening to old stock type
bricks.



They aren't that heavy - nowhere near as heavy as a biggish radiator
full of water. The brackets that come with them usually allow for 3
screws per bracket. As long as you use sensible sized screds (say
60mm+ no8/10) with wall plugs it will be more than adequate.

As for he heat, yes, they do produce some heat. Maybe 400W at a guess
for a 42". But again, this isn't anywhere near as much as a radiator :-)

But is about the same as an aga, which heats the whole house at this
time of year...and a 30 sq meter kitchen in winter...


Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps...

Definitely not. The maximum is about 1kW and that is after a major
cooking session. In steady state it is no more than 750W with gas or
oil models because the burner modulates.

I've measured the input gas rate and calculated the power consumption.



From
when we last built a computing lab at one of my old jobs, a PERSON puts
out about 400W... (Used for calculating how much aircon you require).

In rest state, a human is about 100W.


H

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps...

Definitely not. The maximum is about 1kW and that is after a major
cooking session. In steady state it is no more than 750W with gas or
oil models because the burner modulates.

Am I missing something here. How do you cook on 1kW ?

Recently installed a 9kW total hob and I had to agree with somebody here
(Christian) that a good gas hob would still be faster.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:22:20 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps...

Definitely not. The maximum is about 1kW and that is after a major
cooking session. In steady state it is no more than 750W with gas or
oil models because the burner modulates.

Am I missing something here. How do you cook on 1kW ?

The heat is stored in a substantial quantity of cast iron internally
and it requires about 600-750W steady state to maintain that.

The internal components are carefully arranged to provide temperature
gradients throughout the appliance. There are two very large plates
on the top, each of which will comfortably hold three or four pans.
The hotter one is directly over the burner and will boil very rapidly.
The flue gases pass through a chamber under the other and provide a
cooler plate which will simmer or even maintain milk at just under
boiling point continuously, for example. Sauces don't curdle or
burn.

There are then four ovens offering temperature gradients from just
under 300 degrees down to about 50 degrees, so you have a range that
is greater than most modern cooking arrangements and with highly
stable temperatures. There is a working area that can also be
used to gently warm butter or chocolate or other ingredients without
needing to mess about with pans of warm water.

It is unusual that a large amount of heat is needed for an extended
period on the top plates because the usual method of preparation is to
initially boil something on the top if it requires it and then to
transfer the pan to the appropriate oven to complete the cooking or
simply to maintain the required temperature.
Other operations such as grilling are carried out in the oven to begin
with.
The results are invariably superb and the food tastes better and is
less dried during the cooking stages, unlike fan ovens which wreck
food by drying it.

The burner is capable of delivering about 5kW input but we have found
in practice that it has never run at over about 1kW. You would
have to try extremely hard and use the range totally incorrectly to
get it much above that.

In addition to the above, you can air clothes, warm shoes and coats,,
dry herbs and tend to sick animals. Pretty good for one appliance.


Recently installed a 9kW total hob and I had to agree with somebody here
(Christian) that a good gas hob would still be faster.

In fact it isn't. We have compared individual and combined cooking
operations working in both ways and there is very little time
difference. It is actually much easier to speed up or slow down
cooking of individual items very easily by just moving them slightly
and the risk of drying or burning things is much reduced in comparison
to a fierce gas hob. Added to this, one doesn't need to stand at
the hob the whole time in front of 9kW of heat twiddling knobs to try
and balance the rates of cooking without burning or overcooking the
food.

I wouldn't buy a gas hob or an electric oven again, having thrown both
unceremoniously into a skip where they belong a couple of years back.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"G&M" wrote in message
...
Recently installed a 9kW total hob and I had to agree with somebody here
(Christian) that a good gas hob would still be faster.

Whoops. Should have been a question mark after Christian's name. Not sure
if it was him but I think it was. Sorry to him if it wasn't.

Hamie wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Grunff wrote:

dave wrote:

Now reaching the end of some works to my house I am thinking of
fitting a 42" plasma screen t.v. I recall reading on an old thread,
that I can't find, that they produce some heat. I don't intend to
mount it in an enclosure so don,t think this will be a problem. What
does concern me is its possible weight and type of fixing to the wall.
I was considering using m10 expanding type rawbolt.
It will be fixed above an unused chimney opening to old stock type
bricks.




They aren't that heavy - nowhere near as heavy as a biggish radiator
full of water. The brackets that come with them usually allow for 3
screws per bracket. As long as you use sensible sized screds (say
60mm+ no8/10) with wall plugs it will be more than adequate.

As for he heat, yes, they do produce some heat. Maybe 400W at a guess
for a 42". But again, this isn't anywhere near as much as a radiator :-)

But is about the same as an aga, which heats the whole house at this
time of year...and a 30 sq meter kitchen in winter...


Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps... From
when we last built a computing lab at one of my old jobs, a PERSON puts
out about 400W... (Used for calculating how much aircon you require).


Aga kicks out 600W according to the specs. They are VERY well insulated

Person kicks out about 100W. From memory. Average. Aircon probably takes
into account the computer and lights they are using as well..
H

G&M wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps...

Definitely not. The maximum is about 1kW and that is after a major
cooking session. In steady state it is no more than 750W with gas or
oil models because the burner modulates.


Am I missing something here. How do you cook on 1kW ?

easily.
Firstly half of what an aga does is the ovens, which are insulated.

Secondly, the plates do cool when doing major cooking. But there is a
LOT of thermal mass in them.



Recently installed a 9kW total hob and I had to agree with somebody here
(Christian) that a good gas hob would still be faster.

Andy Hall wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:22:20 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps...

Definitely not. The maximum is about 1kW and that is after a major
cooking session. In steady state it is no more than 750W with gas or
oil models because the burner modulates.

Am I missing something here. How do you cook on 1kW ?


The heat is stored in a substantial quantity of cast iron internally
and it requires about 600-750W steady state to maintain that.

The internal components are carefully arranged to provide temperature
gradients throughout the appliance. There are two very large plates
on the top, each of which will comfortably hold three or four pans.
The hotter one is directly over the burner and will boil very rapidly.
The flue gases pass through a chamber under the other and provide a
cooler plate which will simmer or even maintain milk at just under
boiling point continuously, for example. Sauces don't curdle or
burn.

There are then four ovens offering temperature gradients from just
under 300 degrees down to about 50 degrees, so you have a range that
is greater than most modern cooking arrangements and with highly
stable temperatures. There is a working area that can also be
used to gently warm butter or chocolate or other ingredients without
needing to mess about with pans of warm water.

It is unusual that a large amount of heat is needed for an extended
period on the top plates because the usual method of preparation is to
initially boil something on the top if it requires it and then to
transfer the pan to the appropriate oven to complete the cooking or
simply to maintain the required temperature.
Other operations such as grilling are carried out in the oven to begin
with.
The results are invariably superb and the food tastes better and is
less dried during the cooking stages, unlike fan ovens which wreck
food by drying it.

The burner is capable of delivering about 5kW input but we have found
in practice that it has never run at over about 1kW. You would
have to try extremely hard and use the range totally incorrectly to
get it much above that.

In addition to the above, you can air clothes, warm shoes and coats,,
dry herbs and tend to sick animals. Pretty good for one appliance.


Recently installed a 9kW total hob and I had to agree with somebody here
(Christian) that a good gas hob would still be faster.


In fact it isn't. We have compared individual and combined cooking
operations working in both ways and there is very little time
difference. It is actually much easier to speed up or slow down
cooking of individual items very easily by just moving them slightly
and the risk of drying or burning things is much reduced in comparison
to a fierce gas hob. Added to this, one doesn't need to stand at
the hob the whole time in front of 9kW of heat twiddling knobs to try
and balance the rates of cooking without burning or overcooking the
food.

I wouldn't buy a gas hob or an electric oven again, having thrown both
unceremoniously into a skip where they belong a couple of years back.



I love my aga, but I also love the electric cooker bolted on the side of it.

Horses for courses.

For choice I'd have a gas hob, aga ovens, and electric grill and
microwave actually :-)...and a charcoal grill as well.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 18 Jul 2004 10:28:58 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:22:20 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps...

Definitely not. The maximum is about 1kW and that is after a major
cooking session. In steady state it is no more than 750W with gas or
oil models because the burner modulates.

Am I missing something here. How do you cook on 1kW ?

[36 lines snipped]

In addition to the above, you can air clothes, warm shoes and coats,,

Indeed, you have no choice, because the internal temperature of your house
will be akin to that of a sauna due to the vast amounts of unwanted heat
that this antiquated contraption will belch out.

Nope, on all counts.


(Keep a careful eye open on the TV. Whenever you see an Aga, start looking
for the "proper" cooker that will inevitably also be in the kitchen, and
ask yourself "Why?")

No again. The only alternate we have indoors is a microwave which
does not get a lot of use.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 18 Jul 2004 16:52:30 GMT, (Huge) wrote:



Indeed, you have no choice, because the internal temperature of your house
will be akin to that of a sauna due to the vast amounts of unwanted heat
that this antiquated contraption will belch out.

Nope, on all counts.

Sorry, but all three holiday houses we have rented which have Aga/Rayburns
suffer from exactly that problem. I don't take kindly to having to vent my
expensively generated, fossil fuelled hot air to atmosphere.

They could have been poorly maintained or older models. The
insulation has improved on latest ones and it is possible that it has
compacted on an older ones.

I've found that energy consumption on cooking has reduced quite a bit
in comparison to the conventional set up that I had before and use
entirely more pleasurable.


(Keep a careful eye open on the TV. Whenever you see an Aga, start looking
for the "proper" cooker that will inevitably also be in the kitchen, and
ask yourself "Why?")

No again. The only alternate we have indoors is a microwave which
does not get a lot of use.

That makes you a member of a *very* small minority.

I've never let that concern me in the least. :-)


All three of the
aforementioned houses had "real" cookers, too, or parts of them.

Probably because the owners of the properties didn't understand how to
use the Aga or felt that tenants might not. Shame really.

Some cooking techniques are different and perhaps some people don't
master them. It isn't difficult, but then neither is riding a bike
unless you can't..

Plus
several houses we've looked round with a view to purchase (my heart
sinks; a bloody Aga. Still, it should sell for a few quid), plus those
belonging to friends and relatives. They all have a proper cooker to
use in the summer when the "waste" heat from the Aga becomes intolerable.

Then again, they have almost certainly not understood how to cook with
the Aga or haven't read the instructions.

A conventional cooker is much worse in the summer because each burner
releases 2.5 to 3kW into the room, making it impossible to stand in
front and use it in any comfortable way.

With the Aga, you can continue as before, place the items in the oven
and walk away. Much less stressful.





Lovely in the winter, of course, but if you need to buy another cooker,
why not get a cooker and central heating system?

Because I already have a very good heating system.

The Aga is suitable for cooking and hot water but at 5kW max input is
not suitable for space heating.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Ian Stirling wrote:
Hamie wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Grunff wrote:


dave wrote:


Now reaching the end of some works to my house I am thinking of
fitting a 42" plasma screen t.v. I recall reading on an old thread,
that I can't find, that they produce some heat. I don't intend to
mount it in an enclosure so don,t think this will be a problem. What
does concern me is its possible weight and type of fixing to the wall.
I was considering using m10 expanding type rawbolt.
It will be fixed above an unused chimney opening to old stock type
bricks.



They aren't that heavy - nowhere near as heavy as a biggish radiator
full of water. The brackets that come with them usually allow for 3
screws per bracket. As long as you use sensible sized screds (say
60mm+ no8/10) with wall plugs it will be more than adequate.

As for he heat, yes, they do produce some heat. Maybe 400W at a guess
for a 42". But again, this isn't anywhere near as much as a radiator :-)


But is about the same as an aga, which heats the whole house at this
time of year...and a 30 sq meter kitchen in winter...


Surely an Aga has got to put put more than 400W.... 4kW perhaps... From
when we last built a computing lab at one of my old jobs, a PERSON puts
out about 400W... (Used for calculating how much aircon you require).


Only when excersising hard, or on fire.
400W =100 calories/sec = .1 Calories/sec * 86400 (s/day) = 8640 calories.


Not exercising very hard though... I went & got some hard figures...
400W is a bit on the high side, but not anywhere near exercising hard...

The figures from
http://web.media.mit.edu/~testarne/TR328/node1.html#tabhumanpower give
the following

sleeping 70 kCal/hr 81W
Sitting 100 116
Driving 140 163
Carpentry 230 268
Hiking 350 407
Swimming 500 698
Dist Run 900 1048
Sprinting 1400 1630

Personally I was surprised at the high figures for the sprinting... BUt
the hiking figure is almost exactly 400W (407). Considering the figures
were for people working (supposedly hard, they were students in a lab
400W per person without lighting, computers etc seems about right.


H

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:59:49 +0100, Hamie
wrote:



Not exercising very hard though... I went & got some hard figures...
400W is a bit on the high side, but not anywhere near exercising hard...

The figures from
http://web.media.mit.edu/~testarne/TR328/node1.html#tabhumanpower give
the following

sleeping 70 kCal/hr 81W
Sitting 100 116
Driving 140 163
Carpentry 230 268
Hiking 350 407
Swimming 500 698
Dist Run 900 1048
Sprinting 1400 1630

Personally I was surprised at the high figures for the sprinting... BUt
the hiking figure is almost exactly 400W (407). Considering the figures
were for people working (supposedly hard, they were students in a lab
400W per person without lighting, computers etc seems about right.


H

They're doing hiking in a lab?

...... or did you mean work in the sense of the physics definition of
it?




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Hamie" wrote in message
...
The figures from
http://web.media.mit.edu/~testarne/TR328/node1.html#tabhumanpower give
the following

sleeping 70 kCal/hr 81W
Sitting 100 116
Driving 140 163
Carpentry 230 268
Hiking 350 407
Swimming 500 698
Dist Run 900 1048
Sprinting 1400 1630

Personally I was surprised at the high figures for the sprinting

Whilst sprinting your lungs cannot deliver enough ovygen so your body steals
it from elsewhere. Quite surprised how close it is therefore to distance
running where breathing is of course essential.