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

In article ,
tim... wrote:

Frankfurt and Zurich just don't have the "pull"

Not since they are on level terms with London, all being in the EU.

Zurich is not in the EU.

Swizerland might as well be in the EU as regards the reasons the majority
of BREXITS give for wanting to leave it.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 15:03:28 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 13/05/2016 14:34, whisky-dave wrote:

Do yo want to live in an united Europe where one country alone
decides to effectivley ban abortions (Poland)

Have you looked to the west of where you live at all? You'll have to
cross some water, but not an ocean.

You mean the part that isn't England or the UK I think it's called
Republic of Ireland and is a seprate country. I don;t remmebr being
asked to vote on such a thing even though the Republic of Ireland is in
the EU, so where's the democray that is spoken so highly off in the EU.

Right. You're apparently in favour of our 'sovereignty' since you want to
leave the EU

That is just one reason for wanting to leave the EU, and not one
that he has even mentioned in his drunken ravings/silly games.

- but want to have a vote on the internal affairs of a separate country?

He didn’t say anything like that either.

Something doesn't quite compute...

Yep, your terminal stupidity never has done.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Still, it's not like that bastion of freedom - the US - would ever
take such a strong stance against personal freedoms, is it?

What's personal freedom the right to bare arms, well we don't have that
in teh UK do we.

I'm sure the US right to bear arms will prove very useful if Trump gets
elected.

It didn’t with that other fool Raygun.

But are you seriously saying you'd like to see that right here?

Corse he isnt.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip
And a considerably lower standard of living for the majority in the UK
if we do leave.


"a considerably lower standard of living for the majority in the UK if
we do leave"? Would you care to quantify that? 25% less? 50% less? A
feeling in your head without anything to back it up? I will be very
impressed if you can show your working to arrive at an actual figure.

The BREXIT lot seem to be plucking figures from the air, so I just thought
I'd join them.

You may well be right and you may well be wrong.

I'd say on balance there is more informed opinion about the short term
effects of leaving being bad for the majority than the other way.

Easy to claim. Have fun listing the bad effects the majority would see on
leaving.

Even if the total GDP would drop by a couple of percent and that is all
even the worst projection can ever come up with, that isnt going to affect
the majority at all. And clearly if Britain does leave the EU, Britain would
no longer be a net financial contributor to the EU, and that would certainly
have some effect on the tax that the majority in Britain have to pay because
that would no longer be sent to the EU.

On 12/05/2016 11:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


My freelander has had some EGR valve - that lowers emissions a bit -
removed and has gained power and economy as a results. Its a standard
mod...

So you are an uninsured driver.

And you are a tax evader.

On 14/05/16 20:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/05/2016 11:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


My freelander has had some EGR valve - that lowers emissions a bit -
removed and has gained power and economy as a results. Its a standard
mod...

So you are an uninsured driver.

No.
It passes the MOT. That's what its required.

And you are a tax evader.

No.
Why would that affect tax?





--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 18:03:31 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Then they came for vacuum cleaners, soon kettles and toasters.

How *do* you make a toaster more efficient?

I'm surprised no-one's said it. Put the element in a glass envelope so it requires less power to keep it radiating. Then mostly enclose the bread space so it loses less heat.

But of course it's political games driving the desire. If there were a visible worthwhile upside to such designs, would someone not offer them at some point?


NT

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 13:37:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Look: back in the day MGBS destined for the US market had air pumps to
add air to the exhausts to lower the ratio of CO* etc etc.

They were not fitted to UK models

But the ride height was raised and those horrid bumpers were on UK spec
models. Ruining a once half decent looking/handling car.

Which knocks your argument into the middle of the Atlantic. Nothing new
there.

The MGB: show it a corner and it'll show you a ditch. As they used to say all fur coat and no knickers.


NT

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:57:43 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 12/05/2016 17:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very long does it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your immediate needs.

I agree. Our current kettle makes that very easy because of the way the
light interacts with the window in it.

So a kettle which makes it extremely easy to put in exactly the right
amount of water. Perhaps it could incorporate a means of weighing the
water content?

Yes, we all need one of those new fangled kettles that boils the amount of water you put in it from your mugs. I think they call them jug kettles.

The whole topic is a bit nuts really. Let people buy what power they want, maybe mandate a sticker for those that get upset over it taking 3kW for 2 minutes versus 2kW for 3m. But to legislate such things really shows how lost the EU legislature is. Societies have real problems, kettle power is not one of them. Nor toaster, vacuum cleaner, etc.


NT

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 19:52:33 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/05/2016 15:27, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's quite possible they are looking at all domestic appliances.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32009L0125

So far on the ze list ...

micro generation

Could be a good idea.

lamps/lighting

We had years of crappy CFLs that haven't started giving as much light as
a candle by the time you've walked up or down the stairs and a horrible
colour light from them too. Now that the LEDs are available things are
improving. The banning of traditional lighbulbs was brought in before a
proper alternative was available.

solid fuel heaters/boilers
professional refrigeration units

Sensible to encourage good efficiencies for these.

games consoles

If you're running software that pushes the limits of what can be done on
reasonably priced hardware, you're going to use a lot of power. I would
hope efficiencies are aimed at standby power, DVD playing, streaming
films, etc. rather than limiting power - the fast switching of millions
of transistors required for producing quality "3d" video, at high frame
rates, from the interactions of thousands of virtual objects, is bound
to take a lot of power and produce a lot of heat. Any efficiencies in
new design are likely to be used to improve processing power for the
same electricity consumption.

ventilation units

As long as they both work and are affordable. For instance mandating
heat recovery units may make sense long term, but makes a simple
bathroom or kitchen ventilator unaffordable for many.

power transformers

Already very efficient.

domestic ovens and hobs

I wouldn't have thought that you could really improve the efficiency of
hobs much, they are sureky 100% efficient at generating heat, it is the
pans that lose most of it and insulating those will cause problems in
dealing with boil-overs.

Ovens can be made more efficient by heavy insulation, but there is only
so much space in small kitchens for an oven, so thick walls would not be
acceptable, as you'd either have to have wider ovens or smaller
Christmas turkeys!

electric motors

Already pretty efficient and improvements are likely to be by adding
complex electronics, which will increase the cost to unaffordable levels
for many devices.

household washing machines/driers

The AAA -F rating already works well for that, without mandating
specific fugures that could lead to compromises on washing quality. No
good making your machine to use very little water or power if it means
the user has to put it on a longer wash or wash everything twice to get
it clean.

water heaters

Cost of fuel is sufficient to make high efficiency a selling point and
drive others out of the market.

televisions

Are they planning to limit the size of TV you can have, because TVs are
getting bigger and bigger TVs use more power than smaller ones.

water pumps

Industrial or domestic? The only water pump most households have is in
the central heating/hot water system. Any inefficiency there simply
turns electricity into heat - heat that you are using anyway.

vacuum cleaners

As I've said before, a limit is not a good idea, the compromise of
defaulting to a lower power, but being able to switch to a higher power
when needed works for me and at least 95% of the time, the higher power
is not used - but it's there when needed.

computers and servers

What is efficiency? Standby power? Running power for certain operations?
When running, like games consoles, you may be needing a lot of computing
power, so limits on consumption are again no use. Higher speeds also
means higher losses, so you can't simply mandate efficiency either, as
the higher speed may be a necessity and higher losses may simply have to
be accepted.

What would be useful is a hibernate mode that can return to full
operation instantly - and I don't mean even short start-up times. We
have a home server that does a number of things. It is quite powerful
(and power hungry), as at times it has had to host virtual machines
carrying out normal home server functions, while also acting as a domain
controller, simulated PLC I/O, scada server, scada clients and network
monitoring computer - for software testing purposes. Most of the time,
though it would actually be ideal if it could hibernate, but wake in a
fraction of a second to pick up email or make a file available or stream
music or video on demand and then go back to sleep.

air conditioners and comfort fans

Good to improve efficiency, but I hope that they don't simply ban more
powerful models. A small, low powered fan is fine on your office desk,
but isn't much use when you want to keep two or three people cool on a
settee, but need the fan pretty far away, so as not to obstruct the floor..

fans driven by motors between 125W and 500kW

Ok. Probably mainly industrial.

dishwashers

Again, this could be self-defeating. Increase the efficiency by reducing
power and water use and you are likely (in the real world) to have to
choose say the 2 hour wash instead of the 1-1/2 hour one all the time to
ensure that everything actually comes out clean. So more consumption
(and more heat loss).

The problem with much of these is that limits are being mandated, sometimes with no upside but significant cost. It's bad law making. There's no point fitting a smart CH pump that costs £100 more to buy and will save £100 over its lifetime, but only if it reaches old age, and that so-called saving is largely wiped out in practice by it contributing to the heat in the primary circuit. IOW the saving is less than the upfront cost increase..

A more mature approach to such matters would be to mandate information labels so buyers can compare.


NT

On Friday, 13 May 2016 20:18:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:

You can't work it out from the info you provided but I would guess the
£5 one does the job better.

That popular guess/assumption is how they get away with charging £60 for a toaster. Having experienced a selection from argos value to dualit I found they're all so-so except the dualit, which was excellent. If you're not getting a dualit you may just as well get a value job.


NT

On Sat, 14 May 2016 15:31:37 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 13:37:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Look: back in the day MGBS destined for the US market had air pumps
to add air to the exhausts to lower the ratio of CO* etc etc.

They were not fitted to UK models

But the ride height was raised and those horrid bumpers were on UK spec
models. Ruining a once half decent looking/handling car.

Which knocks your argument into the middle of the Atlantic. Nothing new
there.

The MGB: show it a corner and it'll show you a ditch. As they used to
say all fur coat and no knickers.

You should have tried an MGC circa 1969. Even worse. Far too front heavy.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

So if you can't use all the water in the kettle, why the
concern about what remains cooling down quickly?

Because if you use the kettle quite often, its better if it has
the water you didn't use previously as hot as possible, stupid.

Forgot you lived in a third world country.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

In the UK, most prefer and can afford fresh water when making a cuppa.

More of your bare faced lies, particularly in office situations.

Not water that has been re-heated several times.

It isnt going to be reheated several times, just twice normally.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
This country exists by trading. Much of it financial services. And so
very much of it no longer owned or controlled by the UK. And if the UK
is no longer in the EU, why would an international company choose the
UK for its headquarters?

because foreign banksters (and their wives) like to live in London

They do. Because it's a cosmopolitan city. Exactly why the little
Englanders on here hate it so much. As well as it being rather left wing,
of course. If they get their way and change England back into some
fortress where only white UK born are welcome, you'll be left with only UK
controlled industry and financial services. Ie, near zero.

Frankfurt and Zurich just don't have the "pull"

Not since they are on level terms with London, all being in the EU.
But if England pulls out, you can guarantee things will stay the same?

You can't guarantee that it will stay the same if Britain stays either.

Put it this way. You are in charge of a multinational company with a head
office in a country you've chosen as being the best for your business.
That country then makes a major change in its relationship with a large
part of your market. Would you be happy to just continue as is - or would
you review your options?

They review their options even when there hasn’t been a major change,
mostly to base themselves where they get the best deal on taxation etc.

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:20:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

My freelander has had some EGR valve - that lowers emissions a bit -
removed and has gained power and economy as a results. Its a standard
mod...

So you are an uninsured driver.

And you are a tax evader.

pulls up comfy chair
Do go on...

On 15/05/16 08:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:20:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

My freelander has had some EGR valve - that lowers emissions a bit -
removed and has gained power and economy as a results. Its a standard
mod...

So you are an uninsured driver.

And you are a tax evader.

pulls up comfy chair
Do go on...

Well on being challenged, he ran away.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 07:33:53 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:20:04 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

My freelander has had some EGR valve - that lowers emissions a bit -
removed and has gained power and economy as a results. Its a standard
mod...

So you are an uninsured driver.

And you are a tax evader.

pulls up comfy chair
Do go on...

chuckle

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 15:31:37 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 13:37:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Look: back in the day MGBS destined for the US market had air pumps
to add air to the exhausts to lower the ratio of CO* etc etc.

They were not fitted to UK models

But the ride height was raised and those horrid bumpers were on UK
spec models. Ruining a once half decent looking/handling car.

Which knocks your argument into the middle of the Atlantic. Nothing
new there.

The MGB: show it a corner and it'll show you a ditch. As they used to
say all fur coat and no knickers.

You should have tried an MGC circa 1969. Even worse. Far too front heavy.

Another weird BMC product. That boat anchor of an engine made it little
faster than the MGB and ruined the handling. Bit like the Austin 3 litre
versus the 1800.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

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

On Sun, 15 May 2016 11:57:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 15:31:37 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

On Thursday, 12 May 2016 13:37:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Look: back in the day MGBS destined for the US market had air
pumps to add air to the exhausts to lower the ratio of CO* etc
etc.

They were not fitted to UK models

But the ride height was raised and those horrid bumpers were on UK
spec models. Ruining a once half decent looking/handling car.

Which knocks your argument into the middle of the Atlantic. Nothing
new there.

The MGB: show it a corner and it'll show you a ditch. As they used to
say all fur coat and no knickers.

You should have tried an MGC circa 1969. Even worse. Far too front
heavy.

Another weird BMC product. That boat anchor of an engine made it little
faster than the MGB and ruined the handling. Bit like the Austin 3 litre
versus the 1800.

And they had to put a bulge in the bonnet for a carb. I suppose that made
it look 'go faster'.

I was involved the pre-delivery service on one. Normally we de-waxed
(protective wax from factory) using steam, but it was a convertible so we
did it by hand. It was also tricky because the delivery drive had pranged
a wing. Our job was to get it into a state where the body shop could fix
it (I'm sure it was without the customer's knowledge) before delivery.
Said customer was a local brewery boss (I forget which one).

My boss on the car cleaning was a nice guy called 'Tom' Thomsett - he had
a yound actress daughter named Sally.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

wrote
Andy Burns wrote

Then they came for vacuum cleaners, soon kettles and toasters.

How *do* you make a toaster more efficient?

I'm surprised no-one's said it.

Because they understand the physics. It won't work.

Put the element in a glass envelope

That is done already with some heaters, not for toasters
tho, because that produces a much too local source of
heat so you would only get bands of toasted bread.

so it requires less power to keep it radiating.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you have never understood the most basic physics.

Then mostly enclose the bread space so it loses less heat.

Using a convection oven does that already,
http://www.hotairfrying.com/wp-conte...ction-Oven.jpg

They do toast fine. Not as efficiently as a normal toaster tho.

But of course it's political games driving the desire.

Nope. It does make sense to toast more efficiently.

If there were a visible worthwhile upside to such designs,
would someone not offer them at some point?

They do. Doesnt mean that the less efficient toasters arent
also available tho, because they are much cheaper to make.

Steve Walker wrote:
But if you use high powered kettles, the heating time is short and
losses will be minimal. If you also use the right amount of water, there
will be no real stored heat for next time either. It would make sense
for an office kettle though, as people tend to fill those and turn them
on after they've made a drink, so that the next person will find a
nearly boiling kettle.

At work, we have a rather nice one-cup kettle:
http://www.tesco.com/direct/breville...k/211-3315.prd

You fill the reservoir with water like any kettle. When you want to boil
it, you set a dial to the size of your mug (you learn that rapidly) and
press a button. It boils just enough water and dispenses it into your mug
which is placed underneath the spout. It takes about 30 seconds to do that.

Not only is that quicker than boiling a kettle, and wastes no water, it also
takes one of the steps out of teamaking away. Place mug with teabag under
the kettle, press the button, go and do something else for a couple of
minutes, come back and your tea is ready brewed. You don't have to wait for
both the kettle to boil, pour it, and then wait for the tea to brew. The
tea it makes is as good as any other kettle, and no boiling water is wasted.
(Especially if you're of the opinion that previously-boiled water should not
be reused for tea).

Not only is it quicker than boiling a kettle for one, it's about the same
speed as boiling a kettle for multiple people - just feed it mugs every 30
seconds or so. It is, though, a bit more annoying to use with a teapot (the
size dial doesn't go large enough).

While it is a 3kW appliance it isn't the wattage that matters - again it's
what you do with it.

Theo

On 13/05/2016 09:30, Tim Watts wrote:
On 13/05/16 07:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 02:25:14 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Chris French
wrote:

Steve Walker Wrote in message:
On 12/05/2016 15:27, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's quite possible they are looking at all domestic appliances.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LKD/?uri=CELEX:32009L0125

snip

dishwashers

Again, this could be self-defeating. Increase the efficiency by
reducing
power and water use and you are likely (in the real world) to have to
choose say the 2 hour wash instead of the 1-1/2 hour one all the
time to
ensure that everything actually comes out clean. So more consumption

The most efficient (water and elec consumption) wash on ours is
the longest. I assume it relies on giving the enzymes and
detergents longer to work. It also has a longer drying time, I
assume it finishes with a bit of a lower temp.


--

I'm have reservations about drying in dishwashers. It works to a
degree, I know (it does in ours to some extent, but still leaves
puddles in the bottoms of upturned cups and mugs) but attempting to
dry anything in a closed system like a dishwasher where there's
nowhere for the water vapour to escape is doomed to failure unless the
temperature reaches over 100°C. At anything less, drying relies on the
diffusion of the water vapour out through a small vent, which will be
slow.


The Miele's vent externally using some sort of fan (I can hear it and
stuff does dry). However, still a problem with puddles on cups etc as
you say.

Yup mine has a little louvred vent on the front panel that blows out hot
wet air when drying... (when its fan is not full of gunge and just
squeeking that is!)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Monday, 16 May 2016 06:03:33 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote

Put the element in a glass envelope

That is done already with some heaters, not for toasters
tho, because that produces a much too local source of
heat so you would only get bands of toasted bread.

what sort of moron thinks you can't have more than 1 heating wire in a glass enclosure. You really are a waste of space.

In article , Andrew
writes
On 11/05/2016 20:48, Chris B wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:30, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:03:29 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Then they came for vacuum cleaners, soon kettles and toasters.

Oh, that 2014 fabricated scare-story's come out of hibernation, has it?

What a surprise.

Even the Telegraph backtracked on it a few months ago.

Well its not come out of hibernation yet - its been put on the "back
burner" (If we are still allowed to have such things) until after the
referendum in case it makes people vote to leave.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/36642906-d...247e4.html#axz
z48NVyRLIh


But after the referendum I will wager its "full steam ahead" (well
partial steam ahead anyway from our new low power kettles).

Neighbour went into our local garden centre, part of Wyvale Gardens
and selected some weed'n'feed for his lawn but when he tried to pay
for it the computer said no. Apparently another EU dictat has become
law recently and the staff didn't know the offending stuff was still
on the shelf. They wouldn't sell it to him.

Strangely enough there seems to have been an increase in the number of
people offering to 'de-weed and green your lawn' (for a huge price).
Have garden chemicals been restricted to 'professional use' recently ?.




It was proposed/implemented recently in Holland but not sure if it is
enshrined in EU law yet.
--
bert

En el artÃ*culo , bert
escribió:

It was proposed/implemented recently in Holland but not sure if it is
enshrined in EU law yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...sate-unlikely-
to-pose-risk-to-humans-unwho-study-says

q

Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsantos Roundup weedkiller brand,
has been given a clean bill of health by the UNs joint meeting on
pesticides residues (JMPR), two days before a crunch EU vote on whether
to relicense it.

The co-analysis by the UNs Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and
World Health Organisation found that the chemical was 'unlikely to pose
a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet'.

This finding flatly contradicts an assessment by the WHOs cancer agency
last year that the herbicide solution was 'probably carcinogenic to
humans'

/q

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

On Friday, 13 May 2016 17:10:30 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 15:03:28 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 13/05/2016 14:34, whisky-dave wrote:

Do yo want to live in an united Europe where one country alone
decides to effectivley ban abortions (Poland)

Have you looked to the west of where you live at all? You'll have to
cross some water, but not an ocean.

You mean the part that isn't England or the UK I think it's called
Republic of Ireland and is a seprate country. I don;t remmebr being
asked to vote on such a thing even though the Republic of Ireland is in
the EU, so where's the democray that is spoken so highly off in the EU.

Right. You're apparently in favour of our 'sovereignty' since you want to
leave the EU - but want to have a vote on the internal affairs of a
separate country? Something doesn't quite compute...

No I don't, why would I want to vote on something which only concerns another country. Unless they of course can vote on something that concerns me.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 17:20:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Still, it's not like that bastion of freedom - the US - would ever
take such a strong stance against personal freedoms, is it?

What's personal freedom the right to bare arms, well we don't have that
in teh UK do we.

I'm sure the US right to bear arms will prove very useful if Trump gets
elected.

Depends who's the fastest draw doesn't it.


But are you seriously saying you'd like to see that right here?

No why would I ?

On Friday, 13 May 2016 19:36:55 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 13/05/2016 11:37, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 18:20:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very
long does it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your
immediate needs.

That can't be done you need to biol more water as it evaporrates as
it boils and any steam coning out reduces efficiency, and yuo get
bits of lime scale in yuor cup if yuo use every ml of water you
boil.

Ideally you'd use one of those boiling water taps then no one would
need a kettle would they, but I don't believe those taps are as
efficient as a kettle anyway.

The extra water to compensate for the evaporated water coming out of a
kettle, provided it is not actually left boiling, is tiny.

I'd go back to physics and look at the latent heat of water.
If you want water to actualy boil rather than just get very hot (which is OK for washing and coffee, but NOT tea) you need boiling water not just very hot water which has been trying to biuol for the last 10 mins.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 20:18:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 15:09:11 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would, of course, be silly to restrict power on a kettle
which is near 100% efficient. And I'll eat my hat if the EU do
bring in a upper limit for them, on the grounds of efficiency.

Why legislate to limit the maximum, why not just mandate an A-F
rating and let people *choose* what they want?

No point really in specifying this on a kettle as they are so close
to 100% efficient.

How do you work out the efficincy of say one of the plastic £5 ones
compared to the £60+ one I brought. (actually I have both, I have 4
tin openers too)

They both convert 100% of the electricity into heat.

But not all the heat gooes into the water a lot goes into the kettle itself especailly metal ones. Then there's the part that creates the whistle (old style kettle) that takes energy and there's only one place it comes from.



The plastic one may have less loses unless the expensive one has extra
insulation.

which is rare.


You can't work it out from the info you provided but I would guess the
£5 one does the job better.

Better at heating the water up more effectively of course, but is that all anyone wants.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:30:39 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 13 May 2016 15:03:28 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 13/05/2016 14:34, whisky-dave wrote:

Do yo want to live in an united Europe where one country alone decides
to effectivley ban abortions (Poland)

Have you looked to the west of where you live at all? You'll have to
cross some water, but not an ocean.

You mean the part that isn't England or the UK I think it's called
Republic of Ireland and is a seprate country. I don;t remmebr being asked
to vote on such a thing even though the Republic of Ireland is in the EU,
so where's the democray that is spoken so highly off in the EU.



If you are still talking about abortions, on demand abortions are illegal in
NI

tim

And they were illegal when they joined the EU. what I am refering to is going backwards from abortions not being illegal to becoming illegal or the legallity being changed wihout every country in the EU voting on it.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very long does
it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your immediate
needs.

That can't be done

Even sillier than you usually manage.

you need to biol more water as it evaporrates as it boils

Not enough to matter and you just put in the amount that leaves
you with what you need when you pour it into the cup etc.

As I said yuo always have to biol more water than you need for the cup or vessel you wish to drink from. If you've any sense you'll also notice that things like tea leaves retain water so agin you have to allow for that.



and any steam coning out reduces efficiency,

Not by enough to matter.

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%




Ideally you'd use one of those boiling water taps

Those lose some by evaporation too.

Yes just like a kettle, but less wait time, why because of the power to water ratio.




then no one would need a kettle would they,

I personally use the microwave but
they aren't as efficient as most kettles.

I've always found tea tastes funny/differnt if heating in a microwave
so effcinecy is irrelevant.





but I don't believe those taps are as efficient as a kettle anyway.

Corse they aren't, because they have to keep the water hot
for when you turn on the tap and so lose some heat that way.

But they will be quicker so it depends what's important at the time
and for most a fast way of boiling water is quite important.

On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 13:23:32 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%

I'm curious where you get that 90% from.

I personally use the microwave but
they aren't as efficient as most kettles.

around 50% efficient roughly.


NT

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very long
does it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your immediate
needs.

That can't be done

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I do that all the time, in the microwave, in the cup I will drink it from.

you need to biol more water as it evaporrates as it boils

Not enough to matter and you just put in the amount that leaves
you with what you need when you pour it into the cup etc.

As I said yuo always have to biol more water than you
need for the cup or vessel you wish to drink from.

As I said, what gets lost in the boiling is a trivial part of
what you want to end up with and you can allow for that
anyway by putting enough water in the vessel you want to
drink it from so that it has what you want after it has boiled.

If you've any sense you'll also notice that things like tea
leaves retain water so agin you have to allow for that.

But you dont if you use instant coffee.

and any steam coning out reduces efficiency,

Not by enough to matter.

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.

Duh.

When the most efficint kettle the average
consumer can buy is under 90%

BULL****.

Ideally you'd use one of those boiling water taps

Those lose some by evaporation too.

Yes just like a kettle, but less wait time,
why because of the power to water ratio.

then no one would need a kettle would they,

I personally use the microwave but
they aren't as efficient as most kettles.

I've always found tea tastes funny/differnt if heating in a microwave

Bet you couldnt pick it in a proper double blind trial
and if your could it would be because the kettle adds
**** you dont get when you heat it in the vessel that
you will be drinking it from.

so effcinecy is irrelevant.

but I don't believe those taps are as efficient as a kettle anyway.

Corse they aren't, because they have to keep the water hot
for when you turn on the tap and so lose some heat that way.

But they will be quicker so it depends what's important at the time
and for most a fast way of boiling water is quite important.

But most find that the time with a decent kettle is fine.

On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 17:32:24 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 13:23:32 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%

I'm curious where you get that 90% from.

I didn;t it came up years ago (CSE physics I think) as being the most efficient you can get from a demostic kettle.
There's also quite a differnce between hot water and bioling water.

On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 22:55:37 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very long
does it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your immediate
needs.

That can't be done

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I do that all the time, in the microwave, in the cup I will drink it from..

That figures, I've rarley done it and for me the tastse is differnt.



As I said yuo always have to biol more water than you
need for the cup or vessel you wish to drink from.

As I said, what gets lost in the boiling is a trivial part

No it isn;t because to boil water you need to put in a lot of energy,
something to do with the latent heat of evaporation.

If
what you want to end up with and you can allow for that
anyway by putting enough water in the vessel you want to
drink it from so that it has what you want after it has boiled.

as I said you need more water in the kettle than you are planing on drinking.

I use a cordless kettle, so if I want to make one cup of tea I get the mug I will use fill that with water and put that in the kettle then boil it.
If I want two mugs I put two mugs of water in ... see how this works could you work out how many mugs of water I'd put in my kettle if I wanted to make 3 cups of tea. ?

Now remmeber what I said about adding more water than you will be drinking.....
So when I fill a mug up with water there's is more water in that mug than there will be when the water is HOT. Because :-
1/ because of the volume of the tea bag I can't get the same amount of water in there plus tea bag..
2 I have milk so when emptying the boiling water in to teh mug containing the teabag I have to leave about ~15% from the top lip so I can put the milk in.
3/ I also allow for stiring & sugar so again I don;t fill the cup up with hot water.
4/ I have to carry it from one room to the next so again I don't fill the mug up with hot water+milk.
5/ another reason I take the water to the kettle rather than the kettle to the water is because my previous kettle became fault due o the central connection bit it seemd to fail before the eliment and on a few occasions sparked.




If you've any sense you'll also notice that things like tea
leaves retain water so agin you have to allow for that.

But you dont if you use instant coffee.

I don;t use instant coffee to make tea.
Also instant coffee also takes up space in the cup, and it usually needs stirling too.



and any steam coning out reduces efficiency,

Not by enough to matter.

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.

Duh.

teh more steam that comes out teh lower the effeciancy and the more it is costing for that cup of tea, which is why I wouldn;t leave the kettle bioling for 10 mins in an attempt to get the water hotter.


but I don't believe those taps are as efficient as a kettle anyway.

Corse they aren't, because they have to keep the water hot
for when you turn on the tap and so lose some heat that way.

But they will be quicker so it depends what's important at the time
and for most a fast way of boiling water is quite important.

But most find that the time with a decent kettle is fine.

Provided the kettle has enough power like my 3.1KW , which can biol a cup of water faster than my microwave can.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 17:32:24 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 13:23:32 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%

I'm curious where you get that 90% from.

I didn;t it came up years ago (CSE physics I think) as being
the most efficient you can get from a demostic kettle.

Just because some fool claims something.

That number is complete and utter drivel
and it is completely trivial to prove that.

There's also quite a differnce between
hot water and bioling water.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 22:55:37 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very long
does it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your immediate
needs.

That can't be done

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I do that all the time, in the microwave, in the cup I will drink it
from.

That figures, I've rarley done it and for me the tastse is differnt.

Because your kettle is adding **** to the water, most obviously the scale.

As I said yuo always have to biol more water than you
need for the cup or vessel you wish to drink from.

As I said, what gets lost in the boiling is a trivial part

No it isn;t because to boil water you need to put in a lot of energy,
something to do with the latent heat of evaporation.

I wasnt talking about the energy there, just the water that gets lost.

If what you want to end up with and you can allow for that
anyway by putting enough water in the vessel you want to
drink it from so that it has what you want after it has boiled.

as I said you need more water in the kettle than you are planing on
drinking.

And you need **** all more than you are planning on drinking
when you heat it in the microwave in the vessel you will be
drinking it from.

I use a cordless kettle, so if I want to make one cup of tea I get the mug
I will use fill that with water and put that in the kettle then boil it.
If I want two mugs I put two mugs of water in ... see how this works
could you work out how many mugs of water I'd put in my kettle if
I wanted to make 3 cups of tea. ?

Too much farting around. Makes more sense to mark the kettle which
has a proper gauge on the side with where you need to fill it for the
number of mugs of water you do often.

Now remmeber what I said about adding more water than you will be
drinking....
So when I fill a mug up with water there's is more water in that mug than
there will be when the water is HOT. Because :-
1/ because of the volume of the tea bag I can't get the same amount of
water in there plus tea bag..
2 I have milk so when emptying the boiling water in to teh mug
containing the teabag I have to leave about ~15% from the top lip so I can
put the milk in.
3/ I also allow for stiring & sugar so again I don;t fill the cup up with
hot water.
4/ I have to carry it from one room to the next so again I don't fill the
mug up with hot water+milk.
5/ another reason I take the water to the kettle rather than the kettle to
the water is because my previous kettle became fault due o the central
connection bit it seemd to fail before the eliment and on a few occasions
sparked.

None of that **** when you heat the water in the
mug in the microwave and drink coffee instead of tea.

If you've any sense you'll also notice that things like tea
leaves retain water so agin you have to allow for that.

But you dont if you use instant coffee.

I don;t use instant coffee to make tea.
Also instant coffee also takes up space in the cup,

Wrong, as always.

and it usually needs stirling too.

Nope, no stirling required. Even plastic works fine.

and any steam coning out reduces efficiency,

Not by enough to matter.

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.

Duh.

teh more steam that comes out teh lower the effeciancy

So you have a kettle which stops heating as soon as any steam comes out.

Not exactly rocket science.

and the more it is costing for that cup of tea,

Not with a properly designed kettle.

which is why I wouldn;t leave the kettle bioling for
10 mins in an attempt to get the water hotter.

I dont believe you.

but I don't believe those taps are as efficient as a kettle anyway.

Corse they aren't, because they have to keep the water hot
for when you turn on the tap and so lose some heat that way.

But they will be quicker so it depends what's important at the time
and for most a fast way of boiling water is quite important.

But most find that the time with a decent kettle is fine.

Provided the kettle has enough power like my 3.1KW ,
which can biol a cup of water faster than my microwave can.

Irrelevant to that **** of yours about boiling water taps.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 17:32:24 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 13:23:32 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%

I'm curious where you get that 90% from.

I didn;t it came up years ago (CSE physics I think) as being the most
efficient you can get from a demostic kettle. There's also quite a
differnce between hot water and bioling water.

Think you're confusing it with an electric motor.

The amount of heat loss would be pretty consistent across a range of
element sizes. Making a smaller element one very much more inefficient
than a large one.

A 3 kW kettle if 90% efficient would be losing 300 watts in heat. Lose the
same amount from a 1kW design, and it might take hours to boil.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

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

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 12:47:15 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 17:32:24 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 13:23:32 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 13 May 2016 23:38:43 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

enough to not make teh kettel 100% efficeint.
When the most efficint kettle the average consumer can buy is under 90%

I'm curious where you get that 90% from.

I didn;t it came up years ago (CSE physics I think) as being
the most efficient you can get from a demostic kettle.

Just because some fool claims something.

just because some fool thinks kettles are 100% effecient doesn;t mean they are.


That number is complete and utter drivel
and it is completely trivial to prove that.

So prove it.
That figure was the text books guide to the most efficient type of the time
when the book was publish which I think was in the 1970s, they also said that an average bolt of lightning could power London for 20-30 seconds.
But that's probbably changed since then.

How about envoking the wizard of Oz.

if yuo only had a brain you could find.
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tech...wave-oven.html

Electric kettles are designed for their efficiency and many of them have names like Eco Kettle. In electric kettles the water is in direct contact with the heating element, there is no pot to heat and most kettles include an integrated lid. The electric kettle averaged around 1200 watts and took 125 seconds to boil the water, which translates to 0.04 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumed. I cleared the cobwebs off of the thermodynamic part of my brain and calculated that the theoretical energy required to heat 350 ml of water by 83° C in 125 seconds is 972 watts. Dividing this by the actual wattage used gives us the overall efficiency of boiling water in an electric kettle, 81%.

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 13:02:11 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 22:55:37 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

When you switch a kettle off it doesn't stay boiling for very long
does it.

No reason why it should - if you only boil enough for your immediate
needs.

That can't be done

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I do that all the time, in the microwave, in the cup I will drink it
from.

That figures, I've rarley done it and for me the tastse is differnt.

Because your kettle is adding **** to the water, most obviously the scale..

How does a kettle add scale to water ?


As I said yuo always have to biol more water than you
need for the cup or vessel you wish to drink from.

As I said, what gets lost in the boiling is a trivial part

No it isn;t because to boil water you need to put in a lot of energy,
something to do with the latent heat of evaporation.

I wasnt talking about the energy there, just the water that gets lost.

I dont; care about the water it's cheap it;s the electricity that costs the money when boiling it.
I don;t care if I 'lose' a few ml of water it's virtually free as I have unmeterred water and DO NOT have unmetered electricity.



as I said you need more water in the kettle than you are planing on
drinking.

And you need **** all more than you are planning on drinking
when you heat it in the microwave in the vessel you will be
drinking it from.

But that's not as quick or as effcient and the cups handle gets hot too and I dont like the taste of re-heated tea.

https://www.quora.com/Does-reheating...ange-its-taste

Is this due to cooling and reheating process independent of the microwave oven? Tea experts tell us that water for fine teas should only be boiled once, and that it can become "flat" with re-boiling.

"Tea Party Girl" references water usage mistakes common to people struggling to find the perfect cup of tea: over-boiling releases too much oxygen from the water making it flat, and microwaved water tastes "tinny." I cannot verify these things scientifically, but these are fairly common statements concerning tea and water.


I use a cordless kettle, so if I want to make one cup of tea I get the mug
I will use fill that with water and put that in the kettle then boil it..
If I want two mugs I put two mugs of water in ... see how this works
could you work out how many mugs of water I'd put in my kettle if
I wanted to make 3 cups of tea. ?

Too much farting around. Makes more sense to mark the kettle which
has a proper gauge on the side with where you need to fill it for the
number of mugs of water you do often.

but then I have to take the kettle to the sink, what usualy happens in that I wash my mug/cup with warm water, fill it with cold them empty it into the kettle then switch the kettle on.

Seems simple enough.



Now remmeber what I said about adding more water than you will be
drinking....
So when I fill a mug up with water there's is more water in that mug than
there will be when the water is HOT. Because :-
1/ because of the volume of the tea bag I can't get the same amount of
water in there plus tea bag..
2 I have milk so when emptying the boiling water in to teh mug
containing the teabag I have to leave about ~15% from the top lip so I can
put the milk in.
3/ I also allow for stiring & sugar so again I don;t fill the cup up with
hot water.
4/ I have to carry it from one room to the next so again I don't fill the
mug up with hot water+milk.
5/ another reason I take the water to the kettle rather than the kettle to
the water is because my previous kettle became fault due o the central
connection bit it seemd to fail before the eliment and on a few occasions
sparked.

None of that **** when you heat the water in the
mug in the microwave and drink coffee instead of tea.

As I said I don't like nuked tea, nuked coffee isn't as bad.
But I don't like a cup with a hot handle.
It also seemed to take longer in the mircowave than the ketkle.








teh more steam that comes out teh lower the effeciancy

So you have a kettle which stops heating as soon as any steam comes out.

Well it switches itself off when boiling something a microwave oven can't do.


Not exactly rocket science.

Microwave ovens can't do it.


and the more it is costing for that cup of tea,

Not with a properly designed kettle.

Yep even bably designed kettle are better at heating water,
another reason not to bother using teh microwave oven for making tea.

the rest of yuor **** flushed where it belongs.