On 03/05/22 02:56, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2022 21:10:36 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>> Me too, because I do take baths occasionally. Not so much for
>> cleaning - I shower before. Japanese habit.
>
> I never take a bath. I always shower. Taking a bath means you soak
> in the dirty water you just washed off your body.

Back when I took baths, I used to shower afterwards. Of course I'd also
shower before if I was particularly dirty.

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

Paul Wolff explained on 5/2/2022 :
> On Mon, 2 May 2022, at 01:40:26, Snidely posted:
>> Paul Wolff suggested that ...
>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022, at 04:57:49, Snidely posted:
>>>> Just this Sunday, Paul Wolff explained that ...
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, at 03:14:50, Snidely posted:
>>>>>> Paul Wolff was thinking very hard :
>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, at 18:04:51, Snidely posted:
>>>>>>>> That would be a dual-axis valve. The axis of the rotation, and
>>>>>>>> the axis of the translation (x-y movement).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is one single axis which is shared by the two movements. An
>>>>>>> axis is a straight line. Tony's rotation is rotation about that
>>>>>>> line, and Tony's pushing and pulling is translation along that
>>>>>>> same line. "Dual-axis" would imply two different lines. Does
>>>>>>> that help?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, mathematics, physics, and engineering allows axes to be
>>>>>> where they are needed. In this case, there are two axes which
>>>>>> happen to be colinear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent! They are one line. Is it one knob too?
>>>>
>>>> No. Wasn't that clear from my description? "lever", "knob", qv.
>>>
>>> Regrettably, the word 'lever' was excised, but as I see it, whether
>>> you call a hand-grip a knob or a lever doesn't make any difference if
>>> it is there to enable a spindle to be turned. I had in mind another
>>> image from a URL quoted upthread showing a push-pull rotatable knob,
>>> which would have one working axis for both translation and rotation.
>>
>
> There is a communication failure here. I understand the sort of 'axis'
> that applies to the manually adjustable shower controls that we are
> writing about to be an imaginary line in the control valve structure
> about which, or along which, a part moves.
>
> Everything I've read here tells me that there are two motions in the
> control we're discussing. One is rotary and one is longitudinal. It
> seems to me that they share a common axis. Snidely says that they
> operate on two co-linear axes. To my mind, there is no difference: the
> axis-defining line is one and the same. Or perhaps he thinks co-linear
> means intersecting? That works if my final para below is what he's
> thinking about.
>
> This is where it started:
> Tony:
>> The shower I use has one controlling part as shown in this link. Pull
>> it out, and the water starts. Turn it left or right to control the
>> hot/cold mix.
> Snidely:
> That would be a dual-axis valve. The axis of the rotation, and the
> axis of the translation (x-y movement).
> Tony:
>> https://www.deltafaucet.com/dw/image/v2/BFJJ_PRD/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-delta-master-catalog/default/dw19a36440/images/large/H71-B1.png?
>> sw=600&sh=600&sm=fit
>
> Now Snidely writes addressing me, PaulW:
>> Sorry, Tony's description is what you were mislabeling single-axis,
>> isn't it. That is not one axis, that is two colinear axes. Again,
>> think of polar coordinates, with turning the knob generating theta, and
>> pulling the knob generating r.
>
> Polar co-ordinates don't help. Why does Snidely want me to think of
> them? Yes, rotation is measured as an angle. but pulling the knob in/out
> along the axis of rotation isn't 'r', which on the contrary is a radial
> displacement. Where did such a design come into this thread? No-one has
> introduced such a shower control here yet, have they?
>
> Maybe I've got it now. Tony wrote "The shower I use has one controlling
> part as shown in this link. Pull it out, and the water starts. Turn it
> left or right to control the hot/cold mix." You can see from the URL the
> blue and red arcs on the knob, which clearly show that "Turn it left or
> right" means "rotate the knob anti-clockwise or clockwise". Perhaps
> Snidely thinks "Turn it left or right" means, more literally, "incline
> the knob leftwards or rightwards" as if it were a projecting control
> lever mounted to rotate about a vertical axis. But it doesn't, and it
> isn't.

Sigh.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

On Tue, 3 May 2022, at 00:54:26, Snidely posted:
>Paul Wolff explained on 5/2/2022 :
>> On Mon, 2 May 2022, at 01:40:26, Snidely posted:
>>> Paul Wolff suggested that ...
>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022, at 04:57:49, Snidely posted:
>>>>> Just this Sunday, Paul Wolff explained that ...
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, at 03:14:50, Snidely posted:
>>>>>>> Paul Wolff was thinking very hard :
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, at 18:04:51, Snidely posted:

[Mutual incomprehension follows]
>
>Sigh.
>
Me too. Let's all go home.
--
Paul

With a quizzical look, Paul Wolff observed:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022, at 00:54:26, Snidely posted:
>>Paul Wolff explained on 5/2/2022 :
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022, at 01:40:26, Snidely posted:
>>>> Paul Wolff suggested that ...
>>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022, at 04:57:49, Snidely posted:
>>>>>> Just this Sunday, Paul Wolff explained that ...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, at 03:14:50, Snidely posted:
>>>>>>>> Paul Wolff was thinking very hard :
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, at 18:04:51, Snidely posted:
>
> [Mutual incomprehension follows]

I don't think it's mutual.

>>
>>Sigh.
>>
> Me too. Let's all go home.

-d

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

On 02/05/22 19:41, Paul Wolff wrote:

> There is a communication failure here. I understand the sort of
> 'axis' that applies to the manually adjustable shower controls that
> we are writing about to be an imaginary line in the control valve
> structure about which, or along which, a part moves.
>
> Everything I've read here tells me that there are two motions in the
> control we're discussing. One is rotary and one is longitudinal. It
> seems to me that they share a common axis. Snidely says that they
> operate on two co-linear axes. To my mind, there is no difference:
> the axis-defining line is one and the same. Or perhaps he thinks
> co-linear means intersecting? That works if my final para below is
> what he's thinking about.

The concept of "axis" is irrelevant except when one is talking about
rotation about an axis. Linear motion does not have an axis.

As a preliminary, let's take a step back and look at the mixer tap I
have in my kitchen:

<https://www.northernrv.com.au/product/standard-kitchen-mixer-tap-200mm-spout/>

Here the temperature is controlled by rotating the lever around a
vertical axis, and the flow rate is controlled by moving the lever up
and down. That, at least, is the layman's description, but if we want to
be technically precise that up-and-down is really a circular motion:
rotation about a horizontal axis.

So far, I think we're all in agreement. But the shower control under
discussion is different. With an in-and-out knob, we have one rotational
movement (for temperature) and one *linear* motion (for flow rate).
There is only one axis because only one of the two motions is a
rotation. The second motion has nothing to do with movement around an
axis, because it is not a rotation.

True, we can talk about straight line movement as the limiting case of
circular movement, as the radius becomes infinite; but that's not a
useful concept in this case, because it would involve a second axis that
is infinitely far away.

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

On 5/2/2022 2:45 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>>> Excellent. I mostly do that too. NB I'm in the UK not Australia!

>> Nor I. Central Canada has plenty of fresh water, and my
>> shower-water goes back into the Ottawa River it came from; but I
>> make the gesture.

> If you make that gesture whilst in the shower, you are unlikely to
> cause offence.

In that it resembles my singing,except that I seldom gesture at my
nervous little squirrel buddies.

When I call yoohoo (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo),
Little squirrely-poo (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo),
Won't you come down from the crown of yonder maple tree?
Won't you come here and share my simple sylvan fare with me?
Squirrely, if you do (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo),
I'll be ever true (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo) -
Come, be my friend, fill my old heart with glee;
Nuts that now are mine shall be thine, for freeee.

In message <t4ptj0$3gp$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/05/22 01:16, Lewis wrote:

>> Ah, the old 'saving water" myth, a lie perpertrated by water
>> companies to cause people to use less water so they can complain
>> about falling revenue and raise theirs rates.
>>
>> Almost all the water "used" is used for agriculture (it's about 85%
>> here). Of the water not used for agriculture, almost all of it is
>> used for industry and commercial businesses. The amount used for
>> residential purposes is a tiny fraction. Of that, nearly all of the
>> water use is maintaining lawns, which if you do not do, you will get
>> a citation from the municipality you are in.

> You can be fined here for watering your lawn.

Amusingly, the same is true here. So you get citations for watering at
the wrong time, and citations for letting the lawn die.

I recall watching some home improvement show with my wife that took place
in Phoenix (or more likely a suburb). They had to plan around planting a
verge of Kentucky bluegrass, since that was required on the boundary of
the property..

Phoenix is a desert and KBG is a high-water grass.

--
'There's something not right about this,' said Rincewind. 'What's
that?' said the parrot. 'Everything.' --Eric

In message <ulpq6hlfvrhkue9chk0eqdlj62af4k7cq0@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> The only time I've ever seen a toilet in a shower was many years ago
> in a hotel somewhere in Italy (Venice? I'm not sure). The entire
> bathroom was a shower with the shower head in the middle of the
> ceiling and the drain in the middle of the floor.

When my mother redid her bathroom back in the 90s, that is exactly what
she did with the room. It was 100% tile with a central floor drain and a
separate tub. Made keeping it clean trivial.

--
On the other hand, you have different fingers.

On Tue, 3 May 2022, at 21:50:01, Peter Moylan posted:
>On 02/05/22 19:41, Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>> There is a communication failure here. I understand the sort of
>> 'axis' that applies to the manually adjustable shower controls that
>> we are writing about to be an imaginary line in the control valve
>> structure about which, or along which, a part moves.
>>
>> Everything I've read here tells me that there are two motions in the
>> control we're discussing. One is rotary and one is longitudinal. It
>> seems to me that they share a common axis. Snidely says that they
>> operate on two co-linear axes. To my mind, there is no difference:
>> the axis-defining line is one and the same. Or perhaps he thinks
>> co-linear means intersecting? That works if my final para below is
>> what he's thinking about.
>
>The concept of "axis" is irrelevant except when one is talking about
>rotation about an axis. Linear motion does not have an axis.

That might have been true when it was tied to its ancient origins, but
no longer today. It can't be unfair to refer to the OED (well, the
Shorter OED sitting on my hard drive which is easy to copy/paste from).
This states three kinds of meaning for axis:
-> I Of rotation
-> II A line from pole to pole; a principal direction of extension.
(Passing into branch III.)
-> III Of symmetry or reference.
>
>As a preliminary, let's take a step back and look at the mixer tap I
>have in my kitchen:
>
><https://www.northernrv.com.au/product/standard-kitchen-mixer-tap-200mm-spout/>
>
>Here the temperature is controlled by rotating the lever around a
>vertical axis, and the flow rate is controlled by moving the lever up
>and down. That, at least, is the layman's description, but if we want to
>be technically precise that up-and-down is really a circular motion:
>rotation about a horizontal axis.
>
>So far, I think we're all in agreement. But the shower control under
>discussion is different. With an in-and-out knob, we have one rotational
>movement (for temperature) and one *linear* motion (for flow rate).
>There is only one axis because only one of the two motions is a
>rotation. The second motion has nothing to do with movement around an
>axis, because it is not a rotation.

All right. I think of a piston moving in a cylinder, which is something
like what is happening with the combination in-out and rotary control
knob. Maybe it doesn't matter for the moment whether the centre line is
an axis or isn't an axis. Let's just park it. Snidely wanted two axes.
>
>True, we can talk about straight line movement as the limiting case of
>circular movement, as the radius becomes infinite; but that's not a
>useful concept in this case, because it would involve a second axis that
>is infinitely far away.
>
I don't think that was envisaged by anyone.
--
Paul

On 5/2/2022 11:16 AM, Lewis wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> As far as my knowledge of shower head mechanics goes, a
>>>>>> shower head cannot produce more flow than the pipe
>>>>>> delivering the water to the head produces. The shower head
>>>>>> design can concentrate the flow or disperse the flow, but
>>>>>> it cannot increase or decrease the flow.

>>>>> Shower heads constrict the flow in a misguided "water
>>>>> saving" measure that prevents you getting the full amount of
>>>>> water out of the pipe, making showers take longer since you
>>>>> have to stand there for much longer to get all the soap
>>>>> rinsed off and the shampoo out of your hair.

>>>>> It takes several minutes to fill the kitchen sink, long
>>>>> enough that the water has cooled considerably by the time the
>>>>> sink fills up.

>>>>> Maybe Florida doesn't required low-flow showers and sinks
>>>>> like the rest of the country?

>>>> We do. Not sure if it's federal or provincial. Before I
>>>> graduated to a hand-held, a renovator had installed a
>>>> water-saving showerhead on me; it contained a metal baffle that
>>>> was easy enough to remove.

>>> I've fitted one, it's a great way to feel smug about saving the
>>> planet.

>> I turn off the water once I'm wet, and turn it on again only when
>> I'm ready to rinse off; I use luke-warm water, not hot, and don't
>> bathe quite every day, since I live alone. Let the world content
>> itself with that.

> Ah, the old 'saving water" myth, a lie perpertrated by water
> companies to cause people to use less water so they can complain
> about falling revenue and raise theirs rates.

Certainly Ottawa Hydro (not a water company) has done that.

> Almost all the water "used" is used for agriculture (it's about 85%
> here). Of the water not used for agriculture, almost all of it is
> used for industry and commercial businesses. The amount used for
> residential purposes is a tiny fraction. Of that, nearly all of the
> water use is maintaining lawns, which if you do not do, you will get
> a citation from the municipality you are in.

Not here, I think. Maybe a patronising smile. If you don't mow, you
may be in trouble.

> The exact fractions will vary by where you live, but in Colorado it
> is quite literally impossible to 'save' water as every single drop of
> water that Colorado is not legally required to allow out of the state
> is not allowed out of the state. Most of the water in the Colorado
> river is used for high-water crops in the deserts of Arizona and
> California. Almost all the water of the Arkansas flows into Kansas,
> Oklahoma, and Arkansas to water cows, and nearly all of the North and
> South Platte Rivers go into Nebraska for corn.

As I have said elswhere, my used water doesn't disappear; it is returned
to the Ottawa River (downstream of the intake). And, in any case, we
are well-supplied with fresh water in these parts.

In message <mn.f3aa7e6487f31a5c.127094@snitoo> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> Snidely submitted this gripping article, maybe on Friday:

>> Were you ever in as bad shape as those using Lake
>> Powell for a water supply?

> Lewis, you don't seem to be directly affected by Lake Powell, but
> you're where the conditions are similar, aren't you?

Our problem is that we have an enormous amounts of water, but almost all of
it belongs to down-stream states using it to water deserts of dry
prairies.

Colorado contains the headwaters of The Colorado, the Arkansas, and the
North and South Platte rivers. Almost all of the water leaves the state.

Denver, because it could not really use the Platte river, drilled a
tunnel system a few hundred miles through the Rocky Mountains to bring
water that would be destined from the western side of the state into Denver.

If you live in Denver you can generally tell whether you are on Denver
water or suburban water as the taste difference is noticeable.

--
Every memory I've shoved to a dark corner of my mind because being self-aware
and happy don't always mix.

On 2022-05-03 13:04:03 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <mn.f3aa7e6487f31a5c.127094@snitoo> Snidely
> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Snidely submitted this gripping article, maybe on Friday:
>
>>> Were you ever in as bad shape as those using Lake
>>> Powell for a water supply?
>
>> Lewis, you don't seem to be directly affected by Lake Powell, but
>> you're where the conditions are similar, aren't you?
>
> Our problem is that we have an enormous amounts of water, but almost all of
> it belongs to down-stream states using it to water deserts of dry
> prairies.
>
> Colorado contains the headwaters of The Colorado, the Arkansas, and the
> North and South Platte rivers. Almost all of the water leaves the state.
>
> Denver, because it could not really use the Platte river, drilled a
> tunnel system a few hundred miles through the Rocky Mountains to bring
> water that would be destined from the western side of the state into Denver.
>
> If you live in Denver you can generally tell whether you are on Denver
> water or suburban water as the taste difference is noticeable.

We have just returned from the Camargue, where my wife found the water
undrinkable. I didn't think it was the best water I've ever tasted, but
I thought it was OK. However, as I said to her, if you've lived six
years in Oxford just about any water (even in Barcelona) is better.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:05:18 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 3 May 2022, at 00:54:26, Snidely posted:
>>Paul Wolff explained on 5/2/2022 :
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022, at 01:40:26, Snidely posted:
>>>> Paul Wolff suggested that ...
>>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022, at 04:57:49, Snidely posted:
>>>>>> Just this Sunday, Paul Wolff explained that ...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, at 03:14:50, Snidely posted:
>>>>>>>> Paul Wolff was thinking very hard :
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, at 18:04:51, Snidely posted:
>
>[Mutual incomprehension follows]
>>
>>Sigh.
>>
>Me too. Let's all go home.

Little did I anticipate, when the subject of water control in ablution
first came up here, that it would result in a shower of divergent
opinions and a flood of heretofore unknown to me technical aspects of
what I thought was a fairly simple and functional knob.

I was not aware that some consider the shower venue to be a dangerous
environment replete with a rising tide of water and accident inducing
barriers employed in ingress and egress. And yet, no one brought up
the neccessity of a knobbly mat placed on the bottom surface to avoid
slippage, which is my own primary safety precaution.

I had not considered that the benefits of a detachable shower head
includes under-beard rinsing that is not, evidently, otherwise
possible. Or, that the directional ability of water dispersal alllows
better rinsing of the pits than simply raising one's arms and turning
to the water.

The discussion was, to the best of my knowledge, the first appearance
of "shower" in alt.usage.english since that famous exchange between
Rey and PTD after PTD's ill-considered drop-the-soap comment.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On 2022-04-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:37:32 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 2022-04-27, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:22:02 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>In article <cd570614-d386-41ed...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:00 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> >>>> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:33:49 -0700
>> >>>> > Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 19:55:20 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> >>>> > > <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> >>>> > > >(Y-fronts and underpants are up next)
>> >>>> > > Isn't the term "y-front" used to refer to a type of underpants?
>> >>>> > Only in some quarters. Maybe not NJ.
>> >>>> What the bloody fucking hell does "NJ" have to do with it?
>> >>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briefs#Terminology
>> >>>> > --
>> >>>> > Bah, and indeed Humbug.
>> >>>> AIUI, "Y-front" is Brit for "briefs,"
>> >>>No
>
> Some explanation would be appropriate.
>
>> >> The Y-front configuration of men's briefs was first introduced by a
>> >> Kenosha, Wisconsin company, Coopers, Inc, in 1934. The company later
>> >> became Jockey International, Inc.
>> >> The design was an improvement on Coopers' previous design: the
>> >> X-front., which was also known as the "Kenosha Klosed Krotch
>> >> undergarment". The X-front included two overlapping flaps and
>> >> buttons.
>> >> While the term "Y-front", to describe the underwear, is not unknown
>> >> in the US, it seems to be in greater use in the UK. This may be
>> >> because the British retailer, Simpson of Picadilly, took on the line
>> >> in 1938 and it was a rousing success sales-wise. Simpon of Picadilly
>> >> boasted of sales of 3,000 pair a week.
>> >> We were more circumspect in the US. Some US stores banned the product
>> >> from being in window displays. Some stores did not have the product
>> >> available on counters, but required sales clerks to retrieve them from
>> >> the stockroom when a sale was made.
>> >Was this true for men's underpants generally, or were Y-fronts
>> >considered more indecent than the other kinds available at the time?
>>
>> My source for this did not mention whether or not other styles of
>> men's underwear were also relegated to the storeroom or were available
>> on display.
>>
>> I'm going to go with the assumption that the tighter fitting,
>> bulge-revealing product that featured easy access was singled out.
>
> 30s and 40s movies usually had gentlemen in boxer shorts. With
> the fly sewn shut. And garters for their socks.

That makes sense.

--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
---President Muffley

On 2022-05-03 06:45, CDB wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 2:45 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>>>> Excellent. I mostly do that too. NB I'm in the UK not Australia!
>
>>> Nor I.  Central Canada has plenty of fresh water, and my
>>> shower-water goes back into the Ottawa River it came from; but I
>>> make the gesture.
>
>> If you make that gesture whilst in the shower, you are unlikely to
>> cause offence.
>
> In that it resembles my singing,except that I seldom gesture at my
> nervous little squirrel buddies.
>
> When I call yoohoo (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo),
> Little squirrely-poo (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo),
> Won't you come down from the crown of yonder maple tree?
> Won't you come here and share my simple sylvan fare with me?
> Squirrely, if you do (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo),
> I'll be ever true (hohoohoo, hoohoo hoo) -
> Come, be my friend, fill my old heart with glee;
> Nuts that now are mine shall be thine, for freeee.

If you haven't seen any of Mark Rober's videos, here's one to start
with, a squirrel 'Ninja" course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFZFjoX2cGg

On 2022-05-03 09:13, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 11:05:18 +0100, Paul Wolff
> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 May 2022, at 00:54:26, Snidely posted:
>>> Paul Wolff explained on 5/2/2022 :
>>>> On Mon, 2 May 2022, at 01:40:26, Snidely posted:
>>>>> Paul Wolff suggested that ...
>>>>>> On Sun, 1 May 2022, at 04:57:49, Snidely posted:
>>>>>>> Just this Sunday, Paul Wolff explained that ...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, at 03:14:50, Snidely posted:
>>>>>>>>> Paul Wolff was thinking very hard :
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022, at 18:04:51, Snidely posted:
>>
>> [Mutual incomprehension follows]
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>> Me too. Let's all go home.
>
> Little did I anticipate, when the subject of water control in ablution
> first came up here, that it would result in a shower of divergent
> opinions and a flood of heretofore unknown to me technical aspects of
> what I thought was a fairly simple and functional knob.
>
> I was not aware that some consider the shower venue to be a dangerous
> environment replete with a rising tide of water and accident inducing
> barriers employed in ingress and egress. And yet, no one brought up
> the neccessity of a knobbly mat placed on the bottom surface to avoid
> slippage, which is my own primary safety precaution.

I have used those in bathtub showers, as well as in some older cubicle
showers. But my most recent shower, installed to replace a Jacuzzi tub,
has some sort of magical floor that, once I have swished my foot around
on it, lets me stand on one foot to wash my other one, without any trace
of slipperiness.

> I had not considered that the benefits of a detachable shower head
> includes under-beard rinsing that is not, evidently, otherwise
> possible. Or, that the directional ability of water dispersal alllows
> better rinsing of the pits than simply raising one's arms and turning
> to the water.

Also, under-naughty-bits and butthole rinsing (and pressure washing if
you have that sort of showerhead.

Also, adjustable height for the vertically challenged or vertically well
endowed.

Not to mention the ease of turning the showerhead to allow you to avoid
the brisk before-warmup phase.

> The discussion was, to the best of my knowledge, the first appearance
> of "shower" in alt.usage.english since that famous exchange between
> Rey and PTD after PTD's ill-considered drop-the-soap comment.

On 5/3/2022 12:39 PM, lar3ryca wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>>>>> Excellent. I mostly do that too. NB I'm in the UK not
>>>>> Australia!

>>>> Nor I. Central Canada has plenty of fresh water, and my
>>>> shower-water goes back into the Ottawa River it came from; but
>>>> I make the gesture.

>>> If you make that gesture whilst in the shower, you are unlikely
>>> to cause offence.

>> In that it resembles my singing,except that I seldom gesture at my
>> nervous little squirrel buddies.

>> When I call yoohoo (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo), Little squirrely-poo
>> (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo), Won't you come down from the crown of
>> yonder maple tree? Won't you come here and share my simple sylvan
>> fare with me? Squirrely, if you do (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo), I'll be
>> ever true (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo) - Come, be my friend, fill my old
>> heart with glee; Nuts that now are mine shall be thine, for
>> freeee.

> If you haven't seen any of Mark Rober's videos, here's one to start
> with, a squirrel 'Ninja" course.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFZFjoX2cGg

I have seen that obstacle course somewhere before, I think on
television. He could try feeding the squirrels; if they were not
starving, they might be less persistent.

Walking past some nearby woods one day, I passed a woman who was tossing
food to the pheasants who lived there. She complained bitterly to me
that Canada geese were coming and eating her bounty. "Geese gotta
live," I replied, and did not stay for an answer.

One of my nephews and his wife gave me a lovely set of bird-feeding
gear for Christmas. I had planned to put it up as soon as the snow
was gone from around the tree outside my window, but bird-flu has
delayed operations. The stand I got for it (I decided I didn't want to
drive nails into the tree) has a "squirrel baffle"; so we shall see how
things work out. I plan to go on feeding them and singing to them -
sometimes in Spanish. They don't seem to mind.

On 5/3/2022 11:13 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Snidely posted:

>> [Mutual incomprehension follows]

>>> Sigh.

>> Me too. Let's all go home.

> Little did I anticipate, when the subject of water control in
> ablution first came up here, that it would result in a shower of
> divergent opinions and a flood of heretofore unknown to me technical
> aspects of what I thought was a fairly simple and functional knob.

> I was not aware that some consider the shower venue to be a
> dangerous environment replete with a rising tide of water and
> accident inducing barriers employed in ingress and egress. And yet,
> no one brought up the neccessity of a knobbly mat placed on the
> bottom surface to avoid slippage, which is my own primary safety
> precaution.

> I had not considered that the benefits of a detachable shower head
> includes under-beard rinsing that is not, evidently, otherwise
> possible. Or, that the directional ability of water dispersal
> alllows better rinsing of the pits than simply raising one's arms and
> turning to the water.

> The discussion was, to the best of my knowledge, the first
> appearance of "shower" in alt.usage.english since that famous
> exchange between Rey and PTD after PTD's ill-considered drop-the-soap
> comment.

Excerpts?

On Tue, 3 May 2022 21:50:01 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>
>The concept of "axis" is irrelevant except when one is talking about
>rotation about an axis. Linear motion does not have an axis.
>
>As a preliminary, let's take a step back and look at the mixer tap I
>have in my kitchen:
>
><https://www.northernrv.com.au/product/standard-kitchen-mixer-tap-200mm-spout/>
>
>Here the temperature is controlled by rotating the lever around a
>vertical axis, and the flow rate is controlled by moving the lever up
>and down. That, at least, is the layman's description, but if we want to
>be technically precise that up-and-down is really a circular motion:
>rotation about a horizontal axis.
>
>So far, I think we're all in agreement. But the shower control under
>discussion is different. With an in-and-out knob, we have one rotational
>movement (for temperature) and one *linear* motion (for flow rate).
>There is only one axis because only one of the two motions is a
>rotation. The second motion has nothing to do with movement around an
>axis, because it is not a rotation.

The two versions seem to describe the sink and shower control
in my bathroom.

My mechanical ingenuity says to me that the internal workings
of the two are the same. The in-out movement that controls
the shower must be matched by an in-out movement at the sink,
which is controlled /with some precision/ by a lever-arm.

I can get a flow that is less than full-spate from my shower. No
doubt, a lever-arm /could/ have been installed, which would have
controlled the off-on across several inches of movement, instead
of the half-inch (or whatever the diameter of the pipe being closed)
that presently separates on from off.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Tue, 3 May 2022 13:28:15 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/3/2022 11:13 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Snidely posted:
>
>>> [Mutual incomprehension follows]
>
>>>> Sigh.
>
>>> Me too. Let's all go home.
>
>> Little did I anticipate, when the subject of water control in
>> ablution first came up here, that it would result in a shower of
>> divergent opinions and a flood of heretofore unknown to me technical
>> aspects of what I thought was a fairly simple and functional knob.
>
>> I was not aware that some consider the shower venue to be a
>> dangerous environment replete with a rising tide of water and
>> accident inducing barriers employed in ingress and egress. And yet,
>> no one brought up the neccessity of a knobbly mat placed on the
>> bottom surface to avoid slippage, which is my own primary safety
>> precaution.
>
>> I had not considered that the benefits of a detachable shower head
>> includes under-beard rinsing that is not, evidently, otherwise
>> possible. Or, that the directional ability of water dispersal
>> alllows better rinsing of the pits than simply raising one's arms and
>> turning to the water.
>
>> The discussion was, to the best of my knowledge, the first
>> appearance of "shower" in alt.usage.english since that famous
>> exchange between Rey and PTD after PTD's ill-considered drop-the-soap
>> comment.
>
>Excerpts?
>
Alas, with the absence of Deja Vu, providing excerpts from old threads
is too difficult to attempt.

I would not want to even if I could. Rey, as many here know, spent
some time as a guest of the government in federal prison. PTD made a
comment about dropping-the-soap, and Rey responded rather forcefully.
He made some unkind comments that, if replicated by one of our posters
here, would wear out his * key.

I would not want to provide the excerpts because I feel that the
nature of the remarks made by Rey crossed a line that I do not feel
should be crossed.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

* CDB:

> On 5/2/2022 11:16 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> As far as my knowledge of shower head mechanics goes, a
>>>>>>> shower head cannot produce more flow than the pipe
>>>>>>> delivering the water to the head produces. The shower head
>>>>>>> design can concentrate the flow or disperse the flow, but
>>>>>>> it cannot increase or decrease the flow.
>
>>>>>> Shower heads constrict the flow in a misguided "water
>>>>>> saving" measure that prevents you getting the full amount of
>>>>>> water out of the pipe, making showers take longer since you
>>>>>> have to stand there for much longer to get all the soap
>>>>>> rinsed off and the shampoo out of your hair.
>
>>>>>> It takes several minutes to fill the kitchen sink, long
>>>>>> enough that the water has cooled considerably by the time the
>>>>>> sink fills up.
>
>>>>>> Maybe Florida doesn't required low-flow showers and sinks
>>>>>> like the rest of the country?
>
>>>>> We do. Not sure if it's federal or provincial. Before I
>>>>> graduated to a hand-held, a renovator had installed a
>>>>> water-saving showerhead on me; it contained a metal baffle that
>>>>> was easy enough to remove.
>
>>>> I've fitted one, it's a great way to feel smug about saving the
>>>> planet.
>
>>> I turn off the water once I'm wet, and turn it on again only when
>>> I'm ready to rinse off; I use luke-warm water, not hot, and don't
>>> bathe quite every day, since I live alone. Let the world content
>>> itself with that.
>
>> Ah, the old 'saving water" myth, a lie perpertrated by water
>> companies to cause people to use less water so they can complain
>> about falling revenue and raise theirs rates.
>
> Certainly Ottawa Hydro (not a water company) has done that.

So what have they done in relation to (falling?) water use?

Here, water isn't even metered in most private homes, so what Lewis said
is entirely a non-issue. Water is charged at a fixed portion per
household plus a portion proportional to evaluation.

--
Americans are not that comfortable with being uncomfortable.
-- Veronica Osorio

On 2022-05-03 11:25, CDB wrote:
> On 5/3/2022 12:39 PM, lar3ryca wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> CDB wrote:
>>>>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>>>>>> Excellent. I mostly do that too. NB I'm in the UK not Australia!
>
>>>>> Nor I.  Central Canada has plenty of fresh water, and my
>>>>> shower-water goes back into the Ottawa River it came from; but
>>>>>  I make the gesture.
>
>>>> If you make that gesture whilst in the shower, you are unlikely to
>>>> cause offence.
>
>>> In that it resembles my singing,except that I seldom gesture at my
>>> nervous little squirrel buddies.
>
>>> When I call yoohoo (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo), Little squirrely-poo
>>> (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo), Won't you come down from the crown of yonder
>>> maple tree? Won't you come here and share my simple sylvan fare with
>>> me? Squirrely, if you do (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo), I'll be
>>> ever true (hoohoohoo, hoohoo hoo) - Come, be my friend, fill my old
>>> heart with glee; Nuts that now are mine shall be thine, for freeee.
>
>> If you haven't seen any of Mark Rober's videos, here's one to start
>> with, a squirrel 'Ninja" course.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFZFjoX2cGg
>
> I have seen that obstacle course somewhere before, I think on
> television.  He could try feeding the squirrels; if they were not
> starving, they might be less persistent.

He could have, but he was trying to feed perching birds, and once a
squirrel gets onto a bird feeder, it takes very little time before the
contents are on the ground, suitable only for feeding squirrels, mice,
and ground-feeding birds like Juncos.

Instead, what he did was to set up a challenge for the squirrels, as
opposed to using various measures that would have guaranteed the
squirrels would not get to the seed.

His version 1.0took them quite a while to figure out, but they
did,eventually, gaining access to the seed and some walnuts

His second version resulted in a reward of a LOT of walnuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTvS9lvRxZ8

Basically, he ended up really liking his neighbourhood bushy-tailed
rats, and challenged them even more, with a much bigger reward.

I enjoy his videos a lot.

> Walking past some nearby woods one day, I passed a woman who was tossing
> food to the pheasants who lived there.  She complained bitterly to me
> that Canada geese were coming and eating her bounty.  "Geese gotta
> live," I replied, and did not stay for an answer.
>
> One of my nephews and his wife gave me a lovely set of bird-feeding
> gear for Christmas.  I had planned to put it up as soon as the snow
> was gone from around the tree outside my window, but bird-flu has
> delayed operations.  The stand I got for it (I decided I didn't want to
> drive nails into the tree) has a "squirrel baffle"; so we shall see how
> things work out. I plan to go on feeding them and singing to them -
> sometimes in Spanish.  They don't seem to mind.
>
>

On 03/05/22 22:45, Lewis wrote:
> In message <t4ptj0$3gp$1@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> You can be fined here for watering your lawn.
>
> Amusingly, the same is true here. So you get citations for watering
> at the wrong time, and citations for letting the lawn die.
>
> I recall watching some home improvement show with my wife that took
> place in Phoenix (or more likely a suburb). They had to plan around
> planting a verge of Kentucky bluegrass, since that was required on
> the boundary of the property..
>
> Phoenix is a desert and KBG is a high-water grass.

I always get a shock when I visit Canberra, the national capital, during
a drought. You approach the city through parched countryside, with
fields either bare of any vegetation or with a scattering of brown
grass. Once inside the city, you see sprinklers operating on places like
road median strips, to keep everything green.

I suppose it's appropriate for a city of politicians. All image and no
substance.

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

On 04/05/22 00:46, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-05-03 13:04:03 +0000, Lewis said:

>> If you live in Denver you can generally tell whether you are on
>> Denver water or suburban water as the taste difference is
>> noticeable.
>
> We have just returned from the Camargue, where my wife found the
> water undrinkable. I didn't think it was the best water I've ever
> tasted, but I thought it was OK. However, as I said to her, if you've
> lived six years in Oxford just about any water (even in Barcelona) is
> better.

Twenty or so years ago somebody got together a panel of wine tasters,
and got them to do blind tasting of water from a number of cities. They
did a good job of identifying the source.

I couldn't do that well, but I think I could identify Adelaide water,
which is disgustingly bad.

Newcastle water is pretty good, so far. A major source of our water is
sandbeds, which seem to do a good job of filtering the water.

Williamtown, where Newcastle airport is located, is a different matter.
It has had abnormally high numbers of cancer deaths, apparently from the
PFAS contamination of the water.

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

Peter Moylan submitted this idea :
> On 02/05/22 19:41, Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>> There is a communication failure here. I understand the sort of
>> 'axis' that applies to the manually adjustable shower controls that
>> we are writing about to be an imaginary line in the control valve
>> structure about which, or along which, a part moves.
>>
>> Everything I've read here tells me that there are two motions in the
>> control we're discussing. One is rotary and one is longitudinal. It
>> seems to me that they share a common axis. Snidely says that they
>> operate on two co-linear axes. To my mind, there is no difference:
>> the axis-defining line is one and the same. Or perhaps he thinks
>> co-linear means intersecting? That works if my final para below is
>> what he's thinking about.
>
> The concept of "axis" is irrelevant except when one is talking about
> rotation about an axis. Linear motion does not have an axis.
>
> As a preliminary, let's take a step back and look at the mixer tap I
> have in my kitchen:
>
> <https://www.northernrv.com.au/product/standard-kitchen-mixer-tap-200mm-spout/>
>
> Here the temperature is controlled by rotating the lever around a
> vertical axis, and the flow rate is controlled by moving the lever up
> and down. That, at least, is the layman's description, but if we want to
> be technically precise that up-and-down is really a circular motion:
> rotation about a horizontal axis.
>
> So far, I think we're all in agreement. But the shower control under
> discussion is different. With an in-and-out knob, we have one rotational
> movement (for temperature) and one *linear* motion (for flow rate).
> There is only one axis because only one of the two motions is a
> rotation. The second motion has nothing to do with movement around an
> axis, because it is not a rotation.
>
> True, we can talk about straight line movement as the limiting case of
> circular movement, as the radius becomes infinite; but that's not a
> useful concept in this case, because it would involve a second axis that
> is infinitely far away.

Peter, what I call a "two-axis" valve has two degrees of freedom. Each
degree of freedom is an axis.

/dps
]

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain