 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?!! >_<
Why are the downstairs taps connected to the mains, but the upstairs
ones connected to a tank? Why do we even *have* a tank??
http://xkcd.com/156/
How do you do this in Haskell / Eiffel / any other languages that
perversely chose "--" as the comment marker?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:29 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Why has nobody yet invented a car door which can be opened half way?
Our Saturn has two "stops" - one about half way, and one fully open.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/7/2010 10:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> http://xkcd.com/156/
>
> How do you do this in Haskell / Eiffel / any other languages that
> perversely chose "--" as the comment marker?
'
Hmmm... not a clue.
--
~Mike
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.
Nice idea. One small problem: How the HELL does the water make it up an
extra floor to reach the tank??? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:38:33 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Nice idea. One small problem: How the HELL does the water make it up an
> extra floor to reach the tank??? :-P
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? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
> 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. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
