On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

More to the point, who's
agenda is being satisfied with the chosen value of "right"?

I'd say 'most peoples'. You or I probably wouldn't actually need that
list written out, we would know what things would be considered fair
or reasonable without.

So, you decide that providing radiant warmth for those sitting outside
is morally wrong.

I haven't said that John.

Perhaps those that are unable to visit thier loved
ones inside due to social distancing rules, would disagree with you,

Why would they? I haven't visited any 'loved ones' as such since the
lockdown and there is no way I'd want to try to warm 'outdoors' if I
was to sit in their garden?

and
argue that protecting their mental health is more important and hence
the right thing to do.

If there were no other solutions maybe. I bough everone in our close
family a Portal for example and my Mum, the only one in the group on
her own (at 90+) chats to all of us regularly on it (in the warm)?

What about if the heat source is "carbon neutral" (if that is the reason
you object to radiant space heating)?

No, it's the whole concept of trying to heat 'outdoors' when it's
outdoors? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that's what IR heaters are
trying to do but the point stands. Where would you draw the line?
Polar expedition with camps setup in a huge dome, heated with electric
heaters fed by a sub?

Or is that then just a slippery
slope to BBQing some unfortunate mammal that we previously raped

I hadn't even though of that because if you are trying to make animal
flesh digestible by humans by cooking it there is normally a supply of
heat there in the first place (and typically a perfectly equipped
kitchen to do so in as well).

without
it's prior written consent?

I though better of your John. ;-(

I saw something on Youtube re some folk who were living in their vans

snip

Bill would be the one

Sorry I missed the post where Bill elected you to be his spokesman.

It happened soon after Bill determined he could do anything he liked,
as long as it was legal.

Cheers, T i m

On 5 Dec 2020 14:44:07 GMT, David wrote:

snip

Just because something is legal or 'legitimate' now doesn't mean it's
will continue (to be legal) and therefore question it's legality or
morality ever.


I'm will Bill on this one.

Of course you are because he supports your idea that it's always 'ok'
to do what you like as long as it's legal.

Certainly not with you!

Or anyone else who tries to get you to consider alternatives (and I
wasn't the only one here btw).

However, our family all spend plenty of 'social time' seeing and
talking to My (isolated) Mum (their granny etc) and each other over
Portals.

My point is that there are often 'other' ways to do things we once did
pre lockdown that could be considered 'greener' or more practical and
certainly safer (infectionwise) than burning energy into the sky.

There was talk of us continuing to wear face masks, after the
Coronavirus had been tamed, simply because doing so would also protect
many from other viruses that were based that way. We aren't used to it
over here so you could expect a backlash of those who 'insisted' they
weren't going to (to the detriment of all those they may infect),
whereas in may Far East countries, the wearing of face masks is very
much part of their culture.

But hey, you asked for opinions and I gave you mine, you are under no
obligation to go along with it! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 3:45:57 PM UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 05/12/2020 12:42, fred wrote:
On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 4:22:28 PM UTC, David WE Roberts (Google) wrote:
We have an outdoor area at the rear of the house which is a wooden deck
with a plastic sloping roof to keep (some of) the rain off.
I say "some of" because the rain is blowing in and almost reaching the
bifolds.

The deck/roof is roughly 2.3 metres deep and 2.5 metres high.

I was contemplating adding some heating to allow us to sit out on cold
clear days so I am looking for advice.
There are weather proof 13 Amp sockets within the area of this veranda..

The obvious solution seems to be IR heaters high up the wall or on the
rafters below the roof.

I've started looking at IR heaters and there is a vast range of prices for
things which look remarkable similar, from around £70 to £300 for 1.5 kW
wall mounted strips.

I am slightly bemused that these trendy modern IR heaters look remarkably
like the electric wall heaters that used to be found in bathrooms, but I
suspect that the same idea is in use - direct heat onto the body instead
of trying to warm the whole room. Just more modern technology in the heat
source.

Do these things work effectively?

The big sod off gas ones found outside pubs do seem to chuck out some
heat, but I am assuming that bottled gas is no cheaper than mains
electricity.

Free standing might make them also work in the shed but I'm not sure that
will work in practice, and permanently mounted seems a much neater
solution.

Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


These type of heaters are very common on the continent in pavement cafes but they remind me of an old Vauxhall car I had where the heater would roast your left foot while the right foot froze. Streuth we accepted some dire cars in days gone by

That applies to all cars. The footwell outlet from the heater is going
to blow hot air on the left foot, and your front passengers left foot,
because of the location of the heater.


Have you been in a modern car ???? My car as 4 individually independent control zones

On 5 Dec 2020 14:42:12 GMT, David wrote:

On Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:28:04 +0000, nothanks wrote:

snip

Please consider wearing a hat and coat instead. We all waste far too
much energy without adding to the waste with more of these ridiculous
things.

For all those replying that we should wear a coat, woolly jumper, etc. as
if we haven't considered this, please assume that we have considered this
and have decided that for our requirements some additional heat is a
better option.

You *believe* might be a 'better option' and for those concerned. I'm
guessing only time will tell.

We also have central heating, which we use to keep the house at a
comfortable temperature for us.

Good?

We could go without heating (done that in my childhood),

Why would you do that, unless you typically leave the windows open in
attempt to get heat into the garden etc? ;-)

or turn it right
down and wear outdoor clothing indoors.

If the insulation on the house is that bad and depending on your
disposable income, that might be a good choice?

We prefer to be comfortable.

As do most people, however, there are limits to that.

Telling us just to put a coat on is not helpful in the context of this
question.

It's not helpful because it isn't what you wanted to hear, but it is
good for aspects that you obviously don't rate above the assumed
outcome of this project.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
For a good few years the TV in the bedroom was a very small (like 9")
Panasonic mains / 12V CRT jobby and that had a lovely picture (as it
should with all 625 lines in such a small space). ;-)

Usually an optical illusion. Small high quality CRTs are extremely
expensive (and rare)

Magnify it up to the same size as a larger domestic screen and you'll see
what I mean.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

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

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:02 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

I'm pretty sure that I recall T i m stating a while ago, on here, that he
rode his bicycle on the pavement because it was safer *for him* to do so
and disregarding the fact that is is illegal.

Its one rule for him when it suits him and another rule for him when it
doesn't.

On 05/12/2020 15:59, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

More to the point, who's
agenda is being satisfied with the chosen value of "right"?

I'd say 'most peoples'. You or I probably wouldn't actually need that
list written out, we would know what things would be considered fair
or reasonable without.

So, you decide that providing radiant warmth for those sitting outside
is morally wrong.

I haven't said that John.

So its not morally or legally wrong but your advice would still be "don't"?

Perhaps those that are unable to visit thier loved
ones inside due to social distancing rules, would disagree with you,

Why would they? I haven't visited any 'loved ones' as such since the
lockdown and there is no way I'd want to try to warm 'outdoors' if I
was to sit in their garden?

I think you may have missed the whole point or IR radiant heating. You
are not trying to warm outdoors at all, just make those sat in a cold
environment feel warmer.

and
argue that protecting their mental health is more important and hence
the right thing to do.

If there were no other solutions maybe. I bough everone in our close
family a Portal for example and my Mum, the only one in the group on
her own (at 90+) chats to all of us regularly on it (in the warm)?

While video chats etc can be better than nothing, not everyone will find
them a good substitute for a physical chat.

Its also predicated on having adequate broadband throughput to do so in
the first place.

What about if the heat source is "carbon neutral" (if that is the reason
you object to radiant space heating)?

No, it's the whole concept of trying to heat 'outdoors' when it's
outdoors? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that's what IR heaters are
trying to do but the point stands.

Erm, you object to the concept of trying to do something that you accept
that the suggested solution is not actually trying to do?

Which side of your brain conjured that up?

Where would you draw the line?
Polar expedition with camps setup in a huge dome, heated with electric
heaters fed by a sub?

Ah the good old extension to absurdity argument...

How about a fire pit or a chiminea - then you can burn some nice carbon
neutral garden waste at the same time as having a chat and roasting your
nuts?

Or is that then just a slippery
slope to BBQing some unfortunate mammal that we previously raped

I hadn't even though of that because if you are trying to make animal
flesh digestible by humans by cooking it there is normally a supply of
heat there in the first place (and typically a perfectly equipped
kitchen to do so in as well).

without
it's prior written consent?

I though better of your John. ;-(

Sorry, but the moment I see that rabid spittle flecked proselytising
zeal that you so often find in new converts to a cause, it can be
difficult to resist reflecting some of it back.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 03/12/2020 16:22, David wrote:

I am slightly bemused that these trendy modern IR heaters look remarkably
like the electric wall heaters that used to be found in bathrooms, but I
suspect that the same idea is in use - direct heat onto the body instead
of trying to warm the whole room. Just more modern technology in the heat
source.

Yup many are to all intents the same type of heater as a radiant
electric fire of old - quite intense heat close up, tailing off fairly
quickly, and also a fair bit of convected heat once they are up to
temperature. A bit of warm up time required.

(I have an outbuilding that is used occasionally for music and video
watching - it has a stat controlled fan heater that is permanently set
to keep it a little above freezing - and stop it getting damp in there,
and then a wall mounted radiant heater[1] for quick comfort on a chilly
night - it works quite well to make it comfortable without needing to
heat the space. Having said that, in time it will do that as well).

[1] Similar to :

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Product...slash120E.html

Do these things work effectively?

The big sod off gas ones found outside pubs do seem to chuck out some
heat, but I am assuming that bottled gas is no cheaper than mains
electricity.

The gas powered ones you find in large open shed style shops seem
noticeably more effective at warming the fleshy meat sacks in preference
to the surroundings - I expect its down to have a significant area of
emitter, running at a lower temperature producing longer wavelength IR.

The least effective type from a comfort PoV I find are the bright
halogen lamp based ones. The give rather too much light, and not enough
long wavelength IR. Having said that, they are cheap and portable, and
do provide "instant" heat.

Free standing might make them also work in the shed but I'm not sure that
will work in practice, and permanently mounted seems a much neater
solution.

Yup. Something like:

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXCXD2000H.html

Might work quite well.




--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:19:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
For a good few years the TV in the bedroom was a very small (like 9")
Panasonic mains / 12V CRT jobby and that had a lovely picture (as it
should with all 625 lines in such a small space). ;-)

Usually an optical illusion. Small high quality CRTs are extremely
expensive (and rare)

Magnify it up to the same size as a larger domestic screen and you'll see
what I mean.

Oh, sure, but that was my point, because all that data was compressed
into a smaller space, it gave a very good picture. Yes, I guess if you
expanded it up it wouldn't look so good. Or are you saying the smaller
screen *didn't* have all the same data as a bigger screen?

Same with SD / HD. Our 'main' TV is only 22" (TFT) or summat and so SD
is fine. If I watch SD on the 40" TV we were given it doesn't look as
good and so then HD actually makes a difference.

Cheers, T i m

On 05/12/2020 17:23, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/12/2020 15:59, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

More to the point, who's
agenda is being satisfied with the chosen value of "right"?

I'd say 'most peoples'. You or I probably wouldn't actually need that
list written out, we would know what things would be considered fair
or reasonable without.

So, you decide that providing radiant warmth for those sitting outside
is morally wrong.

I haven't said that John.

So its not morally or legally wrong but your advice would still be "don't"?

Perhaps those that are unable to visit thier loved
ones inside due to social distancing rules, would disagree with you,

Why would they? I haven't visited any 'loved ones' as such since the
lockdown and there is no way I'd want to try to warm 'outdoors' if I
was to sit in their garden?

I think you may have missed the whole point or IR radiant heating. You
are not trying to warm outdoors at all, just make those sat in a cold
environment feel warmer.

and
argue that protecting their mental health is more important and hence
the right thing to do.

If there were no other solutions maybe. I bough everone in our close
family a Portal for example and my Mum, the only one in the group on
her own (at 90+) chats to all of us regularly on it (in the warm)?

While video chats etc can be better than nothing, not everyone will find
Â*them a good substitute for a physical chat.

Its also predicated on having adequate broadband throughput to do so in
the first place.

What about if the heat source is "carbon neutral" (if that is the reason
you object to radiant space heating)?

No, it's the whole concept of trying to heat 'outdoors' when it's
outdoors? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that's what IR heaters are
trying to do but the point stands.

Erm, you object to the concept of trying to do something that you accept
that the suggested solution is not actually trying to do?

Which side of your brain conjured that up?

The back, as usual.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:21:09 +0000 (UTC), David wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:02 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

I'm pretty sure that I recall T i m stating a while ago, on here, that he
rode his bicycle on the pavement because it was safer *for him* to do so
and disregarding the fact that is is illegal.

You may be right (in that I said that) but you are 1) missing the
point and 2) taking it out of context.

Its one rule for him when it suits him and another rule for him when it
doesn't.

Nope, same rules in all cases.

I have already stated that just because something is legal, doesn't
make it moral in just the same way, doing something 'illegal' doesn't
make it a bad thing to be doing in some specific instances.

Like, what is the *practical* difference between a straight pedestrian
pavement and a shared use one, if you treat them both identically?

What's the difference between me cycling along the pavement at walking
speed and someone on a mobility scooter (all up weight often 1/4 tonne
or more)?

What I do is both safe (for everyone) and practical and doesn't have
any negative impact to anyone (or I wouldn't be doing it in the first
place) or the environment. What you are proposing to do may not be
safe (Coronavirus risk), is bad for the environment and may well not
work (are you going to be out there in your t-shirts and not dress up
suitably *anyway*)?

As you say, it's your call and I don't have any issues with you doing
it, I just gave you my advice like you asked. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 17:41:28 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 03/12/2020 16:22, David wrote:

I am slightly bemused that these trendy modern IR heaters look
remarkably like the electric wall heaters that used to be found in
bathrooms, but I suspect that the same idea is in use - direct heat
onto the body instead of trying to warm the whole room. Just more
modern technology in the heat source.

Yup many are to all intents the same type of heater as a radiant
electric fire of old - quite intense heat close up, tailing off fairly
quickly, and also a fair bit of convected heat once they are up to
temperature. A bit of warm up time required.

(I have an outbuilding that is used occasionally for music and video
watching - it has a stat controlled fan heater that is permanently set
to keep it a little above freezing - and stop it getting damp in there,
and then a wall mounted radiant heater[1] for quick comfort on a chilly
night - it works quite well to make it comfortable without needing to
heat the space. Having said that, in time it will do that as well).

[1] Similar to :

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Product...slash120E.html

Do these things work effectively?

The big sod off gas ones found outside pubs do seem to chuck out some
heat, but I am assuming that bottled gas is no cheaper than mains
electricity.

The gas powered ones you find in large open shed style shops seem
noticeably more effective at warming the fleshy meat sacks in preference
to the surroundings - I expect its down to have a significant area of
emitter, running at a lower temperature producing longer wavelength IR.

The least effective type from a comfort PoV I find are the bright
halogen lamp based ones. The give rather too much light, and not enough
long wavelength IR. Having said that, they are cheap and portable, and
do provide "instant" heat.

Free standing might make them also work in the shed but I'm not sure
that will work in practice, and permanently mounted seems a much neater
solution.

Yup. Something like:

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXCXD2000H.html

Might work quite well.

Upstream (or down depending on how your news reader orders posts) I was
pointed to this:
https://www.screwfix.com/p/mh-10-1-wall-mounted-quartz-
heater-600-1200w/1238p.

At £19.99 for 1.2 kW it seems to offer massive "bangs per buck" compared
to £213.60 for the Dimplex one.

Obviously not the same build quality, but for the intended use is it
necessary to spend 10 times the amount per unit?


I have hit an issue anyway.
Mounting for both need to be at least 1.8 metres from the floor. That is
fine.
However the Screwfix one requires 700mm top clearance and the Dimplex one
500mm top clearance.
The plastic roof it too low to allow that, unfortunately, so I may be
looking at some form of free standing heater.
Or some kind of heat reflector above which of course is not in the
specifications.

The 1.8 + 0.7 = 2.5 metres was noted in the comments on the Screwfix item.
In our 1930s house the ceilings are 8 foot or 2 metres 440 mm so would be
out of specification. Which is weird.

Anyway, progress of sorts.

Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 19:13:23 +0000, David wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 17:41:28 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 03/12/2020 16:22, David wrote:

I am slightly bemused that these trendy modern IR heaters look
remarkably like the electric wall heaters that used to be found in
bathrooms, but I suspect that the same idea is in use - direct heat
onto the body instead of trying to warm the whole room. Just more
modern technology in the heat source.

Yup many are to all intents the same type of heater as a radiant
electric fire of old - quite intense heat close up, tailing off fairly
quickly, and also a fair bit of convected heat once they are up to
temperature. A bit of warm up time required.

(I have an outbuilding that is used occasionally for music and video
watching - it has a stat controlled fan heater that is permanently set
to keep it a little above freezing - and stop it getting damp in there,
and then a wall mounted radiant heater[1] for quick comfort on a chilly
night - it works quite well to make it comfortable without needing to
heat the space. Having said that, in time it will do that as well).

[1] Similar to :

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Product...slash120E.html

Do these things work effectively?

The big sod off gas ones found outside pubs do seem to chuck out some
heat, but I am assuming that bottled gas is no cheaper than mains
electricity.

The gas powered ones you find in large open shed style shops seem
noticeably more effective at warming the fleshy meat sacks in
preference to the surroundings - I expect its down to have a
significant area of emitter, running at a lower temperature producing
longer wavelength IR.

The least effective type from a comfort PoV I find are the bright
halogen lamp based ones. The give rather too much light, and not enough
long wavelength IR. Having said that, they are cheap and portable, and
do provide "instant" heat.

Free standing might make them also work in the shed but I'm not sure
that will work in practice, and permanently mounted seems a much
neater solution.

Yup. Something like:

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXCXD2000H.html

Might work quite well.

Upstream (or down depending on how your news reader orders posts) I was
pointed to this:
https://www.screwfix.com/p/mh-10-1-wall-mounted-quartz-
heater-600-1200w/1238p.

At £19.99 for 1.2 kW it seems to offer massive "bangs per buck" compared
to £213.60 for the Dimplex one.

Obviously not the same build quality, but for the intended use is it
necessary to spend 10 times the amount per unit?


I have hit an issue anyway.
Mounting for both need to be at least 1.8 metres from the floor. That is
fine.
However the Screwfix one requires 700mm top clearance and the Dimplex
one 500mm top clearance.
The plastic roof it too low to allow that, unfortunately, so I may be
looking at some form of free standing heater.
Or some kind of heat reflector above which of course is not in the
specifications.

The 1.8 + 0.7 = 2.5 metres was noted in the comments on the Screwfix
item.
In our 1930s house the ceilings are 8 foot or 2 metres 440 mm so would
be out of specification. Which is weird.

Anyway, progress of sorts.


Just following on, how many workshops and garden sheds have a ceiling
height of above 2.5 metres?

Just checked and my 6' 0" is equivalent to 1.83 metres so I would have to
be very careful not to install such a heater at or below head height near
any walk area.

Looking more and more as if these are for churches, commercial garages,
industrial workshops etc. (if installed within the specification).

Cheers


Dave R

P.S. how many "environmentalist" Tims are there? I seem to be getting the
same noise from a number of different accounts!
I know that I post from a number of PCs (but mainly this one) but I think
that my details are broadly similar.


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 05/12/2020 18:58, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:21:09 +0000 (UTC), David wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:02 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

I'm pretty sure that I recall T i m stating a while ago, on here, that he
rode his bicycle on the pavement because it was safer *for him* to do so
and disregarding the fact that is is illegal.

You may be right (in that I said that) but you are 1) missing the
point and 2) taking it out of context.

Its one rule for him when it suits him and another rule for him when it
doesn't.

Nope, same rules in all cases.

I have already stated that just because something is legal, doesn't
make it moral in just the same way, doing something 'illegal' doesn't
make it a bad thing to be doing in some specific instances.

Like, what is the *practical* difference between a straight pedestrian
pavement and a shared use one, if you treat them both identically?

What's the difference between me cycling along the pavement at walking
speed and someone on a mobility scooter (all up weight often 1/4 tonne
or more)?

What I do is both safe (for everyone) and practical and doesn't have
any negative impact to anyone (or I wouldn't be doing it in the first
place) or the environment. What you are proposing to do may not be
safe (Coronavirus risk), is bad for the environment and may well not
work (are you going to be out there in your t-shirts and not dress up
suitably *anyway*)?

As you say, it's your call and I don't have any issues with you doing
it, I just gave you my advice like you asked. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I doubt you'll get any support for riding a bike on the pavement,
regardless of speed.
.... now back to DIY.

On 05/12/2020 19:13, David wrote:
On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 17:41:28 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 03/12/2020 16:22, David wrote:

I am slightly bemused that these trendy modern IR heaters look
remarkably like the electric wall heaters that used to be found in
bathrooms, but I suspect that the same idea is in use - direct heat
onto the body instead of trying to warm the whole room. Just more
modern technology in the heat source.

Yup many are to all intents the same type of heater as a radiant
electric fire of old - quite intense heat close up, tailing off fairly
quickly, and also a fair bit of convected heat once they are up to
temperature. A bit of warm up time required.

(I have an outbuilding that is used occasionally for music and video
watching - it has a stat controlled fan heater that is permanently set
to keep it a little above freezing - and stop it getting damp in there,
and then a wall mounted radiant heater[1] for quick comfort on a chilly
night - it works quite well to make it comfortable without needing to
heat the space. Having said that, in time it will do that as well).

[1] Similar to :

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Product...slash120E.html

Do these things work effectively?

The big sod off gas ones found outside pubs do seem to chuck out some
heat, but I am assuming that bottled gas is no cheaper than mains
electricity.

The gas powered ones you find in large open shed style shops seem
noticeably more effective at warming the fleshy meat sacks in preference
to the surroundings - I expect its down to have a significant area of
emitter, running at a lower temperature producing longer wavelength IR.

The least effective type from a comfort PoV I find are the bright
halogen lamp based ones. The give rather too much light, and not enough
long wavelength IR. Having said that, they are cheap and portable, and
do provide "instant" heat.

Free standing might make them also work in the shed but I'm not sure
that will work in practice, and permanently mounted seems a much neater
solution.

Yup. Something like:

https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXCXD2000H.html

Might work quite well.

Upstream (or down depending on how your news reader orders posts) I was
pointed to this:
https://www.screwfix.com/p/mh-10-1-wall-mounted-quartz-
heater-600-1200w/1238p.

At £19.99 for 1.2 kW it seems to offer massive "bangs per buck" compared
to £213.60 for the Dimplex one.

Obviously not the same build quality, but for the intended use is it
necessary to spend 10 times the amount per unit?


I have hit an issue anyway.
Mounting for both need to be at least 1.8 metres from the floor. That is
fine.
However the Screwfix one requires 700mm top clearance and the Dimplex one
500mm top clearance.
The plastic roof it too low to allow that, unfortunately, so I may be
looking at some form of free standing heater.
Or some kind of heat reflector above which of course is not in the
specifications.

The 1.8 + 0.7 = 2.5 metres was noted in the comments on the Screwfix item.
In our 1930s house the ceilings are 8 foot or 2 metres 440 mm so would be
out of specification. Which is weird.

Anyway, progress of sorts.

Cheers


Dave R


I wanted to buy one or two of those for the workshop but Sfix say not
available for delivery or collection :-(

Although my preferred choice would be to wear a coat and hat when
outside, you could fit a metal plate above it.

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:23:59 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

So, you decide that providing radiant warmth for those sitting outside
is morally wrong.

I haven't said that John.

So its not morally or legally wrong but your advice would still be "don't"?

Yes, because it's ethically wrong. ;-)

Perhaps those that are unable to visit thier loved
ones inside due to social distancing rules, would disagree with you,

Why would they? I haven't visited any 'loved ones' as such since the
lockdown and there is no way I'd want to try to warm 'outdoors' if I
was to sit in their garden?

I think you may have missed the whole point or IR radiant heating.

Nope, I've gone one in the workshop (after asking for advice here) but
I wouldn't dream of running it in the garden?

You
are not trying to warm outdoors at all,

No, I know you aren't 'trying to' but you are?

just make those sat in a cold
environment feel warmer.

Then sit in the warm and 'socialise using other means?

I believe daughter is arranging some Xmyth stuff because she wants to
share some time with us and her granny in a safe way. So I think she's
sorting a sort of Xmyth mini (vegan for us and her of course) food /
treats hamper for each of us so we can eat / share the same things at
the same time, over the Portals.

and
argue that protecting their mental health is more important and hence
the right thing to do.

If there were no other solutions maybe. I bough everone in our close
family a Portal for example and my Mum, the only one in the group on
her own (at 90+) chats to all of us regularly on it (in the warm)?

While video chats etc can be better than nothing, not everyone will find
them a good substitute for a physical chat.

But that's 'fine' when there is a safe / practical alternative that
won't also pose a risk to others? David is Covid asymptomatic, give is
to his elderly rele who goes home and gives it to the carer and for
what?

Its also predicated on having adequate broadband throughput to do so in
the first place.

Oh sure, no solution is perfect but some are potentially easier
/ fairer / more practical / safer than huddling round an IR heater
outside. ;-)

What about if the heat source is "carbon neutral" (if that is the reason
you object to radiant space heating)?

No, it's the whole concept of trying to heat 'outdoors' when it's
outdoors? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that's what IR heaters are
trying to do but the point stands.

Erm, you object to the concept of trying to do something that you accept
that the suggested solution is not actually trying to do?

Whoosh! ;-)

Simplified recap:
Outdoors can be cold, wear a coat or don't go there.
IR heaters aren't meant as space heaters but end up being so
(effectively / pointlessly) when used outside.

Which side of your brain conjured that up?

Both, sorry it was too complex for you. ;-)

Where would you draw the line?
Polar expedition with camps setup in a huge dome, heated with electric
heaters fed by a sub?

Ah the good old extension to absurdity argument...

How about a fire pit or a chiminea -

For David's purpose I'd offer the same suggestion.

If you were camping in the woods and couldn't get warmth any other
way, fair enough.

then you can burn some nice carbon
neutral garden waste at the same time as having a chat and roasting your
nuts?

When you don't have a warm 'indoors' you could use, I guess so
(ignoring the pollution etc).

Or is that then just a slippery
slope to BBQing some unfortunate mammal that we previously raped

I hadn't even though of that because if you are trying to make animal
flesh digestible by humans by cooking it there is normally a supply of
heat there in the first place (and typically a perfectly equipped
kitchen to do so in as well).

without
it's prior written consent?

I though better of your John. ;-(

Sorry, but the moment I see that rabid spittle flecked proselytising
zeal that you so often find in new converts to a cause, it can be
difficult to resist reflecting some of it back.

What I find strange (especially from someone as 'sensible' as you) is
this view that anyone looking to reduce the cruelty imposed on
*trillions* of animals every years is some sort of fanatic, 'a
militant' (Or your string of highly negative and emotive words,
potentially because you support the suffering and death of trillions
of animals every year)? If you didn't, you would simply say so or come
up with a tangible argument (in this 'discussion group') why you know
eating animals to be 'right'?

I can guess *why* you might react as you have, as the media often uses
those terms whilst reporting anything to do with veganism ... 'The
poor old farmer', enslaving and slaughtering thousands of animals
every year is the 'hero' and the person suggesting that could be
unnecessary cruel for the vast majority who, if you could take them to
one side and talk them though what they are actually supporting with
their wallets, may well agree and change their lifestyle?

Education.

Paying someone to do your 'dirty work' doesn't absolve you of the
responsibility and I believe that responsibility should be taken and
seriously. It's someone's life or death after all.

It's ok for you to 'enthuse' over a ID over a DD because you happen to
find the ID better for what you do but it's not ok to enthuse over not
*killing* (FFS) something when the suffering and killing is neither
morally acceptable (to *most people* (cognitive dissonance / logical
inconsistency), IF you pin them down) or needed for the majority
today?

My only regret is that I didn't want to face what I felt (was wrong)
earlier and it took someone to point it all out to me to allow me to
realise what I had been doing. ;-(

I'm not blaming anyone for doing what they do BTW, it's just that it,
along with many other things that were once considered 'perfectly
acceptable' and were even legal, no longer are. Part of what is
supposed to make us 'better' than the 'other animals' is our
intelligence and yet in many ways we seem to have stopped evolving.

Try replacing 'militant' with 'passionate', 'enthusiastic' or
'compassionate' before you describe someone trying to reduce animal
suffering and that will be another logical inconsistency you will have
sorted out. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 19:21:50 +0000, wrote:

snip

I doubt you'll get any support for riding a bike on the pavement,
regardless of speed.

What makes you think I need / want any (even though I rarely do). ;-)

Maybe it's just 'round here' but there is a constant flow of cycles on
the pavement across peoples of all ages. The 'Lycra racers' tend to
stay on the road though, till they come to a traffic light, *then*
they will use the pavements.

The bottom line and ITRW of course is common sense. If a pavement is
dual use for a couple of miles, then goes pedestrian only because of
some other road design issue for a few yards and then back to dual use
again, who (inc the Police) is going to do anything, *as_long_as*
people are being careful / respectful?

I also regularly see ... electric scooters on the pavement and road
(illegal), an IC engine powered cycle on the road (illegal), 'off
roaders' with no number plates and being ridden by lads with no crash
helmet (very illegal) and kids on cycles riding on the back wheel (on
the road and pavement), illegal. I even saw two lads on electric
scooters ride up to a group of Police outside a pub who were dealing
with an issue of some sort and the scooters didn't seem to be an issue
(as they both rode off on them again).

As usual it's a tiny and ignorant / selfish minority that spoil it for
the rest, not necessarily because of what they are doing, but how they
are doing it. 40 mph past the school gates at 2am in the dry is
unlikely to be an issue. 20mph past the same gates at 3pm in the fog
is more likely to be.

... now back to DIY.

Good idea ...

Talking of heaters ... I designed and my mate printed the replacement
back and front parts of a heater outlet control knob for his VW van.
He just wanted it to work and look similar and this is the first
attempt: https://ibb.co/ysZYd8W

He said it was *much* easier than using pliers. ;-)

Now I'm going to design and print a switch knob for the Main / Dip on
daughters new (to her) motorbike (and I also have the same make
model). Chances are it would be a whole new (if still available)
control assembly if it was to get damaged / go missing so better be
safe while I have one to copy (off mine). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 05/12/2020 19:13, David wrote:

I have hit an issue anyway.
Mounting for both need to be at least 1.8 metres from the floor. That is
fine.
However the Screwfix one requires 700mm top clearance and the Dimplex one
500mm top clearance.
The plastic roof it too low to allow that, unfortunately, so I may be
looking at some form of free standing heater.
Or some kind of heat reflector above which of course is not in the
specifications.

The 1.8 + 0.7 = 2.5 metres was noted in the comments on the Screwfix item.
In our 1930s house the ceilings are 8 foot or 2 metres 440 mm so would be
out of specification. Which is weird.

Alternatively you ignore the instructions and mount them where is
sensible for you and apply some common sense. So for example, top
clearance can be smaller if what is above is somewhat non combustible
and insensitive to heat. Not sure why the arbitrary 1.8m is suggested
for height, but its not going to set light to the ground if lower.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Usually an optical illusion. Small high quality CRTs are extremely
expensive (and rare)

Magnify it up to the same size as a larger domestic screen and you'll see
what I mean.

Oh, sure, but that was my point, because all that data was compressed
into a smaller space, it gave a very good picture. Yes, I guess if you
expanded it up it wouldn't look so good. Or are you saying the smaller
screen *didn't* have all the same data as a bigger screen?

Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

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

On Friday, 4 December 2020 at 20:52:54 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:53:40 -0800 (PST), Nick Cat wrote:
On Friday, 4 December 2020 at 18:05:57 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:58:33 +0000, wrote:

On 04/12/2020 01:43, williamwright wrote:
On 03/12/2020 19:28, wrote:

Please consider wearing a hat and coat instead. We all waste far too
much energy without adding to the waste with more of these ridiculous
things.

Bugger off! It's none of your business.

Bill
Nor yours, FWIW (unless you're an alias of the OP). The difference is
that I was polite and made a positive suggestion.
(No reply required)
Basically Bills view on the world is that if you can afford it, and
presumably it's not actually illegal, he / anyone should be allowed to
do it, no matter how much it might impact anyone / thing else.

He is.

Except, things change and then he can't. In many cases a group of
people already know that the changes are afoot and change before they
are forced to, simply because it's the *right thing* to do.

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

I saw something on Youtube re some folk who were living in their vans
(in the USA in this case) because they had lost their jobs and so
homes. The guy in the video realised that parking up in say a shopping
Mal car park overnight might not be 'Allowed' but the small group that
were doing it kept themselves to themselves, didn't stay there all the
time and cleared up any litter, even though they themselves hadn't
made it. They also made a point of shopping in the store whose carpark
they were staying in, even though it wasn't the best / cheapest,
because it was the right thing to do.

Then more people started turning up, *didn't* clear up or keep quiet
or go somewhere else during the day so they *all* got told to leave
and don't come back.

Bill would be the one complaining that he had the money to keep slaves
or smoke over people in the pub because it was 'his right', without
considering his active inflicting smoke on non smokers was less 'fair'
than the non-smokers having the right to not have to suffer such.

Just because something is legal or 'legitimate' now doesn't mean it's
will continue (to be legal) and therefore question it's legality or
morality ever.

Cheers, T i m

You completely misundertand the situation. The idea that using a patio heater outdoors is morally wrong is your personal view, not Reality. Now try again.


NT

snip loony raving

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 00:40:56 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Usually an optical illusion. Small high quality CRTs are extremely
expensive (and rare)

Magnify it up to the same size as a larger domestic screen and you'll see
what I mean.

Oh, sure, but that was my point, because all that data was compressed
into a smaller space, it gave a very good picture. Yes, I guess if you
expanded it up it wouldn't look so good. Or are you saying the smaller
screen *didn't* have all the same data as a bigger screen?

Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.

Ah, ok?

So, do they still have the same number of lines etc and if so does
that mean potentially re scanning the same pixels multiple times per
frame?

Cheers, T i m

On 05/12/2020 18:58, T i m wrote:

What's the difference between me cycling along the pavement at walking
speed and someone on a mobility scooter (all up weight often 1/4 tonne
or more)?

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral


--
Spike

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 18:23:14 -0800 (PST), Nick Cat
wrote:

snip


You completely misundertand the situation.

Do I?

The idea that using a patio heater outdoors is morally wrong is your personal view, not Reality.

No, it's (ethically really) wrong.

Now try again.

Ok, have you ever heard of 'over consumption' or 'conspicuous
consumption' or 'unnecessary / wanton squandering and waste'?

How do you think 'most people' feel about the idea of someone dumping
/ wasting any quantity of anything that could be consumed by those
less fortunate than them, simply because they can?

See, we don't actually live in this world isolated from everyone else
and our choices have consequences on others.

You buy up all the bananas in the country, put them in a pile and let
them rot (because you can, it's not illegal etc) then you will have
denied many other people the choice of having a banana at that time.

Buy up all the bananas and give them to a charity of food bank chain,
something else.

The same could be the case for electricity (exaggerated for the hard
of thinking). If someone decides to fit IR heaters at a football
stadium there would be a reasonable chance that at some point in the
year, when there is no solar, no wind and a generating station out
etc, that there isn't enough electricity to go round and there could
be power cuts in that area. So, just because some people, knowingly
*choosing* to be outdoors (where it's known to be cold) deny a few old
people any heating at all that *they need to survive*.

Of course I'm not saying David's couple of IR heaters will cause that
situation but what if we add did that, and *that's* the situation you
seem to have misunderstood.

Ask 'most people' if they think it's ok that old people are denied
heating indoors so that a few people, watching a 'game' can have some
warmth directed at them and I think they would say that it's not.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.

Ah, ok?

So, do they still have the same number of lines etc and if so does
that mean potentially re scanning the same pixels multiple times per
frame?

One gives you vertical resolution the other horizontal. And the number of
lines is fixed. It all depends on the how close you are to the different
screen sizes. Hence my comment about magnifying a smaller one. You need
the same amount filling your view to compare.

--
*I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.*

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

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 11:15:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.

Ah, ok?

So, do they still have the same number of lines etc and if so does
that mean potentially re scanning the same pixels multiple times per
frame?

One gives you vertical resolution the other horizontal.

Well, I get the relationship between lines and pixels and resolution
but pixels still count even on the horizontal shirley?

And the number of
lines is fixed.

405 / 625 etc

It all depends on the how close you are to the different
screen sizes. Hence my comment about magnifying a smaller one. You need
the same amount filling your view to compare.

Sure, so, is it unlikely that my small Panasonic portable TV had as
many pixels (proportionally) to actually give the best resolution
possible?

I actually still have it so can check the model etc (OOI).

Cheers, T i m

On 06/12/2020 10:28, T i m wrote:

If someone decides to fit IR heaters at a football
stadium there would be a reasonable chance that at some point in the
year, when there is no solar, no wind and a generating station out
etc, that there isn't enough electricity to go round and there could
be power cuts in that area. So, just because some people, knowingly
*choosing* to be outdoors (where it's known to be cold) deny a few old
people any heating at all that *they need to survive*.

I think your Straw Man has fallen over.

--
Spike

On 06/12/2020 00:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.


But what about monochrome tubes? My old Sony 9-9OUB and various Rigondas
and Vegas, and little CCTV monitors, seemed sharp enough back in the day.

Bill

On 05/12/2020 19:41, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:23:59 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

So, you decide that providing radiant warmth for those sitting outside
is morally wrong.

I haven't said that John.

So its not morally or legally wrong but your advice would still be "don't"?

Yes, because it's ethically wrong. ;-)

I live in ethics, so don't try that one ;-)

Perhaps those that are unable to visit thier loved
ones inside due to social distancing rules, would disagree with you,

Why would they? I haven't visited any 'loved ones' as such since the
lockdown and there is no way I'd want to try to warm 'outdoors' if I
was to sit in their garden?

I think you may have missed the whole point or IR radiant heating.

Nope, I've gone one in the workshop (after asking for advice here) but
I wouldn't dream of running it in the garden?

So why is a workshop different from the garden. All the heat you
generate in the workshop will end up outside anyway. All you are doing
is making your time there more comfortable.

What if you were working outside? Would it be ok to use a radiant heater
then?

(I have a tripod mounted worklight with a couple of 500W halogens on it.
Sometimes I use it specifically because it does project lots of heat -
say when crouched in a damp corner outside wiring up some SWA)

But that's 'fine' when there is a safe / practical alternative that
won't also pose a risk to others? David is Covid asymptomatic, give is
to his elderly rele who goes home and gives it to the carer and for
what?

That is kind of why, outside is a safer option - less transmission risk.
Also, legal.

Its also predicated on having adequate broadband throughput to do so in
the first place.

Oh sure, no solution is perfect but some are potentially easier
/ fairer / more practical / safer than huddling round an IR heater
outside. ;-)

Fairer? Do me a sausage!

What about if the heat source is "carbon neutral" (if that is the reason
you object to radiant space heating)?

No, it's the whole concept of trying to heat 'outdoors' when it's
outdoors? Now, I'm not trying to suggest that's what IR heaters are
trying to do but the point stands.

Erm, you object to the concept of trying to do something that you accept
that the suggested solution is not actually trying to do?

Whoosh! ;-)

Simplified recap:
Outdoors can be cold, wear a coat or don't go there.

Coats don't necessity keep all of you warm, especially if sedentary.

I know, knit a onesie.

IR heaters aren't meant as space heaters but end up being so
(effectively / pointlessly) when used outside.

Which side of your brain conjured that up?

Both, sorry it was too complex for you. ;-)
Where would you draw the line?
Polar expedition with camps setup in a huge dome, heated with electric
heaters fed by a sub?

Ah the good old extension to absurdity argument...

How about a fire pit or a chiminea -

For David's purpose I'd offer the same suggestion.

If you were camping in the woods and couldn't get warmth any other
way, fair enough.

then you can burn some nice carbon
neutral garden waste at the same time as having a chat and roasting your
nuts?

When you don't have a warm 'indoors' you could use, I guess so
(ignoring the pollution etc).

Sometimes its nice to be outside for a bit even when you do have a warm
indoors.

Especially of a bit sheltered on a nice clear night. Hmmm, garden bus
stop, I feel a project coming on...

Sorry, but the moment I see that rabid spittle flecked proselytising
zeal that you so often find in new converts to a cause, it can be
difficult to resist reflecting some of it back.

What I find strange (especially from someone as 'sensible' as you) is
this view that anyone looking to reduce the cruelty imposed on
*trillions* of animals every years is some sort of fanatic, 'a

I don't want to see animals treated with cruelty, but I don't associate
the breading of animals, and killing them humanely for food as cruelty.
Being regularly fed, having access to veterinary care, and a swift
demise is probably more than most "wild" animals could hope for. Heck
its more than many humans get, and yet some are fussing about animals
instead?

militant' (Or your string of highly negative and emotive words,

While all your rhetoric involving words like rape and torture are not
emotive or negative at all?

potentially because you support the suffering and death of trillions
of animals every year)? If you didn't, you would simply say so or come
up with a tangible argument (in this 'discussion group') why you know
eating animals to be 'right'?

Highly nutritious and delicious what's wrong with that...

I can guess *why* you might react as you have, as the media often uses
those terms whilst reporting anything to do with veganism ... 'The

I have little regard for the media on the subject. In fact I am quite
content to let vegans get on living with their preferences, much as I am
Morris dancers and Jehovah's witnesses. However when they feel compelled
to force the topic into every conversation, or lecture you on your
doorstep, they become more tiresome and do their cause harm. When they
decide to "invade" a restaurant during a busy meal time, and disrupt,
and vandalise as some of the more extreme ones do on occasion, then they
massively prejudice the chances of achieving their goals and engender
hostility to all vegans.

They seem incapable of understanding that one has looked at the
situation and made an informed choice.

poor old farmer', enslaving and slaughtering thousands of animals

Enslaving?

The human race would likely not even exist were it not for the
"enslaving" of animals. A primitive population would unlikely achieve
adequate energy return on energy investment to survive without them.

In fact, grazing animals are an effective way of extracting food from
land otherwise unusable for agriculture, not only that they keep the
food fresh without refrigeration, look after transporting it.

every year is the 'hero' and the person suggesting that could be
unnecessary cruel for the vast majority who, if you could take them to
one side and talk them though what they are actually supporting with
their wallets, may well agree and change their lifestyle?

Well you have argued, and now we are better informed. On balance I think
I will still enjoy my Turkey dinner.

We have a farmer in the family (dairy & arable), and I have seen them
exhibit nothing but care and compassion for their herds.

Education.

Paying someone to do your 'dirty work' doesn't absolve you of the
responsibility and I believe that responsibility should be taken and
seriously. It's someone's life or death after all.

You should work for Disney - they are good at anthropomorphising as well.

It's not "someone", it's a pig (or whatever)

Dirty work? You mean slaughtering? Having visited a slaughter house and
watched the process, I did not leave with any concern about the
treatment of the animals.

It's ok for you to 'enthuse' over a ID over a DD because you happen to

We are talking Impact Driver and Drill driver rather than Identity and
Direct Debit I take it?

Yup, I would say that it's on topic and acceptable for me to answer
questions about power tools for driving threaded fasteners. You will
note that I don't append a diatribe about the subject to posts about
boilers, or tiling, or wiring, or other subjects unless actually relevant.

find the ID better for what you do but it's not ok to enthuse over not
*killing* (FFS) something when the suffering and killing is neither
morally acceptable (to *most people* (cognitive dissonance / logical
inconsistency), IF you pin them down) or needed for the majority
today?

Consider me pinned down. So yup suffering bad, don't want that to
happen. Killing humanely for food? Yup, fine with that. Next?

You think that killing and suffering are intertwined and one can't be
separated from the other? Yup ok I am fine with you believing that. It's
not a view I share, but I have no problem with you thinking that. Take
up train spotting, or mediaeval battle re-enactment as well if you
fancy. You don't need my permission. (free society see - automatically
licensed to do anything unless controlled by legislation)

My only regret is that I didn't want to face what I felt (was wrong)
earlier and it took someone to point it all out to me to allow me to
realise what I had been doing. ;-(

A road to Damascus moment huh? Sure I get that, now you want to right
the error of you former ways.

Take a hint, from this perspective you are not doing a particularly
effective job of it. In fact no skip that, you are actually making folks
dig into entrenched beliefs and harming your cause.

I'm not blaming anyone for doing what they do BTW, it's just that it,
along with many other things that were once considered 'perfectly
acceptable' and were even legal, no longer are. Part of what is
supposed to make us 'better' than the 'other animals' is our
intelligence and yet in many ways we seem to have stopped evolving.

What do you mean stopped? - we have Twitter, and Trump, and the
Kardashians, and fidget spinners!

Try replacing 'militant' with 'passionate', 'enthusiastic' or

Enthusiastic might mention in passing how they feel better or have lower
cholesterol since giving up meat. Posting links to shock vids all over a
DIY group and diverting every conversation, is firmly in the militant
camp for me.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 06/12/2020 11:23, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 11:15:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.

Ah, ok?

So, do they still have the same number of lines etc and if so does
that mean potentially re scanning the same pixels multiple times per
frame?

One gives you vertical resolution the other horizontal.

Well, I get the relationship between lines and pixels and resolution
but pixels still count even on the horizontal shirley?

There are no pixels as such on the horizontal. The level of detail
dictated by the upper frequency bounds of the luminance signal.

With a shadow mask / aperture grill you might argue that creates pixels,
but even then there is no guarantee that adjacent ones are individually
addressable.

And the number of
lines is fixed.

405 / 625 etc

It all depends on the how close you are to the different
screen sizes. Hence my comment about magnifying a smaller one. You need
the same amount filling your view to compare.

Sure, so, is it unlikely that my small Panasonic portable TV had as
many pixels (proportionally) to actually give the best resolution
possible?

The emissivity of the phosphor will dictate a certain amount of beam
current for adequate picture brightness. So there are practical limits
on how "fine" a line you can focus. So while a small screen might be
subjectively "sharper" it may well actually have lower resolving power
than a larger screen. There is probably a "sweet spot" size where you
reach the point where you get as much resolution displayed as can be
extracted from the video carrier.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Sure, so, is it unlikely that my small Panasonic portable TV had as
many pixels (proportionally) to actually give the best resolution
possible?

Yes. As I said pro small monitors (for location use) that gave the best
resoluting were extremely expensive. Not all about resolution of course,
but easy to compare to a domestic small screen one, used just for viewing
purposes. The pro ones were noticeably sharper.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

In article ,
williamwright wrote:
On 06/12/2020 00:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger ones
- so actually poorer resolution.


But what about monochrome tubes? My old Sony 9-9OUB and various Rigondas
and Vegas, and little CCTV monitors, seemed sharp enough back in the day.

It's obviously easier to provide a small mono 'pixel' than the three
needed to produce colour and mono.

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

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

On 06/12/2020 12:04, williamwright wrote:
On 06/12/2020 00:40, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Correct. The resolution of a CRT depends on the number of 'pixels' per
square unit. Very small tubes generally have about the same as larger
ones
- so actually poorer resolution.


But what about monochrome tubes? My old Sony 9-9OUB and various Rigondas
and Vegas, and little CCTV monitors, seemed sharp enough back in the day.

No shadow mask, so the horizontal limit is just down to the available
video bandwidth, and how cleanly it is processed. Normally suggested to
be something akin to 720 "pixels". Vertical is down to the number of
visible scan lines (c. 575 lines)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 09:06:30 +0000, Richard
wrote:

snip loony raving

Yup, you might carry on evolving at some point Neanderthal ...

https://ibb.co/rdQvftm

Cheers, T i m

On 06/12/2020 11:45, Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2020 10:28, T i m wrote:

If someone decides to fit IR heaters at a football
stadium there would be a reasonable chance that at some point in the
year, when there is no solar, no wind and a generating station out
etc, that there isn't enough electricity to go round and there could
be power cuts in that area. So, just because some people, knowingly
*choosing* to be outdoors (where it's known to be cold) deny a few old
people any heating at all that *they need to survive*.

I think your Straw Man has fallen over.

Don't you remember all the headlines, "Arsenal score! and fifteen
pensioners die of hypothermia!" :-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 05/12/2020 16:13, fred wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 3:45:57 PM UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 05/12/2020 12:42, fred wrote:
On Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 4:22:28 PM UTC, David WE Roberts (Google) wrote:
We have an outdoor area at the rear of the house which is a wooden deck
with a plastic sloping roof to keep (some of) the rain off.
I say "some of" because the rain is blowing in and almost reaching the
bifolds.

The deck/roof is roughly 2.3 metres deep and 2.5 metres high.

I was contemplating adding some heating to allow us to sit out on cold
clear days so I am looking for advice.
There are weather proof 13 Amp sockets within the area of this veranda.

The obvious solution seems to be IR heaters high up the wall or on the
rafters below the roof.

I've started looking at IR heaters and there is a vast range of prices for
things which look remarkable similar, from around £70 to £300 for 1.5 kW
wall mounted strips.

I am slightly bemused that these trendy modern IR heaters look remarkably
like the electric wall heaters that used to be found in bathrooms, but I
suspect that the same idea is in use - direct heat onto the body instead
of trying to warm the whole room. Just more modern technology in the heat
source.

Do these things work effectively?

The big sod off gas ones found outside pubs do seem to chuck out some
heat, but I am assuming that bottled gas is no cheaper than mains
electricity.

Free standing might make them also work in the shed but I'm not sure that
will work in practice, and permanently mounted seems a much neater
solution.

Cheers


Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


These type of heaters are very common on the continent in pavement cafes but they remind me of an old Vauxhall car I had where the heater would roast your left foot while the right foot froze. Streuth we accepted some dire cars in days gone by

That applies to all cars. The footwell outlet from the heater is going
to blow hot air on the left foot, and your front passengers left foot,
because of the location of the heater.


Have you been in a modern car ???? My car as 4 individually independent control zones

Do you have those supermarket plastic screens installed to
make them genuinely 'independent' ?.

If you have 5 people on board that makes 10 feet, but you still
only have 4 'zones'.

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 12:24:08 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Well, I get the relationship between lines and pixels and resolution
but pixels still count even on the horizontal shirley?

There are no pixels as such on the horizontal. The level of detail
dictated by the upper frequency bounds of the luminance signal.

Ok ....

With a shadow mask / aperture grill you might argue that creates pixels,

That's what I was thinking, and aren't the phosphor dots arranged in
alternate inverted triangles (Sony 'Trinitron' anyway) and so *are*
directly liked to the (horizontal / scan) resolution, along with the
shadow mask? No different (effectively) from a TFT display?

but even then there is no guarantee that adjacent ones are individually
addressable.

Ok.

And the number of
lines is fixed.

405 / 625 etc

It all depends on the how close you are to the different
screen sizes. Hence my comment about magnifying a smaller one. You need
the same amount filling your view to compare.

Sure, so, is it unlikely that my small Panasonic portable TV had as
many pixels (proportionally) to actually give the best resolution
possible?

The emissivity of the phosphor will dictate a certain amount of beam
current for adequate picture brightness.

Sure, that's 'brightness' (which is part of 'picture quality' of
course) but doesn't impact on the resolution as such.

So there are practical limits
on how "fine" a line you can focus. So while a small screen might be
subjectively "sharper" it may well actually have lower resolving power
than a larger screen.

Yes, that's what I think what Dave was saying.

There is probably a "sweet spot" size where you
reach the point where you get as much resolution displayed as can be
extracted from the video carrier.

Agreed, and (in principal) the 'best data density' would be observed
in the smallest size screen that displayed all of the data available.

So, could it be possible that what I believe was probably a 'pretty
expensive' (in domestic terms) portable TV did in fact hit that
target?

Cheers, T i m

On 06/12/2020 12:15, John Rumm wrote:
.... snipped

I have little regard for the media on the subject. In fact I am quite
content to let vegans get on living with their preferences, much as I am
Morris dancers and Jehovah's witnesses. However when they feel compelled
.... snipped


Oy! Some Morris Dancers are very active DIYers ;-)

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
There are no pixels as such on the horizontal. The level of detail
dictated by the upper frequency bounds of the luminance signal.

Why I used pixels in inverted commas. You need enough individual lumps of
phosphor to be switched on and off by the beam. Why many low end tubes
don't make use of the available upper frequency.

--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?

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

On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 13:20:05 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 12:24:08 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip
Well, I get the relationship between lines and pixels and resolution
but pixels still count even on the horizontal shirley?

There are no pixels as such on the horizontal. The level of detail
dictated by the upper frequency bounds of the luminance signal.
Ok ....

With a shadow mask / aperture grill you might argue that creates pixels,

they're not pixels in as much as they're not synced to the video feed, so one can't get picture resolution as good as the tube face dots.

That's what I was thinking, and aren't the phosphor dots arranged in
alternate inverted triangles (Sony 'Trinitron' anyway) and so *are*

no mainstream tube used triangles. An early triple neck type of tube did, it never reached mass production.
Trinitrons used lines, older delta tubes used round dots.

directly liked to the (horizontal / scan) resolution, along with the
shadow mask? No different (effectively) from a TFT display?

quite different. the dot pattern is also not linear with the scan. You've got no chance of addressing the dots individually


but even then there is no guarantee that adjacent ones are individually
addressable.
Ok.

And the number of
lines is fixed.

405 / 625 etc

It all depends on the how close you are to the different
screen sizes. Hence my comment about magnifying a smaller one. You need
the same amount filling your view to compare.

Sure, so, is it unlikely that my small Panasonic portable TV had as
many pixels (proportionally) to actually give the best resolution
possible?

The emissivity of the phosphor will dictate a certain amount of beam
current for adequate picture brightness.
Sure, that's 'brightness' (which is part of 'picture quality' of
course) but doesn't impact on the resolution as such.
So there are practical limits
on how "fine" a line you can focus. So while a small screen might be
subjectively "sharper" it may well actually have lower resolving power
than a larger screen.
Yes, that's what I think what Dave was saying.
There is probably a "sweet spot" size where you
reach the point where you get as much resolution displayed as can be
extracted from the video carrier.
Agreed, and (in principal) the 'best data density' would be observed
in the smallest size screen that displayed all of the data available.

So, could it be possible that what I believe was probably a 'pretty
expensive' (in domestic terms) portable TV did in fact hit that
target?

Cheers, T i m

405 line B&W TVs often exceeded their crt resolution. But 625 colour didn't often. And higher end sets weren't about high resolution: the Sonys eg had a nice low noise picture with better linearity, flatness & alignment, their resolution was often lower than cheaper sets though.


NT