Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,564
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:50:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:45:33 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 16:30:47 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:


Except in the case of surface mount components solder should NEVER be
the primary connection. All soldered joints should be "mechanically
secure" before soldering. In other words, crimp AND solder, or twist
AND solder. On battery cables you crimp to make the electrical and
mechanical connection, then you solder to seal and protect the joint.
(gas tight joint - which is also the aim of a properly crimped (or
"crimp-welded" electrical connector.
Even then, if the soldered cable end came loose, you had other
problems - like a loose or corroded bolt-on connection that caused the
connection to heat up. A properly connected and soldered cable end
does NOT heat up enouigh to melt the solder.

The problem with that statement is "properly connected and soldered".
If it's "properly connected" it doesn't need solder and if it's
soldered you can't tell if it's being held together by the "proper
connection" or by the solder. In any case, it was a Volvo cable that
came on the car, the car was bought new, so if you have a problem with
its manufacture don't point fingers at _me_, point them at Volvo.


Never seen a soldered battery cable from the factory on ANY Volvo.
540, 122, 240 or P1800 series

Note, Swedes must have mad driving skills--I've had two Volvos and
they were both horrible winter cars. Got stuck at the drop of a hat,
didn't like to start, the heater froze on one (not the coolant in the
heater core, the _fan_ managed to get full of ice, freeze, and burn
out the motor).


Where are you driving?? The Volvo was no worse than - and in many
cases much better than - any other compact or midsized rear wheel
drive vehicle in the winter handling department


Ohio, Connecticut, points in between. And I did not have near as much
trouble in the winter with a Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Supra, or
Corvette as I did with the Volvos. None of those struggled to get up
the hill on the way to work and all of them started first time every
time. Hell, there were days when I rode my motorcycle to work because
the Volvo wouldn't move (not wouldn't start, wouldn't _move_--there
was a half an inch of ice on the parking lot and it couldn't manage to
climb up on top of it).

A continental is a TANK, not a compact or mid-size - and your supra
(talking second or third gen) outweighed the Volvo significantly and
most likely also had limited slip. What tires did yhou have on the
Volvo? and what model Volvo?.. If you drove a motorcycle when you
couldn't move with a Volvo you've got ROCKS in your head - and below
your belt.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 524
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:44:40 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:50:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:45:33 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 16:30:47 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:


Except in the case of surface mount components solder should NEVER be
the primary connection. All soldered joints should be "mechanically
secure" before soldering. In other words, crimp AND solder, or twist
AND solder. On battery cables you crimp to make the electrical and
mechanical connection, then you solder to seal and protect the joint.
(gas tight joint - which is also the aim of a properly crimped (or
"crimp-welded" electrical connector.
Even then, if the soldered cable end came loose, you had other
problems - like a loose or corroded bolt-on connection that caused the
connection to heat up. A properly connected and soldered cable end
does NOT heat up enouigh to melt the solder.

The problem with that statement is "properly connected and soldered".
If it's "properly connected" it doesn't need solder and if it's
soldered you can't tell if it's being held together by the "proper
connection" or by the solder. In any case, it was a Volvo cable that
came on the car, the car was bought new, so if you have a problem with
its manufacture don't point fingers at _me_, point them at Volvo.

Never seen a soldered battery cable from the factory on ANY Volvo.
540, 122, 240 or P1800 series

Note, Swedes must have mad driving skills--I've had two Volvos and
they were both horrible winter cars. Got stuck at the drop of a hat,
didn't like to start, the heater froze on one (not the coolant in the
heater core, the _fan_ managed to get full of ice, freeze, and burn
out the motor).

Where are you driving?? The Volvo was no worse than - and in many
cases much better than - any other compact or midsized rear wheel
drive vehicle in the winter handling department


Ohio, Connecticut, points in between. And I did not have near as much
trouble in the winter with a Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Supra, or
Corvette as I did with the Volvos. None of those struggled to get up
the hill on the way to work and all of them started first time every
time. Hell, there were days when I rode my motorcycle to work because
the Volvo wouldn't move (not wouldn't start, wouldn't _move_--there
was a half an inch of ice on the parking lot and it couldn't manage to
climb up on top of it).

A continental is a TANK,


Except that it wasn't a Continental.

not a compact or mid-size - and your supra
(talking second or third gen) outweighed the Volvo significantly and
most likely also had limited slip.


Care to show me the weight figures, oh mighty Toyota and Volvo expert?

What tires did yhou have on the
Volvo?


The ones that came on it. Just like the Corvette and the Supra and
the Lincoln all had the tires that came on them.

and what model Volvo?..


You should have asked that before spouting off schmott guy. But I'll
give you a hint--bother were heavier than the Supra and weighed about
the same as the Corvette.

As for limited slip, Volvos are supposed to be good in snow, if they
need limited slip why don't they have it? And the Lincoln did not
have it.

If you drove a motorcycle when you
couldn't move with a Volvo you've got ROCKS in your head - and below
your belt.


Yep, it took big ones. But once it was out of the parking lot and
onto the plowed and salted road it was fine.


  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,845
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.


I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.


That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.


This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/23/2018 9:42 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.


That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.


This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.


So you got paid for being part of the cover up. ;~)


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,564
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 02:15:34 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:44:40 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:50:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:45:33 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 16:30:47 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:


Except in the case of surface mount components solder should NEVER be
the primary connection. All soldered joints should be "mechanically
secure" before soldering. In other words, crimp AND solder, or twist
AND solder. On battery cables you crimp to make the electrical and
mechanical connection, then you solder to seal and protect the joint.
(gas tight joint - which is also the aim of a properly crimped (or
"crimp-welded" electrical connector.
Even then, if the soldered cable end came loose, you had other
problems - like a loose or corroded bolt-on connection that caused the
connection to heat up. A properly connected and soldered cable end
does NOT heat up enouigh to melt the solder.

The problem with that statement is "properly connected and soldered".
If it's "properly connected" it doesn't need solder and if it's
soldered you can't tell if it's being held together by the "proper
connection" or by the solder. In any case, it was a Volvo cable that
came on the car, the car was bought new, so if you have a problem with
its manufacture don't point fingers at _me_, point them at Volvo.

Never seen a soldered battery cable from the factory on ANY Volvo.
540, 122, 240 or P1800 series

Note, Swedes must have mad driving skills--I've had two Volvos and
they were both horrible winter cars. Got stuck at the drop of a hat,
didn't like to start, the heater froze on one (not the coolant in the
heater core, the _fan_ managed to get full of ice, freeze, and burn
out the motor).

Where are you driving?? The Volvo was no worse than - and in many
cases much better than - any other compact or midsized rear wheel
drive vehicle in the winter handling department

Ohio, Connecticut, points in between. And I did not have near as much
trouble in the winter with a Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Supra, or
Corvette as I did with the Volvos. None of those struggled to get up
the hill on the way to work and all of them started first time every
time. Hell, there were days when I rode my motorcycle to work because
the Volvo wouldn't move (not wouldn't start, wouldn't _move_--there
was a half an inch of ice on the parking lot and it couldn't manage to
climb up on top of it).

A continental is a TANK,


Except that it wasn't a Continental.


OK - so ANY Lincoln was a tank.

not a compact or mid-size - and your supra
(talking second or third gen) outweighed the Volvo significantly and
most likely also had limited slip.


Care to show me the weight figures, oh mighty Toyota and Volvo expert?


Well , a 164 outweighed a Supra G2 (about 3000) by about 300 lbs.
A 142 was about 300 lbs lighter than the G2 Supra.
The G3 Supras were pigs, outweighing the 164 by a good 300 at about
3800
The G4 was about 300 less than the G3

If the Townn Car wasn't a Conti, it had to be newer than 1981.
!981-89 weighed about 4000-4200 lbs. (About 400 lbs heavier than the
heaviest Supra, and 1400 lbs heavier than the 1st gen Supra at 2800)
The 1998 Corvette was only about 100 lbs LIGHTER than a G3 Supra at
about 3250 -roughly half a ton lighter than the Towne Car
The G4 was about 300 less than the G3

When you get up into the 2000s, and the Volvo S60 etc you are into
FWD and AWD - a totally different story - and they are fatter at
about 3500 - 3900 lbs - still lighter than a Lincoln Town Car and
about on par with the Supra G3


Go back to a PV544 and they barely tipped the scales at a ton.
The 122 Amazon was about 200 lbs heavier at 2200.
The P1800 wagon was about 300 pounds heavier than the Amazon at about
2500.

Tp put it in perspective, 2 122 Amazons weighed marginally more than a
later model TowneCar.


What tires did yhou have on the
Volvo?


The ones that came on it. Just like the Corvette and the Supra and
the Lincoln all had the tires that came on them.

and what model Volvo?..


You should have asked that before spouting off schmott guy. But I'll
give you a hint--bother were heavier than the Supra and weighed about
the same as the Corvette.


Still haven't said what kind of Volvo.
My brother's Volvo outweighed a lincoln too - but it had a 984 cubic
inch D16 under the hood that weighed a ton and a half without
transmission or fluids and put 600 HP to the twin screw rear end..

ANd without a load it was USELESS in snow too - - -

As for limited slip, Volvos are supposed to be good in snow, if they
need limited slip why don't they have it? And the Lincoln did not
have it.


NO car is good in snow without snows - and a second gen or newer Supra
in particular. Don't try BSing me. I was Toyota Service Manager - and
the low profile tires they came with were less than useless in snow
(Dunlop performance radials) They were like 4 flying saucers strapped
to the corners of the car. With narrow snow tires they handled and
went pretty good.
The lincoln had enough weight on the rear wheels to make any tire
grip at least a LITTLE bit - - -
WHen I was rallying the Volvo 242 was right up there with the 2002
Bimmers and the 510 Datsuns for 2wd (even winter) rallying. (I
successfully campaigned a Renault R12 Fwd - the lowest powered car on
the circuit at the time) A good set of Haks or Metzlers made them into
pretty darn good "rubber on ice" ice racers too - - -

Corvettes are also extremely poor in snow with the stock "steam
rollers" on them. (and up here they virtually ALL get taken off the
road around Thanksgiving. ANyone with the bucks to drive a vette has
the money, if not the brains, to also have a "winter beater" - often
an Audi Quatro or aAWD BMW (if not a 4WD Sierra or an old H3)

If you drove a motorcycle when you
couldn't move with a Volvo you've got ROCKS in your head - and below
your belt.


Yep, it took big ones. But once it was out of the parking lot and
onto the plowed and salted road it was fine.

My bikes were always put away sometime about Thanksgiving and they
stayed away 'till at least Easter.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 524
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:43:55 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 02:15:34 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:44:40 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:50:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:45:33 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 16:30:47 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:


Except in the case of surface mount components solder should NEVER be
the primary connection. All soldered joints should be "mechanically
secure" before soldering. In other words, crimp AND solder, or twist
AND solder. On battery cables you crimp to make the electrical and
mechanical connection, then you solder to seal and protect the joint.
(gas tight joint - which is also the aim of a properly crimped (or
"crimp-welded" electrical connector.
Even then, if the soldered cable end came loose, you had other
problems - like a loose or corroded bolt-on connection that caused the
connection to heat up. A properly connected and soldered cable end
does NOT heat up enouigh to melt the solder.

The problem with that statement is "properly connected and soldered".
If it's "properly connected" it doesn't need solder and if it's
soldered you can't tell if it's being held together by the "proper
connection" or by the solder. In any case, it was a Volvo cable that
came on the car, the car was bought new, so if you have a problem with
its manufacture don't point fingers at _me_, point them at Volvo.

Never seen a soldered battery cable from the factory on ANY Volvo.
540, 122, 240 or P1800 series

Note, Swedes must have mad driving skills--I've had two Volvos and
they were both horrible winter cars. Got stuck at the drop of a hat,
didn't like to start, the heater froze on one (not the coolant in the
heater core, the _fan_ managed to get full of ice, freeze, and burn
out the motor).

Where are you driving?? The Volvo was no worse than - and in many
cases much better than - any other compact or midsized rear wheel
drive vehicle in the winter handling department

Ohio, Connecticut, points in between. And I did not have near as much
trouble in the winter with a Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Supra, or
Corvette as I did with the Volvos. None of those struggled to get up
the hill on the way to work and all of them started first time every
time. Hell, there were days when I rode my motorcycle to work because
the Volvo wouldn't move (not wouldn't start, wouldn't _move_--there
was a half an inch of ice on the parking lot and it couldn't manage to
climb up on top of it).
A continental is a TANK,


Except that it wasn't a Continental.


OK - so ANY Lincoln was a tank.

not a compact or mid-size - and your supra
(talking second or third gen) outweighed the Volvo significantly and
most likely also had limited slip.


Care to show me the weight figures, oh mighty Toyota and Volvo expert?


Well , a 164 outweighed a Supra G2 (about 3000) by about 300 lbs.
A 142 was about 300 lbs lighter than the G2 Supra.
The G3 Supras were pigs, outweighing the 164 by a good 300 at about
3800
The G4 was about 300 less than the G3

If the Townn Car wasn't a Conti, it had to be newer than 1981.
!981-89 weighed about 4000-4200 lbs. (About 400 lbs heavier than the
heaviest Supra, and 1400 lbs heavier than the 1st gen Supra at 2800)
The 1998 Corvette was only about 100 lbs LIGHTER than a G3 Supra at
about 3250 -roughly half a ton lighter than the Towne Car
The G4 was about 300 less than the G3

When you get up into the 2000s, and the Volvo S60 etc you are into
FWD and AWD - a totally different story - and they are fatter at
about 3500 - 3900 lbs - still lighter than a Lincoln Town Car and
about on par with the Supra G3


Go back to a PV544 and they barely tipped the scales at a ton.
The 122 Amazon was about 200 lbs heavier at 2200.
The P1800 wagon was about 300 pounds heavier than the Amazon at about
2500.

Tp put it in perspective, 2 122 Amazons weighed marginally more than a
later model TowneCar.


What tires did yhou have on the
Volvo?


The ones that came on it. Just like the Corvette and the Supra and
the Lincoln all had the tires that came on them.

and what model Volvo?..


You should have asked that before spouting off schmott guy. But I'll
give you a hint--bother were heavier than the Supra and weighed about
the same as the Corvette.


Still haven't said what kind of Volvo.


And I'm not going to since you're making an ass of yourself.

My brother's Volvo outweighed a lincoln too - but it had a 984 cubic
inch D16 under the hood that weighed a ton and a half without
transmission or fluids and put 600 HP to the twin screw rear end..

ANd without a load it was USELESS in snow too - - -

As for limited slip, Volvos are supposed to be good in snow, if they
need limited slip why don't they have it? And the Lincoln did not
have it.


NO car is good in snow without snows - and a second gen or newer Supra
in particular. Don't try BSing me. I was Toyota Service Manager - and
the low profile tires they came with were less than useless in snow
(Dunlop performance radials) They were like 4 flying saucers strapped
to the corners of the car. With narrow snow tires they handled and
went pretty good.


Which tells you how bad the damned Volvo was.

The lincoln had enough weight on the rear wheels to make any tire
grip at least a LITTLE bit - - -
WHen I was rallying the Volvo 242 was right up there with the 2002
Bimmers and the 510 Datsuns for 2wd (even winter) rallying. (I
successfully campaigned a Renault R12 Fwd - the lowest powered car on
the circuit at the time) A good set of Haks or Metzlers made them into
pretty darn good "rubber on ice" ice racers too - - -


And I'm sure if I just jacked the Volvo up and put a Jeep underneath
it it would have been just fine. I'm not talking about a damned
race-prepped special, I'm talking about showroom stock.

Corvettes are also extremely poor in snow with the stock "steam
rollers" on them. (and up here they virtually ALL get taken off the
road around Thanksgiving. ANyone with the bucks to drive a vette has
the money, if not the brains, to also have a "winter beater" - often
an Audi Quatro or aAWD BMW (if not a 4WD Sierra or an old H3)


Which again tells you how bad the damned Volvo was.

If you drove a motorcycle when you
couldn't move with a Volvo you've got ROCKS in your head - and below
your belt.


Yep, it took big ones. But once it was out of the parking lot and
onto the plowed and salted road it was fine.

My bikes were always put away sometime about Thanksgiving and they
stayed away 'till at least Easter.


Pahh-puck puck puck
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,564
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:54:27 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:43:55 -0500, Clare Snyder
wr

Still haven't said what kind of Volvo.


And I'm not going to since you're making an ass of yourself.


WHo's making an ass of themselves by not giving details and making
somewhat rediculous claims????

Put up or shut up.

My brother's Volvo outweighed a lincoln too - but it had a 984 cubic
inch D16 under the hood that weighed a ton and a half without
transmission or fluids and put 600 HP to the twin screw rear end..

ANd without a load it was USELESS in snow too - - -

As for limited slip, Volvos are supposed to be good in snow, if they
need limited slip why don't they have it? And the Lincoln did not
have it.


NO car is good in snow without snows - and a second gen or newer Supra
in particular. Don't try BSing me. I was Toyota Service Manager - and
the low profile tires they came with were less than useless in snow
(Dunlop performance radials) They were like 4 flying saucers strapped
to the corners of the car. With narrow snow tires they handled and
went pretty good.


Which tells you how bad the damned Volvo was.


What Volvo? and further to that, what tires? FWD or RWD or AWD? All
Season or Performance Touring tires???

The lincoln had enough weight on the rear wheels to make any tire
grip at least a LITTLE bit - - -
WHen I was rallying the Volvo 242 was right up there with the 2002
Bimmers and the 510 Datsuns for 2wd (even winter) rallying. (I
successfully campaigned a Renault R12 Fwd - the lowest powered car on
the circuit at the time) A good set of Haks or Metzlers made them into
pretty darn good "rubber on ice" ice racers too - - -


And I'm sure if I just jacked the Volvo up and put a Jeep underneath
it it would have been just fine. I'm not talking about a damned
race-prepped special, I'm talking about showroom stock.


The ice racers are "showrioom stock" and the rallye cars were
"unprepared" - meaning NO MODIFICATIONS beyond changing shocks and
sway bars. Mine was BONE STOCK. All you could change beyond that was
your rubber - and it had to fit the factory sheet metal.

Corvettes are also extremely poor in snow with the stock "steam
rollers" on them. (and up here they virtually ALL get taken off the
road around Thanksgiving. ANyone with the bucks to drive a vette has
the money, if not the brains, to also have a "winter beater" - often
an Audi Quatro or aAWD BMW (if not a 4WD Sierra or an old H3)


Which again tells you how bad the damned Volvo was.


Still no indication what kind of Volvo - or even what Supra (there
were at least 4 VERY DIFFERENT supras) or what 'Vett either for that
matter - C1 to C7 there have been a LOT of changes -- - -

If you drove a motorcycle when you
couldn't move with a Volvo you've got ROCKS in your head - and below
your belt.

Yep, it took big ones. But once it was out of the parking lot and
onto the plowed and salted road it was fine.

My bikes were always put away sometime about Thanksgiving and they
stayed away 'till at least Easter.


Pahh-puck puck puck

  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.


That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.


This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.


Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.


Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.


Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,845
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.


This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.


Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.


Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.


Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.


The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.

This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.


Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.


Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.


Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.


The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.


Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/23/2018 3:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:43:55 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 02:15:34 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:44:40 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:50:11 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:45:33 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 16:30:47 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:


Except in the case of surface mount components solder should NEVER be
the primary connection. All soldered joints should be "mechanically
secure" before soldering. In other words, crimp AND solder, or twist
AND solder. On battery cables you crimp to make the electrical and
mechanical connection, then you solder to seal and protect the joint.
(gas tight joint - which is also the aim of a properly crimped (or
"crimp-welded" electrical connector.
Even then, if the soldered cable end came loose, you had other
problems - like a loose or corroded bolt-on connection that caused the
connection to heat up. A properly connected and soldered cable end
does NOT heat up enouigh to melt the solder.

The problem with that statement is "properly connected and soldered".
If it's "properly connected" it doesn't need solder and if it's
soldered you can't tell if it's being held together by the "proper
connection" or by the solder. In any case, it was a Volvo cable that
came on the car, the car was bought new, so if you have a problem with
its manufacture don't point fingers at _me_, point them at Volvo.

Never seen a soldered battery cable from the factory on ANY Volvo.
540, 122, 240 or P1800 series

Note, Swedes must have mad driving skills--I've had two Volvos and
they were both horrible winter cars. Got stuck at the drop of a hat,
didn't like to start, the heater froze on one (not the coolant in the
heater core, the _fan_ managed to get full of ice, freeze, and burn
out the motor).

Where are you driving?? The Volvo was no worse than - and in many
cases much better than - any other compact or midsized rear wheel
drive vehicle in the winter handling department

Ohio, Connecticut, points in between. And I did not have near as much
trouble in the winter with a Lincoln Town Car, Toyota Supra, or
Corvette as I did with the Volvos. None of those struggled to get up
the hill on the way to work and all of them started first time every
time. Hell, there were days when I rode my motorcycle to work because
the Volvo wouldn't move (not wouldn't start, wouldn't _move_--there
was a half an inch of ice on the parking lot and it couldn't manage to
climb up on top of it).
A continental is a TANK,

Except that it wasn't a Continental.


OK - so ANY Lincoln was a tank.

not a compact or mid-size - and your supra
(talking second or third gen) outweighed the Volvo significantly and
most likely also had limited slip.

Care to show me the weight figures, oh mighty Toyota and Volvo expert?


Well , a 164 outweighed a Supra G2 (about 3000) by about 300 lbs.
A 142 was about 300 lbs lighter than the G2 Supra.
The G3 Supras were pigs, outweighing the 164 by a good 300 at about
3800
The G4 was about 300 less than the G3

If the Townn Car wasn't a Conti, it had to be newer than 1981.
!981-89 weighed about 4000-4200 lbs. (About 400 lbs heavier than the
heaviest Supra, and 1400 lbs heavier than the 1st gen Supra at 2800)
The 1998 Corvette was only about 100 lbs LIGHTER than a G3 Supra at
about 3250 -roughly half a ton lighter than the Towne Car
The G4 was about 300 less than the G3

When you get up into the 2000s, and the Volvo S60 etc you are into
FWD and AWD - a totally different story - and they are fatter at
about 3500 - 3900 lbs - still lighter than a Lincoln Town Car and
about on par with the Supra G3


Go back to a PV544 and they barely tipped the scales at a ton.
The 122 Amazon was about 200 lbs heavier at 2200.
The P1800 wagon was about 300 pounds heavier than the Amazon at about
2500.

Tp put it in perspective, 2 122 Amazons weighed marginally more than a
later model TowneCar.


What tires did yhou have on the
Volvo?

The ones that came on it. Just like the Corvette and the Supra and
the Lincoln all had the tires that came on them.

and what model Volvo?..

You should have asked that before spouting off schmott guy. But I'll
give you a hint--bother were heavier than the Supra and weighed about
the same as the Corvette.


Still haven't said what kind of Volvo.


And I'm not going to since you're making an ass of yourself.

My brother's Volvo outweighed a lincoln too - but it had a 984 cubic
inch D16 under the hood that weighed a ton and a half without
transmission or fluids and put 600 HP to the twin screw rear end..

ANd without a load it was USELESS in snow too - - -

As for limited slip, Volvos are supposed to be good in snow, if they
need limited slip why don't they have it? And the Lincoln did not
have it.


NO car is good in snow without snows - and a second gen or newer Supra
in particular. Don't try BSing me. I was Toyota Service Manager - and
the low profile tires they came with were less than useless in snow
(Dunlop performance radials) They were like 4 flying saucers strapped
to the corners of the car. With narrow snow tires they handled and
went pretty good.


Which tells you how bad the damned Volvo was.

The lincoln had enough weight on the rear wheels to make any tire
grip at least a LITTLE bit - - -
WHen I was rallying the Volvo 242 was right up there with the 2002
Bimmers and the 510 Datsuns for 2wd (even winter) rallying. (I
successfully campaigned a Renault R12 Fwd - the lowest powered car on
the circuit at the time) A good set of Haks or Metzlers made them into
pretty darn good "rubber on ice" ice racers too - - -


And I'm sure if I just jacked the Volvo up and put a Jeep underneath
it it would have been just fine. I'm not talking about a damned
race-prepped special, I'm talking about showroom stock.

Corvettes are also extremely poor in snow with the stock "steam
rollers" on them. (and up here they virtually ALL get taken off the
road around Thanksgiving. ANyone with the bucks to drive a vette has
the money, if not the brains, to also have a "winter beater" - often
an Audi Quatro or aAWD BMW (if not a 4WD Sierra or an old H3)


Which again tells you how bad the damned Volvo was.

If you drove a motorcycle when you
couldn't move with a Volvo you've got ROCKS in your head - and below
your belt.

Yep, it took big ones. But once it was out of the parking lot and
onto the plowed and salted road it was fine.

My bikes were always put away sometime about Thanksgiving and they
stayed away 'till at least Easter.


Pahh-puck puck puck



Another ****ing contest.
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,278
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.

This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.

Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.


The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.


Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant) to
trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/27/2018 8:06 AM, Jack wrote:


"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time.* Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant) to
trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.


Took me 7 pages to get to your comment. ;~)
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.

This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.

Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.

The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.


Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant) to
trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.


What ****es me off a whiney asshole Usenet trolls.


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 524
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.


FWIW, the place I work pays cash money for achieving fitness goals.
5000 steps a day, certified by a fitness tracker, for x number of
weeks (I forget how many) and they pay you 100 bucks. Get a
physical exam they pay the full price, no deductible, and give you a
hundred bucks. There are other incentives up to a total of 500 bucks a
year.
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,043
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:06:38 -0500, wrote:

What ****es me off a whiney asshole Usenet trolls.

  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 13:30:22 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:06:38 -0500, wrote:

What ****es me off a whiney asshole Usenet trolls.


I'm happy that you agree.
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:10:12 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.


FWIW, the place I work pays cash money for achieving fitness goals.
5000 steps a day, certified by a fitness tracker, for x number of
weeks (I forget how many) and they pay you 100 bucks. Get a
physical exam they pay the full price, no deductible, and give you a
hundred bucks. There are other incentives up to a total of 500 bucks a
year.


Those are somewhat reasonable bribes but I doubt I'd agree to it.
Maybe I'd carry two trackers. ;-)
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,278
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/27/2018 10:55 AM, Leon wrote:
On 12/27/2018 8:06 AM, Jack wrote:


"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant)
to trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.


Took me 7 pages to get to your comment. ;~)


Duh! Fight fire with fire!

I was tempted to simply quote 7 pages and simply add a ++1 or --1 which
I've seen done numerous times by lazy, inconsiderate morons.

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,278
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/27/2018 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.

This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.

Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.

The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.

Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant) to
trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.


What ****es me off a whiney asshole Usenet trolls.

--1

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,155
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/28/2018 7:17 AM, Jack wrote:
On 12/27/2018 10:55 AM, Leon wrote:
On 12/27/2018 8:06 AM, Jack wrote:


"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time.* Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant)
to trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.


Took me 7 pages to get to your comment.* ;~)


Duh! Fight fire with fire!

I was tempted to simply quote 7 pages and simply add a ++1 or --1 which
I've seen done numerous times by lazy, inconsiderate morons.



;~) I got a kick out of your comment. I just had to say something. LOL.
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,833
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 08:18:05 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/27/2018 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.

This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.

Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.

The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.

Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant) to
trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.


What ****es me off a whiney asshole Usenet trolls.

--1


-(-1) == +1

You're such a nice guy. Thank you!
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,278
Default Electrical Connection Technique (A Woodworking Tool Is Involved)

On 12/28/2018 11:55 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 08:18:05 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/27/2018 11:06 AM,
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 09:06:18 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 16:51:30 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 7:11:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 07:42:42 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:12:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:48:35 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 04:56:43 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 09:13:14 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Dec 21, 2018, DerbyDad03 wrote
(in ):

Keeping this relevant to the wRec, the following video shows us how to replace
the power cord on a circular saw.

If you start at 4:30, you will see a technique for creating a "ring connector"
from the bare power cord wires. What do think of this technique?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61e5xG4kqXE

I have some issues with some of the other things he says and does in the
video, but this question is mainly about the connection method he uses.

The proper method is to crimp a ring crimp terminal onto the wires, if there
is space -- which looks questionable in this case.

In the old days, manufacturers crimped a hollow brass eyelet around the
stranded wire, creating a solid metal ring, but I have not seen that in ages,
and it wasn´t something that one could afford to do at home anyway.

Failing that, I twist the copper strands into a solid bundle and tin the
bundle with liquid rosin flux and radio solder, making a solid wire. This is
bent around the terminal screw in the direction of tightening, and the screw
is tightened. The wrap direction is critical to ensure that the wire does not
squeeze out from under the terminal screw.

One could also form an eyelet as shown in the video, and then tinned the
copper wire to solidify the ring.

The key is to ensure that thge terminal screw cannot cut the wire while being
tightened.

.
I would not have drilled the plastic to get to the torx screws in the plastic
handle. One can get torx screwdriver inserts with 6" shafts.

I could not see how the cable was clamped on entry to the saw handle, but
this area is critical.

Joe Gwinn

BTW...I also don't like the fact that he used a 3 prong plug and cut the
ground wire off on the inside, saying that using the 3 prong plug "doesn't
hurt".

I don't like doing that more on principle than on any actual "danger". I don't
like giving the user the impression that a device is wired in a certain manner
(e.g. equipment ground is present) when in reality it is wired differently.

+1

I don't think that that tool would be approved by OSHA for use on a job site
if they knew that the ground wire was not being used.

Years back, one of our techs was required by industrial safety to add
a 3-prong cordset to a plastic wall clock. I asked what he did with
the green wire. "Connected it to the case, of course." The inspector
was happy.

That's what happens when they hire safety personnel with no actual safety knowledge just so
that they can check the "Hired Safety Personnel" box.

Or when people are told to follow the rules, rather than understand
the rules. BTW, this was in IBM.

I used to work at a huge manufacturing/chemical plant. "Safety First" posters
everywhere. Every department had a designated safety officer(s). Cash awards
were given if a someone pointed out a safety issue.

As an IT tech I used to go everywhere within the plant. I won numerous
cash awards for pointing out safety issues but only after I had to convince
the safety officer of that department that it was an issue. Sometimes I
had to escalate the issue because the safety officer just didn't get the
point. The lack of common sense was really scary.

That's another good one. They wouldn't pay engineers for safety, or
other suggestions but they would pay hourly staff. I'd just point out
problems to my technician and he'd collect the easy money. Often it
was stupid things like a sign blocking an Exit sign, and such. The
safety people would get ****ed-off because they were supposed to catch
such things.

This suggestion wasn't specifically a safety issue, but I got paid on it
through the corporate Suggestion System that paid for suggestions that resulted
in a money saving process change.

Same deal for "improvement" suggestions. Engineers needed not apply,
so I just gave the ideas to my technician(s). I wasn't going to get
paid for them so why not reward the guys doing my work for me. ;-)

My company was already in trouble for possible ground contamination in the
surrounding neighborhood - including the ground under the grade school
that was named for the company. One morning I was walking from the parking
to the security gate, a walk that took me down a public street along the
plant's fence. As I looked through the fence and down a road between 2
buildings, I saw foam bubbling up out of a sewer, breaking up into pieces
2-3 feet across and blowing down the road. Some of the bubble masses were
settling right up against the fence. Definitely not a good look for a company
already in trouble with the EPA.

Ouch! That's a real bad look, even if it was Lucy's washing machine.
We had loads of groundwater pollution (no matter what people thought,
electronics is a very dirty business), cost millions, but I never got
involved in that stuff.

I had a friend who was in management for that part of the plant so I called
him and asked him how I should report it. He told me that he would contact
the proper department. He then called me a few days later and told me to
put in a suggestion saying that the ABC department should be using anti-foaming
agent in the XYZ discharge system. He told me to route the suggestion through
his department. When I wrote up the suggestion, I added a few words about the
"bad look, especially at this time". About a month later I got a check for $3K.
That would be about $6.5K in today's dollars.

Apparently that "bad look" was worth preventing.

Very cool! I'd think so! I remember one suggestion (*not* mine) that
was turned down at least three times before paying out almost $100K
(in the '70s). Turns out the person who reviewed suggestions was the
person who was responsible for that particular area. He didn't want
to admit that he'd missed that sort of savings. These programs are
good ideas but it has to be run right or they turn into jokes.

The worst one I got hit with was a suggestion that was probably worth a $50K
award (mid-80's) To keep it simple, let's call it a software modification.

It would have saved an awful lot of money over time but the department said
that they couldn't afford the cost of the upgrade. (short term thinking, which
is what eventually put the company essentially out of business. Hint: Perhaps
you remember a time before we all took pictures with cell phones?) Anyway,
they thanked me for the suggestion but said they were not going to implement
it.

3 years later that same department did a major upgrade and when it was done
it looked exactly like what I had suggested. I contacted the suggestion
department and they said that they would re-open the suggestion and send it
back to the department to see if it warranted payment. The answer was "Yes,
we did basically implement what he suggested, but it wasn't done because of
his suggestion. An engineer within the department came up with the idea on
his own, as part of job his responsibilities.

So, I, an IT hardware technician who didn't even work for the department (they
were one of my "internal customers") made a suggestion 3 years before one of
their internal engineers (supposedly) came up with the same idea. At that time
they had the money, so they implemented his *free* suggestion, not mine.

I was not a happy camper for quite a while.

Yep, like many such programs, if they're not going to be faithful to
the intent of the program the incentive is often the opposite of what
is desired. That's why I don't bother with any of the morale
enhancement programs, wherever I've worked. They always end up doing
the opposite, eventually.

The HR department where I work now manages to do it right (wrong) out
of the chute. They have a "high-five" award, where you can give a
co-worker an award for helping you, or whatever. Build points and
exchange them for trinkets. I looked - nothing I want for anything
like what could be reasonably put together in a few years.

Then they screwed the pooch further by making it mandatory or *you*
get dinged on your performance.

They're also trying to motivate us to exercise, so give above points
for exercise, except that you have to link your smart watch (or
whatever) to their site. No thanks. They want groups to get together
to do a million steps. Hell, I do a million a month, myself, but I'm
not about to give them access to that information. I have had a bunch
of people ask me to join their groups, though. ;-)

Then there is the "How are we feeling today , children?", weekly
morale survey.

"Come on, people, this is a job and we get paid well to do what we do
and get treated pretty well in the mean time. Isn't that enough?"
Yeah, such BS really turns me off.

What turns me off is people too freakin' lazy (or dumb, or ignorant) to
trim 6 pages of non-relevant crap to get to their point.

What ****es me off a whiney asshole Usenet trolls.

--1


-(-1) == +1

You're such a nice guy. Thank you!

Yer welcome

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
http://jbstein.com
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
28mm connection - hose connection asalcedo UK diy 0 September 26th 08 08:14 PM
Dial-Up Connection "Accelerator" Technique Brad Electronics Repair 10 March 28th 07 06:21 PM
Whats involved w/ replacing bathtub? Nobody Home Ownership 3 April 1st 05 07:32 PM
uh, oh .. electrical soldering technique question` Grant Erwin Metalworking 17 February 10th 05 08:46 AM
what is involved in stud welding? Grant Erwin Metalworking 25 April 25th 04 12:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"