On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:14:45 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:36:38 -0000, ARW
wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 20:14, ARW wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...




And the high wire experts will not need the area below them corndoned
off?

I would expect them to sling netting close under where they are working
to
protect people below, so probably not.

And the story is a wind up.-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ightbulbs.html

What makes you think it's a wind up?

This quote

A spokeswoman for British Airways said: 'We are working with the owners of
Heathrow Airport to improve the lighting levels inside Terminal 5 due to
concerns over the brightness of the terminal in the winter months.
'Work has already started on the lighting improvements and we are confident
that it will be resolved to our satisfaction very soon.'
She added that she could not confirm whether the email by Vicki O'Brien was
genuine

Sounds fine to me.

--
How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:19:08 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.




And you need your medication.

And you need some guts.

--
How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:19:33 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:05:49 -0000, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design
stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed,
the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got
to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?


125 feet

Ok, so you make a specially long one. Firemen get up to high buildings just fine.


--
What is the difference between a female jogger and a sewing machine?
A sewing machine only has one bobbin.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:20:48 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:25:25 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Why hasn't anyone thought of extendable magician's tongs?

Because you just made them up.

They do exist, but not necessarily that long. But an invention can always be improved.

--
Tip of the day: Do not fart in the bath while you have the runs.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:57:14 -0000, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an
extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you
been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

The Daily Wail says "up to 120 feet" (37 m). That's not much for a
decent cherry picker, plenty available from the hire shops with
working heights above 37 m. They do tend to be diesel powered though
so I guess the 'elfs don't want an engine running in a "confined
space". But that's not insurmountable plenty of garages have exhaust
gas dilution systems. Maybe the floor isn't strong enough for the
point loads, but again that's not insurmountable with load spreading
boards/blocks/WHY. 'Elfs again insisting on a 50 m "exclusion zone"
around it in case it falls over? But surely the rope access people
aren't going to work over the general public are they? Yes you can
net off underneath to catch anything they drop but that needs to be
able to catch a 10 mm washer to an entire light fitting. With that
many fittings I wouldn't like to say that they are all properly
fixed...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/11/2013 12:52, Huge wrote:
On 2013-11-25, charles wrote:
In article id, Jeremy
Nicoll - news posts wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!

Would it have been impractical to design the bars the lights are on so
they could be lowered as happens in theatres?

Architects don't concern themselves with details.

I have a proposal (based on working in ba=rand new buildings) that members
of that profession should be compelled to live or work, as appropriate,
for at least 6 months in any building they have designed.

Hear, hear.

I worked in a building in Canary Wharf which had been designed by a world
renowned architect and cost £750M. It was ****.

I went to school in a building that won design awards in the 60s

1) Floor to ceiling glass, so freeze or bake depending upon the time of
year.
2) Flat roofs, so numerous leaks.
3) Internal drainpipes, so more leaks - especially into the classrooms
below the chemistry labs.
4) Design based upon a rectangular hall/dining hall, with a square
building at each corner, overlapping one side to allow a doorway at each
common wall section. The squares containing variously classrooms, labs,
gym and engineering/woodwork block. Hence whenever exams were on in the
hall, pupils had to move from block to block outside the building, no
matter what the weather - there weren't even any pathways to the
engineering block!

Adding to the design failings were the build quality failings. A school
elsewhere collapsed and schools throughout the country were checked -
ours was found to have been built on inadequately drained ground, the
walls of the hall were slowly tilting outwards and the concrete main
roof beams were only on them by 1/2" each side. The wooden block
flooring in the dining area was forever lifting due to the damp under
there. Internal walls were all painted breeze-block, so brushing against
them took skin off.

SteveW

On 25/11/2013 17:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/11/13 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging
form of transport known to man

Are you absolutely sure about that? Per passenger mile on a modern full
aircraft?

exactly. you should try walking a track that's been used by horses. My
god they make a muddy mess of anything. Worse than 4x4s.


I'd have to disagree. I used to ride on a lot of logging tracks. The
problem is that even tractors dig wheel ruts which get dug progressively
deeper at sticking points, whether or not there is initially a lot of
mud. And on stony ground horses actually help, they break up the larger
stuff and compact the surface into a mixed-size surface which is both
firm and well draining, whereas vehicles with driven wheels just dig
holes through wheelspin.

I could show you a track which walkers never used, it was just very
unfriendly scree. After I had been riding it twice a week for ten years,
it became very nice to walk or ride on, and other people started to use it.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:52:22 -0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:57:14 -0000, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an
extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you
been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

The Daily Wail says "up to 120 feet" (37 m). That's not much for a
decent cherry picker, plenty available from the hire shops with
working heights above 37 m. They do tend to be diesel powered though
so I guess the 'elfs don't want an engine running in a "confined
space". But that's not insurmountable plenty of garages have exhaust
gas dilution systems. Maybe the floor isn't strong enough for the
point loads, but again that's not insurmountable with load spreading
boards/blocks/WHY. 'Elfs again insisting on a 50 m "exclusion zone"
around it in case it falls over? But surely the rope access people
aren't going to work over the general public are they? Yes you can
net off underneath to catch anything they drop but that needs to be
able to catch a 10 mm washer to an entire light fitting. With that
many fittings I wouldn't like to say that they are all properly
fixed...

Indeed. I'm convince Healthy and Softies will bring the world to a halt one day. Mind you places like India will then take over.

--
It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to the wall.

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it much
higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7,

But it's not

There are no flights from about 10:30 until 6:00 so even if you add a couple
of hours at each end for straggles/check in there's still 3 hours in the
middle when no one needs to be at any particular place in the airport. Even
if you do need to allow people on early flights to arrive at midnight and
"wait" there's no reason why it can't be closed off a section at a time

tim

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 8:19:33 AM UTC+13, wrote:
"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

125 feet

Excuse me sir, why is the ceiling 125 feet high when the people in it are shorter than 7 feet high? And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead of huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:36:54 -0000, Matty F wrote:

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 8:19:33 AM UTC+13, wrote:
"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

125 feet

Excuse me sir, why is the ceiling 125 feet high when the people in it are shorter than 7 feet high? And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead of huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

In answer to your first question, it looks nice.

In answer to your second question, so stupid people don't bang their heads on the pillars and claim 15 million quid compensation because they didn't learn to walk properly.

--
"I can't find a cause for your illness," the doctor said. "Frankly, I think it's due to drinking."
"In that case," replied his blonde patient, "I'll come back when you're sober."

On 27/11/2013 20:36, Matty F wrote:
... And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead of
huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

Columns constrain how you can lay out the area and nobody knows what
sort of layout might be needed a few decades from now.

Colin Bignell

On 26/11/2013 23:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm willing to bet it doesn't do 45 mpg or better at all times.

That's an average. We reckon to fill it at 300 miles or so, and it's
used 30 litres or so.

That's not even a diseasel, which ought to be better.

Andy

On Monday, 25 November 2013 12:45:08 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!

Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

What a load of bollox reporting. I've just go back from my trapeze class and I can assure you that if aerialists were doing the work they'd be much more interested in whether they were pointing their toes and whether one pose looked batter than another. And the place would be full of glitter for months afterwards.

"High wire artists" don't do odd jobs like changing light bulbs and Cirque have got a fat little earner going in the entertainment business without branching out into building maintenance.
Maybe, just maybe, Heathrow have contracted a team who once did some work for Cirque but I even doubt that.

[Mind you, it would be awesome to perform in a 40m high space].

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:19:45 AM UTC+13, Nightjar wrote:
On 27/11/2013 20:36, Matty F wrote:
... And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead of
huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

Columns constrain how you can lay out the area and nobody knows what
sort of layout might be needed a few decades from now.

It's just an airport where people wander around aimlessly. No particular layout is needed. It's not like a stadium where the columns might obscure the view of some ball game. It's not like a building here that has lots of planes in it, many of them hanging from the ceiling, so they have an excuse for having a high ceiling with no obstructions.
Supermarkets have lots of columns and that's no problem. They might even allow a garden to be put on top of the roof one day!

On 28/11/2013 00:06, Matty F wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:19:45 AM UTC+13, Nightjar wrote:
On 27/11/2013 20:36, Matty F wrote:
... And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead of
huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

Columns constrain how you can lay out the area and nobody knows what
sort of layout might be needed a few decades from now.

It's just an airport where people wander around aimlessly. No particular layout is needed....

Until somebody decides they want a lot of check-in desks in that nice
open area.

Supermarkets have lots of columns and that's no problem....

You obviously haven't been in my local Tesco, where columns sprout out
of the middle of aisles since they changed the layout.

Colin Bignell

On 27/11/2013 18:58, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:25:25 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c

hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's
got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

Some of the lamps are 120' up as well.

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Just how long do you take to change a lightbulb?

If they are changing to LEDs then either the whole fitting or at least
the driver will need changing at the same time.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:57:14 -0000, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an
extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you
been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

The Daily Wail says "up to 120 feet" (37 m). That's not much for a
decent cherry picker, plenty available from the hire shops with
working heights above 37 m. They do tend to be diesel powered though
so I guess the 'elfs don't want an engine running in a "confined
space". But that's not insurmountable plenty of garages have exhaust
gas dilution systems. Maybe the floor isn't strong enough for the
point loads, but again that's not insurmountable with load spreading
boards/blocks/WHY. 'Elfs again insisting on a 50 m "exclusion zone"
around it in case it falls over? But surely the rope access people
aren't going to work over the general public are they? Yes you can
net off underneath to catch anything they drop but that needs to be
able to catch a 10 mm washer to an entire light fitting. With that
many fittings I wouldn't like to say that they are all properly
fixed...


This very much has the feeling of a story where we haven't got all the
facts.

Obviously there are a variety of ways they could access these lights,
they ahve decided to gwith roped access for whatever reason.

I wouldn't be surprised either to find out that the lighting was
designed so that lots of the bulbs would gradually fail,and then the
whole lot be replaced in one go.
--
Chris French

On Wednesday 27 November 2013 19:54 SteveW wrote in uk.d-i-y:

1) Floor to ceiling glass, so freeze or bake depending upon the time of
year.
2) Flat roofs, so numerous leaks.
3) Internal drainpipes, so more leaks - especially into the classrooms
below the chemistry labs.
4) Design based upon a rectangular hall/dining hall, with a square
building at each corner, overlapping one side to allow a doorway at each
common wall section. The squares containing variously classrooms, labs,
gym and engineering/woodwork block. Hence whenever exams were on in the
hall, pupils had to move from block to block outside the building, no
matter what the weather - there weren't even any pathways to the
engineering block!

Ah yes.

When that was designed, all the teachers would have been moaning about the
obvious flaws.

Meanwhile, there would have been some fools in "management" who were;

1) Wowed by the architect's flashy presentation;

2) Too out of touch and/or stupid to see the flaws;

3) A **** manager so won't listen to anyone.

And so it continues...


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

On Thursday 28 November 2013 00:33 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/11/2013 00:06, Matty F wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:19:45 AM UTC+13, Nightjar wrote:
On 27/11/2013 20:36, Matty F wrote:
... And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead
of
huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

Columns constrain how you can lay out the area and nobody knows what
sort of layout might be needed a few decades from now.

It's just an airport where people wander around aimlessly. No particular
layout is needed....

Until somebody decides they want a lot of check-in desks in that nice
open area.

Supermarkets have lots of columns and that's no problem....

You obviously haven't been in my local Tesco, where columns sprout out
of the middle of aisles since they changed the layout.

Colin Bignell

That says a lot about the moron who designed the new layout!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

On Wednesday 27 November 2013 19:52 Dave Liquorice wrote in uk.d-i-y:


The Daily Wail says "up to 120 feet" (37 m). That's not much for a
decent cherry picker, plenty available from the hire shops with
working heights above 37 m. They do tend to be diesel powered though
so I guess the 'elfs don't want an engine running in a "confined
space". But that's not insurmountable plenty of garages have exhaust
gas dilution systems. Maybe the floor isn't strong enough for the
point loads, but again that's not insurmountable with load spreading
boards/blocks/WHY. 'Elfs again insisting on a 50 m "exclusion zone"
around it in case it falls over? But surely the rope access people
aren't going to work over the general public are they? Yes you can
net off underneath to catch anything they drop but that needs to be
able to catch a 10 mm washer to an entire light fitting. With that
many fittings I wouldn't like to say that they are all properly
fixed...


Sounds like they want a couple of resident electric cherry pickers...

http://www.universalplatforms.co.uk/...s/spider-fs370


Notice the phrase "modern buildings"!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Tim Watts wrote:

On Thursday 28 November 2013 00:33 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/11/2013 00:06, Matty F wrote:

Supermarkets have lots of columns and that's no problem....

You obviously haven't been in my local Tesco, where columns sprout out
of the middle of aisles since they changed the layout.

Colin Bignell

That says a lot about the moron who designed the new layout!

Quite!

I contacted Sainsbury's, about their misguided approach to such
an obstruction.

"Ever since your most recent reorganisation of the Loughborough
store, there has been a problem with a section of shelving which
is now obstructed by a solid structural pillar about 60 cm
square. Although the shelving practically touches the pillar, it
continues to be used for various tissues.

Because you have chosen to allocate this obstructed space to
small volume items, they have a correspondingly small shelf
frontage, and this means that some items, when the shelves have
all been dressed to the front, are actually out of sight, and any
shelf-edge labels (you don't always manage to get them in) are
practically unreadable.

Either side of this area you stack high-volume items, with some
allocated nearly a metre of shelving. If you were to bring out
the hidden items, and move the larger stuff partially behind the
pillar, it would still be clearly visible, and there would be
nothing behind the pillar which did not have an identical visible
item alongside it

I had an interesting discussion with a member of your staff, who
was courteous, but insistent that this was the way it had to be
done, as everything was dictated by turnover. You now have a
logical problem in that you have effectively hidden the low
turnover items, which are thus likely to sell even less.

I cannot believe that this is really your best solution to the
situation."

They sent a bland response, and did nothing. Many months later,
they actually did what I had suggested.

Now there has been another reshuffle, and a different area
(pulses) seems to have drawn the short straw.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:54:36 +0000 SteveW wrote :
I went to school in a building that won design awards in the 60s

1) Floor to ceiling glass, so freeze or bake depending upon the time of
year.
2) Flat roofs, so numerous leaks.
3) Internal drainpipes, so more leaks - especially into the classrooms
below the chemistry labs.
4) Design based upon a rectangular hall/dining hall, with a square
building at each corner, overlapping one side to allow a doorway at each
common wall section. The squares containing variously classrooms, labs,
gym and engineering/woodwork block. Hence whenever exams were on in the
hall, pupils had to move from block to block outside the building, no
matter what the weather - there weren't even any pathways to the
engineering block!

Hunstanton School? Horrendous building according to the teaching staff,
winner of architectural awards and Listed.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other things,

No

I've heard they even take out all the seats except the drivers to get the best result.

It wouldn't make any difference given the way the tests are now performed

They certainly don't test using real driving conditions such as on road that aren't 100% straight woithout hills or dumps or stops at lights etc...

No point in taking the vehicle on the road in real conditions as they are not
reproducible

Wouldn;t suprise me if they drove them in a vacumm container in zero G simulation, I just hope I've not just given them a new idea ;-)

Might be useful to glance through these (not bang up to date))

First two on emissions, the others on consumption

Directive 70/220/EEC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...70L0220:EN:PDF

Directive 98/69/EC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0056:EN:PDF

Directive 80/1268/EEC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...36:0045:EN:PDF

Regulation (EC) No 692/2008
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0136:EN:PDF



--

On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 14:19:24 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:



Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or

proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other

things



No.



I've heard they even take out all the seats except the drivers to get

the best result.



You've heard wrong.



They certainly don't test using real driving conditions such as on road

that aren't 100% straight woithout hills or dumps or stops at lights

etc...



Well, no, because that wouldn't be in any way reproducible.



http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fu...ing-scheme.asp

That's not the manufacturers way of doing it.
It was on TV last year how they get the mpg for some cars, which included removing the seats and even the brake pads.

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 12:58:18 UTC, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave

wrote:



Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other things,



No


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01b...les-per-gallon

"In fact, when the MPG ratio is tested in the laboratory, nothing is left to chance. Manufacturers have a number of ways to make sure they obtain the best results possible: turning the lights and the aircon off; disconnecting the alternator; pushing back the brake pads to reduce friction; removing extra trim; and only allowing one person in the car. Now they are allowed to do all this, but it’s not exactly how the rest of us drive."

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:47:59 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 27/11/2013 18:58, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:25:25 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes


As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's
got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

Some of the lamps are 120' up as well.

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Just how long do you take to change a lightbulb?

If they are changing to LEDs then either the whole fitting or at least
the driver will need changing at the same time.

I didn't in my house.

--
Das Computer Maschine Ist Nich Fur Gefingerenpoken Und Mittengrabben!
Ist Easy Schnappen Der Springenwerken Mit Spitzensparken Und Poppenkorken!
Das Rubbernecken Sightseeren Mus Keep Der Handz In Der Pockets, Relax Und Vatch Die Blinkenlights!!

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:34:11 -0000, chris French wrote:

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:57:14 -0000, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an
extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you
been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

The Daily Wail says "up to 120 feet" (37 m). That's not much for a
decent cherry picker, plenty available from the hire shops with
working heights above 37 m. They do tend to be diesel powered though
so I guess the 'elfs don't want an engine running in a "confined
space". But that's not insurmountable plenty of garages have exhaust
gas dilution systems. Maybe the floor isn't strong enough for the
point loads, but again that's not insurmountable with load spreading
boards/blocks/WHY. 'Elfs again insisting on a 50 m "exclusion zone"
around it in case it falls over? But surely the rope access people
aren't going to work over the general public are they? Yes you can
net off underneath to catch anything they drop but that needs to be
able to catch a 10 mm washer to an entire light fitting. With that
many fittings I wouldn't like to say that they are all properly
fixed...


This very much has the feeling of a story where we haven't got all the
facts.

Obviously there are a variety of ways they could access these lights,
they ahve decided to gwith roped access for whatever reason.

I wouldn't be surprised either to find out that the lighting was
designed so that lots of the bulbs would gradually fail,and then the
whole lot be replaced in one go.

Designed? That's what bulbs do.

--
A man walks into a bar with a slab of asphalt under his arm and says, "A beer please, and one for the road."

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:36:36 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 14:19:24 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:



Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or

proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other

things



No.



I've heard they even take out all the seats except the drivers to get

the best result.



You've heard wrong.



They certainly don't test using real driving conditions such as on road

that aren't 100% straight woithout hills or dumps or stops at lights

etc...



Well, no, because that wouldn't be in any way reproducible.



http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fu...ing-scheme.asp

That's not the manufacturers way of doing it.

It is.

It was on TV last year how they get the mpg for some cars, which included removing the seats and even the brake pads.

Take the back seats out, take all the seats out, remove the doors, the 8 track
player, the parcel shelf, the nodding dog and the ash trays and it won't make
the slightest bit of difference to the MPG figures when the car remains static
for the entire test.



--

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 14:01:25 UTC, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:36:36 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave

wrote:



On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 14:19:24 UTC, Adrian wrote:

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:







Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or



proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other



things







No.







I've heard they even take out all the seats except the drivers to get



the best result.







You've heard wrong.







They certainly don't test using real driving conditions such as on road



that aren't 100% straight woithout hills or dumps or stops at lights



etc...







Well, no, because that wouldn't be in any way reproducible.







http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fu...ing-scheme.asp



That's not the manufacturers way of doing it.



It is.



It was on TV last year how they get the mpg for some cars, which included removing the seats and even the brake pads.



Take the back seats out, take all the seats out, remove the doors, the 8 track

player, the parcel shelf, the nodding dog and the ash trays and it won't make

the slightest bit of difference to the MPG figures when the car remains static

for the entire test.

really what planet do you live on that has zero G ?, next thing you'll be telling me is that the number of passangers doesn't affect mpg.

On 28/11/2013 13:54, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 28 November 2013 12:58:18 UTC, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave

wrote:



Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other things,



No


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01b...les-per-gallon

"In fact, when the MPG ratio is tested in the laboratory, nothing is left to chance. Manufacturers have a number of ways to make sure they obtain the best results possible: turning the lights and the aircon off; disconnecting the alternator; pushing back the brake pads to reduce friction; removing extra trim; and only allowing one person in the car. Now they are allowed to do all this, but it’s not exactly how the rest of us drive."

Have they stopped using the "rolling road in a test chamber" method, then?

That's the method linked to upthread a bit.... They even specify the
fuel to be used with rather mpore precision than the petrol companies
usually manage. Of course, there are tricks used, such as making sure
that the engine and transmission design and tune is optimised for the
90kph test, as that's the one everyone looks at first.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 28/11/2013 14:01, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:36:36 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
It was on TV last year how they get the mpg for some cars, which included removing the seats and even the brake pads.

Take the back seats out, take all the seats out, remove the doors, the 8 track
player, the parcel shelf, the nodding dog and the ash trays and it won't make
the slightest bit of difference to the MPG figures when the car remains static
for the entire test.



It does, however, make a difference to the acceleration figures.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

whisky-dave wrote:

really what planet do you live on that has zero G ?, next thing you'll be telling me is that the number of passangers doesn't affect mpg.

Just for our enlightenment, how do passengers influence
performance on a rolling road?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 28/11/13 15:04, Chris J Dixon wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

really what planet do you live on that has zero G ?, next thing you'll be telling me is that the number of passangers doesn't affect mpg.

Just for our enlightenment, how do passengers influence
performance on a rolling road?


tyre rolling resistance for one.


Chris



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 28/11/2013 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On Thursday 28 November 2013 00:33 Nightjar wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 28/11/2013 00:06, Matty F wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 10:19:45 AM UTC+13, Nightjar wrote:
On 27/11/2013 20:36, Matty F wrote:
... And why not have a few columns inside to hold the roof up instead
of
huge expensive trusses that can fall down?

Columns constrain how you can lay out the area and nobody knows what
sort of layout might be needed a few decades from now.

It's just an airport where people wander around aimlessly. No particular
layout is needed....

Until somebody decides they want a lot of check-in desks in that nice
open area.

Supermarkets have lots of columns and that's no problem....

You obviously haven't been in my local Tesco, where columns sprout out
of the middle of aisles since they changed the layout.

Colin Bignell

That says a lot about the moron who designed the new layout!


The new layout has narrower aisles, allowing more product shelving which
means more money in. I suspect that heavily outweighs any considerations
of inconveniently placed columns. However, it does illustrate my point
about layouts having to change to suit changing needs.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
On 28/11/2013 14:01, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:36:36 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
It was on TV last year how they get the mpg for some cars, which
included removing the seats and even the brake pads.

Take the back seats out, take all the seats out, remove the doors, the
8 track player, the parcel shelf, the nodding dog and the ash trays
and it won't make the slightest bit of difference to the MPG figures
when the car remains static for the entire test.



It does, however, make a difference to the acceleration figures.

What figures would they be?

--
*A hangover is the wrath of grapes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:15:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

really what planet do you live on that has zero G ?, next thing you'll
be telling me is that the number of passangers doesn't affect mpg.

Just for our enlightenment, how do passengers influence performance on
a rolling road?

tyre rolling resistance for one.

I would be extremely surprised if the rolling road didn't compensate for
measured mass.

On 28/11/13 17:04, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:15:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

really what planet do you live on that has zero G ?, next thing you'll
be telling me is that the number of passangers doesn't affect mpg.

Just for our enlightenment, how do passengers influence performance on
a rolling road?

tyre rolling resistance for one.

I would be extremely surprised if the rolling road didn't compensate for
measured mass.

In what way?

Or are you just making up a meaningless statement to look impressive?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 8:19:33 AM UTC+13,
wrote:
"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

125 feet

Excuse me sir, why is the ceiling 125 feet high when the people in it are
shorter than 7 feet high?

Signage?

--
Adam

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:57:14 -0000, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an
extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you
been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

The Daily Wail says "up to 120 feet" (37 m). That's not much for a
decent cherry picker, plenty available from the hire shops with
working heights above 37 m. They do tend to be diesel powered though
so I guess the 'elfs don't want an engine running in a "confined
space".


Get a LPG picker then:-)

--
Adam