Good article from Jan Heine on benefits of wider, softer tires for
absorbing vibration and lessening suspension losses:
https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-missing-link-suspension-losses/
At the time the rumble strip test was published, I expressed some
skepticism because its roughness is fundamentally different than the
random roughness of either a rough road or a gravel road. In particular,
the rumble strip is all "negative," cut into the smooth surface, while
rough or gravel roads have both "negative" holes plus "positive" patches
or rocks that protrude above the surface. One practical difference is
that when dealing with only "negative" roughness, higher speeds reduce losses. The opposite is true with "positive" roughness.
But I suppose for demonstrating the fundamental effect, the consistency
of the rumbles is useful. And the measurements seem valid as long as the
test speed is also consistent.
BTW, Jobst Brandt is mentioned in the article. I recall that in
discussing rolling resistance here, he insisted that "rolling
resistance" should be defined _only_ as the losses generated by tire
rubber's hysteresis. I disagreed, because that implied that solid rubber tires a la 1880, or near infinite tire pressure, or even metal rims with
no tire, would be best. Anyone who has ridden an antique solid tire
"safety" bike knows how slow those tires were.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good article from Jan Heine on benefits of wider, softer tires for
absorbing vibration and lessening suspension losses:
https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-missing-link-suspension-losses/
At the time the rumble strip test was published, I expressed some
skepticism because its roughness is fundamentally different than the
random roughness of either a rough road or a gravel road. In particular,
the rumble strip is all "negative," cut into the smooth surface, while
rough or gravel roads have both "negative" holes plus "positive" patches
or rocks that protrude above the surface. One practical difference is
that when dealing with only "negative" roughness, higher speeds reduce
losses. The opposite is true with "positive" roughness.
But I suppose for demonstrating the fundamental effect, the consistency
of the rumbles is useful. And the measurements seem valid as long as the
test speed is also consistent.
Not that convinced to be honest, for a starters folks aren’t going to be riding rumble strips but by mistake!
And if you’re going to be real world testing, testing on dirt roads with all of the inconsistencies that brings is what gravel riders do. With the dips as well as the bumps, plus ruts etc.
Rumble strip testing seems somewhat misleading ie it’s not that controlled nor what riders do.
As ever claims that they influence pro athletes etc and started the wider tire use, IMO it along with disks was adapted by consumers/commuters with
pro racers lagging behind with adoption and haven’t gone quite as wide, ie stopped at 28 for the Pros where as 30/32 are fairly common among club riders.
BTW, Jobst Brandt is mentioned in the article. I recall that in
discussing rolling resistance here, he insisted that "rolling
resistance" should be defined _only_ as the losses generated by tire
rubber's hysteresis. I disagreed, because that implied that solid rubber
tires a la 1880, or near infinite tire pressure, or even metal rims with
no tire, would be best. Anyone who has ridden an antique solid tire
"safety" bike knows how slow those tires were.
As ever is a what you want as well, on the old school road bike, I commute on, 28mm felt on the twitchy side 32mm much more planted, the speed difference I’m less concerned about, though at that level maybe wider is faster? What is faster would depend on road/bike/rider.
Roger Merriman
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor, perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum, but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model loudspeakers.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but others
on this group likely are. The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height
change/velocity change etc from various irregular surfaces
can be quantified for any given random gravel (or road)
experience and used to compare efficiency for other iterations.
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the rumble
strip test isn't necessary for comparison. Which assumes
sensors have adequate sensitivity across whatever range and
that software for that data truly derives actual impedimenta
values.
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
I think that would be true only if the smooth pavement were
as smooth as a linoleum floor. Or a wooden track. IIRC, what
got Jan Heine started on investigations of rolling
resistance vs. tire width was coast-down tests on a Soapbox
Derby track. I suspect that was quite smooth. Soapbox cars
have hard tires and no suspension, AFAIK.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire
and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if
used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the
limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element
becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor,
perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will
affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/
rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum,
but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much
difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a
mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model
loudspeakers.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire
interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be
a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but
others
on this group likely are.
I _may_ have been able to do such calculations 50 years ago,
but I'm not sure. I certainly can't do them now.
The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid
mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
I actually think physically modeling that dissipative blob
might be valuable for the tire industry. Using such a blob
to apply weight during a rolling drum test might give better
information than what those tests give now.
Clever.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height
change/velocity change etc from various irregular surfaces
can be quantified for any given random gravel (or road)
experience and used to compare efficiency for other
iterations.
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the
rumble strip test isn't necessary for comparison. Which
assumes sensors have adequate sensitivity across whatever
range and that software for that data truly derives actual
impedimenta values.
There are ways of quantifying roughness, with varying
scales, varying tools. I'm most familiar with roughness
measurement of machined parts, with tools varying from
sample cards for "fingernail" test comparisons, to RMS
readers akin to phonograph needles or laser scattering devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_roughness
ISTR reading about systems for evaluating pavement fairly
crudely, as in whether it should be repaved or not. I don't
know of a system actually used for measuring pavement
roughness at a scale affecting bike tire choice.
On 1/2/2025 12:06 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
To a decent approximation, yes. Any surface profile can be represented
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height
change/velocity change etc from various irregular surfaces
can be quantified for any given random gravel (or road)
experience and used to compare efficiency for other iterations.
by a spectrum. Music is usually represented by "pink" noise, thermal
noise is white (uniform) and most real systems have noise proportional
to 1/f (imagine turn-on transients as singularities). A real road would
likely be some combination with the radius of the tire serving as a high
frequency filter.
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the rumble
strip test isn't necessary for comparison. Which assumes
sensors have adequate sensitivity across whatever range and
that software for that data truly derives actual impedimenta
values.
One would have to measure the force/deflection curves for both tires
and suspension elements, along with the masses of the sprung and unsprung
elements. Since losses are rate dependent, especially for suspensions
with hydraulic damping, a range of speeds/frequencies would have to be
measured. I think an accurate model would get fairly complicated, especially >> if the rider were included. Each compliance (tire, suspension spring, seat >> spring and rider body part that deflects) would have to be accounted for.
There are potentially four coupled resonators: Tires, swingarm/forks and
finally rider (divided into arms/torso sections probably). Overall, tests
on a rumble strip or drum with some kind of ergometer might be simpler.
Very likely the motor racing industry already has software that can do the >> analysis. Most of the interest in that market is controlling resonances,
not minimizing losses, but otherwise the problems are very similar.
One further thought: If we accept (as I do) that jiggling the human
pedaler does cause loss in energy and speed, why aren't we all using
saddles with some sort of damped springing?
I know suspension seatposts exist, but even those are not popular on
road bikes.
ISTM that if more "suspension" is valuable via wider tires, it might
also be valuable via sprung saddles, if done right.
My wife used to ride a Brooks B72. Its four curly support wires gives
just a bit of spring action. It's now on my about-town 3 speed. That
bike never goes far, but I don't detect any detriments to the slight springiness.
One further thought: If we accept (as I do) that jiggling the human
pedaler does cause loss in energy and speed, why aren't we all using
saddles with some sort of damped springing?
I know suspension seatposts exist, but even those are not popular on
road bikes.
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
I think that would be true only if the smooth pavement were as smooth as
a linoleum floor.
Yes, I'm familiar with surface finish (roughness) numbers in
machining, but an offroad bicycle, for example on a gravel
path (bianca strada) or babyheads (much of Paris Roubaix)
would be a series of variable impedimenta in some chaotic
non-order for height & frequency. The principle is the same
but the amount of data is staggering.
On 1/2/2025 8:45 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
One further thought: If we accept (as I do) that jiggling
the human
pedaler does cause loss in energy and speed, why aren't
we all using
saddles with some sort of damped springing?
I know suspension seatposts exist, but even those are not
popular on
road bikes.
I'm using a suspension seatpost now, removed from a town
bike. It's
slightly more comfortable. No idea if it's more efficient.
Certainly
heavier, probably lossy unless I balance pedal effort to
keep pressure
on the saddle constant. That difference is small at most.
FWIW, when coasting - especially on rough downhills - my
habit is to take some of my weight off the saddle, hoping
the "suspension" offered by my legs causes less jiggling of
my body mass, so less energy loss.
On 1/2/2025 8:45 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm using a suspension seatpost now, removed from a town bike. It's
One further thought: If we accept (as I do) that jiggling the human
pedaler does cause loss in energy and speed, why aren't we all using
saddles with some sort of damped springing?
I know suspension seatposts exist, but even those are not popular on
road bikes.
slightly more comfortable. No idea if it's more efficient. Certainly
heavier, probably lossy unless I balance pedal effort to keep pressure
on the saddle constant. That difference is small at most.
FWIW, when coasting - especially on rough downhills - my habit is to
take some of my weight off the saddle, hoping the "suspension" offered
by my legs causes less jiggling of my body mass, so less energy loss.
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor, perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum, but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model loudspeakers.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but others
on this group likely are. The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
Clever.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height change/velocity
change etc from various irregular surfaces can be quantified for any
given random gravel (or road) experience and used to compare efficiency
for other iterations.
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the rumble strip test
isn't necessary for comparison. Which assumes sensors have adequate sensitivity across whatever range and that software for that data truly derives actual impedimenta values.
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given
rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given
rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire
and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if
used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the
limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element
becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor,
perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will
affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/
rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum,
but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much
difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a
mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model
loudspeakers.
This is a great analysis and reveals a highly problematic
aspect of the "rumble strip" test. As Bob notes, it's
essentially limiting the noise input into the system to a
somewhat narrow spectral component (though the 1/f
assumption for real-world is way to broad)
The idea of using the rumble strip test seems adequate at
first, but is prone to misleading results. Since the rumble
strip sets up a regular frequency component, there's a
possibility that a resonance or cancellation effect can
occur which can dramatically skew the results.
In the world of environmental testing, physical vibration
analysis is typically broken up into three different stimuli
- swept frequency, noise*, and environmental specific
(usually a combination of noise with higher energy
components around certain frequencies).
It's nearly impossible to simulate all the possible real-
world conditions, which is why the testing regimen includes
a sweep - the intent being to see any resonances. I've
personally witnessed an electronic assembly quite nearly
disintegrate with the right frequency and energy input. The
task then was to redesign the piece such that the resonance
was damped.
It's easy to see how this can translate to the rumble strip
test. Under the right conditions, one might actually see a
speed _increase_ as a result of a sympathetic resonance.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire
interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be
a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but
others
on this group likely are. The hardest part is apt to be
finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid
mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
In the old days, we had to do reiterative tests on massive
vibration tables. These days, FEA software removes the vast
amount of guesswork. The last few times I've had to conduct
these tests I only had to do one test twice, and the problem
turned out to be an assembly specification error rather than
inherent design.
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
Clever.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height
change/velocity change etc from various irregular surfaces
can be quantified for any given random gravel (or road)
experience and used to compare efficiency for other
iterations.
"Real-world" would simulate a more stochastic environment
with larger "impact" events rather than a regular
"sinusoidal" spectrum like a rumble strip. Currently, for
example, we use this for our truck-mounted electronics:
https://cvgstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MIL- STD-810H-Method-514.8-Vibration.pdf
Refer to page 514.8C-5 (Page 58 in the PDF).
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the
rumble strip test isn't necessary for comparison. Which
assumes sensors have adequate sensitivity across whatever
range and that software for that data truly derives actual
impedimenta values.
Even low-cost accelerometers have incredible accuracy,
sensitivity, and repeatability across spectrum they're
designed to operate these days. We have two 3-axis units
accurate to .01G that we paid like $25 each for - coupled to
a mid-range oscilloscope they give more than adequate
results for our "warm fuzzy" testing before we send of to a
testing lab for 3rd party analysis.
*"Noise" being a broad term meaning quasi-random frequency
and amplitude components within limits.
On 1/2/2025 5:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Good article from Jan Heine on benefits of wider, softer tires for
absorbing vibration and lessening suspension losses:
https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-missing-link-suspension-losses/
At the time the rumble strip test was published, I expressed some
skepticism because its roughness is fundamentally different than the
random roughness of either a rough road or a gravel road. In particular, >>> the rumble strip is all "negative," cut into the smooth surface, while
rough or gravel roads have both "negative" holes plus "positive" patches >>> or rocks that protrude above the surface. One practical difference is
that when dealing with only "negative" roughness, higher speeds reduce
losses. The opposite is true with "positive" roughness.
But I suppose for demonstrating the fundamental effect, the consistency
of the rumbles is useful. And the measurements seem valid as long as the >>> test speed is also consistent.
Not that convinced to be honest, for a starters folks aren’t going to be >> riding rumble strips but by mistake!
And if you’re going to be real world testing, testing on dirt roads with >> all of the inconsistencies that brings is what gravel riders do. With the
dips as well as the bumps, plus ruts etc.
Rumble strip testing seems somewhat misleading ie it’s not that controlled >> nor what riders do.
As ever claims that they influence pro athletes etc and started the wider
tire use, IMO it along with disks was adapted by consumers/commuters with
pro racers lagging behind with adoption and haven’t gone quite as wide, ie >> stopped at 28 for the Pros where as 30/32 are fairly common among club
riders.
BTW, Jobst Brandt is mentioned in the article. I recall that in
discussing rolling resistance here, he insisted that "rolling
resistance" should be defined _only_ as the losses generated by tire
rubber's hysteresis. I disagreed, because that implied that solid rubber >>> tires a la 1880, or near infinite tire pressure, or even metal rims with >>> no tire, would be best. Anyone who has ridden an antique solid tire
"safety" bike knows how slow those tires were.
As ever is a what you want as well, on the old school road bike, I commute >> on, 28mm felt on the twitchy side 32mm much more planted, the speed
difference I’m less concerned about, though at that level maybe wider is >> faster? What is faster would depend on road/bike/rider.
Roger Merriman
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
In short you make an interesting point but it's not
measurable for comparative purposes.
On 1/3/2025 10:46 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 1/2/2025 8:45 PM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm using a suspension seatpost now, removed from a town bike. It's
One further thought: If we accept (as I do) that jiggling the human
pedaler does cause loss in energy and speed, why aren't we all using >>>>> saddles with some sort of damped springing?
I know suspension seatposts exist, but even those are not popular on >>>>> road bikes.
slightly more comfortable. No idea if it's more efficient. Certainly
heavier, probably lossy unless I balance pedal effort to keep pressure >>>> on the saddle constant. That difference is small at most.
FWIW, when coasting - especially on rough downhills - my habit is to
take some of my weight off the saddle, hoping the "suspension" offered
by my legs causes less jiggling of my body mass, so less energy loss.
To get back to the question of how this might be modeled, it's really
complicated. Sometimes all your weight is probably off the saddle,
meaning that any computation would have to figure out when there was
contact, and the forces generated by that contact.
You can read a whole book about it online, if you're ambitious:
https://www.yastrebov.fr/LECTURES/Yastrebov_NMCM_Wiley_ISTE.pdf
Not to mention that there is a poorly understood nonlinear control
mechanism involved, somewhat different for each individual.
Wow. Yes, it's probably good to remind ourselves that whatever topic we
tyros discuss here has probably been the life's work of some true expert.
On 1/3/2025 11:12 AM, cyclintom wrote:
Coming out of Niles Canyon, you have to ride at around 20 mph Because of
traffic I was forced to cross a rumble strip with my 28 mm tires and
came damned close to losing control but it did allow me to let 5 cars
moving at 45 mph + get past before a constriction. While you're talking
about taking the lane why don't you come here and try taking the lane?
You would soon discover, if you're lucky, from a hospital bed that
California deivers don't like your ideas.
Ah. We haven't had a "Bicycling is really dangerous _HERE_!" post in
quite a while.
So you judged that nearly losing control in front of a 45 mph car was
safer than legally taking the lane? Yes, my choice would have been
different, and I've made that choice in <gasp!> California; but
admittedly not in your super-dangerous neighborhood. When I do that, motorists wait until its safe to pass. Exceptions are vanishingly rare.
As I often ask, what do you do when riding in a ten foot lane with no shoulder, when an 8.5 foot wide truck approaches from behind? Do you
jump off the bike and humbly bow?
On 1/3/2025 10:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor, perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum, but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model loudspeakers.
This is a great analysis and reveals a highly problematic aspect of
the "rumble strip" test. As Bob notes, it's essentially limiting the
noise input into the system to a somewhat narrow spectral component
(though the 1/f assumption for real-world is way to broad)
The idea of using the rumble strip test seems adequate at first, but
is prone to misleading results. Since the rumble strip sets up a
regular frequency component, there's a possibility that a resonance or
cancellation effect can occur which can dramatically skew the results.
In the world of environmental testing, physical vibration analysis is
typically broken up into three different stimuli - swept frequency,
noise*, and environmental specific (usually a combination of noise
with higher energy components around certain frequencies).
It's nearly impossible to simulate all the possible real-world
conditions, which is why the testing regimen includes a sweep - the
intent being to see any resonances.
Interesting. I suppose the rumble strip test could do a "sweep" by
riding repeatedly at a wide range of speeds.
On 1/3/2025 9:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor, perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/ rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum, but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model loudspeakers.
This is a great analysis and reveals a highly problematic aspect of
the "rumble strip" test. As Bob notes, it's essentially limiting the
noise input into the system to a somewhat narrow spectral component
(though the 1/f assumption for real-world is way to broad)
The idea of using the rumble strip test seems adequate at first, but
is prone to misleading results. Since the rumble strip sets up a
regular frequency component, there's a possibility that a resonance or
cancellation effect can occur which can dramatically skew the results.
In the world of environmental testing, physical vibration analysis is
typically broken up into three different stimuli - swept frequency,
noise*, and environmental specific (usually a combination of noise
with higher energy components around certain frequencies).
It's nearly impossible to simulate all the possible real- world
conditions, which is why the testing regimen includes a sweep - the
intent being to see any resonances. I've personally witnessed an
electronic assembly quite nearly disintegrate with the right frequency
and energy input. The task then was to redesign the piece such that
the resonance was damped.
It's easy to see how this can translate to the rumble strip test.
Under the right conditions, one might actually see a speed _increase_
as a result of a sympathetic resonance.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but others
on this group likely are. The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
In the old days, we had to do reiterative tests on massive vibration
tables. These days, FEA software removes the vast amount of guesswork.
The last few times I've had to conduct these tests I only had to do
one test twice, and the problem turned out to be an assembly
specification error rather than inherent design.
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
Clever.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height change/velocity
change etc from various irregular surfaces can be quantified for any
given random gravel (or road) experience and used to compare
efficiency for other iterations.
"Real-world" would simulate a more stochastic environment with larger
"impact" events rather than a regular "sinusoidal" spectrum like a
rumble strip. Currently, for example, we use this for our truck-
mounted electronics:
https://cvgstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MIL- STD-810H-
Method-514.8-Vibration.pdf
Refer to page 514.8C-5 (Page 58 in the PDF).
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the rumble strip
test isn't necessary for comparison. Which assumes sensors have
adequate sensitivity across whatever range and that software for that
data truly derives actual impedimenta values.
Even low-cost accelerometers have incredible accuracy, sensitivity,
and repeatability across spectrum they're designed to operate these
days. We have two 3-axis units accurate to .01G that we paid like $25
each for - coupled to a mid-range oscilloscope they give more than
adequate results for our "warm fuzzy" testing before we send of to a
testing lab for 3rd party analysis.
*"Noise" being a broad term meaning quasi-random frequency and
amplitude components within limits.
Thanks I knew nothing about this before our discussion.
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor, perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum, but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model loudspeakers.
This is a great analysis and reveals a highly problematic aspect of the "rumble strip" test. As Bob notes, it's essentially limiting the noise
input into the system to a somewhat narrow spectral component (though
the 1/f assumption for real-world is way to broad)
The idea of using the rumble strip test seems adequate at first, but is
prone to misleading results. Since the rumble strip sets up a regular frequency component, there's a possibility that a resonance or
cancellation effect can occur which can dramatically skew the results.
In the world of environmental testing, physical vibration analysis is typically broken up into three different stimuli - swept frequency,
noise*, and environmental specific (usually a combination of noise with higher energy components around certain frequencies).
It's nearly impossible to simulate all the possible real-world
conditions, which is why the testing regimen includes a sweep - the
intent being to see any resonances. I've personally witnessed an
electronic assembly quite nearly disintegrate with the right frequency
and energy input. The task then was to redesign the piece such that the resonance was damped.
It's easy to see how this can translate to the rumble strip test. Under
the right conditions, one might actually see a speed _increase_ as a
result of a sympathetic resonance.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but others
on this group likely are. The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
In the old days, we had to do reiterative tests on massive vibration
tables. These days, FEA software removes the vast amount of guesswork.
The last few times I've had to conduct these tests I only had to do one
test twice, and the problem turned out to be an assembly specification
error rather than inherent design.
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
Clever.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height change/velocity
change etc from various irregular surfaces can be quantified for any
given random gravel (or road) experience and used to compare efficiency
for other iterations.
"Real-world" would simulate a more stochastic environment with larger "impact" events rather than a regular "sinusoidal" spectrum like a
rumble strip. Currently, for example, we use this for our truck-mounted electronics:
https://cvgstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MIL-STD-810H-Method-514.8-Vibration.pdf
Refer to page 514.8C-5 (Page 58 in the PDF).
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the rumble strip test
isn't necessary for comparison. Which assumes sensors have adequate
sensitivity across whatever range and that software for that data truly
derives actual impedimenta values.
Even low-cost accelerometers have incredible accuracy, sensitivity, and repeatability across spectrum they're designed to operate these days. We
have two 3-axis units accurate to .01G that we paid like $25 each for - coupled to a mid-range oscilloscope they give more than adequate results
for our "warm fuzzy" testing before we send of to a testing lab for 3rd
party analysis.
*"Noise" being a broad term meaning quasi-random frequency and amplitude components within limits.
On 1/3/2025 10:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:This is a great analysis and reveals a highly problematic aspect of
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I don't have a coherent argument either way but a rumble
strip test introduces a repeatable experience so that
various data may be compared. Each rider on a dirt or
gravel path, and each ride experience by any given rider, is
an unique set of impedimenta such that data cannot be as
readily compared.
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor, perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum, but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model loudspeakers.
the "rumble strip" test. As Bob notes, it's essentially limiting the
noise input into the system to a somewhat narrow spectral component
(though the 1/f assumption for real-world is way to broad)
The idea of using the rumble strip test seems adequate at first, but
is prone to misleading results. Since the rumble strip sets up a
regular frequency component, there's a possibility that a resonance
or cancellation effect can occur which can dramatically skew the
results.
In the world of environmental testing, physical vibration analysis
is typically broken up into three different stimuli - swept
frequency, noise*, and environmental specific (usually a combination
of noise with higher energy components around certain frequencies).
It's nearly impossible to simulate all the possible real-world
conditions, which is why the testing regimen includes a sweep - the
intent being to see any resonances.
Interesting. I suppose the rumble strip test could do a "sweep" by
riding repeatedly at a wide range of speeds.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height
change/velocity change etc from various irregular surfaces
can be quantified for any given random gravel (or road)
experience and used to compare efficiency for other iterations.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but others
on this group likely are.
I _may_ have been able to do such calculations 50 years ago, but I'm not >sure. I certainly can't do them now.
The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
On 1/3/2025 11:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:17:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Actually, I remember sitting in a Vibrations class taught by my least >favorite professor on the day he brought in a large, demonstration-sized >Analog Computer (Remember those?) to model something we had been
calculating. To the amusement of the students, he was not able to get
the thing to work properly.
My idea wasn't to model a human body for computation purposes, although >others are probably interested in doing that. I'm thinking more of
coming up with a physical device, perhaps for weighting a tire during a >rolling drum test, so the test would more accurately reflect behavior of >tires when ridden by a human pedaling a bicycle. Maybe 75 pounds of raw
meat?
On 1/3/2025 11:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:17:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire
interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would
be a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations,
but others
on this group likely are.
I _may_ have been able to do such calculations 50 years
ago, but I'm not
sure. I certainly can't do them now.
Actually, the analogy between a mechanical system and RLC
(resistance,
inductance and cazapitance) calculations are fairly
simple. For
example:
"Mechanical-electrical analogies"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mechanical%E2%80%93electrical_analogies>
"Electrical Analogies of Mechanical Systems"
<https://www.tutorialspoint.com/control_systems/
control_systems_electrical_analogies_mechanical.htm>
"RLC circuit: Analogy with mechanical systems." (From
Brazil)
<https://proceedings.sbmac.org.br/sbmac/article/
download/134486/3384/0>
I'm pretty familiar with the RLC analogy to mechanical
vibrations.
Actually, I remember sitting in a Vibrations class taught by
my least favorite professor on the day he brought in a
large, demonstration-sized Analog Computer (Remember those?)
to model something we had been calculating. To the amusement
of the students, he was not able to get the thing to work
properly.
The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid
mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
If you're going to build a computer simulation, there are
cut-n-paste
mechanical models of various human bodies available.
"A mechanical model to determine the influence of masses
and mass
distribution on the impact force during running"
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10653036/>
"Simple spring-damper-mass models have been widely used to
simulate
human locomotion. However, most previous models have not
accounted for
the effect of non-rigid masses (wobbling masses) on impact
forces."
Ok, a running model is not going to work well on a
bicycle. So, look
around for something that's a better fit. I'll admit that
I've never
done anything like this, but I can see how it might be
possible to
model a wobbling blob on a bicycle.
Also, modeling is NOT the hardest part of the problem. In
my never
humble opinion, the most difficult part is dealing with
the large
number of significant figured necessary to maintain
accuracy. I human
or bicycle model might work accurate to maybe 1/10th of a
watt, while
the power produced by a road bump powered energy
harvesting system
might be on the order of fractions of a milliwatt. This
forces the
human model to be accurate well beyond reasonable limits.
My idea wasn't to model a human body for computation
purposes, although others are probably interested in doing
that. I'm thinking more of coming up with a physical device,
perhaps for weighting a tire during a rolling drum test, so
the test would more accurately reflect behavior of tires
when ridden by a human pedaling a bicycle. Maybe 75 pounds
of raw meat?
Analog computer?
Like the fluid logic plate in an automatic transmission?
https://www.carid.com/acdelco/gm-original-equipment-automatic-transmission-valve-body.html--
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Analog computer?
Like the fluid logic plate in an automatic transmission?
https://www.carid.com/acdelco/gm-original-equipment-automatic-transmission-valve-body.html--
Nope. The automobile automatic transmission is actually a digital
fluidic switch. When all the inputs and outputs are either on, off,
in, out, left, right, up down etc, it's digital. There are fluidic
analog computers. The key difference is how numbers are stored. In a digital computer, numbers are stored as discrete numbers. In an
analog computer, numbers are stored as a range of values that require interpolation to produce an output. When I asked Google the same
question, I received a rather wide range of answers: <https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+analog+and+digital+computer>
That was a common point of contention as computers were being
developed (roughly 1960 thru 1990). I don't think anyone successfully produced an answer that covered all types of computing devices.
Instead of an official answer, everyone just gave up by about 1990.
User manual on an early analog computer including a few useful
examples. Try to visualize what those problems might look like on a
slide rule or today's personal computers: <https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/eai/tr10/> <https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/eai_tr-10.pdf>
On 1/3/2025 11:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:17:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Actually, I remember sitting in a Vibrations class taught by my least >favorite professor on the day he brought in a large, demonstration-sized >Analog Computer (Remember those?) to model something we had been
calculating. To the amusement of the students, he was not able to get
the thing to work properly.
On 1/4/2025 2:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2025 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:20 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
User manual on an early analog computer including a few
useful
examples. Try to visualize what those problems might
look like on a
slide rule or today's personal computers:
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/eai/tr10/>
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/eai_tr-10.pdf>
Ah, such as a slide rule. Got it, thanks.
The device I was talking about was nothing like a slide
rule. It looked vaguely like the one in Jeff's last link
above, but the classroom demonstrator was much larger -
maybe 3' x 4' IIRC - with much bigger knobs (4" diameter?)
and meters.
We were talking about electrical analogies for vibrating
masses, and that's one of the things the analog computer
could simulate. One would have to calculate the values of
voltage, inductance and resistance to correctly simulate the
damped spring-mass system, set initial conditions, then let
the circuit run. The system's meters would then swing back
and forth in a manner analogous to the position of the mass.
All this was before digital computers were desktop devices.
(In those days, the programs I wrote for vaguely similar
problems were room sized and run by full time technicians,
and I'd turn in a program stored as a thick deck of punched
cards, hoping output would be ready the next day.)
As I recall, we students never did any actual work with that
analog computer.
On 1/4/2025 2:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2025 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
User manual on an early analog computer including a few useful
examples. Try to visualize what those problems might look like on a
slide rule or today's personal computers:
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/eai/tr10/>
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/eai_tr-10.pdf>
Ah, such as a slide rule. Got it, thanks.
The device I was talking about was nothing like a slide rule.
It looked
vaguely like the one in Jeff's last link above, but the classroom >demonstrator was much larger - maybe 3' x 4' IIRC - with much bigger
knobs (4" diameter?) and meters.
We were talking about electrical analogies for vibrating masses, and
that's one of the things the analog computer could simulate. One would
have to calculate the values of voltage, inductance and resistance to >correctly simulate the damped spring-mass system, set initial
conditions, then let the circuit run. The system's meters would then
swing back and forth in a manner analogous to the position of the mass.
All this was before digital computers were desktop devices.
(In those days, the programs I wrote for vaguely similar problems were
room sized and run by full time technicians, and I'd turn in a program
stored as a thick deck of punched cards, hoping output would be ready
the next day.)
As I recall, we students never did any actual work with that analog
computer.
In early college, I couldn't afford a real
scientific calculator (HP-35).
(...)
I gave up and bought a Ti SR-10, which was a mistake: ><http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/texas_instruments_sr-10.html>
I eventually obtained an HP-35 just in time to have the administration >temporarily ban the use of calculators during exams.
On 1/4/2025 2:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I gave up and bought a Ti SR-10, which was a mistake:
<http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/texas_instruments_sr-10.html>
I eventually obtained an HP-35 just in time to have the administration
temporarily ban the use of calculators during exams.
As a HP fan, my reaction to "... bought a TI SR-10" was "ewww."
You may be vaguely interested in this company: >https://www.swissmicros.com/products
Replica HP calculators. They seem to have a good reputation.
I'm doing well with my HP48G, thank you. But I still miss my HP11C that
was stolen while I worked at a little company with bad security.
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I
don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the
least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Analog computer?
Like the fluid logic plate in an automatic transmission?
https://www.carid.com/acdelco/gm-original-equipment-automatic-transmission-valve-body.html--
Nope. The automobile automatic transmission is actually a digital
fluidic switch. When all the inputs and outputs are either on, off,
in, out, left, right, up down etc, it's digital.
There are fluidic
analog computers. The key difference is how numbers are stored. In a digital computer, numbers are stored as discrete numbers. In an
analog computer, numbers are stored as a range of values that require interpolation to produce an output. When I asked Google the same
question, I received a rather wide range of answers: <https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+analog+and+digital+computer>
That was a common point of contention as computers were being
developed (roughly 1960 thru 1990). I don't think anyone successfully produced an answer that covered all types of computing devices.
Instead of an official answer, everyone just gave up by about 1990.
User manual on an early analog computer including a few useful
examples. Try to visualize what those problems might look like on a
slide rule or today's personal computers: <https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/eai/tr10/> <https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/eai_tr-10.pdf>
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 16:28:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 2:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2025 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
User manual on an early analog computer including a few useful
examples. Try to visualize what those problems might look like on a
slide rule or today's personal computers:
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/eai/tr10/>
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/eai_tr-10.pdf>
Ah, such as a slide rule. Got it, thanks.
The device I was talking about was nothing like a slide rule.
I called the analog computer that I build in a briefcase an
"electronic slide rule". I didn't want to, but that made it more
acceptable to the college bureaucracy.
It looked
vaguely like the one in Jeff's last link above, but the classroom
demonstrator was much larger - maybe 3' x 4' IIRC - with much bigger
knobs (4" diameter?) and meters.
I couldn't find anything with such huge knobs. Maybe something like
these from Edmund Scientific? <https://www.google.com/search?q=edmund+scientific+analog+computer&udm=2>
Would you believe a Heathkit EC-1 analog computer? <https://www.google.com/search?q=heathkit+ec-1&udm=2> <https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/may2016_heathkit_restoration>
Fig 7 is a bouncing ball simulation, which is similar to the bouncing
bicycle simulation.
We were talking about electrical analogies for vibrating masses, and
that's one of the things the analog computer could simulate. One would
have to calculate the values of voltage, inductance and resistance to
correctly simulate the damped spring-mass system, set initial
conditions, then let the circuit run. The system's meters would then
swing back and forth in a manner analogous to the position of the mass.
All this was before digital computers were desktop devices.
Meters? Too crude. We used an oscilloscope or X-Y pen plotter.
(In those days, the programs I wrote for vaguely similar problems were
room sized and run by full time technicians, and I'd turn in a program
stored as a thick deck of punched cards, hoping output would be ready
the next day.)
As I recall, we students never did any actual work with that analog
computer.
We did. My guess(tm) that would 1969. We had groups of 5 or 6
students sharing one machine. I got some extra experience because I
worked for the "calibration department" repairing them. The problem
was we had a large number of foreign exchange students from Iraq. Most
had never done any manual labor or learned to use tools. When faced
with a knob that had reached its end of rotation, they simply applied
more force to help it rotate. That usually broke the expensive 10
turn potentiometer (Helipot).
<https://www.google.com/search?q=helipot&udm=2>
I was the idiot who found a solution to the broken potentiometer
problem. Between the knob/turn_counter and the pot was a short shaft extension. I machined a few of these and added a plastic shear pin.
If they hit the end of rotation and break the pin, all they had to do
was rotate everything full counter clockwise, push the pin out of the
hole, and replace it with a new pin (or toothpick). The reason I was
an idiot was because I had found the solution, I sentence to working
overtime retrofitting all the analog computers with shear pins.
In my never humble opinion,
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 16:28:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 2:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2025 1:36 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
User manual on an early analog computer including a few useful
examples. Try to visualize what those problems might look like on a
slide rule or today's personal computers:
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/english/collection/eai/tr10/>
<https://www.analogmuseum.org/library/eai_tr-10.pdf>
Ah, such as a slide rule. Got it, thanks.
The device I was talking about was nothing like a slide rule.
I called the analog computer that I build in a briefcase an
"electronic slide rule". I didn't want to, but that made it more
acceptable to the college bureaucracy.
It looked
vaguely like the one in Jeff's last link above, but the classroom
demonstrator was much larger - maybe 3' x 4' IIRC - with much bigger
knobs (4" diameter?) and meters.
I couldn't find anything with such huge knobs. Maybe something like
these from Edmund Scientific? <https://www.google.com/search?q=edmund+scientific+analog+computer&udm=2>
Would you believe a Heathkit EC-1 analog computer? <https://www.google.com/search?q=heathkit+ec-1&udm=2> <https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/may2016_heathkit_restoration>
Fig 7 is a bouncing ball simulation, which is similar to the bouncing
bicycle simulation.
We were talking about electrical analogies for vibrating masses, and
that's one of the things the analog computer could simulate. One would
have to calculate the values of voltage, inductance and resistance to
correctly simulate the damped spring-mass system, set initial
conditions, then let the circuit run. The system's meters would then
swing back and forth in a manner analogous to the position of the mass.
All this was before digital computers were desktop devices.
Meters? Too crude. We used an oscilloscope or X-Y pen plotter.
(In those days, the programs I wrote for vaguely similar problems were
room sized and run by full time technicians, and I'd turn in a program
stored as a thick deck of punched cards, hoping output would be ready
the next day.)
As I recall, we students never did any actual work with that analog
computer.
We did. My guess(tm) that would 1969. We had groups of 5 or 6
students sharing one machine. I got some extra experience because I
worked for the "calibration department" repairing them. The problem
was we had a large number of foreign exchange students from Iraq. Most
had never done any manual labor or learned to use tools. When faced
with a knob that had reached its end of rotation, they simply applied
more force to help it rotate. That usually broke the expensive 10
turn potentiometer (Helipot).
<https://www.google.com/search?q=helipot&udm=2>
I was the idiot who found a solution to the broken potentiometer
problem. Between the knob/turn_counter and the pot was a short shaft extension. I machined a few of these and added a plastic shear pin.
If they hit the end of rotation and break the pin, all they had to do
was rotate everything full counter clockwise, push the pin out of the
hole, and replace it with a new pin (or toothpick). The reason I was
an idiot was because I had found the solution, I sentence to working
overtime retrofitting all the analog computers with shear pins.
On 1/5/2025 5:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:
I worked with a curmudgeonly older engineer many years ago
who quipped "do a shitty job well and it's yours forever".
One of my colleagues had a sign in his classroom:
"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have
time to do it over?"
On 1/4/2025 6:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I was the idiot who found a solution to the broken potentiometer
problem. Between the knob/turn_counter and the pot was a short shaft
extension. I machined a few of these and added a plastic shear pin.
If they hit the end of rotation and break the pin, all they had to do
was rotate everything full counter clockwise, push the pin out of the
hole, and replace it with a new pin (or toothpick). The reason I was
an idiot was because I had found the solution, I sentence to working
overtime retrofitting all the analog computers with shear pins.
I worked with a curmudgeonly older engineer many years ago who quipped
"do a shitty job well and it's yours forever".
On 1/4/2025 5:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
<https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/may2016_heathkit_restoration>
Thank you, especially for the Heath Kit page (although much
of that went beyond my understanding). The reader comments
were great, especially the last one!
On 1/5/2025 10:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/5/2025 5:40 AM, zen cycle wrote:Per Ray Gasiorowsky, "There are two ways to do anything. The
I worked with a curmudgeonly older engineer many years ago
who quipped "do a shitty job well and it's yours forever".
One of my colleagues had a sign in his classroom:
"If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have
time to do it over?"
right way and again."
On 1/3/2025 11:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
In my never humble opinion,
IMNHO....Nice...The Interwebs newest intialism.....
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 05:35:29 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 11:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
In my never humble opinion,
IMNHO....Nice...The Interwebs newest intialism.....
I think you mean initialism.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initialism>
I've been using "in my never humble opinion" in its fully expanded
form for probably 50 years. I typically the phrase only once per
posting, so there's no need for acronymization.
On 1/2/2025 11:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 9:42 AM, bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
But one can observe that in the case of smooth pavement,
suspension losses vanish, while hysteresis losses persist.
I think that would be true only if the smooth pavement were
as smooth as a linoleum floor. Or a wooden track. IIRC, what
got Jan Heine started on investigations of rolling
resistance vs. tire width was coast-down tests on a Soapbox
Derby track. I suspect that was quite smooth. Soapbox cars
have hard tires and no suspension, AFAIK.
In the end a bike is an overdamped resonator excited by the
pavement and damped by hysteresis, separately in the tire
and
suspenesion. In that limit, suspension would be faster if
used
with very hard tires on very smooth surfaces. In the
limit of
hard tires and no suspension, the dissipative element
becomes
the rider whose elastic properties are apt to be poor,
perhaps
accounting for the apparent slowness of solid tires.
Use of a rumble strip for testing is equivalent to selecting
a particular excitation spectrum. Choice of spectrum will
affect
dissipation depending on internal resonances of the bike/
rider
system. A real road likely corresponds to a 1/f spectrum,
but
a rumble strip will likely be something else. How much
difference
that makes isn't clear but it could be estimated using a
mechanical
analogy equivalent circuit of the kind used to model
loudspeakers.
A pair of series RLC circuits (one for the road-tire
interface
and a second for the suspension-rider interface) would be
a good
start. I'm not skilled enough to do the calculations, but
others
on this group likely are.
I _may_ have been able to do such calculations 50 years ago,
but I'm not sure. I certainly can't do them now.
The hardest part is apt to be finding
an equivalent circuit for the rider, who isn't a rigid
mass but
rather a dissipative blob....8-)
I actually think physically modeling that dissipative blob
might be valuable for the tire industry. Using such a blob
to apply weight during a rolling drum test might give better
information than what those tests give now.
Clever.
I take from that, you think the actual impact/height
change/velocity change etc from various irregular surfaces
can be quantified for any given random gravel (or road)
experience and used to compare efficiency for other
iterations.
I hadn't thought of that, but if that's true then the
rumble strip test isn't necessary for comparison. Which
assumes sensors have adequate sensitivity across whatever
range and that software for that data truly derives actual
impedimenta values.
There are ways of quantifying roughness, with varying
scales, varying tools. I'm most familiar with roughness
measurement of machined parts, with tools varying from
sample cards for "fingernail" test comparisons, to RMS
readers akin to phonograph needles or laser scattering devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_roughness
ISTR reading about systems for evaluating pavement fairly
crudely, as in whether it should be repaved or not. I don't
know of a system actually used for measuring pavement
roughness at a scale affecting bike tire choice.
On 1/5/2025 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 05:35:29 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 11:46 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
In my never humble opinion,
IMNHO....Nice...The Interwebs newest intialism.....
I think you mean initialism.
Indeed I did. It was a typo.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initialism>
I've been using "in my never humble opinion" in its fully expanded
form for probably 50 years. I typically the phrase only once per
posting, so there's no need for acronymization.
I think you mean _an_ acronymization. :)
On 1/4/2025 7:28 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I
don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the
least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
No need to check. When that calculator got stolen, the guys running the >company bought me a replacement. By then, the 11C was no longer
marketed, so I ended up with an HP 32S II, one of the few RPN machines
still in their line, IIRC.
The 11C seemed bulletproof, but this 32S is a bit flaky. Its the
calculator I keep in my workshop drawer, so it's not used very often.
But it seems that at least a third of the time I want to use it, it
refuses to turn on. I've slipped a little note in its case with notes on
the recovery procedure.
When it flakes out, I'll usually just pull out my Android phone and run
the HP 48G emulator. My main complaint about that one is that it isn't
really programmable - or at least, it doesn't retain programs when the
app is killed.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:51:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 7:28 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I
don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the
least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
No need to check. When that calculator got stolen, the guys running the
company bought me a replacement. By then, the 11C was no longer
marketed, so I ended up with an HP 32S II, one of the few RPN machines
still in their line, IIRC.
The 11C seemed bulletproof, but this 32S is a bit flaky. Its the
calculator I keep in my workshop drawer, so it's not used very often.
But it seems that at least a third of the time I want to use it, it
refuses to turn on. I've slipped a little note in its case with notes on
the recovery procedure.
When it flakes out, I'll usually just pull out my Android phone and run
the HP 48G emulator. My main complaint about that one is that it isn't
really programmable - or at least, it doesn't retain programs when the
app is killed.
I finally remembered to look into my boxes of HP calculators. I don't
have an HP 32SII or something comparable. In the scientific
calculator section, I found an HP 31E and a 32E. Both of these are
low end RPN calculators with LED displays. The 31E had a battery leak
at some time in the past and will require that I do some battery
contact rebuilding. I can provide a complete list of what I have in
stock.
On 1/10/2025 12:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:51:16 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI never could get used to the RPN data entry method
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 7:28 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I
don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the
least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
No need to check. When that calculator got stolen, the guys running the
company bought me a replacement. By then, the 11C was no longer
marketed, so I ended up with an HP 32S II, one of the few RPN machines
still in their line, IIRC.
The 11C seemed bulletproof, but this 32S is a bit flaky. Its the
calculator I keep in my workshop drawer, so it's not used very often.
But it seems that at least a third of the time I want to use it, it
refuses to turn on. I've slipped a little note in its case with notes on >>> the recovery procedure.
When it flakes out, I'll usually just pull out my Android phone and run
the HP 48G emulator. My main complaint about that one is that it isn't
really programmable - or at least, it doesn't retain programs when the
app is killed.
I finally remembered to look into my boxes of HP calculators. I don't
have an HP 32SII or something comparable. In the scientific
calculator section, I found an HP 31E and a 32E. Both of these are
low end RPN calculators with LED displays. The 31E had a battery leak
at some time in the past and will require that I do some battery
contact rebuilding. I can provide a complete list of what I have in
stock.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 05:19:53 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 12:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:51:16 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI never could get used to the RPN data entry method
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 7:28 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I
don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the
least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
No need to check. When that calculator got stolen, the guys running the >>>> company bought me a replacement. By then, the 11C was no longer
marketed, so I ended up with an HP 32S II, one of the few RPN machines >>>> still in their line, IIRC.
The 11C seemed bulletproof, but this 32S is a bit flaky. Its the
calculator I keep in my workshop drawer, so it's not used very often.
But it seems that at least a third of the time I want to use it, it
refuses to turn on. I've slipped a little note in its case with notes on >>>> the recovery procedure.
When it flakes out, I'll usually just pull out my Android phone and run >>>> the HP 48G emulator. My main complaint about that one is that it isn't >>>> really programmable - or at least, it doesn't retain programs when the >>>> app is killed.
I finally remembered to look into my boxes of HP calculators. I don't
have an HP 32SII or something comparable. In the scientific
calculator section, I found an HP 31E and a 32E. Both of these are
low end RPN calculators with LED displays. The 31E had a battery leak
at some time in the past and will require that I do some battery
contact rebuilding. I can provide a complete list of what I have in
stock.
Humans tend to prefer whatever technology they learned first. My
first calculator was basically a mechanical "adding machine". ><https://www.google.com/search?num=10&q=marchant+adding+machine&udm=2>
I eventually ended up with an HP-35 RPN calculator and loved it. RPN
is easy, if you think like a computer that stores intermediate results
in a stack. At home, I use an HP-41CX or an emulator on my phone and
PC. There are benefits and detriments to both algebraic and RPN
notation. If we can become accustomed to QWERTY keyboards designed to
slow down typing, we can get used to anything. I can switch back and
forth between algebraic and RPN. Algebraic for financial calculations
and RPN for engineering. Evaluating long equations is easier (for me)
using RPN.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 11:12 AM, cyclintom wrote:I’d assume most folks would ie use the road than ride in the gutter on
Coming out of Niles Canyon, you have to ride at around 20 mph Because
of traffic I was forced to cross a rumble strip with my 28 mm tires
and came damned close to losing control but it did allow me to let 5
cars moving at 45 mph + get past before a constriction. While you're
talking about taking the lane why don't you come here and try taking
the lane? You would soon discover, if you're lucky, from a hospital
bed that California deivers don't like your ideas.
Ah. We haven't had a "Bicycling is really dangerous _HERE_!" post in
quite a while.
So you judged that nearly losing control in front of a 45 mph car was
safer than legally taking the lane? Yes, my choice would have been
different, and I've made that choice in <gasp!> California; but
admittedly not in your super-dangerous neighborhood. When I do that,
motorists wait until its safe to pass. Exceptions are vanishingly rare.
the rumble strips! Though I can’t see much evidence of any bar a central line, so as ever not sure how/why Tom would be riding in those.
Seems on a very brief search that some gutters have been used by some cyclists as painted bike lanes, which isn’t a wildly good idea at best
of times! And are unhappy at the possibility of encountering rumble
strips, which seems likely to be a poor road all around!
Do have some painted gutters though Heathrow which i suspect the might
trick the unwary into thinking they are bike lanes, though it’s a fairly car centric type of roads so probably somewhat self selecting, ie I’ve
only ever seen folks like myself ie brave folks on road bikes, though
it’s a very rarely go though on the commute MTB which the gutters are
less of no no as it’s plush tires are unfazed by drain covered, and one
is traveling quite a lot slower, though even so it’s not a terribly wise idea.
Roger Merriman
As I often ask, what do you do when riding in a ten foot lane with no
shoulder, when an 8.5 foot wide truck approaches from behind? Do you
jump off the bike and humbly bow?
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 05:19:53 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 12:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:51:16 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI never could get used to the RPN data entry method
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 7:28 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I
don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the
least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
No need to check. When that calculator got stolen, the guys running the >>>> company bought me a replacement. By then, the 11C was no longer
marketed, so I ended up with an HP 32S II, one of the few RPN machines >>>> still in their line, IIRC.
The 11C seemed bulletproof, but this 32S is a bit flaky. Its the
calculator I keep in my workshop drawer, so it's not used very often.
But it seems that at least a third of the time I want to use it, it
refuses to turn on. I've slipped a little note in its case with notes on >>>> the recovery procedure.
When it flakes out, I'll usually just pull out my Android phone and run >>>> the HP 48G emulator. My main complaint about that one is that it isn't >>>> really programmable - or at least, it doesn't retain programs when the >>>> app is killed.
I finally remembered to look into my boxes of HP calculators. I don't
have an HP 32SII or something comparable. In the scientific
calculator section, I found an HP 31E and a 32E. Both of these are
low end RPN calculators with LED displays. The 31E had a battery leak
at some time in the past and will require that I do some battery
contact rebuilding. I can provide a complete list of what I have in
stock.
Humans tend to prefer whatever technology they learned first.
My
first calculator was basically a mechanical "adding machine". ><https://www.google.com/search?num=10&q=marchant+adding+machine&udm=2>
I eventually ended up with an HP-35 RPN calculator and loved it. RPN
is easy, if you think like a computer that stores intermediate results
in a stack.
At home, I use an HP-41CX or an emulator on my phone and
PC. There are benefits and detriments to both algebraic and RPN
notation.
If we can become accustomed to QWERTY keyboards designed to
slow down typing, we can get used to anything. I can switch back and
forth between algebraic and RPN. Algebraic for financial calculations
and RPN for engineering. Evaluating long equations is easier (for me)
using RPN.
<BIG snip>
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in bicycles. I'm
not talking about replacing muscle power by motor power, that's
replacing bicycles by something else. But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket? What about replacing
those awkward cables and complicated brifters with simple electric
switches and an encrypted wireless channel? Is that bad, because a
blacksmith can't repair it with his tools, like giving a horse a new
pair of horse shoes? What about LED lights, then? Shouldn't we get
back to incandescent bulbs, powered by bottle dynamos?
I think we should not and can not turn back the wheel, at least not like this. I accept that there are reasons to keep bicycles simple, or to
keep at least some biycles simple enough to long lived and usable even without much maintenance and without exotic stuff. But the question is,
what makes a component or material exotic? Is a specific bowden cable or
a gear hub or hub generator really less exotic and simpler to replace/recreate than, say, a LED light or a wireless shifter? I doubt
it.
There is a point when mechanical parts become complicated enough to
create a vendor lock-in, when a second source isn't available. Just like
with electronic parts. Sometimes the relationship gets reversed, when an over-engineered and complicated mechanical solution is replaced by a
simple construction that combines commercially available electronics
with simple mechanical parts.
In this respect, you have to take a close look at where a dependency
arises, instead of simply linking it to characteristics such as “new”, “electronic” or “wireless”. We need open standards, either through industry commitments, or by regulations.
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:25:48 -0800 schrieb Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 05:19:53 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2025 12:20 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:51:16 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI never could get used to the RPN data entry method
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 7:28 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'll look in my collection and see if I have an HP11C. Offhand, I >>>>>> don't think so. There are some on eBay. The one's that offer the >>>>>> least risk and are likely to work are $75 and up.
No need to check. When that calculator got stolen, the guys running the >>>>> company bought me a replacement. By then, the 11C was no longer
marketed, so I ended up with an HP 32S II, one of the few RPN machines >>>>> still in their line, IIRC.
The 11C seemed bulletproof, but this 32S is a bit flaky. Its the
calculator I keep in my workshop drawer, so it's not used very often. >>>>> But it seems that at least a third of the time I want to use it, it
refuses to turn on. I've slipped a little note in its case with notes on >>>>> the recovery procedure.
When it flakes out, I'll usually just pull out my Android phone and run >>>>> the HP 48G emulator. My main complaint about that one is that it isn't >>>>> really programmable - or at least, it doesn't retain programs when the >>>>> app is killed.
I finally remembered to look into my boxes of HP calculators. I don't >>>> have an HP 32SII or something comparable. In the scientific
calculator section, I found an HP 31E and a 32E. Both of these are
low end RPN calculators with LED displays. The 31E had a battery leak >>>> at some time in the past and will require that I do some battery
contact rebuilding. I can provide a complete list of what I have in
stock.
Humans tend to prefer whatever technology they learned first.
Not really. I learned programming by creating punched cards using an IBM
26 Printing Card Punch, editing those programs by using the card
duplicating feature of those machines. Followed by pinnig stretches of
pages printed by large chain printers like to a wall, in order to study complaints from the Fortran IV compiler, or using a pen to mark logical errors in the source code, for later correction work on said card punch.
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in bicycles. ...
But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
What about replacing
those awkward cables and complicated brifters with simple electric
switches and an encrypted wireless channel? Is that bad, because a
blacksmith can't repair it with his tools, like giving a horse a new
pair of horse shoes?
Of course, you're welcome to use electric shifting if you like. (Or
brifters, which I don't!) But my life experience with electronic devices makes me suspicious. I've seen too many examples of electronic devices
that simply stopped working, with no possible way of diagnosing the
problem - at least, not by me. And while I'm far from an electronics
expert, I'm better than the average citizen.
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-
public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Similarly, a good friend recently told me about her adventure with her relatively new washing machine. During an expensive service visit, a repairman told her the problem was somewhere in the main circuit board,
and that the only solution was to replace the expensive board. Our
washer is something like 35 years old, uses an electro-mechanical timer,
and will probably work well for whichever grandkid inherits it.
I'm positive my shifters are also going to be working for whichever
grandkid inherits them.
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
What about replacing
those awkward cables and complicated brifters with simple electric
switches and an encrypted wireless channel? Is that bad, because a
blacksmith can't repair it with his tools, like giving a horse a new
pair of horse shoes?
Of course, you're welcome to use electric shifting if you like.
brifters, which I don't!) But my life experience with electronic devices >makes me suspicious. I've seen too many examples of electronic devices
that simply stopped working, with no possible way of diagnosing the
problem - at least, not by me. And while I'm far from an electronics
expert, I'm better than the average citizen.
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo: >https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-public/ >I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Similarly, a good friend recently told me about her adventure with her >relatively new washing machine. During an expensive service visit, a >repairman told her the problem was somewhere in the main circuit board,
and that the only solution was to replace the expensive board. Our
washer is something like 35 years old, uses an electro-mechanical timer,
and will probably work well for whichever grandkid inherits it.
I'm positive my shifters are also going to be working for whichever
grandkid inherits them. I wouldn't be confident about electronic shifters.
What about LED lights, then? Shouldn't we get
back to incandescent bulbs, powered by bottle dynamos?
I love good LED bike lights. And in some cases, the LEDs are direct >replacements for incandescent bulbs.
But I still use bottle dynos on two
bikes. They can be more than fine, depending on service requirements.
I think we should not and can not turn back the wheel, at least not like
this. I accept that there are reasons to keep bicycles simple, or to
keep at least some biycles simple enough to long lived and usable even
without much maintenance and without exotic stuff. But the question is,
what makes a component or material exotic? Is a specific bowden cable or
a gear hub or hub generator really less exotic and simpler to
replace/recreate than, say, a LED light or a wireless shifter? I doubt
it.
It depends on the LED light, I suppose. Some seem to have on board >electronics as complicated as that blanket controller,
and I don't know
why. (I am curious about that, having opened up one Busch & Muller
headlamp.) But I've opened and repaired both gear hubs and hub dynos
from the 1950s. They now work perfectly. That won't be true of current >electronic shifters 50 years from now.
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point
from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete shifters.
On 1/11/2025 4:22 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point >>>from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete shifters.
It isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g rechargeable
battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years, the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the device or via
a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a 4-6 hour ride.
But how many threads have we had here about problems with Garmin computers?
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point >>from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete shifters.
It isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g rechargeable battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years, the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the device or via
a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a 4-6 hour ride.
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in
bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer software, it seems >>> like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later. Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness, strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing. This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't imagine
much value from that measurement.
In fact, I don't believe power
measurement is necessary for fitness. I judge by feel. It has the
advantage of naturally compensating for days when I feel stronger or
weaker. And it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong. That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-
public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they functioned well >>> for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3 inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year. I've found a
fan to be the best defense against mosquitos. The previous one still
runs, but exposure to sunlight destroyed its plastic finger protection screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the size of a
snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan? I rejected ceiling
fans with remotes when I was shopping, too. It's something to lose,
something whose battery will die, and something whose electronics will
go bad and be unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in part because
I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped and powder coated a
couple years ago. Too many excellent memories to let it go.
On 1/11/2025 4:22 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point >>>from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete shifters.
It isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g rechargeable
battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years, the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the device or via
a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a 4-6 hour ride.
But how many threads have we had here about problems with Garmin computers?
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in
bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about
telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and
electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer
software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me
don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of
principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I
didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company
in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later.
Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness,
strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost
unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than
what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it
decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you
have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is
helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and
overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a
heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons
in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a
tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing.
This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be
avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting
differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I
can't imagine much value from that measurement. In fact, I
don't believe power measurement is necessary for fitness. I
judge by feel. It has the advantage of naturally
compensating for days when I feel stronger or weaker. And
it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as
mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic
devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some
that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both
electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the
mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device and _see_ what's wrong. That, and the fact
I can often affect a repair. I hate the Kleenex ethic -
"It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an
electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I
opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond
that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was
incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it,
but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/
in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they
functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of
other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the
sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of
the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year.
I've found a fan to be the best defense against mosquitos.
The previous one still runs, but exposure to sunlight
destroyed its plastic finger protection screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the
size of a snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan?
I rejected ceiling fans with remotes when I was shopping,
too. It's something to lose, something whose battery will
die, and something whose electronics will go bad and be
unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the
time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in
part because I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped
and powder coated a couple years ago. Too many excellent
memories to let it go.
On 1/11/2025 4:22 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my
luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the
furthest point
from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to
discrete shifters.
It isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g
rechargeable
battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years,
the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the
device or via
a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a
4-6 hour ride.
I can't tell you how many times I leave the house and forget
my wallet. Adding trying to remember to carry a spare
battery is only part of the problem though.
The other issue is the failure rates associated with a
complex electro-mechanical systems VS a simple cable
derailleur system. (Since I conduct FMEDAs as part of my
role, I'm well-aware of the exponential failure rates
associated with increased complexity).
Since I've been seriously riding in the early 1980's, I've
never had a problem associated with a shifting mechanism
that I couldn't handle with a simple road/trail side repair,
except for the few times when I've sheared the derailleur
off in the woods. If your E-shifting mechanism fails for any
reason other than the battery going dead, you're pretty much
stick in whenever gear it left you in.
I don't begrudge anyone for wanting E-shifting. I think it's
a great technological advancement. The few times I've ridden
E-shifting systems, I've been impressed with the accuracy,
repeatability, and quickness of the shifts. But I don't see
those advantages of being worth the extra cost and risk of
failure. That's just my opinion, YMMV.
On 1/12/2025 6:22 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 4:22 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point >>>> from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete
shifters.
It isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g rechargeable
battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years, the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the device or via >>> a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a 4-6 hour ride.
I can't tell you how many times I leave the house and forget my
wallet. Adding trying to remember to carry a spare battery is only
part of the problem though.
The other issue is the failure rates associated with a complex
electro-mechanical systems VS a simple cable derailleur system. (Since
I conduct FMEDAs as part of my role, I'm well-aware of the exponential
failure rates associated with increased complexity).
Since I've been seriously riding in the early 1980's, I've never had a
problem associated with a shifting mechanism that I couldn't handle
with a simple road/trail side repair, except for the few times when
I've sheared the derailleur off in the woods. If your E-shifting
mechanism fails for any reason other than the battery going dead,
you're pretty much stick in whenever gear it left you in.
I don't begrudge anyone for wanting E-shifting. I think it's a great
technological advancement. The few times I've ridden E-shifting
systems, I've been impressed with the accuracy, repeatability, and
quickness of the shifts. But I don't see those advantages of being
worth the extra cost and risk of failure. That's just my opinion, YMMV.
Modern electronic shift systems work. They're different from mechanical
but IMHO neither better nor worse, just different.
https://pezcyclingnews.com/technspec/how-i-survived-a-dead-sram-etap- battery/
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/p0vxtq/ shimano_di2_options_when_battery_dies_mid_trip/
"One temporary solution would be to find someone that has a Di2, unplug
their and your rear derailleur and plug in their cable into your
derailleur. You can then change to the comfortable gear and ride back
home. "
On 1/11/2025 4:22 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be onIt isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g rechargeable
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point
from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete shifters. >>
battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years, the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the device or via
a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a 4-6 hour ride.
But how many threads have we had here about problems with Garmin computers?
On 1/11/2025 4:22 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:06:46 -0500 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
I'm no fan of electronic shifting - it would be just my luck to be on
planed 4-6 hour ride, and have something crap out at the furthest point >>>from the car/house. That said, I'm never going back to discrete shifters.
It isn't that difficult to carry a CR2032 and a tiny 25 g rechargeable
battery somewhere. The coin cell lasts about two years, the battery is
good for about 800-1000 km. Both warn early via LED on the device or via
a Garmin Edge computer, for not having to care during a 4-6 hour ride.
I can't tell you how many times I leave the house and forget my wallet. >Adding trying to remember to carry a spare battery is only part of the >problem though.
The other issue is the failure rates associated with a complex >electro-mechanical systems VS a simple cable derailleur system. (Since I >conduct FMEDAs as part of my role, I'm well-aware of the exponential
failure rates associated with increased complexity).
Since I've been seriously riding in the early 1980's, I've never had a >problem associated with a shifting mechanism that I couldn't handle with
a simple road/trail side repair, except for the few times when I've
sheared the derailleur off in the woods.
If your E-shifting mechanism
fails for any reason other than the battery going dead, you're pretty
much stick in whenever gear it left you in.
I don't begrudge anyone for wanting E-shifting. I think it's a great >technological advancement. The few times I've ridden E-shifting systems,
I've been impressed with the accuracy, repeatability, and quickness of
the shifts. But I don't see those advantages of being worth the extra
cost and risk of failure.
That's just my opinion, YMMV.
I can't tell you how many times I leave the house and forget my wallet. >Adding trying to remember to carry a spare battery is only part of the >problem though.
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I
can't imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's
useful. There are a great many data geeks who find it
quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data
on their individual legs' power output?
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't imagine
much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful. There
are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their >individual legs' power output?
On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/12/2025 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs?
I can't imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's
useful. There are a great many data geeks who find it
quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use
data on their individual legs' power output?
If he finds it interesting, he ought to pursue it, even to
recording and manipulating the data (daily/weekly/monthly
averages, min-max differential and the like).
If you, as I, have no interest whatsoever, we shall not
acquire one.
As with so many discussions here, personal taste, for any
reason or for no reason, is reason enough for a decision
either way.
That's fine. Choice is allowed. I was just interested in
actual quantities of "a great many data geeks who find it
quite useful" using our present sample.
I don't think it's unusual to have zero interest in
individual leg power.
YMMV, of course.
On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/12/2025 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful.
There are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their
individual legs' power output?
If he finds it interesting, he ought to pursue it, even to recording and
manipulating the data (daily/weekly/monthly averages, min-max
differential and the like).
If you, as I, have no interest whatsoever, we shall not acquire one.
As with so many discussions here, personal taste, for any reason or for
no reason, is reason enough for a decision either way.
That's fine. Choice is allowed. I was just interested in actual
quantities of "a great many data geeks who find it quite useful" using
our present sample.
I don't think it's unusual to have zero interest in individual leg power.
YMMV, of course.
Modern electronic shift systems work. They're different from
mechanical but IMHO neither better nor worse, just different.
https://pezcyclingnews.com/technspec/how-i-survived-a-dead-sram-etap-battery/
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer software, it seems >>> like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later. Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness, strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing. This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't imagine
much value from that measurement.
In fact, I don't believe power
measurement is necessary for fitness.
I judge by feel. It has the
advantage of naturally compensating for days when I feel stronger or
weaker. And it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong.
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they functioned well >>> for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg> >> and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3 inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year. I've found a
fan to be the best defense against mosquitos. The previous one still
runs, but exposure to sunlight destroyed its plastic finger protection >screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the size of a
snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan? I rejected ceiling
fans with remotes when I was shopping, too. It's something to lose,
something whose battery will die, and something whose electronics will
go bad and be unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in part because
I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped and powder coated a
couple years ago. Too many excellent memories to let it go.
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo: >https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:25:48 -0800 schrieb Jeff Liebermann ><jeffl@cruzio.com>:
Humans tend to prefer whatever technology they learned first.
Not really. I learned programming by creating punched cards using an IBM
26 Printing Card Punch, editing those programs by using the card
duplicating feature of those machines. Followed by pinnig stretches of
pages printed by large chain printers like to a wall, in order to study >complaints from the Fortran IV compiler, or using a pen to mark logical >errors in the source code, for later correction work on said card punch.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1403>
My
first calculator was basically a mechanical "adding machine". >><https://www.google.com/search?num=10&q=marchant+adding+machine&udm=2>
I eventually ended up with an HP-35 RPN calculator and loved it. RPN
is easy, if you think like a computer that stores intermediate results
in a stack.
Of course. If you do.
There is nothing wrong with RPN, if it works for you. But there isn't >anything "natural" about it.
I rarely used calculators, because writing short program snippets is
more natural for me. Many decades ago I did that using PL/I-80 on my >self-built CP/M computer, nowadays I just fire up a Python REPL, or
start a Jupyter notebook, for so called "back of the envelope"
calculations.
My first and only HP calculator is a HP 200LX, still working fine.
I
lost one of the tiny case screws, decades ago, replacing the CR2032 now
and then is still awkward. I have no real use for the device anymore,
but I still like it enough for not giving it away. AFAIR, there's still
a copy of the original DeSmet C compiler on the flash card in the PCMCIA >slot. :-)
Getting back to cycling ... :-)
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:08:45 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/11/2025 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in
bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about
telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and
electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer
software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me
don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of
principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I
didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company
in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later.
Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness,
strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost
unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than
what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it
decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you
have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is
helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and
overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a
heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons
in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a
tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing.
This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be
avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting
differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I
can't imagine much value from that measurement. In fact, I
don't believe power measurement is necessary for fitness. I
judge by feel. It has the advantage of naturally
compensating for days when I feel stronger or weaker. And
it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as
mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic
devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some
that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both
electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the
mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device and _see_ what's wrong. That, and the fact
I can often affect a repair. I hate the Kleenex ethic -
"It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an
electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I
opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond
that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was
incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it,
but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/
in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they
functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of
other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the
sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of
the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year.
I've found a fan to be the best defense against mosquitos.
The previous one still runs, but exposure to sunlight
destroyed its plastic finger protection screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the
size of a snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan?
I rejected ceiling fans with remotes when I was shopping,
too. It's something to lose, something whose battery will
die, and something whose electronics will go bad and be
unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the
time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in
part because I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped
and powder coated a couple years ago. Too many excellent
memories to let it go.
Not only the electronics infestation of consumer products.
I brought food to make girlfriend's birthday dinner last
evening and I cook in her kitchen regularly but sometimes
the modern kitchen stove is a real impediment.
[break for electronics rant: Her new kitchen stove, as her
furnace, both run from the large LP tank in the yard. Both
'improved' designs cannot run without electronic
start/valves etc so when the power is out there is no heat
whatsoever and power outages in rural USA are periodic.]
The new kitchen stove has electronic controls for the
burners and oven (oven controlled by a touch pad not, a
physical switch). The burner controls have 4 positions
only, viz., Off, Low, High, Start. That's really difficult
for some cooking projects. Resolved by moving the two pans
off and on the flame, which is Just One More Thing when
timing two dishes at once.
Only a designer who has never actually cooked would think of
that. Works fine for brewing coffee or boiling pasta but
limited for many projects.
Gee,,, my mother cooked on a "gas" stove with mechanical controls from
the regulate at the tank to the knobs on the stove successfully and
one grandmother cooked on a wood stove, in the winter, un till she
died, successfully.
Are these "modern contraptions" really necessary?
Well, perhaps they are. Are there young woman, today, being taught by
their mother how to cook on a wood stove? Or how to darn woolen socks,
or even how to raise the kids?
On 1/12/2025 5:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-public/
I don't think I can do much with just a photograph. If you have the
maker, model and FCC ID number, I can do better. Also, some
indication of what it does when the power is applied, such as do the
LED's light. If the don't light, try again in the dark and see if
they partially light.
There was no action at all, no lights, nothing.
Looking at the PCB components, I would guess it's 2000 to 2010
vintage. In other words, it's old. I can't read any of the part
numbers from the photo. If the SOT-24 package (probably a PIC
Microcontroller) has a date, that would determine the age. Looking at
an enlargement of the photo, I notice that some of the components
(LED's and pushbutton switches) were hand soldered. Enlarging the
photo showed several possible places where the soldering looks like a
volcano with a black annular ring around the center component lead.
That's about all I can do with just a photo.
I thought about bad solder joints and looked pretty carefully, but
didn't see any that looked suspicious.
I didn't go so far as to follow
the traces to see where voltage went away. The owner is quite prosperous
and lives a distance away, and was saying "Dinner is ready!" She'll just
buy a new one. I figure I did my duty by eliminating obvious faults and
by pointing out that the blanket itself was still good, so just replace
the controller.
Yes, I surmised that was the motivation. The terrible plague of electric >blanket deaths has finally been conquered! We are safer every year!
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the
modern one better?
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 19:33:00 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:11:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/12/2025 5:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond that, the pile of >>>>> dozens of surface mount electronic components was incomprehensible to >>>>> me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it, but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/in/dateposted-public/
I don't think I can do much with just a photograph. If you have the
maker, model and FCC ID number, I can do better. Also, some
indication of what it does when the power is applied, such as do the
LED's light. If the don't light, try again in the dark and see if
they partially light.
There was no action at all, no lights, nothing.
That makes troubleshooting easy. There has to be a fuse or thermal
circuit breaker in there somewhere. I can't see one on the PCB
(printed circuit board). It's a single sided PCB so it's unlikely
that it's hiding on the back of the PCB. It's either inside the wall
plug, inside some kind of on/off switch box that's in series with the
power cord, or attached to the blanket somewhere.
I took a 2nd look at the PCB and found some more things that look >>suspicious. >><https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/electric-blanket-control.jpg> >>It's a single sided (nothing but the cheapest) PCB. That means that
any wires going through the pads on the PCB need to be well soldered
or they will literally fall off. I circled 6 solder connections that
don't look quite right. (Oops. I missed one). Compare these solder >>connections with the ones that look good on the left side of the PCB.
There are also 4 connection on the upper left with don't look right.
What is the black stuff on the leads? Melted plastic? The labels S1
S2 are wires to a switch. H1 and H2 are heater wires.
If you want me to continue, please provide the maker, model number,
and FCC ID if available.
Looking at the PCB components, I would guess it's 2000 to 2010
vintage. In other words, it's old. I can't read any of the part
numbers from the photo. If the SOT-24 package (probably a PIC
Microcontroller) has a date, that would determine the age. Looking at >>>> an enlargement of the photo, I notice that some of the components
(LED's and pushbutton switches) were hand soldered. Enlarging the
photo showed several possible places where the soldering looks like a
volcano with a black annular ring around the center component lead.
That's about all I can do with just a photo.
I thought about bad solder joints and looked pretty carefully, but
didn't see any that looked suspicious.
After I look for suspicious cold solder connections, I just resolder
the connections.
I didn't go so far as to follow
the traces to see where voltage went away. The owner is quite prosperous >>>and lives a distance away, and was saying "Dinner is ready!" She'll just >>>buy a new one. I figure I did my duty by eliminating obvious faults and >>>by pointing out that the blanket itself was still good, so just replace >>>the controller.
We have a different view of the problem. I look my duty is to prevent
yet another piece of almost working electronics from ending up in the >>recycling bin.
"Recycling Isnt the Answer; Its the Last Resort" >><https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Recycling>
Yes, I surmised that was the motivation. The terrible plague of electric >>>blanket deaths has finally been conquered! We are safer every year!
Thank you for the cynical comment of the day.
"Electric Blanket Fire Lawyer" >><https://www.killinofirm.com/practice-areas/electric-blanket-fire-lawyer> >>"Electric blankets cause about 5,000 house fires per year in the US, >>resulting in dozens of injuries and even death."
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the
modern one better?
On 1/12/2025 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:08:45 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/11/2025 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in
bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about
telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and
electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer
software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me
don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of
principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I
didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company
in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later.
Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness,
strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost
unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than
what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it
decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you
have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is
helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and
overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a
heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons
in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a
tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing.
This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be
avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting
differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I
can't imagine much value from that measurement. In fact, I
don't believe power measurement is necessary for fitness. I
judge by feel. It has the advantage of naturally
compensating for days when I feel stronger or weaker. And
it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as
mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic
devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some
that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both
electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the
mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device and _see_ what's wrong. That, and the fact
I can often affect a repair. I hate the Kleenex ethic -
"It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an
electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I
opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond
that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was
incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it,
but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/
in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they
functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of
other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the
sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of
the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year.
I've found a fan to be the best defense against mosquitos.
The previous one still runs, but exposure to sunlight
destroyed its plastic finger protection screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the
size of a snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan?
I rejected ceiling fans with remotes when I was shopping,
too. It's something to lose, something whose battery will
die, and something whose electronics will go bad and be
unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the
time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in
part because I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped
and powder coated a couple years ago. Too many excellent
memories to let it go.
Not only the electronics infestation of consumer products.
I brought food to make girlfriend's birthday dinner last
evening and I cook in her kitchen regularly but sometimes
the modern kitchen stove is a real impediment.
[break for electronics rant: Her new kitchen stove, as her
furnace, both run from the large LP tank in the yard. Both
'improved' designs cannot run without electronic
start/valves etc so when the power is out there is no heat
whatsoever and power outages in rural USA are periodic.]
The new kitchen stove has electronic controls for the
burners and oven (oven controlled by a touch pad not, a
physical switch). The burner controls have 4 positions
only, viz., Off, Low, High, Start. That's really difficult
for some cooking projects. Resolved by moving the two pans
off and on the flame, which is Just One More Thing when
timing two dishes at once.
Only a designer who has never actually cooked would think of
that. Works fine for brewing coffee or boiling pasta but
limited for many projects.
Gee,,, my mother cooked on a "gas" stove with mechanical controls from
the regulate at the tank to the knobs on the stove successfully and
one grandmother cooked on a wood stove, in the winter, un till she
died, successfully.
Are these "modern contraptions" really necessary?
Well, perhaps they are. Are there young woman, today, being taught by
their mother how to cook on a wood stove? Or how to darn woolen socks,
or even how to raise the kids?
Much agreed.
The kitchen stove I used for decades had simple gas valves
and a box of wooden matches in a clay dish next to it. No
complaints.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 23:18:27 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
My first and only HP calculator is a HP 200LX, still working fine.
I had an HP95, HP 100LX, and a HP200LX. I still have the HP100-LX,
but the others were sold long ago. Trying to find PCMCIA cards with
small amounts of memory, is what forced me to stop using them. They
were really "cool" in their day.
I
lost one of the tiny case screws, decades ago, replacing the CR2032 now
and then is still awkward. I have no real use for the device anymore,
but I still like it enough for not giving it away. AFAIR, there's still
a copy of the original DeSmet C compiler on the flash card in the PCMCIA >>slot. :-)
Ok, you're addicted. I have a rather disorganized box of HP
calculator parts. I'll look for a screw and mail it to you.
Otherwise, there seem to be some available online: ><https://www.200lx.net/mtncekit.htm>
I removed one screw from my HP 100LX to check the size. I would
guess(tm) it's 2-56, but without a gauge or a 2-56 nut, I can't be
sure. However, I can't find my thread gauges and my microscope
threading graticule is in use. So this will need to wait. Please
remind me if I forget.
Getting back to cycling ... :-)
Sorry. I need to get back to house cleaning and firewood hauling.
I'll read through the rest of your posting and write something,
hopefully in a few days.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the
modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100% efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
The problem with electric blankets is that they're rather fragile.
Dogs, cats and rats chew on them causing exposed wires. Using them
folded can break wires at the bend or cause overheating. There are
probably other ways to damage the wires. Once exposed and/or broken,
the safety question becomes what will the circuitry to prevent sparks, localized overheating, starting a fire, overload, etc. Dealing with
all those potential problems doesn't create a better heating
experience, but does make the blanket safer. Basically, you don't
know that you have a problem until after the house burns down.
Electric heated blanket recalls: <https://www.cpsc.gov/search?search_api_fulltext=electric+blankets>
If you check the "Include archived items" box, you'll see all the old recalls.
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful. There
are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their individual legs' power output?
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that
"lifetime" is defined as "the amount of time it works." if
something stops working, its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any
more, just throw it away."
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity
necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
No. I doubt that "being modern" is a reasonable benchmark
or measure.
This cuts both ways. :-)
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of
the sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one
of the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
You don't have a single remote control in your house? Not
even for the
TV? That's rare.
I've got more remotes than I want. The TV's power button and
channel changing buttons are not even visible. They're
hidden and practically un-labeled on the back edge of the
device, so a remote is necessary to even turn it on. I pump
the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which has its own
remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working),
the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had
a friend house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how
to run the system.
A couple years ago we were given a Christmas gift of battery
powered LED "candles." The could change colors - by use of a
remote! Why should a candle need a remote?
Same for a ceiling fan. Ours change speed by use of a pull
chain. I'll never lose the pull chain. I would certainly
misplace a remote.
I still have a box of old, but still working IR remote
controls,
from devices that broke many years ago. I collected these
to control
gadgets like this one
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/basteleien/microcontroller/
ws2812/DSC_3564-DSC_3566_fused.JPG>
Can you guess what this blinkenlight does?
Nope.
Parts a an IR receiver, a PIC 12F1840 microcontroller, a
stripe of eight
RGB LED, and a remote control from a CD Player that broke
long before
2014, when I built that gadget. The aforementioned $1.50
controller
(single quantity, digikey) does everything from IR
decoding to
controlling the LED stripe.
Somewhat later, I built something larger using a different
part (an
ESP8266) for illuminating the house bar of one of our
kids, using about
one meter of densely placed RGB LED, controlled via WIFI,
doing a whole
series of different colorful light effects. Extendable
with new effects
by uploading short LUA snippets, of course. :-) I was told
that it was
used again at a New Year's celebration, so obviously it is
still
working.
There's a part of me that wishes I had your skills and
knowledge. I occasionally dream up little electronic
projects that I lack the knowledge to design or build. I've
thought about educating myself, but soon realized there are
many other things I'd prefer to learn.
My wife still uses an almost as old bicycle for everyday
rides around
the corner. Didn't have to strip and power coat it,
because it came
that way, when she bought it.
But like me, she is glad that I build two road bikes in
2023, using
wireless electronic shifting that you dislike so much.
Without, she
wouldn't have been able to do some of those very enjoyable
tours
throughout the region that we did in 2023 and in 2024.
Can you explain? It's hard for me to visualize a tour that
would _require_ electronic shifting. The vast majority of my
touring and riding miles have been done without even index
shifting.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the
modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100% efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw
it away."
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the following picture. >>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
No. I doubt that "being modern" is a reasonable benchmark or measure.
This cuts both ways. :-)
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3 inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the sockets are >>>> still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote controls stored >>>> which might live even longer. Standard type, used in garage openers and >>>> burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the sockets is as easy >>>> as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for certain use cases, >>>> though.
Yuck.
You don't have a single remote control in your house? Not even for the
TV? That's rare.
I've got more remotes than I want.
The TV's power button and channel
changing buttons are not even visible. They're hidden and practically >un-labeled on the back edge of the device, so a remote is necessary to
even turn it on.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working),
the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend
house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system.
A couple years ago we were given a Christmas gift of battery powered LED >"candles." The could change colors - by use of a remote! Why should a
candle need a remote?
Same for a ceiling fan. Ours change speed by use of a pull chain. I'll
never lose the pull chain. I would certainly misplace a remote.
I still have a box of old, but still working IR remote controls,
from devices that broke many years ago. I collected these to control
gadgets like this one
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/basteleien/microcontroller/ws2812/DSC_3564-DSC_3566_fused.JPG>
Can you guess what this blinkenlight does?
Nope.
Parts a an IR receiver, a PIC 12F1840 microcontroller, a stripe of eight
RGB LED, and a remote control from a CD Player that broke long before
2014, when I built that gadget. The aforementioned $1.50 controller
(single quantity, digikey) does everything from IR decoding to
controlling the LED stripe.
Somewhat later, I built something larger using a different part (an
ESP8266) for illuminating the house bar of one of our kids, using about
one meter of densely placed RGB LED, controlled via WIFI, doing a whole
series of different colorful light effects. Extendable with new effects
by uploading short LUA snippets, of course. :-) I was told that it was
used again at a New Year's celebration, so obviously it is still
working.
There's a part of me that wishes I had your skills and knowledge. I >occasionally dream up little electronic projects that I lack the
knowledge to design or build. I've thought about educating myself, but
soon realized there are many other things I'd prefer to learn.
My wife still uses an almost as old bicycle for everyday rides around
the corner. Didn't have to strip and power coat it, because it came
that way, when she bought it.
But like me, she is glad that I build two road bikes in 2023, using
wireless electronic shifting that you dislike so much. Without, she
wouldn't have been able to do some of those very enjoyable tours
throughout the region that we did in 2023 and in 2024.
Can you explain? It's hard for me to visualize a tour that would
_require_ electronic shifting.
The vast majority of my touring and
riding miles have been done without even index shifting.
On 1/12/2025 2:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful. There
are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their
individual legs' power output?
I hardly consider this forum to be representative of the cycling
community at alrge.
On 1/12/2025 8:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device
and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that
"lifetime" is defined as "the amount of time it works." if
something stops working, its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any
more, just throw it away."
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity
necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
No. I doubt that "being modern" is a reasonable benchmark
or measure.
This cuts both ways. :-)
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of
the sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one
of the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
You don't have a single remote control in your house? Not
even for the
TV? That's rare.
I've got more remotes than I want. The TV's power button and
channel changing buttons are not even visible. They're
hidden and practically un-labeled on the back edge of the
device, so a remote is necessary to even turn it on. I pump
the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which has its own
remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working),
the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had
a friend house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how
to run the system.
A couple years ago we were given a Christmas gift of battery
powered LED "candles." The could change colors - by use of a
remote! Why should a candle need a remote?
Same for a ceiling fan. Ours change speed by use of a pull
chain. I'll never lose the pull chain. I would certainly
misplace a remote.
I still have a box of old, but still working IR remote
controls,
from devices that broke many years ago. I collected these
to control
gadgets like this one
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/basteleien/microcontroller/
ws2812/DSC_3564-DSC_3566_fused.JPG>
Can you guess what this blinkenlight does?
Nope.
Parts a an IR receiver, a PIC 12F1840 microcontroller, a
stripe of eight
RGB LED, and a remote control from a CD Player that broke
long before
2014, when I built that gadget. The aforementioned $1.50
controller
(single quantity, digikey) does everything from IR
decoding to
controlling the LED stripe.
Somewhat later, I built something larger using a different
part (an
ESP8266) for illuminating the house bar of one of our
kids, using about
one meter of densely placed RGB LED, controlled via WIFI,
doing a whole
series of different colorful light effects. Extendable
with new effects
by uploading short LUA snippets, of course. :-) I was told
that it was
used again at a New Year's celebration, so obviously it is
still
working.
There's a part of me that wishes I had your skills and
knowledge. I occasionally dream up little electronic
projects that I lack the knowledge to design or build. I've
thought about educating myself, but soon realized there are
many other things I'd prefer to learn.
My wife still uses an almost as old bicycle for everyday
rides around
the corner. Didn't have to strip and power coat it,
because it came
that way, when she bought it.
But like me, she is glad that I build two road bikes in
2023, using
wireless electronic shifting that you dislike so much.
Without, she
wouldn't have been able to do some of those very enjoyable
tours
throughout the region that we did in 2023 and in 2024.
Can you explain? It's hard for me to visualize a tour that
would _require_ electronic shifting. The vast majority of my
touring and riding miles have been done without even index
shifting.
That's very personal; some riders prefer fixed (although not
this morning. It's bitter cold with a wind here).
For riders with prior wrist/finger injuries, advancing
arthritis and/or general age related decrepitude, Ergo/STi
are difficult if not painful. For most riders, they're
perfectly adequate. As are downtube friction shifters for
others.
On 1/12/2025 10:33 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:11:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/12/2025 5:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an
electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I
opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond
that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was
incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it,
but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/
in/dateposted-public/
I don't think I can do much with just a photograph. If
you have the
maker, model and FCC ID number, I can do better. Also,
some
indication of what it does when the power is applied,
such as do the
LED's light. If the don't light, try again in the dark
and see if
they partially light.
There was no action at all, no lights, nothing.
That makes troubleshooting easy. There has to be a fuse
or thermal
circuit breaker in there somewhere. I can't see one on
the PCB
(printed circuit board). It's a single sided PCB so it's
unlikely
that it's hiding on the back of the PCB. It's either
inside the wall
plug, inside some kind of on/off switch box that's in
series with the
power cord, or attached to the blanket somewhere.
I did measure 120V on the board where the input wires were
soldered in place.
Sorry about the quality of the photo. I took the photo only
to show the owner why I wasn't digging deeper into diagnosis.
If you want me to continue, please provide the maker,
model number,
and FCC ID if available.
I think you shouldn't bother, but I'll be visiting again
this week. If the old unit is still around, maybe I'll bring
it home for more detective work.
On 1/13/2025 8:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100%
efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric >blanket becomes heat.
I've always had a mindset for minimizing waste. For most of my life I
was diligent about shutting off the light switch when leaving a room.
But now I often don't bother, especially in winter. LEDs draw so much
less electricity anyway, and in the winter the "waste" just amounts to >electric heat.
On 1/13/2025 8:54 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/12/2025 2:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful.
There are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their
individual legs' power output?
I hardly consider this forum to be representative of the cycling
community at alrge.
I certainly agree with that! This is a group with no members who were
not interested in the title "tech". So if these people are not
measuring individual leg power, I doubt it's very common.
Our bike club is mostly social, not very competitive. I do have friends
who use "new" equipment (e.g. aero wheels, 13 cogs, road disc brakes)
and a few who mention their KOM triumphs. Many of them use Garmin or
similar devices. But IIRC none have ever discussed power meter readings. >Maybe some new, younger club members are doing that, but I don't ride
with those folks.
Then there's the vast majority of bike riders who will never join a
club, never look at a bike magazine, never try to ride fast, who just
ride for fun. No power meters there.
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the
modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100%
efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:57:18 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100%
efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
Well, the heater wires might radiate some EM radiation, which then is >absorbed by nearby objects and is converted to IR which adds to the
heat produced by the heater wires. There might be some radiation at
other frequencies (RFI, EMI, microwaves, visible light, UV, etc) but
most of the radiation is ends up somewhere in the IR bands.
Incidentally, I'm usually amused at the advertising for electric
heaters all claiming that their more "efficient" than the competition.
Of course, no numbers and certainly no calculations are ever provided.
On 1/13/2025 8:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100%
efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric >blanket becomes heat.
I've always had a mindset for minimizing waste. For most of my life I
was diligent about shutting off the light switch when leaving a room.
But now I often don't bother, especially in winter. LEDs draw so much
less electricity anyway, and in the winter the "waste" just amounts to >electric heat.
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want
it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many
complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced >consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work
perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one
time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted >decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't
outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I
solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location. Powering on/off needs two actions:
central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch. That way, all that stuff doesn't consume
standby power, when not in use.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working), >>> the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend
house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system.
This can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote
controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering
work.
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd
read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it.
I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for >"Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the >devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)
I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull
chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it
out of the room where the controlled device is located.
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!
...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young
and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5
and without indexing.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson
drawing: >https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:03:03 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 8:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks >>>>>> had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100% >>>>> efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into >>>>> heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric >>> blanket becomes heat.
But that 100% isn't efficiency, it's just a raw conversion rate for
Electricity to heat in an isolated blanket.
ISTM a good definition of efficiency is "Desired output divided by
input." Since the desired output is heat, I think it's 100% efficient.
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat simplified, you
need a certain range of temperatures. In the ideal case, you don't need
any additional energy, because your body already produces heat. A little
bit of isolation, perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be
sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and just wear
very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of anyone doing that.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002638>
"A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient
lighting"
<https://www.arquiled.com/en/avoiding-the-rebound-effect-when-transitioning-to-led/>
"In Portugal, the average amount of light has risen 120% in the last
five years. It is urgent to prevent the energy savings associated with
the transition to LED from being offset by unnecessary lighting"
I don't perceive that to be a serious problem, at least indoors.
If the
objective is to expend less energy, it's still been achieved.
I'm not a fan of overly bright headlamps nor outdoor light pollution,
but those seem to be separate issues.
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want
it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable". If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time. So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-) Given that declaring something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work
perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one
time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted
decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't >>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that. So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.
There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I >>> solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location. Powering on/off needs two actions: >>> central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch. That way, all that stuff doesn't consume
standby power, when not in use.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working), >>>> the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend
house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system.
This can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote
controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering
work.
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd
read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it.
I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for
"Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the
devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)
Some years ago, I helped extending a library that implements both
reading (decoding) and sending (generating) IR codes, the primary author
was quite prolific in extending it to any protocol that he got specificattions and/or samples for. I only wrote a driver part for a not
yet supported microcontroller, but that was good enough to understand
some of its workings. Sadly, the project has mostly stalled after 2015.
The code is still working and small microcontrollers and IR remotes
don't change that much.
From your description, I cannot deduce whether a single button press on
your IR control serves as an "invert the boolean that denotes specific state" (power on/off, for example), or if it is something else. Some universal remotes are just simple and stupid recorders, recording and replaying a bitstream without decoding, perhaps after some signal
cleanup. Others decode and work from tables.
From memory, most IR remotes use the NEC protocol, after extracting an abstract code from the bistream, that code essentially is triple (device address, command number, modifier), device denoting a specific tv model,
for example, command number some arbitrary numbering of the keys on the remote, modifier in this case just a single bit denoting "this is
comming from a repeating, still pressed keys).
Usually, the behaviour of a IR remote control is as simple as that.
So much about the basics. Knowing neither your universal control, nor anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem. I could tell you what I would do to analyze
and perhaps solve it, but that won't help you, because you don't have
the necessary equipment (and knowledge). And even I have stored away
most of the stuff I need for such work, in order to get space to build
and maintain our bikes.
I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull
chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it
out of the room where the controlled device is located.
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!
Not really. It's just that the remotes sit on top of the devices that
they control, when not in use. Most of the time, that is.
...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young
and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5
and without indexing.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson
drawing:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me. I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski ><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want
it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced >>consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable". If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time. So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-) Given that declaring >something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally >durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work >>perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one >>time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted >>decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what >conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a >display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal >conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against >repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not >talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't >>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that. So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.
There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I >>> solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location. Powering on/off needs two actions: >>> central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch. That way, all that stuff doesn't consume
standby power, when not in use.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working), >>>> the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend
house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system.
This can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote
controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering
work.
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd >>read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it.
I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for >>"Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the >>devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)
Some years ago, I helped extending a library that implements both
reading (decoding) and sending (generating) IR codes, the primary author
was quite prolific in extending it to any protocol that he got >specificattions and/or samples for. I only wrote a driver part for a not
yet supported microcontroller, but that was good enough to understand
some of its workings. Sadly, the project has mostly stalled after 2015.
The code is still working and small microcontrollers and IR remotes
don't change that much.
From your description, I cannot deduce whether a single button press on
your IR control serves as an "invert the boolean that denotes specific >state" (power on/off, for example), or if it is something else. Some >universal remotes are just simple and stupid recorders, recording and >replaying a bitstream without decoding, perhaps after some signal
cleanup. Others decode and work from tables.
From memory, most IR remotes use the NEC protocol, after extracting an >abstract code from the bistream, that code essentially is triple (device >address, command number, modifier), device denoting a specific tv model,
for example, command number some arbitrary numbering of the keys on the >remote, modifier in this case just a single bit denoting "this is
comming from a repeating, still pressed keys).
Usually, the behaviour of a IR remote control is as simple as that.
So much about the basics. Knowing neither your universal control, nor >anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem. I could tell you what I would do to analyze
and perhaps solve it, but that won't help you, because you don't have
the necessary equipment (and knowledge). And even I have stored away
most of the stuff I need for such work, in order to get space to build
and maintain our bikes.
I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull
chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it
out of the room where the controlled device is located.
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!
Not really. It's just that the remotes sit on top of the devices that
they control, when not in use. Most of the time, that is.
...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young
and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5
and without indexing.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson >>drawing: >>https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me. I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become >comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 20:48:36 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news51@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working, >>>>> its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want >>>> it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't >>>> heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40 >>>> years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would >>>> like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable". If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time. So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-) Given that declaring
something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work
perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one
time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted
decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what
conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a
display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against
repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not
talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't >>>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that. So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.
There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I >>>> solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location. Powering on/off needs two actions: >>>> central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch. That way, all that stuff doesn't consume >>>> standby power, when not in use.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, whichThis can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote >>>> controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working), >>>>> the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend >>>>> house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system. >>>>
work.
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd
read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it. >>> I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for
"Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the
devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)
Some years ago, I helped extending a library that implements both
reading (decoding) and sending (generating) IR codes, the primary author
was quite prolific in extending it to any protocol that he got
specificattions and/or samples for. I only wrote a driver part for a not
yet supported microcontroller, but that was good enough to understand
some of its workings. Sadly, the project has mostly stalled after 2015.
The code is still working and small microcontrollers and IR remotes
don't change that much.
From your description, I cannot deduce whether a single button press on
your IR control serves as an "invert the boolean that denotes specific
state" (power on/off, for example), or if it is something else. Some
universal remotes are just simple and stupid recorders, recording and
replaying a bitstream without decoding, perhaps after some signal
cleanup. Others decode and work from tables.
From memory, most IR remotes use the NEC protocol, after extracting an
abstract code from the bistream, that code essentially is triple (device
address, command number, modifier), device denoting a specific tv model,
for example, command number some arbitrary numbering of the keys on the
remote, modifier in this case just a single bit denoting "this is
comming from a repeating, still pressed keys).
Usually, the behaviour of a IR remote control is as simple as that.
So much about the basics. Knowing neither your universal control, nor
anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem. I could tell you what I would do to analyze
and perhaps solve it, but that won't help you, because you don't have
the necessary equipment (and knowledge). And even I have stored away
most of the stuff I need for such work, in order to get space to build
and maintain our bikes.
I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull >>>> chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it >>>> out of the room where the controlled device is located.
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!
Not really. It's just that the remotes sit on top of the devices that
they control, when not in use. Most of the time, that is.
...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young >>>> and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5
and without indexing.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson
drawing:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me. I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become
comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.
A bicycle frame wears out? Really?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And, to be honest, I don't like the fact
that you can hardly see the stars anywhere these days either.
It's
really difficult to go back to primitive.
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat simplified, you
need a certain range of temperatures. In the ideal case, you don't need
any additional energy, because your body already produces heat. A little
bit of isolation, perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be
sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and just wear
very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of anyone doing that.
On 1/12/2025 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/p0vxtq/
shimano_di2_options_when_battery_dies_mid_trip/
"One temporary solution would be to find someone that has a Di2, unplug
their and your rear derailleur and plug in their cable into your
derailleur. You can then change to the comfortable gear and ride back
home. "
From the comments there: "My wireless 12speed di2 dies after roughly 2 weeks."
Yow!
And plenty of copies of "Just charge your batteries frequently!"
No thanks. I don't even want to have to think about headlamp batteries.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 8:54 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/12/2025 2:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful.
There are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their
individual legs' power output?
I hardly consider this forum to be representative of the cycling
community at alrge.
I certainly agree with that! This is a group with no members who were
not interested in the title "tech". So if these people are not
measuring individual leg power, I doubt it's very common.
Its also barely into double digits and its age range is slewed to the more >mature, I suspect Im the youngest here but Im about mid pack for a club >rider ie late 40s/early 50s
Id also note that due to the age range is a tendency for this effect.
Noted by Douglas Adams I've come up with a set of rules that describe our >reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when youre born is normal and ordinary
and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when youre fifteen and thirty-five is >new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. >3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order
of things.
Ie we become less curious as we age in general.
They will not be selling power meters be that crank or pedal on the efforts >of club riders or racers, just wouldnt be commercially viable!
Our bike club is mostly social, not very competitive. I do have friends
who use "new" equipment (e.g. aero wheels, 13 cogs, road disc brakes)
and a few who mention their KOM triumphs. Many of them use Garmin or
similar devices. But IIRC none have ever discussed power meter readings.
Maybe some new, younger club members are doing that, but I don't ride
with those folks.
Then there's the vast majority of bike riders who will never join a
club, never look at a bike magazine, never try to ride fast, who just
ride for fun. No power meters there.
Roger Merriman
On 1/13/2025 8:54 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/12/2025 2:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful.
There are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their
individual legs' power output?
I hardly consider this forum to be representative of the cycling
community at alrge.
I certainly agree with that! This is a group with no members who were
not interested in the title "tech". So if these people are not
measuring individual leg power, I doubt it's very common.
Our bike club is mostly social, not very competitive. I do have friends
who use "new" equipment (e.g. aero wheels, 13 cogs, road disc brakes)
and a few who mention their KOM triumphs. Many of them use Garmin or
similar devices. But IIRC none have ever discussed power meter readings. Maybe some new, younger club members are doing that, but I don't ride
with those folks.
Then there's the vast majority of bike riders who will never join a
club, never look at a bike magazine, never try to ride fast, who just
ride for fun. No power meters there.
On 1/13/2025 2:48 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't >>>> heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40 >>>> years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would >>>> like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies.
I agree! Or at least, I agree about most bikes. That's one of the things
I love about bicycling in general, compared to (say) automobiles.
There is essentially no part of a bicycle that isn't "consumable".
I disagree. I don't expect to ever wear out the frame, fork, handlebars, stem, seatpost, hubs, pedals, front derailleur, and maybe not the rear derailleur. I may someday wear out the bottle dynamo on that bike (it's decades old) but maybe not.
There were items I changed out of preference (like the original downtube shifters) but it wasn't because they were worn out. Those would have
lasted forever.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 19:28:34 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:08:45 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/11/2025 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in
bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about
telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and
electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer
software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me
don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of
principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I
didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company
in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later.
Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness,
strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost
unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than
what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it
decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you
have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is
helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and
overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a
heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons
in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a
tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing.
This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be
avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting
differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I
can't imagine much value from that measurement. In fact, I
don't believe power measurement is necessary for fitness. I
judge by feel. It has the advantage of naturally
compensating for days when I feel stronger or weaker. And
it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as
mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic
devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some
that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both
electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the
mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device and _see_ what's wrong. That, and the fact
I can often affect a repair. I hate the Kleenex ethic -
"It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an
electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I
opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond
that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was
incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it,
but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/
in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they
functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of
other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the
sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of
the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year.
I've found a fan to be the best defense against mosquitos.
The previous one still runs, but exposure to sunlight
destroyed its plastic finger protection screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the
size of a snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan?
I rejected ceiling fans with remotes when I was shopping,
too. It's something to lose, something whose battery will
die, and something whose electronics will go bad and be
unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the
time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in
part because I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped
and powder coated a couple years ago. Too many excellent
memories to let it go.
Not only the electronics infestation of consumer products.
I brought food to make girlfriend's birthday dinner last
evening and I cook in her kitchen regularly but sometimes
the modern kitchen stove is a real impediment.
[break for electronics rant: Her new kitchen stove, as her
furnace, both run from the large LP tank in the yard. Both
'improved' designs cannot run without electronic
start/valves etc so when the power is out there is no heat
whatsoever and power outages in rural USA are periodic.]
The new kitchen stove has electronic controls for the
burners and oven (oven controlled by a touch pad not, a
physical switch). The burner controls have 4 positions
only, viz., Off, Low, High, Start. That's really difficult
for some cooking projects. Resolved by moving the two pans
off and on the flame, which is Just One More Thing when
timing two dishes at once.
Only a designer who has never actually cooked would think of
that. Works fine for brewing coffee or boiling pasta but
limited for many projects.
Gee,,, my mother cooked on a "gas" stove with mechanical controls from
the regulate at the tank to the knobs on the stove successfully and
one grandmother cooked on a wood stove, in the winter, un till she
died, successfully.
Are these "modern contraptions" really necessary?
Well, perhaps they are. Are there young woman, today, being taught by
their mother how to cook on a wood stove? Or how to darn woolen socks,
or even how to raise the kids?
Much agreed.
The kitchen stove I used for decades had simple gas valves
and a box of wooden matches in a clay dish next to it. No
complaints.
I did live for a while on the boat without a microwave, but I'll never
do that again.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:58:35 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:03:03 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 8:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks >>>>>>> had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>>>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100% >>>>>> efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into >>>>>> heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric >>>> blanket becomes heat.
But that 100% isn't efficiency, it's just a raw conversion rate for
Electricity to heat in an isolated blanket.
ISTM a good definition of efficiency is "Desired output divided by
input." Since the desired output is heat, I think it's 100% efficient.
"desired output" does some heavy lifting, here. What about the desired input?
Textbook definitions from a specific context are often quite misleading,
when used in a different context. Rolf Mantel just gave an example for
that in <vm38of$1qe41$1@dont-email.me>, there are many more.
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat simplified, you
need a certain range of temperatures. In the ideal case, you don't need >>> any additional energy, because your body already produces heat. A little >>> bit of isolation, perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be
sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and just wear
very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of anyone doing that.
Actually, we added some isolation to our house, last year. The reduced
energy consumption was quite noticeable and better than we expected. No
heavy clothing necessary. It's an old house, unfortunately some
regulations prohibit doing more or would make it very expensive. Decades
ago, a former colleague build a house according to current standards
from that time, heated by a heat pump and geothermics. Compared to the
quoted 100 % "efficiency" of your heated blanket, that heating is ~750% efficient. While riding over the land during in 2021ff, I saw not only
many new collectors on the roofs, mostly photovoltaic now, people were isolating their freestanding houses to such an extent that you would
hardly believe it if you hadn't seen it.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002638> >>>
"A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient
lighting"
<https://www.arquiled.com/en/avoiding-the-rebound-effect-when-transitioning-to-led/>
"In Portugal, the average amount of light has risen 120% in the last
five years. It is urgent to prevent the energy savings associated with
the transition to LED from being offset by unnecessary lighting"
I don't perceive that to be a serious problem, at least indoors.
The difference between the expected and actual efficiency is independent
of whether the lighting is installed indoors or outdoors.
But there is indeed another and additional problem caused by too much
light outside: Both astronomers and wildlife are not happy about the increasing light pollution. And, to be honest, I don't like the fact
that you can hardly see the stars anywhere these days either.
If the
objective is to expend less energy, it's still been achieved.
If you are allowed to move the goalpost, the goal is already guaranteed.
I'm not a fan of overly bright headlamps nor outdoor light pollution,
but those seem to be separate issues.
That is true, but obviously no argument. Light pollution is just another detriment of wasting energy by unnecessary lighting.
On 1/13/2025 2:48 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't >>>> heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40 >>>> years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would >>>> like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies.
I agree! Or at least, I agree about most bikes. That's one of the things
I love about bicycling in general, compared to (say) automobiles.
There is essentially no part of a bicycle that isn't "consumable".
I disagree. I don't expect to ever wear out the frame, fork, handlebars, >stem, seatpost, hubs, pedals, front derailleur, and maybe not the rear >derailleur. I may someday wear out the bottle dynamo on that bike (it's >decades old) but maybe not.
There were items I changed out of preference (like the original downtube >shifters) but it wasn't because they were worn out. Those would have
lasted forever.
Admittedly, there's an apocryphal tale about someone owning an ancient, >ancient hatchet - sometimes it's been told as George Washington's, or
Abe Lincoln's, or a great-great-great-grandfather's. Is it the same
hatchet, even though it's handle was replaced five times and its head
twice? :-) A more classical version of that question regards the Ship
of Theseus, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
Nope, I covered this above. And the shifters and brake levers on my
"utility" Raleigh, formerly for commuting, now for shopping, are far
older. Mid 1970s, still working fine.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
One reason is in 1986 when I bought this bike, there was no such thing
as a 40 year old Cannondale touring bike.
That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against
repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not
talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
I promise to let you know if this bike ever exceeds its "useful life."
(We might ask Andrew the age of his fixed gear bike.)
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't >>>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that. So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.
Oh, I'm very happy to do that! :-) I've been a Late Adopter of many >technologies. I was rather amazed at myself when I bought the EV.
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd
read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it. >>> I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for
"Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the
devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)...
Knowing neither your universal control, nor
anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem.
It's a Logitech Harmony 650, bought in 2019. I kept my pages of
frustrated notes from trying to set it up. They're interesting to read >through. It doesn't matter, though. I'm getting along with it now,
partly be ignoring what's supposed to be a lot of its capabilities.
On 1/13/2025 3:40 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 20:48:36 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
<news51@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working, >>>>>> its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need >>>>> repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I >>>>> change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want >>>>> it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>>>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited >>>>> lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't >>>>> heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40 >>>>> years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would >>>>> like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced
consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape >>>> and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable". If you are lucky, all consumable items >>> are consumed at the same time. So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-) Given that declaring >>> something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work
perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one >>>> time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did >>>> not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted
decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I >>> am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what >>> conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a >>> display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy >>> to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against
repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not >>> talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't >>>>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that. So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.
There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I >>>>> solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location. Powering on/off needs two actions: >>>>> central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch. That way, all that stuff doesn't consume >>>>> standby power, when not in use.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, whichThis can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote >>>>> controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering >>>>> work.
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working), >>>>>> the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend >>>>>> house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system. >>>>>
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd >>>> read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it. >>>> I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for >>>> "Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the >>>> devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800 >>>> help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)
Some years ago, I helped extending a library that implements both
reading (decoding) and sending (generating) IR codes, the primary author >>> was quite prolific in extending it to any protocol that he got
specificattions and/or samples for. I only wrote a driver part for a not >>> yet supported microcontroller, but that was good enough to understand
some of its workings. Sadly, the project has mostly stalled after 2015. >>> The code is still working and small microcontrollers and IR remotes
don't change that much.
From your description, I cannot deduce whether a single button press on
your IR control serves as an "invert the boolean that denotes specific
state" (power on/off, for example), or if it is something else. Some
universal remotes are just simple and stupid recorders, recording and
replaying a bitstream without decoding, perhaps after some signal
cleanup. Others decode and work from tables.
From memory, most IR remotes use the NEC protocol, after extracting an
abstract code from the bistream, that code essentially is triple (device >>> address, command number, modifier), device denoting a specific tv model, >>> for example, command number some arbitrary numbering of the keys on the
remote, modifier in this case just a single bit denoting "this is
comming from a repeating, still pressed keys).
Usually, the behaviour of a IR remote control is as simple as that.
So much about the basics. Knowing neither your universal control, nor
anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem. I could tell you what I would do to analyze
and perhaps solve it, but that won't help you, because you don't have
the necessary equipment (and knowledge). And even I have stored away
most of the stuff I need for such work, in order to get space to build
and maintain our bikes.
I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull >>>>> chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it >>>>> out of the room where the controlled device is located.
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!
Not really. It's just that the remotes sit on top of the devices that
they control, when not in use. Most of the time, that is.
...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young >>>>> and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5 >>>>> and without indexing.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being >>>> an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson
drawing:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me. I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become
comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.
A bicycle frame wears out? Really?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Some people have very high standards and toss useful things
when they are merely scuffed or have a small dent. Other
people have different standards:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/mitch.html
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 19:28:34 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Indeed though I rarely use a microwave but to defrost stuff!
On 1/12/2025 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:08:45 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 1/11/2025 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2025 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:01:26 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/10/2025 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
This makes me reflect on the criticism of electronics in
bicycles. ... But what about measuring the
amount of power applied to the pedals, what about
telling the cyclist
who balanced he splits the power between left and right, by
instrumenting the pedal or the bottom bracket?
Yes, that can be done with enough sensors and
electronics. But it seems
like useless information to me. As with much computer
software, it seems
like "feature bloat." Why would anybody but a racer care?
Is there any reason to believe that old people like me
don't have a need
to care about training intensity, as a matter of
principle? How comes?
When using my biycles as a middle aged, healthy adult I
didn't care
about racing, didn't train and didn't try to find company
in cycling
clubs, either. I didn't visit a gym until much later.
Cycling was simply
a way to get to work quickly. During vacations it was a more
entertaining mode of transportation than the car. Fitness,
strength and
cardio fitness came as a side effect, slowly and almost
unnoticed.
This has changed. My cardio fitness is still better than
what I know
about a lot of people half my age. Nevertheless, it
decreased over the
years and it takes more and more effort to keep what you
have not yet
lost. As it is expected. The ability to measure power is
helpful in
finding the point at which intensity is sufficient and
overload has not
yet begun. This is even more true in combination with a
heart rate
monitor.
So far, this is only about aging. But there is more.
Accidents that led to damage to bones, joints and tendons
in the past
have consequences to be considered, too. There is a
tendency to
compensate weaknesses by bad postures, whithout noticing.
This is both
caused by damages and causing damages. This is to be
avoided. Measuring
how power is applied by the feet helps detecting
differences early,
avoiding damage.
Avoiding damage is far from useless.
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I
can't imagine much value from that measurement. In fact, I
don't believe power measurement is necessary for fitness. I
judge by feel. It has the advantage of naturally
compensating for days when I feel stronger or weaker. And
it's organic! ;-)
My experiences with mechanical devices are at least as
mixed as those
with electronic devices. Some very complicated electronic
devices that
I bought decades ago still work. The same applies to some
that I built
myself a long time ago. With devices that contained both
electronic and
mechanical parts, the fault was more often on the
mechanical side.
Anecdotical, I know.
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a
mechanical device and _see_ what's wrong. That, and the fact
I can often affect a repair. I hate the Kleenex ethic -
"It's no good any more, just throw it away."
Two days ago, my kid asked me to figure out why an
electric blanket
wasn't working. The controller refused to turn on. I
opened it and
confirmed that it was getting supply voltage. Beyond
that, the pile of
dozens of surface mount electronic components was
incomprehensible to
me. I suspect Jeff might have been able to diagnose it,
but not me.
Here's a photo:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/54259119364/
in/dateposted-public/
I know electric blankets are old technology. I know they
functioned well
for decades with maybe a rheostat and perhaps a couple of
other
components. Why add unrepairable complexity?
Don't know. We use devices like the blue one in the
following picture.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/
W%C3%A4rmflasche1.jpg>
and better isolating blankets. No electricity necessary. :-)
:-) But you imply that _I'm_ the one insufficiently modern?
A few lights in our house are switched by set of 2 x 3
inexpensive
wireless sockets including two remote controls, that I
bought eleven
years ago. I've still to replace the batteries. Two of the
sockets are
still spares, I have a replacement cell for the remote
controls stored
which might live even longer. Standard type, used in
garage openers and
burglar alarms, too. Selecting a channel and paring one of
the four
buttons of a remote control with one or more of the
sockets is as easy
as pie, using a line of dip switches inside those
devices. Quite
similar to pairing switches and derailleur on our bicyles.
While I avoid having essential functionality in my house
depend on
wireless connections, I enjoy having the option, for
certain use cases,
though.
Yuck.
I bought a new pedestal fan for our back patio last year.
I've found a fan to be the best defense against mosquitos.
The previous one still runs, but exposure to sunlight
destroyed its plastic finger protection screen.
Anyway, the new one comes with a remote control, roughly the
size of a snack cracker. Who needs a remote to adjust a fan?
I rejected ceiling fans with remotes when I was shopping,
too. It's something to lose, something whose battery will
die, and something whose electronics will go bad and be
unrepairable.
...
When I see a 50 year old, perfect looking bicycle, I think:
That one must have been standing around inside most of the
time, perhaps
for a reason.
My favorite bike is a young 39 years. It looks perfect, in
part because I had it (and my wife's matching one) stripped
and powder coated a couple years ago. Too many excellent
memories to let it go.
Not only the electronics infestation of consumer products.
I brought food to make girlfriend's birthday dinner last
evening and I cook in her kitchen regularly but sometimes
the modern kitchen stove is a real impediment.
[break for electronics rant: Her new kitchen stove, as her
furnace, both run from the large LP tank in the yard. Both
'improved' designs cannot run without electronic
start/valves etc so when the power is out there is no heat
whatsoever and power outages in rural USA are periodic.]
The new kitchen stove has electronic controls for the
burners and oven (oven controlled by a touch pad not, a
physical switch). The burner controls have 4 positions
only, viz., Off, Low, High, Start. That's really difficult
for some cooking projects. Resolved by moving the two pans
off and on the flame, which is Just One More Thing when
timing two dishes at once.
Only a designer who has never actually cooked would think of
that. Works fine for brewing coffee or boiling pasta but
limited for many projects.
Gee,,, my mother cooked on a "gas" stove with mechanical controls from >>>> the regulate at the tank to the knobs on the stove successfully and
one grandmother cooked on a wood stove, in the winter, un till she
died, successfully.
Are these "modern contraptions" really necessary?
Well, perhaps they are. Are there young woman, today, being taught by
their mother how to cook on a wood stove? Or how to darn woolen socks, >>>> or even how to raise the kids?
Much agreed.
The kitchen stove I used for decades had simple gas valves
and a box of wooden matches in a clay dish next to it. No
complaints.
I did live for a while on the boat without a microwave, but I'll never
do that again.
I strongly suspect that particularly with domestic appliances that older
men use of them isnt a useful metric ie highly likely to be used by women >who i suspect would have more experience of such things and different >conclusions.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:58:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat simplified, you
need a certain range of temperatures. In the ideal case, you don't need >>> any additional energy, because your body already produces heat. A little >>> bit of isolation, perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be
sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and just wear
very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of anyone doing that.
I'm currently doing something similar to save firewood, which costs
about $500/cord delivered. My bed has multiple layers of blanket and
a goose feather duvet. During the day at home, I wear a padded jacket
and fleece lined pants. I'm constantly moving around so I tend to
warm myself. I usually wear a wool hat indoors to keep my head warm.
At about sundown, the temperature drops sufficiently to require
additional heat. The wood burner runs in the evening for about 5 hrs
until I fall into the bed. If I have guests during the day, I start a
fire in the wood burner. The reason this works for me is that the temperatures are quite mild during most of the winter.
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/akvXf9MyYNzpYpY77>
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:13:57 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:58:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat simplified, you >>>> need a certain range of temperatures. In the ideal case, you don't need >>>> any additional energy, because your body already produces heat. A little >>>> bit of isolation, perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be
sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and just wear
very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of anyone doing that.
I'm currently doing something similar to save firewood, which costs
about $500/cord delivered. My bed has multiple layers of blanket and
a goose feather duvet. During the day at home, I wear a padded jacket
and fleece lined pants. I'm constantly moving around so I tend to
warm myself. I usually wear a wool hat indoors to keep my head warm.
At about sundown, the temperature drops sufficiently to require
additional heat. The wood burner runs in the evening for about 5 hrs
until I fall into the bed. If I have guests during the day, I start a
fire in the wood burner. The reason this works for me is that the
temperatures are quite mild during most of the winter.
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/akvXf9MyYNzpYpY77>
I don't know whether you know this but when using a stove to heat a
room put the stove in the opposite side of the room from the chimney.
Then run the stovepipe from the stove straight up from the stove to
the ceiling and then along the ceiling, using mounts to separate the
stove pipe and ceiling, of course, across the room to the chimney.
That way you get more heat from the same amount of wood.
On 1/14/2025 3:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:13:57 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:58:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat simplified, you >>>>> need a certain range of temperatures. In the ideal case, you don't need >>>>> any additional energy, because your body already produces heat. A little >>>>> bit of isolation, perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be
sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and just wear
very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of anyone doing that.
I'm currently doing something similar to save firewood, which costs
about $500/cord delivered. My bed has multiple layers of blanket and
a goose feather duvet. During the day at home, I wear a padded jacket
and fleece lined pants. I'm constantly moving around so I tend to
warm myself. I usually wear a wool hat indoors to keep my head warm.
At about sundown, the temperature drops sufficiently to require
additional heat. The wood burner runs in the evening for about 5 hrs
until I fall into the bed. If I have guests during the day, I start a
fire in the wood burner. The reason this works for me is that the
temperatures are quite mild during most of the winter.
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/akvXf9MyYNzpYpY77>
I don't know whether you know this but when using a stove to heat a
room put the stove in the opposite side of the room from the chimney.
Then run the stovepipe from the stove straight up from the stove to
the ceiling and then along the ceiling, using mounts to separate the
stove pipe and ceiling, of course, across the room to the chimney.
That way you get more heat from the same amount of wood.
And more flue to clean. Which is more important than it may
at first seem.
I don't know whether you know this but when using a stove to heat a
room put the stove in the opposite side of the room from the chimney.
Then run the stovepipe from the stove straight up from the stove to
the ceiling and then along the ceiling, using mounts to separate the
stove pipe and ceiling, of course, across the room to the chimney.
That way you get more heat from the same amount of wood.
On Sun Jan 5 05:49:38 2025 zen cycle wrote:
I was actually thinking your college years would have predated the
HP-35, but wasn't sure and was too lazy to look it up.
I remember the day my father brought home a Bowmar Brain.
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/bowmar_calculators.html
I was a freshman in high school, would have been 1975.
That's interesting. You've been telling us that you race. That would put you racing at 66 years old. Really competitive.
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working,
its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want
it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't
heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40
years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would
like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced >>consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape
and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable". If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time. So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-) Given that declaring something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original
equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work >>perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one >>time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did
not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted >>decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our
bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original
because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
Anyway, I see no reason why the wireless shifting of our bikes shouldn't >>> outlive a similar purely mechanical one...
I guess we'll see, eventually.
If we don't try, we certainly won't see it. Try to see it the following
way: _you_ don't have any reason to try a group with wireless shifting
like the one I built our bikes with, I understand that. So just let
people like us who experience, like and sometimes need the benefits pay
the money, try this innovation, and serve as guinea pigs.
There was a similar problem with our TV, too many separate components. I >>> solved that by using a power strip combined with a separate central
switch at an easy to reach location. Powering on/off needs two actions: >>> central switch plus a button on the PC, powering off is done via
keyboard and central switch. That way, all that stuff doesn't consume
standby power, when not in use.
I pump the TV sound through our stereo amplifier, which
has its own remote (whose volume control seems to have stopped working), >>>> the CD/DVD player has a separate remote, etc. etc. If we had a friend
house sit for us, I'd have to write a manual on how to run the system.
This can actually be automated quite easily for devices with IR remote
controls. However, it does require a little programming and soldering
work.
About that: A few years ago I got annoyed at the number of remotes. I'd >>read a good review about a programmable universal remote, and bought it.
I followed the tedious instructions to program it so I could hit one
button for "Watch TV", another button for "Play CD", another button for >>"Listen to radio" etc.
It's less than ideal. Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the >>devices use the same signal code as a toggle for "power-on" &
"power-off", as opposed to a separate code for "On" and "Off." If a
device is left in the wrong state, things don't work. There was also
some dimly remembered problem where commands from the remote had to
arrive at the TV at the proper instant - not too soon, not too late -
and the program couldn't manage that, despite the nice lady at the 800
help number trying over and over to cure. (I suppose I could dig back
into the programming, but I'm not motivated.)
Some years ago, I helped extending a library that implements both
reading (decoding) and sending (generating) IR codes, the primary author
was quite prolific in extending it to any protocol that he got specificattions and/or samples for. I only wrote a driver part for a not
yet supported microcontroller, but that was good enough to understand
some of its workings. Sadly, the project has mostly stalled after 2015.
The code is still working and small microcontrollers and IR remotes
don't change that much.
From your description, I cannot deduce whether a single button press on
your IR control serves as an "invert the boolean that denotes specific state" (power on/off, for example), or if it is something else. Some universal remotes are just simple and stupid recorders, recording and replaying a bitstream without decoding, perhaps after some signal
cleanup. Others decode and work from tables.
From memory, most IR remotes use the NEC protocol, after extracting an abstract code from the bistream, that code essentially is triple (device address, command number, modifier), device denoting a specific tv model,
for example, command number some arbitrary numbering of the keys on the remote, modifier in this case just a single bit denoting "this is
comming from a repeating, still pressed keys).
Usually, the behaviour of a IR remote control is as simple as that.
So much about the basics. Knowing neither your universal control, nor anything about the remote control in question, I can't even guess what
is causing that problem. I could tell you what I would do to analyze
and perhaps solve it, but that won't help you, because you don't have
the necessary equipment (and knowledge). And even I have stored away
most of the stuff I need for such work, in order to get space to build
and maintain our bikes.
I've seen many such fans, radiant heaters and the like, where the pull
chain or drawstring had been lost or damaged. But I have rarely
misplacted an IR remote, simply because there is no point in moving it
out of the room where the controlled device is located.
Your rooms must be much less messy than mine!
Not really. It's just that the remotes sit on top of the devices that
they control, when not in use. Most of the time, that is.
...when we
did our first tours with Peugeot bicycles bought in 1978, we were young
and we mostly rode on the flat. A piece of cake, even with only 2 x 5
and without indexing.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being
an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson >>drawing: >>https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me. I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.
I don't know whether you know this but when using a stove to heat a
room put the stove in the opposite side of the room from the chimney.
Then run the stovepipe from the stove straight up from the stove to
the ceiling and then along the ceiling, using mounts to separate the
stove pipe and ceiling, of course, across the room to the chimney.
That way you get more heat from the same amount of wood.
I'm currently doing something similar to save firewood, which costs
about $500/cord delivered.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:58:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat
simplified, you need a certain range of temperatures. In the
ideal case, you don't need any additional energy, because
your body already produces heat. A little bit of isolation,
perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and
just wear very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of
anyone doing that.
I'm currently doing something similar to save firewood, which
costs about $500/cord delivered.
Wolfgang Strobl <news51@mystrobl.de> writes:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:27:27 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/13/2025 9:57 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:05:47 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 1/12/2025 3:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 19:46:50 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
To me, a big advantage is the ability to _look_ at a mechanical device >>>>>>> and _see_ what's wrong....
That, and the fact I can often affect a repair.
I prefer devices that don't need repair over their lifetime.
The weakness I see with that is the assumption that "lifetime" is
defined as "the amount of time it works." if something stops working, >>>>> its lifetime is over! Throw it out!
That's far too simplistic.
It depends. For my purposes, I indeed prefer bicycles that may need
repairs and modifications over their lifetime, for various reasons. I
change over my lifetime, so do my bicycles. But there are limits. Want >>>> it cheap, longlived, lightweight and functional? Choose any two.
As I said, I hate the Kleenex ethic - "It's no good any more, just throw >>>>> it away."
A strawman isn't getting any more pretty, over time. You won't find many >>>> complex products, machines, vehicles or components with an unlimited
lifetime. Product lifetime has to be planned. There is innovation,
innovation means change. There are technical limits. So far, I haven't >>>> heard about bicycle tires that tolerate heavy use over a lifetime of 40 >>>> years, as you ask for. To be precise, I don't know of any that I would >>>> like to use or that I would risk using.
I think my Cannondale touring bike qualifies. Of course I've replaced >>>consumable items like tires, chains, cogs, brake shoes, handlebar tape >>>and occasionally a chainring.
That way, any bicycle qualifies. There is essentially no part of a
bicycle that isn't "consumable". If you are lucky, all consumable items
are consumed at the same time. So you can just buy another bike, call
it the repaired one and throw out the old one. :-) Given that declaring
something consumed is a rather arbitrary decision, you have quite a lot
of slack with that.
I've made some equipment substitutions
(saddle, bar-end shifters, "aero" brake levers) but the original >>>equipment is exceptionally durable.
That is a tautology. Of course the remaining equipment is exeptionally
durable, otherwise it would have been replaced earlier, for whatever
reason.
For one example: The square taper cranks that Tom mocks still work >>>perfectly well. I had to replace the original sealed bottom bracket one >>>time, but there was no confusion about compatibility (and my cranks did >>>not fall off!). The Stronglite roller bearing headset has also lasted >>>decades, with one parts replacement. The SunTour rear derailleur is
still perfect, although I did cheat a bit. When I powder coated our >>>bikes, I traded my derailleur for my wife's, figuring hers had many
fewer miles; but both still work just fine. Wheels are not original >>>because I switched from 27" to 700C, but they're 20 years old.
So why didn't you buy a 40 years old bicycle from somebody who doesn't
need his bicycle anymore?
I guess you don't drive a Ford Model T and you don't use an grammophone
that needs a steel needle for playing shellac records.
Personally, I am more concerned about how to use a bicycle rather than
other modes of transport and optimising the bike for that purpose, and I
am less concerndedabout whether the bike choosen it will last ten,
twenty or thirty years.
How long a bicycle lasts depends upon how much it is used and under what
conditions. A bicycle that lasts more than thirty years is most likely a
display piece. That some people like you have the time, space and energy
to maintain a bicycle much longer than its useful life is under normal
conditions doesn't prove the opposite. That is not an argument against
repairing, but an argument against repairing, whatever the cost. I'm not
talking about money only, here. I mostly miss a sense of proportion.
As I get older and older, I'm trying to get more comfortable with being >>>an old guy who avoids mountains. Maybe some guy in a Frank Patterson >>>drawing: >>>https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/frank-patterson-cycling-artist-500010568
Well yes, I get the feeling, believe me. I've ridden exactly 4.9 km
outside, over the last five months. :-/ I'm trying hard not to become
comfortable with that. :-) But that's a different story and not one for
this forum. Just this much: I've never cycled as far and as high on a
single day as I have done repeatedly since we retired. Becoming old is
an obstacle, no question. But you can postpone the consequences of
ageing, at least for a while.
Exactly. It's easy to forget just how complicated and difficult to >manufacture "kleenex" components are: Bowden cables, bearing balls,
tires, chains ...
There was a fellow in this group that reported on his attempt to do some >small-scale tire manufacturing; it was quite a project. Imagine trying
to build a serviceable derailleur chain with common tools.
<https://www.rohloff.de/en/company/rohloff-ag/s-l-t-99/>
On 1/14/2025 7:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I guess a fair comparison would be to ask how many of your gravel mates
The only downside I’ve noted but this is definitely anecdotal than
statistically significant is of my fellow Gravel club mates which is
relatively small group two of which have had derailleurs electronic
failures, both where covered under warranty, but does bring with it a new
and extra failure point.
have had failures of cable actuated mechanical derailleurs.
On 1/14/2025 10:11 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 5 05:49:38 2025 zen cycle wrote:
I was actually thinking your college years would have predated the
HP-35, but wasn't sure and was too lazy to look it up.
I remember the day my father brought home a Bowmar Brain.
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/bowmar_calculators.html
I was a freshman in high school, would have been 1975.
That's interesting. You've been telling us that you race. That would
put you racing at 66 years old. Really competitive.
You don't know that. I don't either.
But bicycle races are age-sorted, so racing against other 60
`70 year olds is as competitive as the 'open' 18 to 40 class.
On 1/13/2025 8:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks
had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100%
efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into
heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket becomes heat.
I've always had a mindset for minimizing waste. For most of my life I
was diligent about shutting off the light switch when leaving a room.
But now I often don't bother, especially in winter. LEDs draw so much
less electricity anyway, and in the winter the "waste" just amounts to electric heat.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:"None" is good to know. So there were electronic derailleur failures,
On 1/14/2025 7:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I guess a fair comparison would be to ask how many of your gravel mates
The only downside I’ve noted but this is definitely anecdotal than
statistically significant is of my fellow Gravel club mates which is
relatively small group two of which have had derailleurs electronic
failures, both where covered under warranty, but does bring with it a new >>> and extra failure point.
have had failures of cable actuated mechanical derailleurs.
None I upgraded my rear mech to GRX to get more range out of the rear mech and to get a “clutch” in Shimano speak essentially the rear mech is tighter
so keeps the chain away from the chainstay so is a quieter operation on jiggly/rattly bits.
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric heaters
are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the electricity
consumed by the device become heat is very different than saying it's
100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think a
common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided by
Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
I write "either" because even _if_ it were
true that electric heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying
100% of the electricity consumed by the device become heat is very
different than saying it's 100% efficient.
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and electronic controls.
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric heaters
are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the electricity
consumed by the device become heat is very different than saying it's
100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think a
common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided by
Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
There are other losses in
the cabling and plug interface which - while realized as heat - do not contribute the heating of the targeted space. The heat generated by the
plug and cord are rather well insulated.
You may have experienced unplugging an electric appliance and felt the
plug to be hot. What's happening is that the resistance of the plug/
socket interface generates heat. In those cases you were able to touch
the actual metal contacts inside the plug, it's likely it would leave a blister. The fact that it doesn't shows the insulation is preventing the
heat from leaving the system - IOW, not 100% efficiency.
On 1/14/2025 11:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2025 10:11 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 5 05:49:38 2025 zen cycle wrote:
I was actually thinking your college years would have predated the
HP-35, but wasn't sure and was too lazy to look it up.
I remember the day my father brought home a Bowmar Brain.
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/bowmar_calculators.html
I was a freshman in high school, would have been 1975.
That's interesting. You've been telling us that you race. That would
put you racing at 66 years old. Really competitive.
More of tommy's "new math". How old would someone who was a freshman in
1976* be today? anyone?
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
electronic controls.
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think a
common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided by
Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
There are other losses in the cabling and plug interface which - while
realized as heat - do not contribute the heating of the targeted
space. The heat generated by the plug and cord are rather well insulated.
But it's still heat, delivered into the room. It's not lost elsewhere.
You may have experienced unplugging an electric appliance and felt the
plug to be hot. What's happening is that the resistance of the plug/
socket interface generates heat. In those cases you were able to touch
the actual metal contacts inside the plug, it's likely it would leave
a blister. The fact that it doesn't shows the insulation is preventing
the heat from leaving the system - IOW, not 100% efficiency.
Actually, thermal insulation does not normally prevent heat from leaving
a system. It merely reduces the rate at which it leaves. That would be
true of, say, some hot component in a blanket controller. More
obviously, it's true of the plastic insulation of the heating elements
within the blanket, and it's true of the fibers of the blanket itself. Nonetheless, all that heat eventually gets delivered. None goes elsewhere.
On 1/15/2025 12:12 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:"None" is good to know. So there were electronic derailleur failures,
On 1/14/2025 7:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I guess a fair comparison would be to ask how many of your gravel mates
The only downside Ive noted but this is definitely anecdotal than
statistically significant is of my fellow Gravel club mates which is
relatively small group two of which have had derailleurs electronic
failures, both where covered under warranty, but does bring with it a new >>>> and extra failure point.
have had failures of cable actuated mechanical derailleurs.
None I upgraded my rear mech to GRX to get more range out of the rear mech >> and to get a clutch in Shimano speak essentially the rear mech is tighter >> so keeps the chain away from the chainstay so is a quieter operation on
jiggly/rattly bits.
but no mechanical derailleur failures. That gives us a hint about
relative reliability.
On 1/15/2025 3:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:24:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:
On 1/15/2025 12:12 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:"None" is good to know. So there were electronic derailleur failures,
On 1/14/2025 7:12 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I guess a fair comparison would be to ask how many of your gravel mates >>>>> have had failures of cable actuated mechanical derailleurs.
The only downside Ive noted but this is definitely anecdotal than >>>>>> statistically significant is of my fellow Gravel club mates which is >>>>>> relatively small group two of which have had derailleurs electronic >>>>>> failures, both where covered under warranty, but does bring with it a new
and extra failure point.
None I upgraded my rear mech to GRX to get more range out of the rear mech >>>> and to get a clutch in Shimano speak essentially the rear mech is tighter
so keeps the chain away from the chainstay so is a quieter operation on >>>> jiggly/rattly bits.
but no mechanical derailleur failures. That gives us a hint about
relative reliability.
Here's two other ideas.
1) if you disapprove of electronic shifting, don't buy them.
2) The fact that you disapprove of them is not going to stop other
people from buying them.
IOW, we are not allowed to discuss reliability of bike parts?
Sheesh. Get over your obsession with me, you miserable old man.
On 1/13/2025 8:54 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/12/2025 2:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2025 7:49 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/11/2025 7:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But individual power outputs from left and right legs? I can't
imagine much value from that measurement.
You answered your own question. "You" can't imagine it's useful.
There are a great many data geeks who find it quite useful.
Maybe we can take a poll? How many here gather and use data on their
individual legs' power output?
I hardly consider this forum to be representative of the cycling
community at alrge.
I certainly agree with that! This is a group with no members who were
not interested in the title "tech". So if these people are not
measuring individual leg power, I doubt it's very common.
Our bike club is mostly social, not very competitive. I do have friends
who use "new" equipment (e.g. aero wheels, 13 cogs, road disc brakes)
and a few who mention their KOM triumphs. Many of them use Garmin or
similar devices. But IIRC none have ever discussed power meter readings. Maybe some new, younger club members are doing that, but I don't ride
with those folks.
Then there's the vast majority of bike riders who will never join a
club, never look at a bike magazine, never try to ride fast, who just
ride for fun. No power meters there.
On 1/15/2025 3:42 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
electronic controls.
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think
a common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided
by Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
Nope, I addressed that point very specifically with "A very small
amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and electronic
controls."
What you misinterpreted as 'moving the goalposts' was me taking issue
with Jeffs assertion that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient".
Note that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient" ≠ "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
The efficiency of the heater is determined by the energy that is used
specifically for generating heat. By that premise, it's logically
possible that that the heating element in a heating appliance may be
near 100%, but that some energy will be used for the control portion
of the system.
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
Actually, thermal insulation does not normally prevent heat from
leaving a system. It merely reduces the rate at which it leaves. That
would be true of, say, some hot component in a blanket controller.
More obviously, it's true of the plastic insulation of the heating
elements within the blanket, and it's true of the fibers of the
blanket itself. Nonetheless, all that heat eventually gets delivered.
None goes elsewhere.
Hmmm....Is that why the water heater in my basement is still cool to
the touch 20 years after it was installed? It's been keeping my water
at 175 degrees that whole time. By your logic, shouldn't the
temperature of the outer surface of the tank be 175 Degrees by now? Or
at least much warmer than the surrounding air?
I'm happy to discuss this in great detail if you like.
_IF_ the water heater were enclosed in some big box from which
absolutely no heat could possibly escape (understand, that's
impossible), the outside of the water heater would eventually reach the temperature of the water.
But in the real world, there is heat being lost continually to the atmosphere, etc. in your basement. ("etc" is because a very small amount
is lost by radiation instead of convection, and is absorbed by solid surroundings.) The primary heat loss, by far, is convection to the
outside air.
There is a constant flow of heat energy from within the water heater to
the air outside. The _rate_ of heat flow depends on the temperature difference (which is analogous to voltage in an electrical circuit) and
on the amount of insulation (whose "thermal resistance" is analogous to electrical resistance.)
In practice, the thermal resistance is never infinite. IOW, you can add
more and more insulation, but you can never reduce heat flow to zero.
If you were to use absolutely no hot water, and you were to shut off all energy input (gas or electricity or whatever) to your water heater, you
would eventually find the water at room temperature. Heat would flow
until the temperature difference across the insulation were zero - very analogous to a capacitor sending _some_ current through even a very high resistance, until the capacitor's voltage was zero.
The point is that a direct conversion of energy from electrical
wattage into the system to BTU output won't show 100% efficiency.
We disagree. Again, feel free to explain in detail where you think the
lost energy would go, if not to heat.
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You should look at the energy used for the controls and
think about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic
detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have
a gross misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the
indicators dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum
(this is why LEDs are more efficient lighting than
incandescent, very little energy is used in the IR spectrum).
OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that
is, a _perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility,
but useful for our analysis). Let the box contain whatever
you like - just air, some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice
so it shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you
don't end up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored;
it somehow goes away. And what happens to the temperature
inside the box, and why?
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will
rise. The energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED,
including the visible light spectrum, ultimately converts to
heat.
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns intoIn physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as
heat - this means no energy is available to do any other
form of work.
force moving through a distance, or torque moving though an
angle of rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same
as the units for energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or
Joules, etc. all of which (interestingly) can be converted
to BTUs, which are normally units measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is
not normally available to do work.
There are exceptions, of course. A device that produces work
from heat is known as an "engine."
I bought one of these a while ago, as a geek toy. (I used to
have a larger one as a demonstrator used in Thermodynamics
class.)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BL29ZF17/ ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It's a small Stirling Engine driven by the temperature
difference between the hot bottom plate and the colder top
plate. It sits on top of a cup of hot water. Heat flows into
the disk on the bottom and flows out the top one. I've
gotten about 850 rpm out of mine, more if I place an ice
cube on the top plate.
So an engine is a device that converts heat to mechanical
work. But no engine can covert heat to work with 100%
efficiency.
All of this discussion is stuff normally covered under the
topic "Thermodynamics."
On 1/13/2025 12:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Then there's the vast majority of bike riders who will never join a
club, never look at a bike magazine, never try to ride fast, who just
ride for fun. No power meters there.
And in my experience the vast majority of cyclists I ride with use a
power meter - even those in my age group. Your experience is not the
norm, Frank, neither is mine.
On 1/13/2025 3:40 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
...A bicycle frame wears out? Really?
Some people have very high standards and toss useful things
when they are merely scuffed or have a small dent. Other
people have different standards:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/mitch.html
On 1/15/2025 3:42 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In practice, the thermal resistance is never infinite. IOW, you can
add more and more insulation, but you can never reduce heat flow to
zero.
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
electronic controls.
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think
a common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided
by Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
There are other losses in the cabling and plug interface which -
while realized as heat - do not contribute the heating of the
targeted space. The heat generated by the plug and cord are rather
well insulated.
But it's still heat, delivered into the room. It's not lost elsewhere.
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think about
what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross
misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators dissipate
energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs are more
efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy is used in
the IR spectrum).
OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a _perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air, some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end up
with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes away.
And
what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat - thisIn physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force moving
means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of rotation. Valid
units of measurement are the same as the units for energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which (interestingly) can be
converted to BTUs, which are normally units measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not normally available to do work.
There are exceptions, of course. A device that produces work from heat
is known as an "engine."
I bought one of these a while ago, as a geek toy. (I used to have a
larger one as a demonstrator used in Thermodynamics class.)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BL29ZF17/ ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It's a small Stirling Engine driven by the temperature difference
between the hot bottom plate and the colder top plate. It sits on top of
a cup of hot water. Heat flows into the disk on the bottom and flows out
the top one. I've gotten about 850 rpm out of mine, more if I place an
ice cube on the top plate.
So an engine is a device that converts heat to mechanical work. But no
engine can covert heat to work with 100% efficiency.
All of this discussion is stuff normally covered under the topic "Thermodynamics."
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:24:35 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:
On 1/13/2025 3:40 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
[useless fullquote, removed]
...A bicycle frame wears out? Really?
Some people have very high standards and toss useful things
when they are merely scuffed or have a small dent. Other
people have different standards:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/mitch.html
In my case, the frame just broke.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> writes:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
electronic controls.
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think
a common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided
by Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
There are other losses in the cabling and plug interface which -
while realized as heat - do not contribute the heating of the
targeted space. The heat generated by the plug and cord are rather
well insulated.
But it's still heat, delivered into the room. It's not lost elsewhere.
Not necessarily true. Heat is conducted thermally into the electrical
wires, which often run inside exterior walls, and can thus be conducted
to the outdoors without heating a room.
But these are quibbles. The definition of efficiency depends on the
purpose of the device, and the theoretical model used to compute the
minimum energy (or whatever) required to achieve that purpose.
The purpose of an electric blanket is *not* to heat a room, it is to
make an individual human being more comfortable *without* heating the
room. Grandpa can feel warm without requiring the thermostat at 90F.
Note that the "blanket" part of an electric blanket is important.
Without insulation most of the heat produced electrically will be wasted
by heating the cold room, since the room is cooler than the person
warmed. Most people that actually use electric blankets put more
blankets over them for this reason.
What is the theoretical minimum heat required to make an individual feel warm? Every living human being produces metabolic heat constantly,
which must be lost to the environment to prevent overheating. A 2000 Kcal/day diet implies an average power output of 97W, almost all of
which is heat for a typical sedentary person.
The minimum heat required is the heat inevitably lost to the environment
less metabolic heat. For a typical electric blanket application I'm
guessing the heat lost is mostly due to respiration (sensible heat and
latent heat of the moisture added to exhaled air).
You're welcome to compute that; it should be easy once you estimate the volumetric rate of respiration and assume a room temperature and
humidity. I'm pretty sure the resulting efficiency of an electric
blanket is way below 100%.
On 1/16/2025 12:38 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> writes:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:A very small amount of power is used for the indicator
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity
consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
lighting and
electronic controls.
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that
electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying
100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very
different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said
earlier, I think
a common one used for engineering matters is Desired
Output divided
by Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement
"It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric
blanket
becomes heat."
There are other losses in the cabling and plug interface
which -
while realized as heat - do not contribute the heating
of the
targeted space. The heat generated by the plug and cord
are rather
well insulated.
But it's still heat, delivered into the room. It's not
lost elsewhere.
Not necessarily true. Heat is conducted thermally into
the electrical
wires, which often run inside exterior walls, and can thus
be conducted
to the outdoors without heating a room.
But these are quibbles. The definition of efficiency
depends on the
purpose of the device, and the theoretical model used to
compute the
minimum energy (or whatever) required to achieve that
purpose.
The purpose of an electric blanket is *not* to heat a
room, it is to
make an individual human being more comfortable *without*
heating the
room. Grandpa can feel warm without requiring the
thermostat at 90F.
Note that the "blanket" part of an electric blanket is
important.
Without insulation most of the heat produced electrically
will be wasted
by heating the cold room, since the room is cooler than
the person
warmed. Most people that actually use electric blankets
put more
blankets over them for this reason.
What is the theoretical minimum heat required to make an
individual feel
warm? Every living human being produces metabolic heat
constantly,
which must be lost to the environment to prevent
overheating. A 2000
Kcal/day diet implies an average power output of 97W,
almost all of
which is heat for a typical sedentary person.
The minimum heat required is the heat inevitably lost to
the environment
less metabolic heat. For a typical electric blanket
application I'm
guessing the heat lost is mostly due to respiration
(sensible heat and
latent heat of the moisture added to exhaled air).
You're welcome to compute that; it should be easy once you
estimate the
volumetric rate of respiration and assume a room
temperature and
humidity. I'm pretty sure the resulting efficiency of an
electric
blanket is way below 100%.
Datuayins are on different channels.
Mr Krygowski is right regarding physics and the laws which
yet obtain.
If you want to discuss efficiency in terms of product
marketing (New! Heats gramps, not the room!) that's a
different area.
On 1/16/2025 4:21 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:05:22 -0500, Frank KrygowskiGosh, does that mean we should look at actual large population _data_????
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW, we are not allowed to discuss reliability of bike parts?
1) Usage by a half dozen or so of Roger's friends doesn't even begin
to define reliability.
Why, that can't be right! It goes against half the arguments you've ever
made here! :-)
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:24:35 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:
On 1/13/2025 3:40 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
[useless fullquote, removed]
...A bicycle frame wears out? Really?
Some people have very high standards and toss useful things
when they are merely scuffed or have a small dent. Other
people have different standards:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/mitch.html
In my case, the frame just broke.
A (one) frame break?
That's not a crisis, that's a repair!
https://www.yellowjersey.org/paint.html
On 1/16/2025 1:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You should look at the energy used for the controls and
think about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic
detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you
have a gross misunderstanding of electronics. First off,
the indicators dissipate energy in the visible light
spectrum (this is why LEDs are more efficient lighting
than incandescent, very little energy is used in the IR
spectrum).
OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container -
that is, a _perfectly_ insulated box (a physical
impossibility, but useful for our analysis). Let the box
contain whatever you like - just air, some solid objects,
whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your
choice so it shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously,
you don't end up with a box full of light, so it isn't
stored; it somehow goes away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and
purposes it suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
No cats necessary. If you opened such a box, would you
really expect to see a bright flash of the released light?
If so, you'd be disappointed.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from
the system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just
not nearly as much as incandescents (given the same lux)
Even if only visible spectrum light is emitted, the
temperature will rise. The visible light energy will be
converted to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write
a paper on that.
Those papers were written long, long ago. See https:// www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae261.cfm for some hints.
"That's a famous question that people thought a lot about in
the nineteenth century. It goes under the name of the 'Heat
Death of the Universe.' In short, once all of the energy in
the universe is converted to heat then the universe will be
in equilibrium -- everything will be of the same temperature
and entropy will remain constant forever."
On 1/16/2025 1:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think about
what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross
misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators dissipate
energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs are more
efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy is used in
the IR spectrum).
OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air, some
solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end
up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
No cats necessary. If you opened such a box, would you really expect to
see a bright flash of the released light? If so, you'd be disappointed.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the system.
Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much as
incandescents (given the same lux)
Even if only visible spectrum light is emitted, the temperature will
rise. The visible light energy will be converted to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on
that.
Those papers were written long, long ago. See https://www.physlink.com/ education/askexperts/ae261.cfm for some hints.
"That's a famous question that people thought a lot about in the
nineteenth century. It goes under the name of the 'Heat Death of the Universe.' In short, once all of the energy in the universe is converted
to heat then the universe will be in equilibrium -- everything will be
of the same temperature and entropy will remain constant forever."
On 1/16/2025 1:38 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> writes:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:A very small amount of power is used for the indicator
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity
consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
lighting and
electronic controls.
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that
electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying
100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very
different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said
earlier, I think
a common one used for engineering matters is Desired
Output divided
by Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement
"It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric
blanket
becomes heat."
There are other losses in the cabling and plug interface
which -
while realized as heat - do not contribute the heating
of the
targeted space. The heat generated by the plug and cord
are rather
well insulated.
But it's still heat, delivered into the room. It's not
lost elsewhere.
Not necessarily true. Heat is conducted thermally into
the electrical
wires, which often run inside exterior walls, and can thus
be conducted
to the outdoors without heating a room.
But these are quibbles. The definition of efficiency
depends on the
purpose of the device, and the theoretical model used to
compute the
minimum energy (or whatever) required to achieve that
purpose.
The purpose of an electric blanket is *not* to heat a
room, it is to
make an individual human being more comfortable *without*
heating the
room.
I guess it's possible to define the Desired Output more and
more narrowly, down to "The heat delivered to the parts of
the body that have nerve endings that detect temperature."
IOW, if Grandpa's hair and toenails get warmer, that's
wasted heat. But I think few people want to go to that extreme.
Slightly more reasonable would be to demand wrapping the
electric blanket around Grandpa, like a sleeping bag, then
wrapping that with a perfectly adiabatic blanket. All the
heat would eventually go into Grandpa.
On 1/16/2025 1:38 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> writes:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Not necessarily true. Heat is conducted thermally into the
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
electronic controls.
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think
a common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided
by Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
There are other losses in the cabling and plug interface which -
while realized as heat - do not contribute the heating of the
targeted space. The heat generated by the plug and cord are rather
well insulated.
But it's still heat, delivered into the room. It's not lost elsewhere.
electrical
wires, which often run inside exterior walls, and can thus be conducted
to the outdoors without heating a room.
But these are quibbles. The definition of efficiency depends on the
purpose of the device, and the theoretical model used to compute the
minimum energy (or whatever) required to achieve that purpose.
The purpose of an electric blanket is *not* to heat a room, it is to
make an individual human being more comfortable *without* heating the
room.
I guess it's possible to define the Desired Output more and more
narrowly, down to "The heat delivered to the parts of the body that
have nerve endings that detect temperature." IOW, if Grandpa's hair
and toenails get warmer, that's wasted heat. But I think few people
want to go to that extreme.
Slightly more reasonable would be to demand wrapping the electric
blanket around Grandpa, like a sleeping bag, then wrapping that with a perfectly adiabatic blanket. All the heat would eventually go into
Grandpa.
On 1/16/2025 3:40 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:49:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/16/2025 4:21 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:If you think it's worth the effort, go right ahead. As for me, I don't
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:05:22 -0500, Frank KrygowskiGosh, does that mean we should look at actual large population _data_???? >>
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW, we are not allowed to discuss reliability of bike parts?
1) Usage by a half dozen or so of Roger's friends doesn't even begin
to define reliability.
give a shit.
Oh, and who is "we?" You and "Fred?"
Why, that can't be right! It goes against half the arguments you've ever >>> made here! :-)
This guy needs counseling, to get rid of his obsession with me. What a >miserable old man!
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think
about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross
misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs
are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy
is used in the IR spectrum).
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air,
some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end
up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes
away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much
as incandescents (given the same lux)
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible
light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on that.
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat -In physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force
this means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
moving through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of
rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the units for
energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which
(interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are normally units
measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not
normally available to do work.
I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case running a
program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat from the
process, but energy is used to perform whatever task, Heat is the
result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from die bonds, for example)
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 07:40:45 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:04:11 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't know whether you know this but when using a stove to heat a
room put the stove in the opposite side of the room from the chimney. >>>Then run the stovepipe from the stove straight up from the stove to
the ceiling and then along the ceiling, using mounts to separate the >>>stove pipe and ceiling, of course, across the room to the chimney.
That way you get more heat from the same amount of wood.
Bad idea. When I bought the house in 1974(?), that's roughly what the >>previous owner had done. I couldn't find a photo, but it was a rather >>large "pot belly" stove that leaked air from every seam. It was
located at one end of the living room with about a 10 ft horizontal
flue pipe to where it connected to the a 5 ft vertical insulated
external pipe (Metalbestos) that acted as a chimney pipe. It didn't
work for a variety of reasons. The big one was that for the "draw" or >>suction to be able to move sufficient hot air up the chimney pipe, the >>inside of the chimney pipe had to be hot. In order to heat the pipe,
the hot air from the stove has to rise, which is rather awkward with a
10 ft horizontal uninsulated pipe with nowhere for the hot air to
rise. Getting a fire started was possible, but difficult and VERY
smoky. Cleaning the ash out of the horizontal section was difficult >>because the previous owner had neglected to install a "T" where the
pipe changed from horizontal to vertical. Even if there was a "T", it >>wouldn't have worked because rising hot air does not like making sharp >>turns.
In other words, it didn't work and horizontal flue pipe are a really
bad idea. I had to remodel the living room, move the stairs going
through the floor, replace the pot belly with an airtight stove, and
extend the external chimney pipe to 12 ft, in order to fix the
problems. Although I don't completely understand how it works, I've
found that the "efficiency" of the system is controlled by how much
time the hot gasses remain in the stove and whether the wood is >>sufficiently dry (under 10% moisture).
Your description doesn't sound like the systems built in and used in
about every building in my home town.
Often built from red brick these
chimney reached from the cellar to above the roof top.
Then had a
small opening in the bottom often with a loose fitting metal door to
allow cleaning anything they might fall down the chimney and to allow
the free flow of air up through the chimney. Thus the hotter, lighter, >"smoke" flowed up the stack.
As for an air tight stove that is a bit puzzling. How do you have a
fire in an air tight enclose?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:28:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:57:18 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks >>>>> had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100% >>>> efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into >>>> heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
Well, the heater wires might radiate some EM radiation, which then is >>absorbed by nearby objects and is converted to IR which adds to the
heat produced by the heater wires. There might be some radiation at
other frequencies (RFI, EMI, microwaves, visible light, UV, etc) but
most of the radiation is ends up somewhere in the IR bands.
Incidentally, I'm usually amused at the advertising for electric
heaters all claiming that their more "efficient" than the competition.
Of course, no numbers and certainly no calculations are ever provided.
They could always do a study where they ask people which heater made
them feel warmer.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:13:57 -0800,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:58:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 12:06 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You, as a person, don't need or consume heat. Somewhat
simplified, you need a certain range of temperatures. In the
ideal case, you don't need any additional energy, because
your body already produces heat. A little bit of isolation,
perhaps provided by that very blanket, might be sufficient.
And, I suppose, we could do away with all home heating, and
just wear very heavy clothing all winter. But I don't know of
anyone doing that.
I'm currently doing something similar to save firewood, which
costs about $500/cord delivered.
Oh my gosh, that's outrageous! A buddy and I cut firewood for a
living in Flagstaff one summer. We charged $30 for a cord of pine
(cut, split, delivered and stacked), Oak was $40.
On 1/16/2025 4:21 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:05:22 -0500, Frank KrygowskiGosh, does that mean we should look at actual large population _data_????
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
IOW, we are not allowed to discuss reliability of bike parts?
1) Usage by a half dozen or so of Roger's friends doesn't even begin
to define reliability.
Why, that can't be right! It goes against half the arguments you've ever
made here! :-)
On 1/17/2025 12:33 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 14:33:13 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:28:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:57:18 -0500, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/2025 2:01 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:20:04 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
But long before the days of transistors and "circuit boards" my folks >>>>>>> had an electric blanket... used it all the rest of their lives. Is the >>>>>>> modern one better?
Not really better, but certainly safer. Electric heaters are all 100% >>>>>> efficient. Every watt you shove into the heating wires is turned into >>>>>> heat. There's no way to improve on 100% efficiency.
Nothing is 100% efficient
Well, the heater wires might radiate some EM radiation, which then is
absorbed by nearby objects and is converted to IR which adds to the
heat produced by the heater wires. There might be some radiation at
other frequencies (RFI, EMI, microwaves, visible light, UV, etc) but
most of the radiation is ends up somewhere in the IR bands.
Incidentally, I'm usually amused at the advertising for electric
heaters all claiming that their more "efficient" than the competition. >>>> Of course, no numbers and certainly no calculations are ever provided.
They could always do a study where they ask people which heater made
them feel warmer.
I've seen that in advertisements and ad agency generated "scientific"
studies. Usually, the winner is the electric heater with a parabolic
reflector to concentrate the heat in a small area. The dish is not a
true parabola. If it were, such a heater could probably burn a hole
in whatever it's pointed at.
A mathematical quibble: You may be thinking of an ellipsoidal reflector.
An ellipsoid would take the radiation emanating from its focal point and >concentrate it at its other focal point. And at other locations, there >wouldn't be much concentration anyway.
A parabolic (or parabaloid) reflector would take the radiation emanating
from its focal point and send it out in parallel lines. Again, no great >concentration.
See >https://sciencetech-inc.com/web/content/?model=product.template.website_pdf&id=1297&filename_field=name&field=doc&filename=doc.pdf
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think
about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross
misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs
are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy
is used in the IR spectrum).
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air,
some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end
up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes
away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much
as incandescents (given the same lux)
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible
light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on that. >>
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat -In physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force
this means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
moving through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of
rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the units for
energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which
(interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are normally units
measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not
normally available to do work.
I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case running a
program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat from the
process, but energy is used to perform whatever task, Heat is the
result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from die bonds, for
example)
I don't believe that is correct. All the energy used to run a program
does eventually get rejected as heat. I suppose either 1 or 0 bits must
have a slightly higher potential energy, but the net number of each is
not likely to change much, and the energy difference must be small.
There is a field of study called "thermodynamic computing", which
studies the minimum energy that must be dissipated for various logic operations. Turns out that reversible computations, ie those that do
not irretrievably lose information, can be more thermodynamically
efficient than those that do lose information. Eventually this sort of thinking is hoped to enable more economical computation.
On 1/16/2025 5:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I don't believe that is correct. All the energy used to run a
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think
about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross
misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs
are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy
is used in the IR spectrum).
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air,
some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end
up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes
away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much
as incandescents (given the same lux)
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible
light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on that. >>>
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat -In physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force
this means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
moving through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of
rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the units for
energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which
(interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are normally units
measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not
normally available to do work.
I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case running a
program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat from the
process, but energy is used to perform whatever task, Heat is the
result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from die bonds, for
example)
program
does eventually get rejected as heat. I suppose either 1 or 0 bits must
have a slightly higher potential energy, but the net number of each is
not likely to change much, and the energy difference must be small.
Hmmm, so you're suggesting that if we consider computers to be heaters
that also perform a computing function, that using it as a heater
ostensibly gets us computing functions for free as long as we're
expecting the heating function to be primary?
Sounds suspiciously perpetual-motion-esque.
There is a field of study called "thermodynamic computing", which
studies the minimum energy that must be dissipated for various logic
operations. Turns out that reversible computations, ie those that do
not irretrievably lose information, can be more thermodynamically
efficient than those that do lose information. Eventually this sort of
thinking is hoped to enable more economical computation.
RAM vs NVRAM? I think that's been done before.
On 1/16/2025 5:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container -
You should look at the energy used for the controls
and think
about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you
have a gross
misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is
why LEDs
are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very
little energy
is used in the IR spectrum).
that is, a
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but
useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like -
just air,
some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your
choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously,
you don't end
up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it
somehow goes
away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and
purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and
why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not
nearly as much
as incandescents (given the same lux)
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box
will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the
visible
light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should
write a paper on that.
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turnsIn physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as
into heat -
this means no energy is available to do any other form
of work.
force
moving through a distance, or torque moving though an
angle of
rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the
units for
energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all
of which
(interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are
normally units
measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat
is not
normally available to do work.
I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case
running a
program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat
from the
process, but energy is used to perform whatever task,
Heat is the
result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from
die bonds, for
example)
I don't believe that is correct. All the energy used to
run a program
does eventually get rejected as heat. I suppose either 1
or 0 bits must
have a slightly higher potential energy, but the net
number of each is
not likely to change much, and the energy difference must
be small.
Hmmm, so you're suggesting that if we consider computers to
be heaters that also perform a computing function, that
using it as a heater ostensibly gets us computing functions
for free as long as we're expecting the heating function to
be primary?
Sounds suspiciously perpetual-motion-esque.
There is a field of study called "thermodynamic
computing", which
studies the minimum energy that must be dissipated for
various logic
operations. Turns out that reversible computations, ie
those that do
not irretrievably lose information, can be more
thermodynamically
efficient than those that do lose information. Eventually
this sort of
thinking is hoped to enable more economical computation.
RAM vs NVRAM? I think that's been done before.
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 5:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I don't believe that is correct. All the energy used to run a
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think
about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross >>>>>> misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs
are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy
is used in the IR spectrum).
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air,
some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end >>>>> up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes
away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much >>>> as incandescents (given the same lux)
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible
light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on that.
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat -In physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force
this means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
moving through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of
rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the units for
energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which
(interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are normally units
measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not
normally available to do work.
I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case running a
program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat from the
process, but energy is used to perform whatever task, Heat is the
result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from die bonds, for
example)
program
does eventually get rejected as heat. I suppose either 1 or 0 bits must >>> have a slightly higher potential energy, but the net number of each is
not likely to change much, and the energy difference must be small.
Hmmm, so you're suggesting that if we consider computers to be heaters
that also perform a computing function, that using it as a heater
ostensibly gets us computing functions for free as long as we're
expecting the heating function to be primary?
Sounds suspiciously perpetual-motion-esque.
There's nothing of perpetual motion about it. Essentially all of the
power you put into a computer is dissipated as heat. Even mechanical
work, like driving a computer fan, fairly quickly results in heating the room. A small amount of energy leaves the computer as EM radiation,
visible if you include the monitor, and intentional and unintentional RF transmission and that's about it.
If you don't believe this, tell me what electrical phenomenon consumes
energy without producing either radiation, mechanical work, or heat.
All of the energy used for useful computing is lost by passing currents through components with a voltage drop -- resistors, diodes, and
transistors. All dissipate the energy used as heat.
There is a field of study called "thermodynamic computing", which
studies the minimum energy that must be dissipated for various logic
operations. Turns out that reversible computations, ie those that do
not irretrievably lose information, can be more thermodynamically
efficient than those that do lose information. Eventually this sort of
thinking is hoped to enable more economical computation.
RAM vs NVRAM? I think that's been done before.
I'm afraid you misunderstand, but I don't want to get into a rathole
that will amuse almost none of our readers.
On 1/15/2025 1:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
electronic controls.
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think a
common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided by
Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
Nope, I addressed that point very specifically with "A very small amount
of power is used for the indicator lighting and electronic controls."
What you misinterpreted as 'moving the goalposts' was me taking issue
with Jeffs assertion that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient".
Note that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient" ? "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
The efficiency of the heater is determined by the energy that is used >specifically for generating heat. By that premise, it's logically
possible that that the heating element in a heating appliance may be
near 100%, but that some energy will be used for the control portion of
the system.
If Jeff had written "Electric heaters are all _nearly_ 100% efficient" I >wouldn't have commented.
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 5:56 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
On 1/16/2025 12:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I don't believe that is correct. All the energy used to run a
On 1/16/2025 7:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 6:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, a thought experiment: Take an adiabatic container - that is, a
You should look at the energy used for the controls and think
about what becomes of it. Do that in microcopic detail.
If you think it all ends up as heat (IR spectrum) you have a gross >>>>>> misunderstanding of electronics. First off, the indicators
dissipate energy in the visible light spectrum (this is why LEDs
are more efficient lighting than incandescent, very little energy
is used in the IR spectrum).
_perfectly_ insulated box (a physical impossibility, but useful for
our analysis). Let the box contain whatever you like - just air,
some solid objects, whatever.
Cut an LED sized hole in it and insert an LED of your choice so it
shines into the box. Turn on the LED.
What happens to the light entering the box? Obviously, you don't end >>>>> up with a box full of light, so it isn't stored; it somehow goes
away.
lol...no, it doesn't 'go away'. For all intents and purposes it
suffers the safe fate as Schrödinger's cat.
And what happens to the temperature inside the box, and why?
It will rise somewhat due to the residual IR energy from the
system. Visible spectrum LEDs do emit some IR, just not nearly as much >>>> as incandescents (given the same lux)
Answer: The temperature of whatever's inside the box will rise. The
energy put into _all_ spectra by the LED, including the visible
light spectrum, ultimately converts to heat.
So _all_ forms of energy convert to heat? You should write a paper on that.
Secondly, think about your premise that it all turns into heat -In physics or mechanical engineering, work is defined as force
this means no energy is available to do any other form of work.
moving through a distance, or torque moving though an angle of
rotation. Valid units of measurement are the same as the units for
energy: foot*pounds, Newton*meters or Joules, etc. all of which
(interestingly) can be converted to BTUs, which are normally units
measuring heat.
And in general, you're right, energy converted to heat is not
normally available to do work.
I used the term 'work' more generically, in this case running a
program, setting bits in memory, etc. Yes, residual heat from the
process, but energy is used to perform whatever task, Heat is the
result of losses in the system (thermal junctions from die bonds, for
example)
program
does eventually get rejected as heat. I suppose either 1 or 0 bits must >>> have a slightly higher potential energy, but the net number of each is
not likely to change much, and the energy difference must be small.
Hmmm, so you're suggesting that if we consider computers to be heaters
that also perform a computing function, that using it as a heater
ostensibly gets us computing functions for free as long as we're
expecting the heating function to be primary?
Sounds suspiciously perpetual-motion-esque.
There's nothing of perpetual motion about it. Essentially all of the
power you put into a computer is dissipated as heat.
work, like driving a computer fan, fairly quickly results in heating the room. A small amount of energy leaves the computer as EM radiation,
visible if you include the monitor, and intentional and unintentional RF transmission and that's about it.
If you don't believe this, tell me what electrical phenomenon consumes
energy without producing either radiation, mechanical work, or heat.
All of the energy used for useful computing is lost by passing currents through components with a voltage drop -- resistors, diodes, and
transistors. All dissipate the energy used as heat.
There is a field of study called "thermodynamic computing", which
studies the minimum energy that must be dissipated for various logic
operations. Turns out that reversible computations, ie those that do
not irretrievably lose information, can be more thermodynamically
efficient than those that do lose information. Eventually this sort of
thinking is hoped to enable more economical computation.
RAM vs NVRAM? I think that's been done before.
I'm afraid you misunderstand, but I don't want to get into a rathole
that will amuse almost none of our readers.
Am Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:42:39 -0500 schrieb Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>:
On 1/15/2025 1:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2025 1:05 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/13/2025 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's certainly true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an
electric blanket becomes heat.
No, that isn't true either.
Please explain. What electrical energy goes elsewhere?
A very small amount of power is used for the indicator lighting and
electronic controls.
I write "either" because even _if_ it were true that electric
heaters are 100% efficient (which isn't true), saying 100% of the
electricity consumed by the device become heat is very different
than saying it's 100% efficient.
What's your definition of "efficiency?" As I said earlier, I think a >>>>> common one used for engineering matters is Desired Output divided by >>>>> Required Input, or something similar.
Do you have a different one?
Nope, it's the notion that every watt of power directly goes into
heating the targeted space that I'm stuck on.
You're moving goalposts. You objected to my statement "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
Nope, I addressed that point very specifically with "A very small amount
of power is used for the indicator lighting and electronic controls."
What you misinterpreted as 'moving the goalposts' was me taking issue
with Jeffs assertion that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient".
Note that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient" ? "It's certainly
true that 100% of the electricity consumed by an electric blanket
becomes heat."
The efficiency of the heater is determined by the energy that is used
specifically for generating heat. By that premise, it's logically
possible that that the heating element in a heating appliance may be
near 100%, but that some energy will be used for the control portion of
the system.
Provided that the “control part” of the heater is not located in a
remote data center, this is completely irrelevant. If the control system
is part of the heater, the electrical energy used by the control is also converted into heat.
If Jeff had written "Electric heaters are all _nearly_ 100% efficient" I
wouldn't have commented.
You are barking under the wrong tree.
Of course an electric blanket isn't 100% efficient. But this doesn't
have anything to do with how electricity is converted to heat.
The relevant question is how much of the electrical energy supplied to
an isolated system serves the intended purpose, and where we draw the
line. If an electric blanket is intended to warm a person, but eighty
percent of the heat only slightly warms the cold air above the blanket
or warms the walls through radiation, then the efficiency of the
electric blanket is only twenty percent. This does not change the fact
that the loss-free conversion of electricity into heat through an
resistor is just that: loss-free.
Arguing that some heat might be stored inside the insulation of the
cable from the wall socket to the blanket for a few minutes is just nit-picking. There is no point to insert various "almost", "nearly",
"in the limit" into valid generalizations.
I don't doubt that "electric heaters are all 100% efficient" is
misleading. But not because of those tiny losses you mention.
There is a popular misconception that this physical triviality can be
applied to the entire system, from the original energy source to the
user of the heat generated.
No energy source delivers even close to 100%. Even a solar panel has to
be produced and replaced every twenty or thirty years. There are energy requirements for production, maintenance and recycling of power lines. Renewables are much better than the alternatives, but still nowhere near 100%.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 496 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:30:04 |
| Calls: | 9,762 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,744 |
| Messages: | 6,185,638 |
