"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source, they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

Arfa


--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

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

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:28:07 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Interestingly, for many years, my mother had a Hoover Constellation. It
was an original one from when they first came on the market - all metal
sphere in grey and blue and heavy. That machine had enough power to
lift itself, hovercraft-style, off the floor - including on deep pile
carpet - and float around at the touch of your finger. It would suck
the paint off walls. I don't recall how powerful the motor was on it,
but from the few times that I did work on it putting in new brushes and
I think once a new armature because the commutator was worn so much
(she used it a lot !) I don't seem to remember it being very big. The
fan unit, on the other hand, I seem to think was. It was not a noisy
machine either. I suppose that was 50 years ago now that she first had
it.

ISTR 600 watts. All that goes to show is many modern machine are
incredibly inefficient. As I said. For whatever reasons. And once makers
are *forced* to address this they'll find ways round it. If they're not
forced to, why would they bother? To many on here it's not of any
importance.

Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the regulation per
se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's pure and
simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source, they'll pick
holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Can only speak for myself, but I dislike a cesspit of unelected corrupt
scum paid via the funds extorted from hard working people dictating every
aspect of my existence.
YMMV


+1

Arfa

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard wrote:
Can only speak for myself, but I dislike a cesspit of unelected corrupt
scum paid via the funds extorted from hard working people dictating
every aspect of my existence. YMMV

Yes. Far better to allow manufacturers to sell anything they want to
without regulation. After all, they only have the customer's interests at
heart.


Everything that's sold is already regulated in the areas where it *really*
matters such as safety. Those regulations have served industries and
consumers in this country perfectly well for many years. Where genuine
improvements for genuine reasons have been regulated for by the EU, then
that's fine. But you miss the original point that I was making. This is a
piece of legislation for no particular reason other than that someone
justifying their own department or job, has spotted that vacuum cleaners
have motors with BIG WATTS !! and decided that in these days of green
hysteria, that MUST STOP !! So they've legislated against this under that
all-encompassing umbrella of power saving, despite the fact that in the
grand scheme of things, given the way that these things are used, the power
'saving' will be minuscule. So the point that I was making was that if this
is not just another piece of EU meddling - and there is plenty of that going
on all the time - and they are worried that this tiny amount of power saving
is actually needed, then we really are deeply in the **** ...

Arfa


--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

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

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 22/08/2014 19:09, ARW wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\


Just goes to prove that Eco-bollox sucks..............




Nothing Sucks like an Electrolux.

In future, the last 3 words will not be required.


:-)

Arfa

On 26/08/2014 02:39, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where genuine improvements for genuine reasons have been regulated for
by the EU, then that's fine. But you miss the original point that I was
making. This is a piece of legislation for no particular reason other
than that someone justifying their own department or job, has spotted
that vacuum cleaners have motors with BIG WATTS !! and decided that in
these days of green hysteria, that MUST STOP !! So they've legislated
against this under that all-encompassing umbrella of power saving,
despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, given the way that
these things are used, the power 'saving' will be minuscule

Probably not.

I'd guess that a manufacturer (or possibly more than one) who has worked
out how to do decent low power vacuum cleaners has suggested to the
appropriate people that it would be good to do this. Possibly even a
patent holder of some appropriate technology.

Aren't vacuum cleaners with huge motors a relatively recent thing? Have
they magically improved, or has something else happened?

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:55:13 +0100, Richard wrote:

Seriously though, it doesn't matter where. The votes all go into the
same pile of ********s who run everything.

So put your money where your mouth is, and stand in the next election.

If there's more than a tiny handful of people agree with you, you'll
keep your deposit.
If you genuinely represent the views of a majority, you've got a bloody
good job.

Take your voicebox out of your arse. Where did I say that I wanted to be
a politician?

shrug If you're whinging that you can do the job better...

Where, in my "whinge", do I say that I can do a better job?
qSeriously though, it doesn't matter where. The votes all go into the same
pile of ********s who run everything. /q

You seem to be far more qualified for the job.

On 26/08/14 02:24, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/14 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

It's just another case of an EU department getting a bee in its bonnet
for all the wrong reasons, much like taking lead out of solder ...

and causing problems for makers of church organs as a side effect.


How? If we're talking about leaded solder you can still buy it and use
it - just not for consumer electronics[1] or potable plumbing.

[1] Vehicle electronics, military and safety critical systems can
still use leaded.


Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Arfa

I'm not sure about that. The other area I failed to mention was hobby
electronics where it can be used from the start.

The main point of banning lead was to deal with:

1) Stuff likely to go to landfill (consumer electronics);

2) Drinking water.

Neither applies to pipe organs, so I would be surprised *if* a specific
ban existed.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:24:05 +0100, Richard wrote:

Seriously though, it doesn't matter where. The votes all go into the
same pile of ********s who run everything.

So put your money where your mouth is, and stand in the next election.

If there's more than a tiny handful of people agree with you, you'll
keep your deposit.
If you genuinely represent the views of a majority, you've got a
bloody good job.

Take your voicebox out of your arse. Where did I say that I wanted to
be a politician?

shrug If you're whinging that you can do the job better...

Where, in my "whinge", do I say that I can do a better job?
qSeriously though, it doesn't matter where. The votes all go into the
same pile of ********s who run everything. /q

You seem to be far more qualified for the job.

My apologies. I was assuming that you thought yourself better than a
"********".

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
How? If we're talking about leaded solder you can still buy it and use
it - just not for consumer electronics[1] or potable plumbing.

[1] Vehicle electronics, military and safety critical systems can
still use leaded.


Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Re-designate it as a central heating system, then.

--
*Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was SHUT UP .

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

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source, they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

Arfa

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU reg.

--
*I yell because I care

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

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
So they've legislated against this under that all-encompassing umbrella
of power saving, despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things,
given the way that these things are used, the power 'saving' will be
minuscule.

You missed out the bit about noise levels also being part of the new regs.
Those who dislike the EU - as you plainly do - will always find something
to whinge about with any such regs.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Arfa

I'm not sure about that. The other area I failed to mention was hobby
electronics where it can be used from the start.

The main point of banning lead was to deal with:

1) Stuff likely to go to landfill (consumer electronics);

2) Drinking water.

You missed out H&S for those making the things.

--
*I yell because I care

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

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
Aren't vacuum cleaners with huge motors a relatively recent thing? Have
they magically improved, or has something else happened?

My guess is it's more to do with those bag less types. The filters and
tortuous path needed creates a great deal of 'friction' to the airflow.

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU reg.

Even if they limited vacuum cleaners to 500W, just how much energy/money
do the eurocrats think people will save? Will "ecohoovers" be more
expensive? Less reliable?

What total crap.

I've got an idea or two to combat energy waste...

Remove every other bus stop so the buses stop less often, thus making them more energy efficient.

Turn off street lamps, or replace with solar / removable energy lamps.

Only manufacture 12" TVs.

On 26/08/2014 11:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU
reg.

Even if they limited vacuum cleaners to 500W, just how much energy/money
do the eurocrats think people will save? Will "ecohoovers" be more
expensive? Less reliable?


Answers on a postcard to.....

None, yes, and yes, would be my guess.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU
reg.

Even if they limited vacuum cleaners to 500W, just how much energy/money
do the eurocrats think people will save? Will "ecohoovers" be more
expensive? Less reliable?

If they are also quieter, an excellent reg. Why would restricting the
power consumption make them less reliable? Although I'm sure Dyson will
blame their poor reliability on something. Like their famous broken flexes
being down to people actually using the things.

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

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

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/14 02:24, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/14 12:05, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

It's just another case of an EU department getting a bee in its bonnet
for all the wrong reasons, much like taking lead out of solder ...

and causing problems for makers of church organs as a side effect.


How? If we're talking about leaded solder you can still buy it and use
it - just not for consumer electronics[1] or potable plumbing.

[1] Vehicle electronics, military and safety critical systems can
still use leaded.


Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Arfa

I'm not sure about that. The other area I failed to mention was hobby
electronics where it can be used from the start.

Yes, that is correct


The main point of banning lead was to deal with:

1) Stuff likely to go to landfill (consumer electronics);

The thing is though that there was never any direct evidence of consumer
electronics landfill causing a problem.


2) Drinking water.

This is another debatable area. For a very long time, water was supplied
through lead pipes. Indeed, the house that I lived in as a kid had lead
pipe-work, as did most others that I knew, and as I'm sure many still do.
Did it give us all brain damage ? Considering the apparent intelligence of
our generation compared to the last couple, I would have said not. That
being the case when the water flowed through fully lead pipes, I'm not sure
how you justify the validity of removing lead from soldered copper joints
that are not basically in contact with the water anyway. I can see
potentially good reasons for taking the lead out of petrol, and maybe paint,
but solder ? Seems to me that it's yet another case of "oooohh! Lead is very
bad ! Lets ban it from everything we can that contains it". It has been,
without doubt, one of the worst reliability issues that consumer electronics
has ever suffered from and has probably been more responsible for sending
consumer electronics to early landfill than any other factor...


Neither applies to pipe organs, so I would be surprised *if* a specific
ban existed.


That could be true now. I remember at the time there was quite a fuss kicked
up about it, as it was going to be banned, but there may have been a route
to getting an exemption on a case by case basis for new-builds.

Arfa

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source, they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

Arfa

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU
reg.

It's not a story, it's a fact, and as ever, you have completely
misunderstood the original point of what I was saying, going off on one of
your tangents. I say again, your comment about taxation was totally
irrelevant to the discussion, and just plain silly ...

Arfa



--
*I yell because I care

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

On 26/08/2014 09:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Clive
George wrote:

On 26/08/2014 02:39, Arfa Daily wrote:

Where genuine improvements for genuine reasons have been regulated for
by the EU, then that's fine. But you miss the original point that I was
making. This is a piece of legislation for no particular reason other
than that someone justifying their own department or job, has spotted
that vacuum cleaners have motors with BIG WATTS !! and decided that in
these days of green hysteria, that MUST STOP !! So they've legislated
against this under that all-encompassing umbrella of power saving,
despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, given the way that
these things are used, the power 'saving' will be minuscule

Probably not.

I'd guess that a manufacturer (or possibly more than one) who has
worked out how to do decent low power vacuum cleaners has suggested to
the appropriate people that it would be good to do this. Possibly even
a patent holder of some appropriate technology.

IOW, the EU people are in the industrialists' pockets.

Why restrict that to EU?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Arfa wrote:
How? If we're talking about leaded solder you can still buy it and use
it - just not for consumer electronics[1] or potable plumbing.

[1] Vehicle electronics, military and safety critical systems can
still use leaded.


Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Re-designate it as a central heating system, then.


Sounds like a case of "sorry, didn't know about that" I'm taking a
concession if I ever get found out.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Arfa wrote:
So they've legislated against this under that all-encompassing umbrella
of power saving, despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things,
given the way that these things are used, the power 'saving' will be
minuscule.

You missed out the bit about noise levels also being part of the new regs.
Those who dislike the EU - as you plainly do - will always find something
to whinge about with any such regs.


When the regulation is completely unnecessary like this, then yes
people will a) whinge, b) just buy an indudstrial cleaner. We have now
reached the stage(like France) where most of the population takes no
notice of the laws whatsoever, because there are too many of them.
Remember the original version of part P? generally totally ignored.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Tim wrote:
Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Arfa

I'm not sure about that. The other area I failed to mention was hobby
electronics where it can be used from the start.

The main point of banning lead was to deal with:

1) Stuff likely to go to landfill (consumer electronics);

2) Drinking water.

You missed out H&S for those making the things.


I notice that car batteries and lead flashing are now imported. A very
successful piece of legislation!

Arfa Daily wrote:
The thing is though that there was never any direct evidence of consumer
electronics landfill causing a problem.

I believe that there was a consumer electronics landfill problem with
CRT tubes where lead was leaching out into the water supply in soft
water areas.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Arfa Daily wrote:
The thing is though that there was never any direct evidence of consumer
electronics landfill causing a problem.

I believe that there was a consumer electronics landfill problem with CRT
tubes where lead was leaching out into the water supply in soft water
areas.


I believe that to be myth. Yes, the faceplate was made from lead-doped
glass, but I seem to recall that in order to get any of that lead out into
water, it was necessary to crush the glass into a fine powder. Lead glass
is, as far as I know, chemically completely stable, and not susceptible to
being dissolved by water. And in any case, any issue with a CRT, if it did
exist, would not have anything to do with solder.

Arfa

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

2) Drinking water.

This is another debatable area. For a very long time, water was supplied
through lead pipes. Indeed, the house that I lived in as a kid had lead
pipe-work, as did most others that I knew, and as I'm sure many still do.
Did it give us all brain damage ? Considering the apparent intelligence
of our generation compared to the last couple, I would have said not.
That being the case when the water flowed through fully lead pipes, I'm
not sure how you justify the validity of removing lead from soldered
copper joints that are not basically in contact with the water anyway.

Won't it depend on the pH of the water? It's a question of the extent
to which the lead dissolves. There is a school of though that says that
lead in the water did for the Romans.

That is a theory, yes, but has always seemed pretty far fetched to me. If
they were poisoned by lead, then it's far more likely to have been as a
result of the lead acetate that they used for sweetening wine.

The nominal pH of tap water is 7 or neutral, and water authorities work hard
to try to maintain this. However, you are right that it can vary a couple of
points either side of this into acidity or alkalinity, and in theory, this
could cause a reaction with lead pipes or leaded solder joints. However,
such reactions are very slow. A bit about reactivity with acids and neutral
water here

http://sciencepark.etacude.com/lzone/reactivity/Pb.php

I seem to recall that it's not reactive at all to weak alkaline solutions.
And of course, the insides of lead pipes can be calcified in hard water
areas, so the water is not actually in contact with the lead. For sure, lead
is a powerful neurotoxin, and I can see good reasons behind taking it out of
petrol and anywhere else that it can be freely ingested, but I don't think
that passing water through lead pipes is quite the issue that we would be
led to believe, and leaded solder for making pipe joints, was just a victim
of the generalization that "all lead is bad", as was leaded solder for
consumer electronics.

Arfa

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Except, of course, the problem for those people is not the
regulation
per se - nor even any of the implications or reasons for it. It's
pure
and simple the _source_ of the regulation. Given that source,
they'll
pick holes in ANYTHING. Black is white. Today is Wednesday.

Quite. If the EU regulated to abolish income tax they'd still
complain.

Sometimes Dave, you make the silliest of comments ...

It's you that started it, Arfa. With the usual scare story about an EU
reg.

It's not a story, it's a fact, and as ever, you have completely
misunderstood the original point of what I was saying, going off on one
of your tangents. I say again, your comment about taxation was totally
irrelevant to the discussion, and just plain silly ...

I think Our Dave has been drinking non-unleaded today, what with his
bee in the bonnet about Dyson and now this.

Possibly. The original point that I was making was, I thought, quite
straightforward, in that the new legislation was being 'sold' to us on the
back of that catch-all of 'power saving', which is automatically associated
with global warming, or 'climate change' as it has now subtly slid over to,
and thus qualifies it as 'a good thing'. Clearly, the amount of power saving
is extremely small in the grand scale of things, as a vacuum cleaner is not
an item that is used for hours at a time, or even all that often these days
compared to in the past. So the point was that if power saving was the
*real* reason behind the legislation, and it was honestly believed that such
a small amount was necessary, then the powers that be must be a lot more
worried about our generation capacity than they are letting on.

The other stuff like noise and exhaust dust emission that have been attached
to the legislation are additional smokescreens to make it look more
attractive overall to the public. I suppose that reducing the noise level of
any item that intrinsically produces it as a by-product of its operation is
not a bad thing, but is it *really* an issue with a vacuum cleaner ? Many
kitchen blenders make as much if not more noise than some vacuum cleaners.

Arfa

--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby
Wolf

On 27/08/14 02:58, Arfa Daily wrote:

That is a theory, yes, but has always seemed pretty far fetched to me.
If they were poisoned by lead, then it's far more likely to have been as
a result of the lead acetate that they used for sweetening wine.

And Grecian 2000

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
Possibly. The original point that I was making was, I thought, quite
straightforward, in that the new legislation was being 'sold' to us on
the back of that catch-all of 'power saving', which is automatically
associated with global warming, or 'climate change'

That's certainly the slant you and much of the meja put on it.
Conveniently ignoring all the rest.

I'd also ask - why are you so against energy saving?

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It's not a story, it's a fact, and as ever, you have completely
misunderstood the original point of what I was saying, going off on
one of your tangents. I say again, your comment about taxation was
totally irrelevant to the discussion, and just plain silly ...

I think Our Dave has been drinking non-unleaded today, what with his
bee in the bonnet about Dyson and now this.

Heh heh. I didn't start this thread. And you were the one promoting Dyson.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Arfa wrote:
Possibly. The original point that I was making was, I thought, quite
straightforward, in that the new legislation was being 'sold' to us on
the back of that catch-all of 'power saving', which is automatically
associated with global warming, or 'climate change'

That's certainly the slant you and much of the meja put on it.
Conveniently ignoring all the rest.

I'd also ask - why are you so against energy saving?


Is there a good reason for energy saving other than cost? The TV
producing industry doesn't seem to believe in it.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It's not a story, it's a fact, and as ever, you have completely
misunderstood the original point of what I was saying, going off on
one of your tangents. I say again, your comment about taxation was
totally irrelevant to the discussion, and just plain silly ...

I think Our Dave has been drinking non-unleaded today, what with his
bee in the bonnet about Dyson and now this.

Heh heh. I didn't start this thread. And you were the one promoting
Dyson.

No, you were the one slagging it off. I have no reason to mention Dyson
other than as a tool which works and has worked reliably for years.

Apart from the time it broke?

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No, you were the one slagging it off. I have no reason to mention Dyson
other than as a tool which works and has worked reliably for years.

Apart from the time it broke?

Headline: "Appliance breaks once during 20 years of use". Gosh, I'll
alert the media.

If this was the broken flex thingie, would mean for most it would be
scrapped.

I'd love to know how many 20 year old Dysons are still in use with the
average (not skilled at electrical repairs) people.

They all seem to get the same sort of response from proud owners that
things like iPhones do. 'Absolutely perfect and can't be improved' Yet buy
a new one as soon as it comes out.

Who says advertising doesn't work?

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

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

On 25/08/2014 16:12, Capitol wrote:
I've been involved in standards work and believe me, the average
standard isn't worth the hot air it's written on in terms of giving the
customer a good product. The only standards I came across which I would
use, were those connected to aviation.

I, on the other hand, have only worked on one standards committee - and
that was in aviation.

I was in agreement with you until the last sentence

Andy
--
OK, so WTF did they use X.25 to connect aeroplanes instead of TCP/IP?

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 25/08/2014 16:12, Capitol wrote:
I've been involved in standards work and believe me, the average
standard isn't worth the hot air it's written on in terms of giving the
customer a good product. The only standards I came across which I would
use, were those connected to aviation.

I, on the other hand, have only worked on one standards committee - and
that was in aviation.

I was in agreement with you until the last sentence

Andy

I acknowledge your greater relevant experience!

On 27/08/14 22:16, Capitol wrote:
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 25/08/2014 16:12, Capitol wrote:
I've been involved in standards work and believe me, the average
standard isn't worth the hot air it's written on in terms of giving the
customer a good product. The only standards I came across which I would
use, were those connected to aviation.

I, on the other hand, have only worked on one standards committee - and
that was in aviation.

I was in agreement with you until the last sentence

Andy

I acknowledge your greater relevant experience!

Actually the building regulations are an example - with the notable
exception of the politically inspired disability **** - very good
regulations indeed.

Getting worse as politics gets involved of course.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:06:17 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Actually the building regulations are an example - with the notable
exception of the politically inspired disability **** - very good
regulations indeed.
Getting worse as politics gets involved of course.

Really. Would you like to tell us why ceiling deflection needs to be limited to 3mm? Or why 43 degree stairs are illegal? Or why 2 core 2A single insulated lighting circuits are verboten? (hint: the ceiling/wall etc makes for effective 2nd insulation) Or why 3 core lighting must be RCDed? Or why appliances that work fine on 32mm waste must be on 50mm? I could go on all day about the bs that wastes everyone's time & money.


NT

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
... if we've now got to start shaving a few watts off the motor of an
appliance that these days is probably used no more than 15 minutes a
week, in order to save power. I refer of course to the new vacuum
cleaner motor power directive from our chums at the EU ...

Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous ... :-\

15 minutes a week?

It does seem odd, but like all these things forcing makers to increase
efficiency is no bad thing. They won't do it on their own.

It's likely a pretty inefficient design that requires two horsepower to
lift some dust.

I really don't believe that. We have been making electric motors for 150
years or more and I'm pretty sure - particularly in these days of
'efficiency' - that manufacturers will have striven to get the most
power out of their motors for the least power in. How do you make a
motor more efficient ? Better bearings ? Maybe, a little. Wind it
somehow differently ? But nobody has thought of a way already ? How do
you you make the vacuum fan more efficient and so require less input
power ? Again, I'm pretty sure that the multistage fan design that is
universally used in 'conventional' vacuum cleaners is probably about as
efficient as it can get. So in order to generate a certain amount of
suck, a certain amount of input horsepower to the fan will be needed,
and a certain amount of watts into the motor will be needed. If you put
less watts into a motor of the same efficiency, then less horsepowers
will come out, and the fan will not generate the same amount of vacuum.
I don't dispute that with a lot of costly R & D, there probably are some
improvements to be made to motor and fan efficiencies, but I don't think
that it will be anything very significant, and manufacturers aren't
going to pour money into a bottomless pit to try to find those
efficiencies. All that will happen is that vacuum cleaners will pass
their current 'golden age' and decline into a shadow of their former
selves.

As to 15 minutes a week, when I was a kid, we had stay-at-home mums -
they called them housewives. Mine used to vacuum the house from top to
bottom most every day. It was what she did. It was her 'job'. She was
proud of how clean she kept her house, and probably had that cleaner
running two hours a day. Now, the whole family dynamic has changed. Most
families are out all day, so not dirtying up the house anyway. People
are also fundamentally lazy, and won't take the vacuum cleaner to rooms
that are not used most of the time. So these days, only the lounge,
kitchen and maybe the bedroom get hoovered, and how long does it take to
do that ? 15 minutes maybe ? OK let's be really generous and say that
the dining room gets done as well, and the hallway. Half an hour. And
that's worth buggering up yet another industry and mature product that
works just fine, to save that small amount of power for that small
amount of time ? As I said, Eco-bollox at its most ludicrous. If the
people who come up with this **** had dynamite for brains, they wouldn't
have enough to blow their ears off ...

Making a vaccum cleaner more efficient is easy - multi-stage fans.
Most have just the one, if they had say three, the same work could be
done for half the power.
Of course this costs more so unless they are all forced to do it none of
them will.
Everyone would go for the el-cheapo even though it used more power.


All the vacuum cleaners that I and my parents have owned that I can
remember working on, have had multistage fans, It's an old and
well-established technology.

Arfa

The last ones I dismantled hadn't.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Tim wrote:
Whilst it can still be freely bought, It can only be used where there
is
a specific exception such as the areas you suggest, and for the repair
of items built prior to the introduction of the ban. New-build pipe
organs, as I understand it, don't qualify for such an exception

Arfa

I'm not sure about that. The other area I failed to mention was hobby
electronics where it can be used from the start.

The main point of banning lead was to deal with:

1) Stuff likely to go to landfill (consumer electronics);

2) Drinking water.

You missed out H&S for those making the things.


I notice that car batteries and lead flashing are now imported. A very
successful piece of legislation!

Those items are easy to re-cycle.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

2) Drinking water.

This is another debatable area. For a very long time, water was supplied
through lead pipes. Indeed, the house that I lived in as a kid had lead
pipe-work, as did most others that I knew, and as I'm sure many still do.
Did it give us all brain damage ? Considering the apparent intelligence
of our generation compared to the last couple, I would have said not.
That being the case when the water flowed through fully lead pipes, I'm
not sure how you justify the validity of removing lead from soldered
copper joints that are not basically in contact with the water anyway.

Won't it depend on the pH of the water? It's a question of the extent
to which the lead dissolves. There is a school of though that says that
lead in the water did for the Romans.

The Romans made drinking vessels out of lead.
Also lead pipes for water.