On 7/7/2010 1:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/07/2010 6:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The water that goes to the upper floor is full of flouride and other
>> chemicals that give it an excess of anti-gravitrons, allowing it to
>> easily get up.

>> The bigger question is why doesn't the tank fly off into space?;-)
>>
>
> The ball cock holds it down. All those chemicals stop it from lifting. ;-)
>

So, that's how geysers work .... <stares in astonished wonderment>

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 7/7/2010 12:38 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>
> Nice idea. One small problem: How the HELL does the water make it up an
> extra floor to reach the tank??? :-P
>

Many, many years ago, some yahoo decided to connect a motor to an 
impeller in place it in a stream of water. His discovery? He found that 
he could move water against the force of gravity. He was so proud of his 
invention he brought it to a a quaint lake out on Califorina called Life 
lake. He was so impressed with himself and so proud, he hooked up his 
invention, dropped the inlet into the lake and drained all of the water 
out just to show what he could do.

That is how Death Valley was formed. That's also how the water gets to 
the tank on the roof.

The tank acts as sort of a capacitor, you know... :D

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> How do you do this in Haskell / Eiffel / any other languages that 
> perversely chose "--" as the comment marker?

It seems there are whole bunches of old XKCDs that I have zero memory of 
having read.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:14:37 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/07/2010 6:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The water that goes to the upper floor is full of flouride and other
>> chemicals that give it an excess of anti-gravitrons, allowing it to
>> easily get up.
> 
> LOL

It's all a conspiracy, I tell ya... ;-)

>> The bigger question is why doesn't the tank fly off into space?;-)
>>
>>
> The ball cock holds it down. All those chemicals stop it from lifting.
> ;-)

Well, that would explain it. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/07/2010 9:38 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 7/7/2010 1:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 07/07/2010 6:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The water that goes to the upper floor is full of flouride and other
>>> chemicals that give it an excess of anti-gravitrons, allowing it to
>>> easily get up.
>
>>> The bigger question is why doesn't the tank fly off into space?;-)
>>>
>>
>> The ball cock holds it down. All those chemicals stop it from lifting.
>> ;-)
>>
>
> So, that's how geysers work .... <stares in astonished wonderment>
>

There are more things in Heaven and Pov, Mike, Than are dreamt of in 
your philosophy. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/07/2010 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:14:37 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2010 6:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The water that goes to the upper floor is full of flouride and other
>>> chemicals that give it an excess of anti-gravitrons, allowing it to
>>> easily get up.
>>
>> LOL
>
> It's all a conspiracy, I tell ya... ;-)
>

Mercy buckets, its true. :-)

>>> The bigger question is why doesn't the tank fly off into space?;-)
>>>
>>>
>> The ball cock holds it down. All those chemicals stop it from lifting.
>> ;-)
>
> Well, that would explain it. ;-)
>

Some chemicals inhibit rising, whilst others actively promote it. O_o

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Every car I've ever seen has hinges which try to force the door fully open 
> or fully closed. Now you can see why fully closed would be a good idea. 
> But if you're parked in a tight space, it's really irritating that you 
> can't let go of the door because you'll either get a door in your face, or 
> the door will spring open and scratch up the car next to you.
>
> Such a simple problem, yet nobody has solved it. WHY?!! >_<

Huh? Every car I've had for decades has a soft "stop" half way where the 
door is quite stable.  You can then push it a bit harder and it locks all 
the way out.  Try it!

> Why are the downstairs taps connected to the mains, but the upstairs ones 
> connected to a tank?

To stop you having mains pressure cold (~1-5 bar) next to tank pressure hot 
(~0.2 bar) in the bath.  Imagine what happens when you connect one of those 
old-fashioned shower adapters to the bath taps, turn hot and cold to full 
and then turn *off* the shower head.  Fortunately now we have taps with 
back-flow prevention valves and fancy mixer taps to avoid this problem. 
Many houses don't have a cold tank, and some won't have a hot tank either 
(the hot is heated on-demand by the boiler).

Post a reply to this message

>> Why are the downstairs taps connected to the mains, but the upstairs
>> ones connected to a tank? Why do we even *have* a tank??
>>
>
> Because the mains does not have enough pressure to push the water upstairs 
> at a tolerable force. If it weren't for the tank, you'd turn on the faucet 
> and get barely a trickle... With the tank on the roof, you get nice water 
> pressure.

It's different in the UK, the mains pressure usually equates to about 10-50 
metres plus of head.  Any water from a tank in the roof is usually *way* 
lower pressure than mains.  For example you can easily block off a fully 
open hot tap with your thumb with very little force, but it is tricky, if 
not impossible to do the same on a mains pressure cold tap.

Post a reply to this message

> Huh? Every car I've had for decades has a soft "stop" half way where the 
> door is quite stable.  You can then push it a bit harder and it locks 
> all the way out.  Try it!

Doesn't seem to work with my Renault Megan III.

Then again, I've never tried it with a £150,000 sports car, so maybe it 
does work there.

>> Why are the downstairs taps connected to the mains, but the upstairs 
>> ones connected to a tank?
> 
> To stop you having mains pressure cold (~1-5 bar) next to tank pressure 
> hot (~0.2 bar) in the bath.  Imagine what happens when you connect one 
> of those old-fashioned shower adapters to the bath taps, turn hot and 
> cold to full and then turn *off* the shower head.  Fortunately now we 
> have taps with back-flow prevention valves and fancy mixer taps to avoid 
> this problem. Many houses don't have a cold tank, and some won't have a 
> hot tank either (the hot is heated on-demand by the boiler).

My house doesn't have and has never had a hot water tank. As you say, 
water is heated on-demand. Which, come to think of it, means that only 
the cold tap is fed from a tank. Given that there's no noticable 
difference in water pressure between the two, that makes the need for a 
tank even more dubious.

Post a reply to this message

> Doesn't seem to work with my Renault Megan III.

That would be the first car I've ever seen (and I've seen lots way older and 
smaller than yours!) that didn't have such a feature.  You really mean that 
once you un-latch the door it is free to swing out to 100% open?  Yes, I can 
imagine that would be really annoying in car parks and garages.

> My house doesn't have and has never had a hot water tank. As you say, 
> water is heated on-demand.

Was it like that when the house was built?

> Which, come to think of it, means that only the cold tap is fed from a 
> tank. Given that there's no noticable difference in water pressure between 
> the two, that makes the need for a tank even more dubious.

Yes, it seems odd to build a house like, as you don't need a hot or cold 
tank with an on-demand boiler.

Post a reply to this message

>> Doesn't seem to work with my Renault Megan III.
> 
> That would be the first car I've ever seen (and I've seen lots way older 
> and smaller than yours!) that didn't have such a feature.  You really 
> mean that once you un-latch the door it is free to swing out to 100% 
> open?  Yes, I can imagine that would be really annoying in car parks and 
> garages.

As far as I can tell...

(The other fun thing is that if you swing it open, it hits the end and 
immediately bounces back in your face.)

>> My house doesn't have and has never had a hot water tank. As you say, 
>> water is heated on-demand.
> 
> Was it like that when the house was built?

I can't say for certain. It's been that way ever since I lived here. 
Then again, my dad's house is on the same estate and that does have a 
hot tank, so...

Post a reply to this message

> As far as I can tell...
>
> (The other fun thing is that if you swing it open, it hits the end and 
> immediately bounces back in your face.)

Sounds broken to me, does the passenger door behave the same way?

> I can't say for certain. It's been that way ever since I lived here. Then 
> again, my dad's house is on the same estate and that does have a hot tank, 
> so...

I suspect it originally had hot and cold tanks, then they changed it to an 
on-demand boiler (common when a boiler gets replaced) but left the cold tank 
(probably didn't want to re-plumb all the upstairs taps).

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.07.2010 17:59, schrieb Invisible:
> Why has nobody yet invented a car door which can be opened half way?
>
> Every car I've ever seen has hinges which try to force the door fully
> open or fully closed. Now you can see why fully closed would be a good
> idea. But if you're parked in a tight space, it's really irritating that
> you can't let go of the door because you'll either get a door in your
> face, or the door will spring open and scratch up the car next to you.
>
> Such a simple problem, yet nobody has solved it. WHY?!! >_<

Because you're once again wrong?

I recall indeed having operated car doors that had two distinctive 
"open" positions. Never paid much attention to this though, so I can't 
tell what percentage of cars seem to have such a feature.

> Why are the downstairs taps connected to the mains, but the upstairs
> ones connected to a tank? Why do we even *have* a tank??

Maybe because upstairs the water mains pressure drops below atmospheric 
pressure (or at least too low to provide any significant throughput) at 
peak load times?

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2010 1:54 AM, scott wrote:

>
> It's different in the UK, the mains pressure usually equates to about
> 10-50 metres plus of head. Any water from a tank in the roof is usually
> *way* lower pressure than mains. For example you can easily block off a
> fully open hot tap with your thumb with very little force, but it is
> tricky, if not impossible to do the same on a mains pressure cold tap.
>

Is this everywhere, though? I imagine in Andrew's Building's case that 
it could be that his building was on a hill, while the building gets 
reasonable pressure on the lower floor, the upper floor might not get 
enough. Where I live, there's plenty of water pressure. But, if your 
building is taller than the water tower, it'll need a tank to get 
pressure to the upper floors.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2010 1:50 AM, scott wrote:
>> Every car I've ever seen has hinges which try to force the door fully
>> open or fully closed. Now you can see why fully closed would be a good
>> idea. But if you're parked in a tight space, it's really irritating
>> that you can't let go of the door because you'll either get a door in
>> your face, or the door will spring open and scratch up the car next to
>> you.
>>
>> Such a simple problem, yet nobody has solved it. WHY?!! >_<
>
> Huh? Every car I've had for decades has a soft "stop" half way where the
> door is quite stable. You can then push it a bit harder and it locks all
> the way out. Try it!
>

Yep, mine has a detent about half way, which is usually just a bit too 
much for a cramped parking lot. This makes the task of wrangling a 
squirming toddler into the car ever so enjoyable while you 
simultaneously are trying to keep the door from contacting the car next 
to you, which seems to have been parked by someone who insists on 
parking with their tire touching the line. :)

>> Why are the downstairs taps connected to the mains, but the upstairs
>> ones connected to a tank?
>
> To stop you having mains pressure cold (~1-5 bar) next to tank pressure
> hot (~0.2 bar) in the bath. Imagine what happens when you connect one of
> those old-fashioned shower adapters to the bath taps, turn hot and cold
> to full and then turn *off* the shower head. Fortunately now we have
> taps with back-flow prevention valves and fancy mixer taps to avoid this
> problem. Many houses don't have a cold tank, and some won't have a hot
> tank either (the hot is heated on-demand by the boiler).
>

Hmm, that makes sense... Though a thermostatic valve eliminates that 
need entirely.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Is this everywhere, though? I imagine in Andrew's Building's case that 
> it could be that his building was on a hill, while the building gets 
> reasonable pressure on the lower floor, the upper floor might not get 
> enough. Where I live, there's plenty of water pressure. But, if your 
> building is taller than the water tower, it'll need a tank to get 
> pressure to the upper floors.

Is water actually that damned heavy?

Post a reply to this message

>> It's different in the UK, the mains pressure usually equates to about
>> 10-50 metres plus of head. Any water from a tank in the roof is usually
>> *way* lower pressure than mains. For example you can easily block off a
>> fully open hot tap with your thumb with very little force, but it is
>> tricky, if not impossible to do the same on a mains pressure cold tap.
>
> Is this everywhere, though?

Pretty much, water companies are required to supply at a minimum of 1 bar, 
which means upstairs you'd get a guaranteed ~0.7 bar.  Unless you are able 
to put a tank 7 metres higher than upstairs it's not going to give any 
improvement over the worst mains pressure.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2010 7:18 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Is water actually that damned heavy?

It's heavier than air, isn't it? ;)

Pick up a 5 gallon bucket of water. it gets pretty heavy pretty quick. 
The towers are there to create pressure to service an area. It's a 
rather efficient system, so long as the demand doesn't drain the tower 
you get very good pressure.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2010 7:20 AM, scott wrote:
>>> It's different in the UK, the mains pressure usually equates to about
>>> 10-50 metres plus of head. Any water from a tank in the roof is usually
>>> *way* lower pressure than mains. For example you can easily block off a
>>> fully open hot tap with your thumb with very little force, but it is
>>> tricky, if not impossible to do the same on a mains pressure cold tap.
>>
>> Is this everywhere, though?
>
> Pretty much, water companies are required to supply at a minimum of 1
> bar, which means upstairs you'd get a guaranteed ~0.7 bar. Unless you
> are able to put a tank 7 metres higher than upstairs it's not going to
> give any improvement over the worst mains pressure.
>

I figured in some rural areas this may not be the case, though. If, for 
instance, the water were coming from a well...

... But by virtue of what you said the tank seems completely 
unnecessary. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was a vestige of 
an earlier time back when the house was built. Probably to equalize the 
pressure of cold and hot, as you said.

How do the on-demand hot water systems work, btw? It seems like here in 
the States tanks are by far the norm. It seems like it would be a heck 
of a lot more efficient to have the on-demand heating system, and a tad 
less annoying... .I really, really despise it when the hot water runs out.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> I figured in some rural areas this may not be the case, though. If, for 
> instance, the water were coming from a well...

In rural areas there will usually be a water reservoir on or inside a hill 
somewhere nearby.  If you water pressure is really so low that adding a tank 
in the roof helps, then you are going to have other problems with washing 
machines and boilers, I've seen some of them that demand a minimum water 
pressure of 1 bar.

> How do the on-demand hot water systems work, btw?

A pipe off from the mains cold supply goes into the boiler, gets heated, and 
then goes to all the hot taps.  A flow-rate sensor detects when a hot tap is 
turned on and fires up the boiler.  It is the same boiler that does the 
central heating, usually a smallish wall mounted unit like this:

http://www.petesheating.co.uk/images/examples/boiler_in_cupboard_2.jpg

(You can see in that photo there probably used to be a hot water tank there)

Advantages are higher efficiency, more space (no hot or cold tanks needed) 
and unlimited hot water.  The disadvantage is that unless you have a really 
beefy boiler and gas supply, the hot water isn't going to come out as fast 
as if you had a tank.  For a shower this is usually not noticed because the 
pressure is much higher, but you'll notice when it takes 2x longer to fill 
the bath!

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:47:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/07/2010 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:14:37 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/2010 6:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> The water that goes to the upper floor is full of flouride and other
>>>> chemicals that give it an excess of anti-gravitrons, allowing it to
>>>> easily get up.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> It's all a conspiracy, I tell ya... ;-)
>>
>>
> Mercy buckets, its true. :-)

LOL

>>>> The bigger question is why doesn't the tank fly off into space?;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The ball cock holds it down. All those chemicals stop it from lifting.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Well, that would explain it. ;-)
>>
>>
> Some chemicals inhibit rising, whilst others actively promote it. O_o

So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Is water actually that damned heavy?

10 meters of water weighs as much as all the air over your head all the way 
out to outer space.  We've been to the moon.  We can't manage to get down to 
the base of the Gulf of Mexico.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> (The other fun thing is that if you swing it open, it hits the end and 
> immediately bounces back in your face.)

That's broken. There's a spring that holds the clamp (for want of a better 
word) against the bar with the notch in it. Sounds like that spring is screwed.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Some chemicals inhibit rising, whilst others actively promote it. O_o
> So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense.;-)
>

So is just standing when you've taken chemicals. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:00:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/07/2010 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Some chemicals inhibit rising, whilst others actively promote it. O_o
>> So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense.;-)
>>
>>
> So is just standing when you've taken chemicals. ;-)

I rediscovered that last night - Amy decided that it would be fun to make 
martinis (we've never had them before).  Quite a bit stronger than I 
thought they'd be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense.;-)
> 
> So is just standing when you've taken chemicals. ;-)

No, surely just standing is *always*, by definition, a balancing act. 
It's just that this act [and several others] becomes significantly 
harder under the influence of certain chemicals. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 6:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:00:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/2010 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Some chemicals inhibit rising, whilst others actively promote it. O_o
>>> So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense.;-)
>>>
>>>
>> So is just standing when you've taken chemicals. ;-)
>
> I rediscovered that last night - Amy decided that it would be fun to make
> martinis (we've never had them before).  Quite a bit stronger than I
> thought they'd be.
>

The same with cocktails.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 6:11 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense.;-)
>>
>> So is just standing when you've taken chemicals. ;-)
>
> No, surely just standing is *always*, by definition, a balancing act.
> It's just that this act [and several others] becomes significantly
> harder under the influence of certain chemicals. ;-)
>

Pedant! :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:13:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/07/2010 6:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:00:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/07/2010 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Some chemicals inhibit rising, whilst others actively promote it.
>>>>> O_o
>>>> So it's a balancing act, then?  That makes sense.;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So is just standing when you've taken chemicals. ;-)
>>
>> I rediscovered that last night - Amy decided that it would be fun to
>> make martinis (we've never had them before).  Quite a bit stronger than
>> I thought they'd be.
>>
>>
> The same with cocktails.

Yes, I've had some different cocktails that were quite strong.  I think 
we'll be making more different cocktails just to try things out. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Yes, I've had some different cocktails that were quite strong.  I think
> we'll be making more different cocktails just to try things out. :-)
>

My favourite cocktail is a whisky one.
1 part whisky with 2 parts whisky, ice if you really need it ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:36:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/07/2010 6:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I've had some different cocktails that were quite strong.  I think
>> we'll be making more different cocktails just to try things out. :-)
>>
>>
> My favourite cocktail is a whisky one. 1 part whisky with 2 parts
> whisky, ice if you really need it ;-)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 7:15 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> My favourite cocktail is a whisky one. 1 part whisky with 2 parts
>> >  whisky, ice if you really need it;-)
> LOL
>

You may laugh but the only thing you should add to whisky is more 
whisky. Slainte Mhath.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:50:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 08/07/2010 7:15 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> My favourite cocktail is a whisky one. 1 part whisky with 2 parts
>>> >  whisky, ice if you really need it;-)
>> LOL
>>
>>
> You may laugh but the only thing you should add to whisky is more
> whisky.

Indeed, ice maybe, if you haven't had the chance to properly chill it, if 
it's a cheaper whisky.  The better ones, of course, you won't want to do 
that in order to get the full flavour. ;-)

> Slainte Mhath.

Do dheagh shlàinte. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2010 8:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:50:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/2010 7:15 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> My favourite cocktail is a whisky one. 1 part whisky with 2 parts
>>>>>   whisky, ice if you really need it;-)
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>
>> You may laugh but the only thing you should add to whisky is more
>> whisky.
>
> Indeed, ice maybe, if you haven't had the chance to properly chill it, if
> it's a cheaper whisky.  The better ones, of course, you won't want to do
> that in order to get the full flavour. ;-)
>

Ice maybe in your summer ;-)

>> Slainte Mhath.
>
> Do dheagh shlàinte. :-)
>

May all your renders be fast and clean. :-D


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:41:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Indeed, ice maybe, if you haven't had the chance to properly chill it,
>> if it's a cheaper whisky.  The better ones, of course, you won't want
>> to do that in order to get the full flavour. ;-)
>>
> Ice maybe in your summer ;-)

Perhaps, but I think even then, not for the good stuff - wouldn't want to 
dilute it. ;-)

>>> Slainte Mhath.
>>
>> Do dheagh shlàinte. :-)
>>
>>
> May all your renders be fast and clean. :-D

And yours as well. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/07/2010 1:31 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:41:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Ice maybe in your summer ;-)
>
> Perhaps, but I think even then, not for the good stuff - wouldn't want to
> dilute it. ;-)
>

No of course not but when the water of life is warmer than blood 
temperature, something must be done.


>>>
>> May all your renders be fast and clean. :-D
>
> And yours as well. :-)
>

And everyone else's too.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Why has nobody yet invented a car door which can be opened half way?
> 
> Every car I've ever seen has hinges which try to force the door fully 
> open or fully closed.

Actually, on further investigation, it seems my car door does have two 
stops. You can have the door shut, 100% open, or 80% open. Which, 
obviously, is no use at all if you want the door 30% open because of the 
car next to you.

(It also seems that might be the reason the door bounces. If you swing 
the door open, the springs try to shut the door until it reaches about 
75% open. Then the springs try to force the door open to 80%. Obviously 
the momentum of the door makes it overshoot this, and it then bounces 
off the end stop.)

Literally, there's so little difference between 80% and 100% that I 
hadn't even noticed until now.

(If you think about it, the distance from the edge of the door to the 
body of the car is equal to the sine of the angle through which the door 
is rotated. Now even with the door maximally opened, it's not a 90° 
angle. But 80% open is well into the plateau region near the top of the 
sine curve (i.e., the difference between 80% open and 100% open makes 
almost no difference to how badly you just smashed up the car next to you).

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:38:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 09/07/2010 1:31 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:41:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Ice maybe in your summer ;-)
>>
>> Perhaps, but I think even then, not for the good stuff - wouldn't want
>> to dilute it. ;-)
>>
> No of course not but when the water of life is warmer than blood
> temperature, something must be done.

Move to a cooler clime. ;-)

>>> May all your renders be fast and clean. :-D
>>
>> And yours as well. :-)
>>
>>
> And everyone else's too.

Hear, hear! :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/07/2010 7:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:38:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2010 1:31 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:41:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ice maybe in your summer ;-)
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but I think even then, not for the good stuff - wouldn't want
>>> to dilute it. ;-)
>>>
>> No of course not but when the water of life is warmer than blood
>> temperature, something must be done.
>
> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>

I did, I came back home.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:25:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>>
> I did, I came back home.

Well, there you go. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:25:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>>>
>> I did, I came back home.
>
> Well, there you go. :-)

It doesn't feel like it today at 30° C

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:04:27 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/07/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:25:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>>>>
>>> I did, I came back home.
>>
>> Well, there you go. :-)
> 
> It doesn't feel like it today at 30° C

Aye, here it's been pretty miserable as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2010 7:04 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:04:27 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:25:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> I did, I came back home.
>>>
>>> Well, there you go. :-)
>>
>> It doesn't feel like it today at 30° C
>
> Aye, here it's been pretty miserable as well.
>

A bit cooler today, Max 25° C

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:38:23 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11/07/2010 7:04 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:04:27 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:25:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> I did, I came back home.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there you go. :-)
>>>
>>> It doesn't feel like it today at 30° C
>>
>> Aye, here it's been pretty miserable as well.
>>
>>
> A bit cooler today, Max 25° C

That's a good temp, actually where we're at right now. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2010 5:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:38:23 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2010 7:04 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 18:04:27 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2010 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:25:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Move to a cooler clime. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did, I came back home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, there you go. :-)
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't feel like it today at 30° C
>>>
>>> Aye, here it's been pretty miserable as well.
>>>
>>>
>> A bit cooler today, Max 25° C
>
> That's a good temp, actually where we're at right now. :-)
>

:-D


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> How do you do this in Haskell / Eiffel / any other languages that 
> perversely chose "--" as the comment marker?

  I wonder if that fact, and the fact that -- is the decrement operator
in C++, could be used to create a C++/Haskell polyglot.

  (Of course some people could argue that such a thing would be an
abomination and an affront to everything that is holy and just in this
world...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>   I wonder if that fact, and the fact that -- is the decrement operator
> in C++, could be used to create a C++/Haskell polyglot.

The other Fun Thing is that Haskell uses "{-" and "-}" as comment 
delimiters. (Although I guess those aren't valid fragments in C++.)

Ooo, and not forgetting that Haskell allows you to define "//", "/*" and 
"*/" as operator names. :-D

>   (Of course some people could argue that such a thing would be an
> abomination and an affront to everything that is holy and just in this
> world...)

Yes, actually.

Then again, I'm the kind of sick person who occasionally delights in 
such things... I guess I had a disturbed childhood or something.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> How do you do this in Haskell / Eiffel / any other languages that
>> perversely chose "--" as the comment marker?
> 
>   I wonder if that fact, and the fact that -- is the decrement operator
> in C++, could be used to create a C++/Haskell polyglot.
> 
>   (Of course some people could argue that such a thing would be an
> abomination and an affront to everything that is holy and just in this
> world...)

http://mauke.ath.cx/stuff/poly.poly

Count the supported languages. I don't know if it's the most awesome thing 
in the world or just an abomination far greater than your idea.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> http://mauke.ath.cx/stuff/poly.poly
> 
> Count the supported languages. I don't know if it's the most awesome thing 
> in the world or just an abomination far greater than your idea.

Oh sweet! Literate Haskell... I hadn't even thought of that.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://mauke.ath.cx/stuff/poly.poly

> Count the supported languages. I don't know if it's the most awesome thing 
> in the world or just an abomination far greater than your idea.

  I counted these (some of which I'm just guessing):

- Whitespace
- zsh script
- bash script
- sh script
- Ruby
- Perl
- tcl
- Makefile
- C++ (with and without trigraphs)
- C89, C99 (with and without trigraphs)
- Haskell
- Brainfuck
- Python
- HTML (well, not really a programming language, but...)
- Javascript

  That's at least 15.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message