On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, at 08:40:26, Tony Cooper posted:
>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:39:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>On 27/04/22 06:10, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:33:49 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't the term "y-front" used to refer to a type of underpants?
>>>
>>> Depends. To me, "underpants" are something young females wore.
>>> Young females of the age where a young male would sing out: I see
>>> London, I see France. I see (name's) underpants."
>>>
>>> Also very young males, although underpants for very young males are
>>> often just smaller Y-fronts. They don't really need the opening
>>> because most young males lower their underware to pee, but it's
>>> probably one of those gender identification things.
>>
>>Not just young males. Mine are jockey-style but with no opening, and my
>>impression from seeing what are on the racks in shops is that that is
>>now the most common style, at least here.
>>
>>The lack of a y-front makes them more comfortable, and it's easy to hook
>>a thumb in to lower the top when needed.
>
>My underwear drawer contains some boxers and some boxer briefs ... and
>one pair of briefs with no Y opening.
>
>If I happen to pull out the briefs as today's choice, it will be a
>difficult day to follow. I am accustomed to reaching in, finding the
>opening that provides access, and withdrawing the necessary anatomical
>bit.
>
>If I forget there's no opening in those briefs, the reaching in and
>finding becomes an extended search. An extended search combined with
>the effect of age on urgency is not a good combination.
>
>It also presents an odd appearance to others if I'm in a public
>bathroom where there are other men. Extensive scrabbling around
>inside one's trousers could cause unwanted attention.
>
>I should discard that item, but frugality makes it difficult to throw
>out something that is still in excellent condition, still fits, and is
>not an item that is visibibly out-of-fashion.

Tony has hit the nail on the head. (Possibly less eye-watering than the
Latin equivalent.) It's very frustrating to spend valuable countdown
time searching for an opening that has been designed out altogether.
There are too many variations on opening style these days, and I'm sure
that modern trouser makers are economising by installing shorter zips
(or higher crotches?) than in the good old days, which makes that search
harder still.

If Quinn drops the drawers for the same purpose, it could make sense
after all.

I think 'Y-front' is, or at least was, a proprietary brand name in the
UK.
--
Paul

* Anders D. Nygaard:

> There is a subtle but important difference between "being targeted as
> a trans", and being disgreed with for comments and opinions relating
> to transness. In my reading, Tony has stayed in the latter department,
> and not given any evidence of transphobia in this exchange.
>
> But I suppose it may be easier to confuse the two, when you have skin
> in the game.

No, it's flat-out discrimination, not only by Tony: it's gracefully
accepted when a cis person says "I'm not a he, I'm a she" or "I'm not a
she, I'm a he", but when I do the equivalent as a non-binary trans
person (i.e "I'm not a he or a she"), then it's called "ordering people
around" or "wanting to control people".

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On 27-Apr-22 20:14, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-04-27 12:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
>>>>>> side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people
>>>>>> fail to
>>>>>> understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's
>>>>>> had a
>>>>>> chance to do its job.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
>>>>>> However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the need
>>>>>> for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
>>>>>> controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>>>>>> user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at
>>>>>> least in
>>>>>> this country) decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a
>>>>> Theramin.
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something, only to
>>>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>>>
>>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>>>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>>>
>>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost
>>> would be in the valve that controls the flow.
>>>
>> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less
>> water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their hands
>> under the tap.
>
> SMOP.
>
> Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the desired
> flow by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for, say, 2
> seconds. That sets the flow, and moving your hands under the faucet does
> not change the flow. You finish washing, and retracting your hands shuts
> off the flow and resets it to await the next customer. If you put your
> hands under the faucet immediately, it would act the same way the normal
> activation now works.
>
> There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be some
> changes required to suit what the average person does with the
> (provided) instructions.
>
> Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on my
> bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and temperature, and
> activated by proximity sensors on a panel.

I can see you performing some elaborate martial arts kata to get
everything just right.

But still, I have my doubts.
I sometimes find that those hot-air hand-dryers with a built-in sensor
refuse to acknowledge my existence at all, or get bored with me after a
few seconds - but long before I have dry hands.
(Add or remove hyphens to taste.)

Then there was the sensor-operated door that worked for everyone else
but, one day, decided to ignore me entirely.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2022-04-27 16:37, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 27-Apr-22 20:14, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-04-27 12:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
>>>>>>> side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people
>>>>>>> fail to
>>>>>>> understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's
>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>> chance to do its job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>>>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>>>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
>>>>>>> However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
>>>>>>> controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>>>>>>> user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at
>>>>>>> least in
>>>>>>> this country) decades ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a
>>>>>> Theramin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something,
>>>>> only to
>>>>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>>>>
>>>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>>>>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>>>>
>>>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost
>>>> would be in the valve that controls the flow.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less
>>> water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their
>>> hands under the tap.
>>
>> SMOP.
>>
>> Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the desired
>> flow by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for, say, 2
>> seconds. That sets the flow, and moving your hands under the faucet
>> does not change the flow. You finish washing, and retracting your
>> hands shuts off the flow and resets it to await the next customer. If
>> you put your hands under the faucet immediately, it would act the same
>> way the normal activation now works.
>>
>> There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be
>> some changes required to suit what the average person does with the
>> (provided) instructions.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on my
>> bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and temperature,
>> and activated by proximity sensors on a panel.
>
> I can see you performing some elaborate martial arts kata to get
> everything just right.

I trust you are referring to the unit with temperature and flow rate,
but as I mentioned, I would use proximity sensors on a control panel.

Imagine a panel with what look like buttons, arranged in cross. the top
and bottom sensors control temperature. The left and right control flow.
The centre one is the 'Off (reset).

O

O O O

O

Still, probably not worth the expense. I have been (slowly) working on a
controller for a shower that would allow me to press one button to set
(and hold) a perfect temperature. I have only worked on the controller,
and have yet to figure out the valves to implement it.

> But still, I have my doubts.
> I sometimes find that those hot-air hand-dryers with a built-in sensor
> refuse to acknowledge my existence at all, or get bored with me after a
> few seconds - but long before I have dry hands.
> (Add or remove hyphens to taste.)
>
> Then there was the sensor-operated door that worked for everyone else
> but, one day, decided to ignore me entirely.
>
>

Peter Moylan presented the following explanation :
> On 26/04/22 02:43, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard
>> wrote:
>>> Den 24-04-2022 kl. 21:51 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
>>>>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
>>>>>> to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
>>>>>> adulthood.
>>>>> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
>>>>> reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
>>>>> Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
>>>> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
>>>> flushes itself as you leave?)
>>>
>>> Waterless urinals haven't crossed the pond?
>>
>> Uh -- don't they smell?
>
> Not in my experience. They are designed to conduct liquid away without
> leaving a residue. A big improvement over the older designs.

One of the Brands Over Here perfected a "special sauce" which floated
within the drain; the wastewater would sink through, and the SS would
seal the odors within.

The version of the SS I heard the most about did require that cleaning
staff not use certain cleaners, which could break up the SS. I have
not heard much about current techniques.

The early waterless urinals were custom, but these days I see a lot of
non-custom but modern urinals where the flush valve has been removed
and the pipe capped.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote on 4/25/2022 :
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:07:44 +0100
> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <56932f73-ce60-4651-8961-774946397883n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:17:59 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:47:22 +0100 charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T.
>>>>> Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
>>>>>>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
>>>>>>>> to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
>>>>>>>> adulthood.
>>>>>>> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
>>>>>>> reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
>>>>>>> Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
>>>>>> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
>>>>>> flushes itself as you leave?)
>>>>> Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get
>>>>> more than one user before a flush
>>>>
>>>> Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD
>>>> generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a fight.
>>> If you just learned that a big nation has urinals that are flushed by
>>> the user after every use, wouldn't you have questions? Would your
>>> questions be suggesting that no arrangement other than the one you were
>>> familiar with was possible?
>>
>> we certainly have some like that. But, they tend only to get fitted in new
>> builds.
>>
>>> Do you come up with crap like that "for entertainment"?
>>
>> Indeed. There was, some years ago, a book entitled "A guide to Loos in
>> London". The most entertaing one was the public one in Shepherds Bush where
>> the cisterns were glass-sided and you could watch them filling up.
>>
>>>>>
>>> So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between
>>> or not?
>>
>>
>> They certainly used to, but most have an occupancy sensor these days. (for
>> at least the last 30 years). People started getting worried about waste of
>> water.
>>
> I guess in New Jersey they don't worry about wasting water.

They bring it in by the hurricane-full every once in a while.

>>> That's the second question in this subthread that will doubtless go
>>> unanswered.
>>
>> No, I've answered it.
>>
> You are too kind.

One of the things we work on in AUE.

/dps

--
Let's celebrate Macaronesia

Wednesday, lar3ryca observed:
> On 2022-04-27 12:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
>>>>>> side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people fail to
>>>>>> understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's had a
>>>>>> chance to do its job.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
>>>>>> However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the need
>>>>>> for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
>>>>>> controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>>>>>> user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at least in
>>>>>> this country) decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a Theramin.
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something, only to
>>>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>>>
>>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>>>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>>>
>>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost would
>>> be in the valve that controls the flow.
>>>
>> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less water
>> - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their hands under the
>> tap.
>
> SMOP.
>
> Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the desired flow
> by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for, say, 2 seconds. That
> sets the flow, and moving your hands under the faucet does not change the
> flow. You finish washing, and retracting your hands shuts off the flow and
> resets it to await the next customer. If you put your hands under the faucet
> immediately, it would act the same way the normal activation now works.
>
> There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be some
> changes required to suit what the average person does with the (provided)
> instructions.
>
> Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on my
> bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and temperature, and
> activated by proximity sensors on a panel.

They have those; the kitchen version is better known, but I believe
Moen is one of the vendors. Chances are that they can be found at Home
Depot or Lowes (sorry, Brits and others not in the -4 to -8 TZs of the
topside of the world). /Sunset/, /Magnolia/, and no doubt other home
improvement magazines will have ads, and there are some demos on
OooTewb.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

On 27/04/22 23:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> AIUI, "Y-front" is Brit for "briefs," and in AmE "briefs" are commonly
> referred to as "jockey shorts," which is from the manufacturer Jockey,
> not from some connection with horseracing.

According to an article I've just read, the inventor (Coopers Inc) named
jockey shorts after jockstraps. The product was so successful that
Coopers later changed the company name to Jockey.

Wikipedia says that jockstraps probably got their name from their
popularity with "bicycle jockeys". Etymonline disagrees, saying that
"jock" was slang for "penis".

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

lar3ryca pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

[graphic elision, and textual skipping]

> I have been (slowly) working on a
> controller for a shower that would allow me to press one button to set (and
> hold) a perfect temperature. I have only worked on the controller, and have
> yet to figure out the valves to implement it.

Years ago I wanted to have a display showing the shower water
temperature as an X-Y plot of cold vs hot, with the ideal zone of
course highlighted. One could do it with an old smart phone (even the
G1) and a couple of thermistors, but I never got beyond imagining the
envelope I would use the back of.

Of course, it turns out that my perception of the ideal temperature
changes with circumstances; the obvious one is winter vs summer (even
in SoCal, that's perceptable) but also a difference between just out of
bed and cleaning up after a long day. My oral thermometer is easily
able to remind me of part of the reason for that.

I'm very happy

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

Thus spake Snidely:
> lar3ryca pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>
> [graphic elision, and textual skipping]
>
>> I have been (slowly) working on a controller for a shower that would allow
>> me to press one button to set (and hold) a perfect temperature. I have only
>> worked on the controller, and have yet to figure out the valves to
>> implement it.
>
> Years ago I wanted to have a display showing the shower water temperature as
> an X-Y plot of cold vs hot, with the ideal zone of course highlighted. One
> could do it with an old smart phone (even the G1) and a couple of
> thermistors, but I never got beyond imagining the envelope I would use the
> back of.

The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.

> Of course, it turns out that my perception of the ideal temperature changes
> with circumstances; the obvious one is winter vs summer (even in SoCal,
> that's perceptable) but also a difference between just out of bed and
> cleaning up after a long day. My oral thermometer is easily able to remind
> me of part of the reason for that.
>
> I'm very happy

with my current setup; a single control point has two-axis control,
with a rotary knob operating a screw valve controlling pressure, and
the second control a lever selecting how much hot to mix with the cold.
The latter (labeled "temp") is physically coaxial to the volume
limiter.

The VL has a slight effect on temperature, but at the flow rates I use
that's only a fine tuning effect. With a good shower head, I may be
able to get 20 minutes out of only 5 gallons (not counting the 1.5
gallons to get the hot pipe hot).

I leave the temp lever in the same setting and only use the gusher
valve. Of course, this is easier when everyone else agrees with me
about the perfect temperature.

The valves I hate, which IME are common in hotel baths and showers, are
what I call "single axis" where the temperature changes with the flow
rate, and often it requires flooding the tub to get a decently warm
temperature.

/dps

--
We’ve learned way more than we wanted to know about the early history
of American professional basketball, like that you could have once
watched a game between teams named the Indianapolis Kautskys and the
Akron Firestone Non-Skids. -- fivethirtyeight.com

* Ken Blake <3cti6hpm04b66kao86lvh1edj9pknb1mgm @4ax.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:03:27 -0700:

> I ran the NY Marathon three times--in 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Nowadays you don't have to go to NY to run the NY marathon.

you can run the marathon from the convenience of your home, by running
between your bathroom and bedroom.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/the-man-who-ran-the-new-york-marathon-inside-his-house-in-chennai/article65305601.ece

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:20:40 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-04-27 16:37, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 27-Apr-22 20:14, lar3ryca wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-27 12:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
>>>>>>>> side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people
>>>>>>>> fail to
>>>>>>>> understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's
>>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>>> chance to do its job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>>>>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>>>>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
>>>>>>>> However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
>>>>>>>> controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>>>>>>>> user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at
>>>>>>>> least in
>>>>>>>> this country) decades ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a
>>>>>>> Theramin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something,
>>>>>> only to
>>>>>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>>>>>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>>>>>
>>>>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost
>>>>> would be in the valve that controls the flow.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less
>>>> water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their
>>>> hands under the tap.
>>>
>>> SMOP.
>>>
>>> Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the desired
>>> flow by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for, say, 2
>>> seconds. That sets the flow, and moving your hands under the faucet
>>> does not change the flow. You finish washing, and retracting your
>>> hands shuts off the flow and resets it to await the next customer. If
>>> you put your hands under the faucet immediately, it would act the same
>>> way the normal activation now works.
>>>
>>> There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be
>>> some changes required to suit what the average person does with the
>>> (provided) instructions.
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on my
>>> bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and temperature,
>>> and activated by proximity sensors on a panel.
>>
>> I can see you performing some elaborate martial arts kata to get
>> everything just right.
>
>I trust you are referring to the unit with temperature and flow rate,
>but as I mentioned, I would use proximity sensors on a control panel.
>
>Imagine a panel with what look like buttons, arranged in cross. the top
>and bottom sensors control temperature. The left and right control flow.
>The centre one is the 'Off (reset).
>
> O
>
> O O O
>
> O
>
>Still, probably not worth the expense. I have been (slowly) working on a
>controller for a shower that would allow me to press one button to set
>(and hold) a perfect temperature. I have only worked on the controller,
>and have yet to figure out the valves to implement it.

You are obviously quite a bit out of the technology loop. This "press
the button" thing went out of style sometime just after you had your
last haircut.

You should be programming Alexa to turn on the shower, set the
temperature, and set the flow rate, and to do it all by voice command.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 28/04/22 11:35, Tony Cooper wrote:

> You are obviously quite a bit out of the technology loop. This
> "press the button" thing went out of style sometime just after you
> had your last haircut.
>
> You should be programming Alexa to turn on the shower, set the
> temperature, and set the flow rate, and to do it all by voice
> command.

I used to be able to use voice control on my phone. Then my wife bought
an Apple gadget to play music. Now, when I want to make a phone call,
the wrong Siri answers.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 2022-04-27 19:04, Snidely wrote:
> Thus spake Snidely:
>> lar3ryca pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>>
>> [graphic elision, and textual skipping]
>>
>>> I have been (slowly) working on a controller for a shower that would
>>> allow me to press one button to set (and hold) a perfect temperature.
>>> I have only worked on the controller, and have yet to figure out the
>>> valves to implement it.
>>
>> Years ago I wanted to have a display showing the shower water
>> temperature as an X-Y plot of cold vs hot, with the ideal zone of
>> course highlighted.  One could do it with an old smart phone (even the
>> G1) and a couple of thermistors, but I never got beyond imagining the
>> envelope I would use the back of.
>
> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>
>> Of course, it turns out that my perception of the ideal temperature
>> changes with circumstances; the obvious one is winter vs summer (even
>> in SoCal, that's perceptable) but also a difference between just out
>> of bed and cleaning up after a long day.  My oral thermometer is
>> easily able to remind me of part of the reason for that.
>>
>> I'm very happy
>
> with my current setup; a single control point has two-axis control, with
> a rotary knob operating a screw valve controlling pressure, and the
> second control a lever selecting how much hot to mix with the cold. The
> latter (labeled "temp") is physically coaxial to the volume limiter.
>
> The VL has a slight effect on temperature, but at the flow rates I use
> that's only a fine tuning effect.  With a good shower head, I may be
> able to get 20 minutes out of only 5 gallons (not counting the 1.5
> gallons to get the hot pipe hot).
>
> I leave the temp lever in the same setting and only use the gusher
> valve.  Of course, this is easier when everyone else agrees with me
> about the perfect temperature.
>
> The valves I hate, which IME are common in hotel baths and showers, are
> what I call "single axis" where the temperature changes with the flow
> rate, and often it requires flooding the tub to get a decently warm
> temperature.

I have a 'single axis' control. One lever that rotates. The flow is
constant, regardless of temperature. If someone turns a tap on in
another part of the house (or flushes a toilet, or if the washing
machine draws water), the flow rate goes down, but the temperature
remains constant. As the pressure in one inlet drops, the other one
compensates.

On 2022-04-27 19:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:20:40 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>> Still, probably not worth the expense. I have been (slowly) working on a
>> controller for a shower that would allow me to press one button to set
>> (and hold) a perfect temperature. I have only worked on the controller,
>> and have yet to figure out the valves to implement it.
>
> You are obviously quite a bit out of the technology loop. This "press
> the button" thing went out of style sometime just after you had your
> last haircut.
>
> You should be programming Alexa to turn on the shower, set the
> temperature, and set the flow rate, and to do it all by voice command.

Never going to happen. I have a strong dislike for any voice control
that listens all the time and sends audio outside the premises,

On 2022-04-27 18:44, Snidely wrote:
> Wednesday, lar3ryca observed:
>> On 2022-04-27 12:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
>>>>>>> side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people
>>>>>>> fail to
>>>>>>> understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's
>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>> chance to do its job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>>>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>>>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
>>>>>>> However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
>>>>>>> controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>>>>>>> user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at
>>>>>>> least in
>>>>>>> this country) decades ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a
>>>>>> Theramin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something,
>>>>> only to
>>>>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>>>>
>>>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>>>>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>>>>
>>>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost
>>>> would be in the valve that controls the flow.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less
>>> water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their
>>> hands under the tap.
>>
>> SMOP.
>>
>> Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the desired
>> flow by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for, say, 2
>> seconds. That sets the flow, and moving your hands under the faucet
>> does not change the flow. You finish washing, and retracting your
>> hands shuts off the flow and resets it to await the next customer. If
>> you put your hands under the faucet immediately, it would act the same
>> way the normal activation now works.
>>
>> There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be
>> some changes required to suit what the average person does with the
>> (provided) instructions.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on my
>> bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and temperature,
>> and activated by proximity sensors on a panel.
>
> They have those; the kitchen version is better known, but I believe Moen
> is one of the vendors.  Chances are that they can be found at Home Depot
> or Lowes (sorry, Brits and others not in the -4 to -8 TZs of the topside
> of the world).  /Sunset/, /Magnolia/, and no doubt other home
> improvement magazines will have ads, and there are some demos on OooTewb.

I did not know that. I reiterate my comment...

"Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something, only to
find out that someone else has already invented it?"

Of course, I wouldn't buy one. It's too much fun to engage in one of my
hobbies.

On 28/04/2022 2:35 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:20:40 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>

<snip>

I have been (slowly) working on a
>> controller for a shower that would allow me to press one button to set
>> (and hold) a perfect temperature. I have only worked on the controller,
>> and have yet to figure out the valves to implement it.
>
> You are obviously quite a bit out of the technology loop. This "press
> the button" thing went out of style sometime just after you had your
> last haircut.
>
> You should be programming Alexa to turn on the shower, set the
> temperature, and set the flow rate, and to do it all by voice command.

Handing an AI the power to deliver life-changing scald injuries might
not be the smartest way to go.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:08:58 -0600
lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2022-04-27 19:04, Snidely wrote:
> > Thus spake Snidely:
> >> lar3ryca pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
> >>
> >> [graphic elision, and textual skipping]
> >>
> >>> I have been (slowly) working on a controller for a shower that would
> >>> allow me to press one button to set (and hold) a perfect temperature.
> >>> I have only worked on the controller, and have yet to figure out the
> >>> valves to implement it.
> >>
> >> Years ago I wanted to have a display showing the shower water
> >> temperature as an X-Y plot of cold vs hot, with the ideal zone of
> >> course highlighted.  One could do it with an old smart phone (even the
> >> G1) and a couple of thermistors, but I never got beyond imagining the
> >> envelope I would use the back of.
> >
> > The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
> >
> >> Of course, it turns out that my perception of the ideal temperature
> >> changes with circumstances; the obvious one is winter vs summer (even
> >> in SoCal, that's perceptable) but also a difference between just out
> >> of bed and cleaning up after a long day.  My oral thermometer is
> >> easily able to remind me of part of the reason for that.
> >>
> >> I'm very happy
> >
> > with my current setup; a single control point has two-axis control, with
> > a rotary knob operating a screw valve controlling pressure, and the
> > second control a lever selecting how much hot to mix with the cold. The
> > latter (labeled "temp") is physically coaxial to the volume limiter.
> >
> > The VL has a slight effect on temperature, but at the flow rates I use
> > that's only a fine tuning effect.  With a good shower head, I may be
> > able to get 20 minutes out of only 5 gallons (not counting the 1.5
> > gallons to get the hot pipe hot).
> >
> > I leave the temp lever in the same setting and only use the gusher
> > valve.  Of course, this is easier when everyone else agrees with me
> > about the perfect temperature.
> >
> > The valves I hate, which IME are common in hotel baths and showers, are
> > what I call "single axis" where the temperature changes with the flow
> > rate, and often it requires flooding the tub to get a decently warm
> > temperature.
>
> I have a 'single axis' control. One lever that rotates. The flow is
> constant, regardless of temperature. If someone turns a tap on in
> another part of the house (or flushes a toilet, or if the washing
> machine draws water), the flow rate goes down, but the temperature
> remains constant. As the pressure in one inlet drops, the other one
> compensates.
>
>
Ours is supposed to do that ('thermostatic valve' seems to be the expensive phrase); I'm not convinced.
However our controls are coaxial as described erm by an earlier poster; trouble is that the flow control (which is a rotational lever) tends to stick to the temperate control part so you get more and hotter water for a single movement. I'm undecided as to whether this is a good or bad thing; in any case I haven't bothered fixing it yet.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 4/27/2022 2:20 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> Quinn C wrote:

>> That people who despise one identifiable group that is an "other"
>> to them tend to also despise other such groups is a well-known
>> correlation, so "orthogonal" seems misplaced.

> A necessary part of despising some group is to say:

> "Those people are all alike!"

> Don't your words echo a similar sentiment?

Yabbut, the group in question is defined only by its behaviour. In that
sense, its members are all alike, and it isn't improbable that they
would share a related tendency.

On 4/27/2022 6:22 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Anders D. Nygaard:

>> There is a subtle but important difference between "being targeted
>> as a trans", and being disgreed with for comments and opinions
>> relating to transness. In my reading, Tony has stayed in the latter
>> department, and not given any evidence of transphobia in this
>> exchange.

>> But I suppose it may be easier to confuse the two, when you have
>> skin in the game.

> No, it's flat-out discrimination, not only by Tony: it's gracefully
> accepted when a cis person says "I'm not a he, I'm a she" or "I'm not
> a she, I'm a he", but when I do the equivalent as a non-binary trans
> person (i.e "I'm not a he or a she"), then it's called "ordering
> people around" or "wanting to control people".

I don't recall ever hearing a cis-person say I'm a "he", although I did
once hear a heterosexual male cross-dresser insist on being called "she"
when in character; and I once saw, in a disreputable bar I used to go to
sometimes, a fiery little transvestite make a cis-woman's evening Hell
for having been shirty to her in the ladies' washroom.

--
The Chez Henri it was, in Hull, as it then was.

On 4/27/2022 6:37 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> lar3ryca wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>>>>>> When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the
>>>>>>> smallest possible stream of water. That lets me add water
>>>>>>> only gradually as needed. A side benefit is that I need
>>>>>>> far less soap that way. Many people fail to understand
>>>>>>> the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's
>>>>>>> had a chance to do its job.

>>>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a
>>>>>> huge squirt of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the
>>>>>> flow - thus washing off 95% of the soap she just collected
>>>>>> - and then washes her hands.

>>>>>>> I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in
>>>>>>> that respect. However, the trend for the last many years
>>>>>>> has been to avoid the need for anyone to touch the
>>>>>>> equipment in public facilities, because user controls are
>>>>>>> a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>>>>>>> user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned
>>>>>>> (at least in this country) decades ago.

>>>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin
>>>>>> to a Theramin.

>>>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented
>>>>> something, only to find out that someone else has already
>>>>> invented it?

>>>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if
>>>>> it's already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT
>>>>> idea!

>>>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main
>>>> cost would be in the valve that controls the flow.

>>> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or
>>> less water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking
>>> their hands under the tap.

>> SMOP.

>> Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the
>> desired flow by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for,
>> say, 2 seconds. That sets the flow, and moving your hands under the
>> faucet does not change the flow. You finish washing, and retracting
>> your hands shuts off the flow and resets it to await the next
>> customer. If you put your hands under the faucet immediately, it
>> would act the same way the normal activation now works.

>> There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be
>> some changes required to suit what the average person does with
>> the (provided) instructions.

>> Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on
>> my bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and
>> temperature, and activated by proximity sensors on a panel.

> I can see you performing some elaborate martial arts kata to get
> everything just right.

> But still, I have my doubts. I sometimes find that those hot-air
> hand-dryers with a built-in sensor refuse to acknowledge my existence
> at all, or get bored with me after a few seconds - but long before I
> have dry hands. (Add or remove hyphens to taste.)

That's why God made those big rolls of toilet paper.

> Then there was the sensor-operated door that worked for everyone else
> but, one day, decided to ignore me entirely.

Oh, dear, what can the matter be?
Sam'l Plusnet, locked in the lavatory -
Sensors ignored him, though why is a mystery.
Nobody knew he was there.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 07:47:45 -0400
CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/2022 6:22 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Anders D. Nygaard:
>
> >> There is a subtle but important difference between "being targeted
> >> as a trans", and being disgreed with for comments and opinions
> >> relating to transness. In my reading, Tony has stayed in the latter
> >> department, and not given any evidence of transphobia in this
> >> exchange.
>
> >> But I suppose it may be easier to confuse the two, when you have
> >> skin in the game.
>
> > No, it's flat-out discrimination, not only by Tony: it's gracefully
> > accepted when a cis person says "I'm not a he, I'm a she" or "I'm not
> > a she, I'm a he", but when I do the equivalent as a non-binary trans
> > person (i.e "I'm not a he or a she"), then it's called "ordering
> > people around" or "wanting to control people".
>
> I don't recall ever hearing a cis-person say I'm a "he", although I did
> once hear a heterosexual male cross-dresser insist on being called "she"
> when in character; and I once saw, in a disreputable bar I used to go to
> sometimes, a fiery little transvestite make a cis-woman's evening Hell
> for having been shirty to her in the ladies' washroom.
>
> --
> The Chez Henri it was, in Hull, as it then was.
>

Hull is Hell. Kingston sounds posher.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 4/27/2022 8:52 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> AIUI, "Y-front" is Brit for "briefs," and in AmE "briefs" are
>> commonly referred to as "jockey shorts," which is from the
>> manufacturer Jockey, not from some connection with horseracing.

> According to an article I've just read, the inventor (Coopers Inc)
> named jockey shorts after jockstraps. The product was so successful
> that Coopers later changed the company name to Jockey.

> Wikipedia says that jockstraps probably got their name from their
> popularity with "bicycle jockeys". Etymonline disagrees, saying that
> "jock" was slang for "penis".

But Jockey International, who knew who it was that bought men's
underwear for them, featured a small person in horse-racing uniform on
their label.

On 4/27/2022 9:59 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>>> To avoid encouraging him, we'd all have to stop posting...

>> No, we should all stop replying to him.

> So says someone who turned tail and "killfiled" on probably his very
> first day here, when he was called out on a stupid factual error
> about New York City based on his experience sixty years earlier.
> Since then, he has had no direct knowledge of the situation, and
> until very recently refrained from posting stoogemaster-generated
> nasty remarks.

You are the elephant in the room, and I claim my five bags of peanuts.

>> Killfile him and he'll eventually get bored and go away.

> This one, obviously, has no knowledge of the many civil conversations
> with many civil posters who are neither cowardly nor nasty.

--
On second thought, forget it.

On 4/27/2022 1:03 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> Even if was in position, I would follow the conventional practice
>>> of men at the urinals in public toilets studiously avoiding
>>> looking at other men at the urinals.

>> Recently I was talking about the protocol for using a row of
>> urinals, which evolved from the protocol used when the urinals were
>> a single continuous trough.

> I ran the NY Marathon three times--in 1985, 1986, and 1987.

> Before the race began, there was a large continuous trough of a
> urinal, made of two long planks of wood covered with plastic wrap,
> with a hose pouring water into one end, washing out of the other.

> Do they still do that? I don't know.

> The race began on the Verrezano-Narrows bridge. However even though
> there was the urinal I described, and almost all men used it, many
> of us (including me) were often nervous enough that when the race
> started we went to the side of the bridge and peed over the edge.

And what of poor Rosie Ruiz?