On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:41:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>> >>>> Roger Merriman <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 1/20/2022 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I do have cyclometers on almost every bike but they're now
>> >>>>>>>> just for idle curiosity. I very much doubt I'll ever go
>> >>>>>>>> farther down the electronics rabbit hole.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I owned an ACT bicycle computer for less than an hour.
>> >>>>>>> Popped it off the handlebar halfway home, tossed it and
>> >>>>>>> never reconsidered.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> I like to have time of day, particularly when commuting so
>> >>>>> I don???t worry I???m going to be late, I *hate* being
>> >>>>> late!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I like to know my speed and the distance I???ve done. I
>> >>>>> find the temperature interesting though to be honest not
>> >>>>> needed, same goes for my altitude.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I do quite like the Strava/hill climb so will let me know
>> >>>>> how much more there is! The time up it, I???m rarely
>> >>>>> bothered by.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>> >>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>> >>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>> >>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>> >>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife got a
>> >>>> text message of an incident telling her the specific location.
>> >>>> She was getting into the car to come scrape me off the
>> >>>> pavement when I managed to connect via phone and tell her I
>> >>>> could make it home on my own.
>> >>>
>> >>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>> >>> mine. I started avid adult cycling in 1973 after having ridden
>> >>> constantly through my childhood and teen years. Never once did
>> >>> I fear that I'd not make it home. That included (perhaps
>> >>> foolishly) during 50+ mph descents.
>> >>>
>> >>> Based on available data, the most dangerous thing I do with any
>> >>> regularity is riding my motorcycle. But even then, I never
>> >>> think "Gosh, what if I crash and am knocked unconscious or
>> >>> worse?"
>> >>>
>> >>> One of the oddities of modern life is that most of us are safer
>> >>> by almost any measure than we have ever been. Yet we are more
>> >>> fearful.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you weren't implying I'm fearful (I'm not) or thought the
>> >> feature was important (I don't), but it sure comes off that way.
>> >>
>> >> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might be
>> >> of interest to others.
>> >
>> >No, I wasn't implying that about you. I'm commenting on a general trend
>> >in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>> >
>> >It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>> >year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>> >Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>> >declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>> >
>> >Examples abound.
>> >
>> >I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>> >rigueur for cycling in the future.
>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>
>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>> being injured.
>>
>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>> result in injury or death".
>
>Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. Today on my ride I had three cars drive directly through red lights and stop signs without so much as slowing while I had right of way. There is a cross walk across the main street (that only leads into a housing district) that kids would have to cross going to school. This is the street in which I patiently waited my turn and as I got to the going straight lane a jackass woman touched her brakes and then continued through the intersection without stopping even though I was directly in front of her. Wearing bright red, white and yellow. And the car in the left turn lane right next to her didn't move an inch.
>
>As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>
>The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.

As I said previously, I never say anyone get hurt on a swing and just
about every kid I grew up with that had a tree in the yard had a
swing.
But I did some checking and I find that:
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=sports-injuries-statistics-90-P01650
Basketball. More than 170,000 children ages 5 to 14 were treated in
hospital emergency rooms for basketball-related injuries.

Baseball and softball. Nearly 110,000 children ages 5 to 14 were
treated in hospital emergency rooms for baseball-related injuries.

Bicycling. More than 200,000 children ages 5 to 14 were treated in
hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.

https://www.calbomschwab.com/personal-injury-news/dangers-swing-sets-head-injuries-children/
50,000 children a year go to the emergency room with injuries
sustained on playground equipment:

Seems like if we want to protect the kids then we gotta get rid of the
bikes. Really dangerious things bicycles.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/22/2022 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> I'm commenting on a general trend
>>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>>>
>>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>>>
>>> Examples abound.
>>>
>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
>
>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>
>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>> being injured.
>>
>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>> result in injury or death".
>
> Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. ...
>
> As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.

I know it's bad to disagree with Tom, but to report from the real world:

Swings are as common around here as they ever were. About 30 years ago,
one local playground did remove a "jungle gym" or "monkey bars" climbing
set because a girl fell and broke her arm, and the parents sued the
school system. But the swings remained, and are still there. In fact,
several new sets have been installed both here and in two other towns I
know well and visit often.

It is true, though, that playground equipment is fancier than in the
past. Today my wife and walked by a brand new playground under
construction just half a mile here. Instead of a climbing set ("jungle
gym") made of steel bars, there's a novel set that looks like a three
dimensional network of rope segments. Maybe it's safer because you
couldn't fall directly to the ground.

Another huge playground set in a different park we frequent is three
platforms tall, probably 25 feet or so to the top. It has two
tunnel-style slides from the top platform down. No kid could fall out of
the slide (although that park does have conventional slides as well.)
Interstingly, I've seen teenagers climbing up the top surface of the
cylindrical slide tunnels - something I'd judge far more dangerous than
anything one would reasonably try with a conventional slide.

(I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )

> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.

I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 17:21:06 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:48:01 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 13:40:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 4:48:28 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> >> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >> > On 1/21/2022 2:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> >> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 11:09:05 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>> On 1/21/2022 11:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 4:53:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> motors since the late 1940's and I can't ever remember a starting
>> >> >>>>> motor failing on the electrical side although failure or malfunction
>> >> >>>>> of the "bendix drive" did happen.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> And, I might add, after the early 1950's my experience encompassed
>> >> >>>>> auto's trucks, airplanes and boats. All with electric starters.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Your dementia has obviously grabbed the reins and you are galloping
>> >> >>>>> madly toward the finish line.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> And as I said that you with your claimed mechanical expertise seem to
>> >> >>>> not know - is that earlier starter motors did not fail as I was
>> >> >>>> talking about because they were made in a different manner. But go
>> >> >>>> right ahead and tell us you know about this. I was working on cars
>> >> >>>> with my father handing him wrenches from 5 years old. That was how I
>> >> >>>> learned fractions years ahead of my classmates. So continue to talk
>> >> >>>> about it as if you understood the problem.
>> >> >>> Tom, you described a AAA mechanic whacking the starter motor to get
>> >> >>> yours to work. That's a classic case of a stuck solenoid, not a motor
>> >> >>> problem, and it's been known for many decades.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> True family story: My wife's mother used to tell of the Coke bottle she
>> >> >>> kept under the hood of their Nash Rambler. She used it to hit the
>> >> >>> starter when it wouldn't start.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> She wasn't an engineer either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Frank, please stop showing your ignorance of new type cars with PM
>> >> >> starter motors. They have a spring loaded starter gear and not a
>> >> >> solenoid. Whether you've learned it or not - mechanical devices progress
>> >> >> as rapidly as electronics.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > How new?
>> >> > Here's a 2021 Camry system, remarkably similar to my 1965
>> >> > Corvair except the Camry solenoid is a cute bronze-y color.
>> >> >
>> >> > https://motogurumag.com/diagram-mvxbqc/
>> >> >
>> >> They have both.
>> >>
>> >> The solenoid is energized by the ignition switch and applies voltage to the
>> >> starter motor. The “spring loaded starter gear” is driven by the starter
>> >> motor via a helical spline. The inertia of the gear forces it out on the
>> >> shaft, where it then engages with gear teeth on the flywheel to start the
>> >> engine. When the engine overruns the starter, the over speed of the engine,
>> >> plus the return spring pushes the starter gear back along the helical
>> >> spline, which disengages it from the flywheel.
>> >
>> >Exactly, from memory they stopped using electromagnetic starters and solenoids in the late 80's. This is when gas mileage started becoming important with the rapid growth of the price of gasoline. Suddenly the weight and frontal area and aerodynamic drag started becoming important. Before that those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs. Today a large size car like my Ford Taurus weighs 6,000 lbs and the aerodynamic drag is so low that on my trip to Arizona and back I averaged as much as 38 mpg. My car is 2007.
>> "those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs" ???
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> https://www.carsguide.com.au/ford/ltd/car-dimensions/1975
>> Weight - 1760 kg... or 3880.1358 lb
>> https://tinyurl.com/3nh4tnrv
>> 1970 Ford Fairlane/Torino - 3,116–3,774 lb
>> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s16345/ford-galaxie.aspx
>> weight - 3730 lbs
>> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s11870/ford-custom-deluxe.aspx
>> weight - 3060 lbs
>> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s7517/ford-deluxe.aspx
>> weight - 2970 lbs
>>
>> Gee Tommy, wrong again..
>
>John, I think that you should give us more examples of all steel cars with steel wheels and hard steel bumpers that weigh the same as a 2022 Nissan GT. It makes you and your use of Google look ever so intelligent.

And Tommy the Failure strikes again... "hard steel bumpers"

But Tommy nobody was talking about hard steel bumpers. You said:
"those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs" and I was
simply point out that you were, as the old saying has it, "full of
shit".

So the only question is (1) you didn't know what you were talking
about, or (2) you were deliberately lying... Oh yes, and (3) you
really are demented and actually believe all these wild eyed
statements that you make.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 08:22:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 16:41:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>>> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> >>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>>> >>>> Roger Merriman <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On 1/20/2022 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> I do have cyclometers on almost every bike but they're now
>>> >>>>>>>> just for idle curiosity. I very much doubt I'll ever go
>>> >>>>>>>> farther down the electronics rabbit hole.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I owned an ACT bicycle computer for less than an hour.
>>> >>>>>>> Popped it off the handlebar halfway home, tossed it and
>>> >>>>>>> never reconsidered.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>> I like to have time of day, particularly when commuting so
>>> >>>>> I don???t worry I???m going to be late, I *hate* being
>>> >>>>> late!
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I like to know my speed and the distance I???ve done. I
>>> >>>>> find the temperature interesting though to be honest not
>>> >>>>> needed, same goes for my altitude.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I do quite like the Strava/hill climb so will let me know
>>> >>>>> how much more there is! The time up it, I???m rarely
>>> >>>>> bothered by.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>>> >>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>>> >>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>>> >>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>>> >>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife got a
>>> >>>> text message of an incident telling her the specific location.
>>> >>>> She was getting into the car to come scrape me off the
>>> >>>> pavement when I managed to connect via phone and tell her I
>>> >>>> could make it home on my own.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>>> >>> mine. I started avid adult cycling in 1973 after having ridden
>>> >>> constantly through my childhood and teen years. Never once did
>>> >>> I fear that I'd not make it home. That included (perhaps
>>> >>> foolishly) during 50+ mph descents.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Based on available data, the most dangerous thing I do with any
>>> >>> regularity is riding my motorcycle. But even then, I never
>>> >>> think "Gosh, what if I crash and am knocked unconscious or
>>> >>> worse?"
>>> >>>
>>> >>> One of the oddities of modern life is that most of us are safer
>>> >>> by almost any measure than we have ever been. Yet we are more
>>> >>> fearful.
>>> >>
>>> >> Maybe you weren't implying I'm fearful (I'm not) or thought the
>>> >> feature was important (I don't), but it sure comes off that way.
>>> >>
>>> >> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might be
>>> >> of interest to others.
>>> >
>>> >No, I wasn't implying that about you. I'm commenting on a general trend
>>> >in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>>> >
>>> >It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>>> >year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>>> >Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>>> >declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>>> >
>>> >Examples abound.
>>> >
>>> >I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>>> >rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>>
>>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>>> being injured.
>>>
>>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>>> result in injury or death".
>>
>>Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. Today on my ride I had three cars drive directly through red lights and stop signs without so much as slowing while I had right of way. There is a cross walk across the main street (that only leads into a housing district) that kids would have to cross going to school. This is the street in which I patiently waited my turn and as I got to the going straight lane a jackass woman touched her brakes and then continued through the intersection without stopping even though I was directly in front of her. Wearing bright red, white and yellow. And the car in the left turn lane right next to her didn't move an inch.
>>
>>As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>>
>>The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>
>As I said previously, I never say anyone get hurt on a swing and just
>about every kid I grew up with that had a tree in the yard had a
>swing.
>But I did some checking and I find that:
>https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=sports-injuries-statistics-90-P01650
>Basketball. More than 170,000 children ages 5 to 14 were treated in
>hospital emergency rooms for basketball-related injuries.
>
>Baseball and softball. Nearly 110,000 children ages 5 to 14 were
>treated in hospital emergency rooms for baseball-related injuries.
>
>Bicycling. More than 200,000 children ages 5 to 14 were treated in
>hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.
>
>https://www.calbomschwab.com/personal-injury-news/dangers-swing-sets-head-injuries-children/
>50,000 children a year go to the emergency room with injuries
>sustained on playground equipment:
>
>Seems like if we want to protect the kids then we gotta get rid of the
>bikes. Really dangerious things bicycles.

In all honesty I must admit that I made a mistake in the first line
of the above post. The statement "I never say anyone get hurt" should
have been "I never saw anyone get hurt"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/22/2022 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> I'm commenting on a general trend
> >>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
> >>>
> >>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
> >>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
> >>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
> >>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
> >>>
> >>> Examples abound.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
> >>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
> >
> >> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
> >> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
> >> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
> >> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
> >>
> >> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
> >> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
> >> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
> >> being injured.
> >>
> >> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
> >> result in injury or death".
> >
> > Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. ...
> >
> > As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
> I know it's bad to disagree with Tom, but to report from the real world:
>
> Swings are as common around here as they ever were. About 30 years ago,
> one local playground did remove a "jungle gym" or "monkey bars" climbing
> set because a girl fell and broke her arm, and the parents sued the
> school system. But the swings remained, and are still there. In fact,
> several new sets have been installed both here and in two other towns I
> know well and visit often.
>
> It is true, though, that playground equipment is fancier than in the
> past. Today my wife and walked by a brand new playground under
> construction just half a mile here. Instead of a climbing set ("jungle
> gym") made of steel bars, there's a novel set that looks like a three
> dimensional network of rope segments. Maybe it's safer because you
> couldn't fall directly to the ground.
>
> Another huge playground set in a different park we frequent is three
> platforms tall, probably 25 feet or so to the top. It has two
> tunnel-style slides from the top platform down. No kid could fall out of
> the slide (although that park does have conventional slides as well.)
> Interstingly, I've seen teenagers climbing up the top surface of the
> cylindrical slide tunnels - something I'd judge far more dangerous than
> anything one would reasonably try with a conventional slide.
>
> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
> > The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.

Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings. That is sort of like Jeffy claiming that using TDR isn't an example of pulse width modulation because he things that you can use a single pulse width to measure any length of wire. You two are made for each other.

At what point do you have a comment about bicycles that doesn't deny the advancements in bicycles in the last 40 years?

On 1/22/2022 6:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>> Roger Merriman <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do have cyclometers on almost every bike but they're now
>>>>>>>>>> just for idle curiosity. I very much doubt I'll ever go
>>>>>>>>>> farther down the electronics rabbit hole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I owned an ACT bicycle computer for less than an hour.
>>>>>>>>> Popped it off the handlebar halfway home, tossed it and
>>>>>>>>> never reconsidered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like to have time of day, particularly when commuting so
>>>>>>> I don???t worry I???m going to be late, I *hate* being
>>>>>>> late!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like to know my speed and the distance I???ve done. I
>>>>>>> find the temperature interesting though to be honest not
>>>>>>> needed, same goes for my altitude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do quite like the Strava/hill climb so will let me know
>>>>>>> how much more there is! The time up it, I???m rarely
>>>>>>> bothered by.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>>>>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>>>>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>>>>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>>>>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife got a
>>>>>> text message of an incident telling her the specific location.
>>>>>> She was getting into the car to come scrape me off the
>>>>>> pavement when I managed to connect via phone and tell her I
>>>>>> could make it home on my own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>>>>> mine. I started avid adult cycling in 1973 after having ridden
>>>>> constantly through my childhood and teen years. Never once did
>>>>> I fear that I'd not make it home. That included (perhaps
>>>>> foolishly) during 50+ mph descents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on available data, the most dangerous thing I do with any
>>>>> regularity is riding my motorcycle. But even then, I never
>>>>> think "Gosh, what if I crash and am knocked unconscious or
>>>>> worse?"
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the oddities of modern life is that most of us are safer
>>>>> by almost any measure than we have ever been. Yet we are more
>>>>> fearful.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you weren't implying I'm fearful (I'm not) or thought the
>>>> feature was important (I don't), but it sure comes off that way.
>>>>
>>>> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might be
>>>> of interest to others.
>>>
>>> No, I wasn't implying that about you. I'm commenting on a general trend
>>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>>>
>>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>>>
>>> Examples abound.
>>>
>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>
>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>> being injured.
>>
>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>> result in injury or death".
>
> Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. Today on my ride I had three cars drive directly through red lights and stop signs without so much as slowing while I had right of way. There is a cross walk across the main street (that only leads into a housing district) that kids would have to cross going to school. This is the street in which I patiently waited my turn and as I got to the going straight lane a jackass woman touched her brakes and then continued through the intersection without stopping even though I was directly in front of her. Wearing bright red, white and yellow. And the car in the left turn lane right next to her didn't move an inch.
>
> As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>
> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>

We, the children who survived self-inflicted playground
injuries, learned what not to do.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/22/2022 7:21 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:48:01 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 13:40:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 4:48:28 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2022 2:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 11:09:05 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2022 11:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 4:53:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> motors since the late 1940's and I can't ever remember a starting
>>>>>>>>> motor failing on the electrical side although failure or malfunction
>>>>>>>>> of the "bendix drive" did happen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, I might add, after the early 1950's my experience encompassed
>>>>>>>>> auto's trucks, airplanes and boats. All with electric starters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your dementia has obviously grabbed the reins and you are galloping
>>>>>>>>> madly toward the finish line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And as I said that you with your claimed mechanical expertise seem to
>>>>>>>> not know - is that earlier starter motors did not fail as I was
>>>>>>>> talking about because they were made in a different manner. But go
>>>>>>>> right ahead and tell us you know about this. I was working on cars
>>>>>>>> with my father handing him wrenches from 5 years old. That was how I
>>>>>>>> learned fractions years ahead of my classmates. So continue to talk
>>>>>>>> about it as if you understood the problem.
>>>>>>> Tom, you described a AAA mechanic whacking the starter motor to get
>>>>>>> yours to work. That's a classic case of a stuck solenoid, not a motor
>>>>>>> problem, and it's been known for many decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True family story: My wife's mother used to tell of the Coke bottle she
>>>>>>> kept under the hood of their Nash Rambler. She used it to hit the
>>>>>>> starter when it wouldn't start.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She wasn't an engineer either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank, please stop showing your ignorance of new type cars with PM
>>>>>> starter motors. They have a spring loaded starter gear and not a
>>>>>> solenoid. Whether you've learned it or not - mechanical devices progress
>>>>>> as rapidly as electronics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How new?
>>>>> Here's a 2021 Camry system, remarkably similar to my 1965
>>>>> Corvair except the Camry solenoid is a cute bronze-y color.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://motogurumag.com/diagram-mvxbqc/
>>>>>
>>>> They have both.
>>>>
>>>> The solenoid is energized by the ignition switch and applies voltage to the
>>>> starter motor. The “spring loaded starter gear” is driven by the starter
>>>> motor via a helical spline. The inertia of the gear forces it out on the
>>>> shaft, where it then engages with gear teeth on the flywheel to start the
>>>> engine. When the engine overruns the starter, the over speed of the engine,
>>>> plus the return spring pushes the starter gear back along the helical
>>>> spline, which disengages it from the flywheel.
>>>
>>> Exactly, from memory they stopped using electromagnetic starters and solenoids in the late 80's. This is when gas mileage started becoming important with the rapid growth of the price of gasoline. Suddenly the weight and frontal area and aerodynamic drag started becoming important. Before that those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs. Today a large size car like my Ford Taurus weighs 6,000 lbs and the aerodynamic drag is so low that on my trip to Arizona and back I averaged as much as 38 mpg. My car is 2007.
>> "those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs" ???
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> https://www.carsguide.com.au/ford/ltd/car-dimensions/1975
>> Weight - 1760 kg... or 3880.1358 lb
>> https://tinyurl.com/3nh4tnrv
>> 1970 Ford Fairlane/Torino - 3,116–3,774 lb
>> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s16345/ford-galaxie.aspx
>> weight - 3730 lbs
>> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s11870/ford-custom-deluxe.aspx
>> weight - 3060 lbs
>> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s7517/ford-deluxe.aspx
>> weight - 2970 lbs
>>
>> Gee Tommy, wrong again..
>
> John, I think that you should give us more examples of all steel cars with steel wheels and hard steel bumpers that weigh the same as a 2022 Nissan GT. It makes you and your use of Google look ever so intelligent.
>

A friend recently bought a 1968 Lincoln 6-door limousine on
a lark (it was priced right!) and it's just over 5000lb.
What regular passenger car is more than that?

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1963-1970-lincoln-limousine.htm

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/23/2022 3:24 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 11:24:02 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 20:12:22 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> See also:
>>> https://www.midwestequipment.com/post/relays-vs-solenoids-vs-contactors-a-comparison
>
> That article is about half wrong. The three Wikipedia articles are
> correct.
>
>> That is getting very much into semantics.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relay
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solenoid
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactor
>
> A solenoid is a coil and does not necessarily include switch contacts.
> Energized the coil, and an actuator moves. It could activate a valve,
> doorbell, gearbox, and of course, a set of electrical contacts. In
> all cases, the combination of solenoid coil and actuator is known by
> the name of the final device (relay, valve, doorbell, (not sure about
> the gearbox).
>
> A relay is a solenoid that drives a set of electrical contacts. The
> solenoid does not need to be cylindrical, but can be rotary as in a
> stepper switch. There are many non-solenoid relays, such as pressure
> and vacuum switches, bi-metal thermostats, and inertial switches, that
> are sometime incorrectly called relays.
>
> The original use of a relay was inspired by using multiple horses to
> deliver a message over long distance. When one horse became tired, a
> fresh horse took over. The process was call a relay. We still have
> that today with various relay races. When telegraphy appeared, they
> soon discovered that trying to send messages electrically over long
> distances was not going to happen because of high line resistance. For
> this, the fresh horse was the relay. The sender would provide
> sufficient current to activate the solenoid on the relay. The relay
> contacts would close, connecting a fresh battery to the next section
> of line. String enough relays and batteries together and messages
> could be sent across the continent.
>
> A contactor is electrician talk for a large relay designed to operate
> on AC line voltages. There are some other useful characteristics
> found in contactors (arc suppression, manual operation, mechanical
> open/closed indicators, explosion proofing, enclosure, etc), but the
> main feature of contactors is its large size.
>

Quite elucidating, thank you

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:26:42 -0000 (UTC),
Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
> >>>> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

> >>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
> >>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
> >>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
> >>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
> >>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife
> >>>> got a text message of an incident telling her the specific
> >>>> location. She was getting into the car to come scrape me
> >>>> off the pavement when I managed to connect via phone and
> >>>> tell her I could make it home on my own.
> >>>
> >>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
> >>> mine.

Still seems like a bit of a non sequiter.

> >> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might
> >> be of interest to others.

> > I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't
> > become de rigueur for cycling in the future.
>
> It???s a feature in most head units now plus stuff like Apple
> Watch, though would need setting up, ie clearly doesn???t know
> who my wife is etc.

Well, another good point, Roger. You're entirely correct, and I
must have indeed set up my Garmin to know my wife's mobile number.
She tends to worry, so I make it a habit of letting her know what
route (at least generally) I'll be out on. So though I probably
set it up mostly out of curiosity for a new feature, I also likely
left it in place to accomodate her interests.

--
Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> West Lafayette, IN, USA

On 1/23/2022 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
>> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
>>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
>
> Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings.

No, Tom, you do NOT understand me.

You claim "so many deaths" from kids using playground swings that swings
have nearly vanished from playgrounds. By contrast, out here in the real
world swings are common and still being installed. Nothing is without
risk, but there is no great worry about playground swings.

Give us some citation about that huge number of deaths. If that number
were in any way significant, a citation should be easy. (BTW, CPSC puts
the number at about one per year, nationally. See
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Injuries%20and%20Investigated%20Deaths%20Associated%20with%20Playground%20Equipment%202009%20to%202014_1.pdf?29GwYlhQ6fUwXskAQxLoGaHaE8aHZSsY)

Prove me wrong. And don't use just your "memory." Give citations. Show data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/23/2022 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
> >> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
> >>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
> >> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
> >
> > Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings.
> No, Tom, you do NOT understand me.
>
> You claim "so many deaths" from kids using playground swings that swings
> have nearly vanished from playgrounds. By contrast, out here in the real
> world swings are common and still being installed. Nothing is without
> risk, but there is no great worry about playground swings.
>
> Give us some citation about that huge number of deaths. If that number
> were in any way significant, a citation should be easy. (BTW, CPSC puts
> the number at about one per year, nationally. See
> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Injuries%20and%20Investigated%20Deaths%20Associated%20with%20Playground%20Equipment%202009%20to%202014_1.pdf?29GwYlhQ6fUwXskAQxLoGaHaE8aHZSsY)
>
> Prove me wrong. And don't use just your "memory." Give citations. Show data.

To Franks deaths below the threshhold of millions aren't worthy of mention. So tell us Frank, why didn't you ever have any children? https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/playground-injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

On 1/23/2022 11:48 AM, Ted Heise wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:26:42 -0000 (UTC),
> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>>>>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>>>>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>>>>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>>>>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife
>>>>>> got a text message of an incident telling her the specific
>>>>>> location. She was getting into the car to come scrape me
>>>>>> off the pavement when I managed to connect via phone and
>>>>>> tell her I could make it home on my own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>>>>> mine.
>
> Still seems like a bit of a non sequiter.
>
>
>>>> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might
>>>> be of interest to others.
>
>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't
>>> become de rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>
>> It???s a feature in most head units now plus stuff like Apple
>> Watch, though would need setting up, ie clearly doesn???t know
>> who my wife is etc.
>
> Well, another good point, Roger. You're entirely correct, and I
> must have indeed set up my Garmin to know my wife's mobile number.
> She tends to worry, so I make it a habit of letting her know what
> route (at least generally) I'll be out on. So though I probably
> set it up mostly out of curiosity for a new feature, I also likely
> left it in place to accomodate her interests.

I do agree that it's prudent to accommodate the desires of a wife.

Not to derail the conversation, but: Way, way back in time, that's what
got me wearing a helmet for a while. My wife said "If you're going to be
riding to work in the center of the city, I'd like you to wear a
helmet." I grudgingly accepted.

Many years later, I'd gotten interested enough in the issue that I was
able to show and explain the relevant data to her. She then accepted my
decision to leave the funny hat at home. Nowadays she rides without one
too.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/23/2022 12:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/23/2022 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
>>>> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
>>>>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>>>> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
>>>
>>> Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings.
>> No, Tom, you do NOT understand me.
>>
>> You claim "so many deaths" from kids using playground swings that swings
>> have nearly vanished from playgrounds. By contrast, out here in the real
>> world swings are common and still being installed. Nothing is without
>> risk, but there is no great worry about playground swings.
>>
>> Give us some citation about that huge number of deaths. If that number
>> were in any way significant, a citation should be easy. (BTW, CPSC puts
>> the number at about one per year, nationally. See
>> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Injuries%20and%20Investigated%20Deaths%20Associated%20with%20Playground%20Equipment%202009%20to%202014_1.pdf?29GwYlhQ6fUwXskAQxLoGaHaE8aHZSsY)
>>
>> Prove me wrong. And don't use just your "memory." Give citations. Show data.
>
> To Franks deaths below the threshhold of millions aren't worthy of mention. So tell us Frank, why didn't you ever have any children? https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/playground-injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

Nice try, but we know your tactics, posting and misrepresenting largely
irrelevant links.

We were talking specifically about deaths from playground swings. You
said, and I quote:

"As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared.
Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90
degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop
children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from
that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe,
they eliminated them."

They have NOT eliminated them. They are still installed routinely, and
are probably the most common playground equipment. My link mentioned one
death per year nationwide. Your link said nothing to rebut that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:26:42 -0000 (UTC),
> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>>>>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>>>>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>>>>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>>>>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife
>>>>>> got a text message of an incident telling her the specific
>>>>>> location. She was getting into the car to come scrape me
>>>>>> off the pavement when I managed to connect via phone and
>>>>>> tell her I could make it home on my own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>>>>> mine.
>
> Still seems like a bit of a non sequiter.
>
>
>>>> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might
>>>> be of interest to others.
>
>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't
>>> become de rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>
>> It???s a feature in most head units now plus stuff like Apple
>> Watch, though would need setting up, ie clearly doesn???t know
>> who my wife is etc.
>
> Well, another good point, Roger. You're entirely correct, and I
> must have indeed set up my Garmin to know my wife's mobile number.
> She tends to worry, so I make it a habit of letting her know what
> route (at least generally) I'll be out on. So though I probably
> set it up mostly out of curiosity for a new feature, I also likely
> left it in place to accomodate her interests.
>
For myself it was the reverse in that she didn’t want the anxiety of
looking at my location etc.

Roger Merriman.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 08:03:21 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/22/2022 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> I'm commenting on a general trend
>> >>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>> >>>
>> >>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>> >>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>> >>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>> >>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>> >>>
>> >>> Examples abound.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>> >>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
>> >
>> >> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>> >> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>> >> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>> >> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>> >>
>> >> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>> >> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>> >> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>> >> being injured.
>> >>
>> >> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>> >> result in injury or death".
>> >
>> > Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. ...
>> >
>> > As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>> I know it's bad to disagree with Tom, but to report from the real world:
>>
>> Swings are as common around here as they ever were. About 30 years ago,
>> one local playground did remove a "jungle gym" or "monkey bars" climbing
>> set because a girl fell and broke her arm, and the parents sued the
>> school system. But the swings remained, and are still there. In fact,
>> several new sets have been installed both here and in two other towns I
>> know well and visit often.
>>
>> It is true, though, that playground equipment is fancier than in the
>> past. Today my wife and walked by a brand new playground under
>> construction just half a mile here. Instead of a climbing set ("jungle
>> gym") made of steel bars, there's a novel set that looks like a three
>> dimensional network of rope segments. Maybe it's safer because you
>> couldn't fall directly to the ground.
>>
>> Another huge playground set in a different park we frequent is three
>> platforms tall, probably 25 feet or so to the top. It has two
>> tunnel-style slides from the top platform down. No kid could fall out of
>> the slide (although that park does have conventional slides as well.)
>> Interstingly, I've seen teenagers climbing up the top surface of the
>> cylindrical slide tunnels - something I'd judge far more dangerous than
>> anything one would reasonably try with a conventional slide.
>>
>> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
>> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
>> > The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
>
>Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings. That is sort of like Jeffy claiming that using TDR isn't an example of pulse width modulation because he things that you can use a single pulse width to measure any length of wire. You two are made for each other.
>
>At what point do you have a comment about bicycles that doesn't deny the advancements in bicycles in the last 40 years?

Lets see now... Someone says "I'd ask Tom for citations about those
"so many deaths" from kids falling off swings"

And Tommy replies,"At what point do you have a comment about bicycles
that doesn't deny the advancements in bicycles in the last 40 years?

I'd comment here but I expect that Tommy's dementia is apparent to all
without further explanation.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 10:28:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/22/2022 6:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>> Roger Merriman <ro...@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 8:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 6:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do have cyclometers on almost every bike but they're now
>>>>>>>>>>> just for idle curiosity. I very much doubt I'll ever go
>>>>>>>>>>> farther down the electronics rabbit hole.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I owned an ACT bicycle computer for less than an hour.
>>>>>>>>>> Popped it off the handlebar halfway home, tossed it and
>>>>>>>>>> never reconsidered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like to have time of day, particularly when commuting so
>>>>>>>> I don???t worry I???m going to be late, I *hate* being
>>>>>>>> late!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like to know my speed and the distance I???ve done. I
>>>>>>>> find the temperature interesting though to be honest not
>>>>>>>> needed, same goes for my altitude.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do quite like the Strava/hill climb so will let me know
>>>>>>>> how much more there is! The time up it, I???m rarely
>>>>>>>> bothered by.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>>>>>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>>>>>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>>>>>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>>>>>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife got a
>>>>>>> text message of an incident telling her the specific location.
>>>>>>> She was getting into the car to come scrape me off the
>>>>>>> pavement when I managed to connect via phone and tell her I
>>>>>>> could make it home on my own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>>>>>> mine. I started avid adult cycling in 1973 after having ridden
>>>>>> constantly through my childhood and teen years. Never once did
>>>>>> I fear that I'd not make it home. That included (perhaps
>>>>>> foolishly) during 50+ mph descents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on available data, the most dangerous thing I do with any
>>>>>> regularity is riding my motorcycle. But even then, I never
>>>>>> think "Gosh, what if I crash and am knocked unconscious or
>>>>>> worse?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the oddities of modern life is that most of us are safer
>>>>>> by almost any measure than we have ever been. Yet we are more
>>>>>> fearful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you weren't implying I'm fearful (I'm not) or thought the
>>>>> feature was important (I don't), but it sure comes off that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might be
>>>>> of interest to others.
>>>>
>>>> No, I wasn't implying that about you. I'm commenting on a general trend
>>>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>>>>
>>>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>>>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>>>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>>>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>>>>
>>>> Examples abound.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>>>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>>
>>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>>> being injured.
>>>
>>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>>> result in injury or death".
>>
>> Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. Today on my ride I had three cars drive directly through red lights and stop signs without so much as slowing while I had right of way. There is a cross walk across the main street (that only leads into a housing district) that kids would have to cross going to school. This is the street in which I patiently waited my turn and as I got to the going straight lane a jackass woman touched her brakes and then continued through the intersection without stopping even though I was directly in front of her. Wearing bright red, white and yellow. And the car in the left turn lane right next to her didn't move an inch.
>>
>> As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>>
>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>>
>
>We, the children who survived self-inflicted playground
>injuries, learned what not to do.

Yes. I'm working from memory here, which can be faulty, but I seem to
recollect that when some kid climbed tree and then fell out of the
tree that the thought was something along the line of "sure a clumsy
kid" rather then "it was the tree's fault" as it seems to be today.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 09:29:04 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/23/2022 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
>> >> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
>> >>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>> >> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
>> >
>> > Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings.
>> No, Tom, you do NOT understand me.
>>
>> You claim "so many deaths" from kids using playground swings that swings
>> have nearly vanished from playgrounds. By contrast, out here in the real
>> world swings are common and still being installed. Nothing is without
>> risk, but there is no great worry about playground swings.
>>
>> Give us some citation about that huge number of deaths. If that number
>> were in any way significant, a citation should be easy. (BTW, CPSC puts
>> the number at about one per year, nationally. See
>> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Injuries%20and%20Investigated%20Deaths%20Associated%20with%20Playground%20Equipment%202009%20to%202014_1.pdf?29GwYlhQ6fUwXskAQxLoGaHaE8aHZSsY)
>>
>> Prove me wrong. And don't use just your "memory." Give citations. Show data.
>
>To Franks deaths below the threshhold of millions aren't worthy of mention. So tell us Frank, why didn't you ever have any children? https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/playground-injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

But Tommy, you reference says:
Between 1990 and 2000, 147 children ages 14 and younger died from
playground-related injuries. Of them, 82 (56%) died from strangulation
and 31 (20%) died from falls to the playground surface. Most of these
deaths (70%) occurred on home playgrounds (Tinsworth 2001).

So in a ten year period some 82 kids died of strangulation... on a
swing set?
And, some 31 fell down and died.
And overall 102 of the 147 died at home.

And you say that swing sets are dangerious?
Actually it looks like "homes" are the most dangerious place for a
kid.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 13:18:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/23/2022 11:48 AM, Ted Heise wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:26:42 -0000 (UTC),
>> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/2022 3:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:22:06 -0500,
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2022 5:03 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 19:43:08 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>> Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> The connected features such as text/phone calls and who it
>>>>>>>> is, is genuinely useful as I can read the text if I wish,
>>>>>>>> and stop to answer the phone or ignore it, as it???s junk
>>>>>>>> etc. plus having had life changing injury gives my wife
>>>>>>>> knowledge that I can be contacted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh that's a good point. I biffed last fall, and my wife
>>>>>>> got a text message of an incident telling her the specific
>>>>>>> location. She was getting into the car to come scrape me
>>>>>>> off the pavement when I managed to connect via phone and
>>>>>>> tell her I could make it home on my own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, a life changing injury has never been a concern of
>>>>>> mine.
>>
>> Still seems like a bit of a non sequiter.
>>
>>
>>>>> I have little interest in this feature, just thought it might
>>>>> be of interest to others.
>>
>>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't
>>>> become de rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>>
>>> It???s a feature in most head units now plus stuff like Apple
>>> Watch, though would need setting up, ie clearly doesn???t know
>>> who my wife is etc.
>>
>> Well, another good point, Roger. You're entirely correct, and I
>> must have indeed set up my Garmin to know my wife's mobile number.
>> She tends to worry, so I make it a habit of letting her know what
>> route (at least generally) I'll be out on. So though I probably
>> set it up mostly out of curiosity for a new feature, I also likely
>> left it in place to accomodate her interests.
>
>I do agree that it's prudent to accommodate the desires of a wife.
>
>Not to derail the conversation, but: Way, way back in time, that's what
>got me wearing a helmet for a while. My wife said "If you're going to be
>riding to work in the center of the city, I'd like you to wear a
>helmet." I grudgingly accepted.
>
>Many years later, I'd gotten interested enough in the issue that I was
>able to show and explain the relevant data to her. She then accepted my
>decision to leave the funny hat at home. Nowadays she rides without one
>too.

While, of course I don't know your wife, I wonder as it has been my
experience over some 50 years of marriage that wives, as a general
statement, sometimes "knuckle under" in an argument peculiarly if they
see it is of lesser importance and persist in, for example, getting
the Old Man to wipe his feet before he comes in the house and gets the
carpet dirty.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/23/2022 12:29 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 1/23/2022 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:40:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
> >>>> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
> >>>>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
> >>>> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
> >>>
> >>> Let me see if I understand you Frank - no one has sued the school district for injuries and to YOU that proves the safety of swings.
> >> No, Tom, you do NOT understand me.
> >>
> >> You claim "so many deaths" from kids using playground swings that swings
> >> have nearly vanished from playgrounds. By contrast, out here in the real
> >> world swings are common and still being installed. Nothing is without
> >> risk, but there is no great worry about playground swings.
> >>
> >> Give us some citation about that huge number of deaths. If that number
> >> were in any way significant, a citation should be easy. (BTW, CPSC puts
> >> the number at about one per year, nationally. See
> >> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Injuries%20and%20Investigated%20Deaths%20Associated%20with%20Playground%20Equipment%202009%20to%202014_1.pdf?29GwYlhQ6fUwXskAQxLoGaHaE8aHZSsY)
> >>
> >> Prove me wrong. And don't use just your "memory." Give citations. Show data.
> >
> > To Franks deaths below the threshhold of millions aren't worthy of mention. So tell us Frank, why didn't you ever have any children? https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/playground-injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm
> Nice try, but we know your tactics, posting and misrepresenting largely
> irrelevant links.
>
> We were talking specifically about deaths from playground swings. You
> said, and I quote:
> "As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they disappeared.
> Children would continue going back and forth until they were up to 90
> degrees and the then they would tip over and fall inwards and drop
> children on the back of their skull and there were many deaths from
> that. Since there was no way of making those swings both cheap and safe,
> they eliminated them."
> They have NOT eliminated them. They are still installed routinely, and
> are probably the most common playground equipment. My link mentioned one
> death per year nationwide. Your link said nothing to rebut that.

So it is misdirection of me to quote the CDC that claims that most of the home swings that cause injuries and deaths? I suppose I would question who continues to misdirect.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 1/22/2022 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> I'm commenting on a general trend
>>>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>>>>
>>>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>>>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>>>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>>>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>>>>
>>>> Examples abound.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>>>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>
>>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>>
>>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>>> being injured.
>>>
>>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>>> result in injury or death".
>>
>> Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. ...
>>
>> As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they
>> disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they
>> were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall
>> inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were
>> many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings
>> both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>
> I know it's bad to disagree with Tom, but to report from the real world:
>
> Swings are as common around here as they ever were. About 30 years
> ago, one local playground did remove a "jungle gym" or "monkey bars"
> climbing set because a girl fell and broke her arm, and the parents
> sued the school system. But the swings remained, and are still
> there. In fact, several new sets have been installed both here and in
> two other towns I know well and visit often.
>
> It is true, though, that playground equipment is fancier than in the
> past. Today my wife and walked by a brand new playground under
> construction just half a mile here. Instead of a climbing set ("jungle
> gym") made of steel bars, there's a novel set that looks like a three
> dimensional network of rope segments. Maybe it's safer because you
> couldn't fall directly to the ground.
>
> Another huge playground set in a different park we frequent is three
> platforms tall, probably 25 feet or so to the top. It has two
> tunnel-style slides from the top platform down. No kid could fall out
> of the slide (although that park does have conventional slides as
> well.) Interstingly, I've seen teenagers climbing up the top surface
> of the cylindrical slide tunnels - something I'd judge far more
> dangerous than anything one would reasonably try with a conventional
> slide.
>
> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
>
>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>
> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.

Playground equipment has changed, and not just by being fancier.

When is the last time you saw a merry go round, or a seesaw? Swing
seats used to be big chunks of wood, or hard rubber, now they are thin
flexible rubber. The surface used to be dirt, or gravel, now they are
cushy wooden mulch, or a rubber surface on which to fall.

Am 21.01.2022 um 12:42 schrieb funkma...@hotmail.com:
> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 5:32:37 AM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 20.01.2022 um 22:27 schrieb Tom Kunich:
>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:08:42 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/2022 2:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>>>>> This damned Garmin is going to have to be worked on more.
>>>>>> One of the problems was the cadence worked fine for about 4
>>>>>> miles and then stopped working again. Since I'm using all
>>>>>> the correct Garmin parts I can only assume that the trip
>>>>>> magnet is losing its magnetism. I can try to rotate it a
>>>>>> little closer, this isn't the same problem on the speed
>>>>>> pickup. Also, I don't understand why when it has the speed
>>>>>> pickup it doesn't show the speed but instead two windows
>>>>>> with RPM and a distance window. Why wouldn't it show speed
>>>>>> and RPM and distance?
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent
>>>>> magnets that go bad!
>>>>>
>>>>> My sympathies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not advising anyone, but I have found a reasonable
>>>> accommodation to electronic devices on me or my bicycle:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/newfon.jpg
>>>
>>> The newer Garmin's that you push on the end of the crank arm and
>>> which allows the magnet to pass within small fractions of an
>>> inch from the detector.
>> The newest cadence senosors work with acceleration sensors rather
>> than with magnets, I recently bought
>> <https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B08PCH8WN6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1>
>> - problem is to ensure you don't lose the buggers(after two weeks
>> using this, I lent the bike to my son, and it was gone after two
>> days).
>>
>> With these it should be feasible to attach the cadence sensor to
>> your shoe or ankle, especially attractive when you switch between
>> several bikes. Has anybody tried this yet?

> No, but that's a highly intriguing suggestion. I'm going to try it
> this weekend. I've already snapped two of the "rubber band" retainers
> on my Garmin cadence sensor and resorted to just leaving it on one
> bike. I'm sure I have a velcro strap I could fix the sensor to and
> try it. I like it!

On the weekend, I discovered the Wahoo cadence sensor even officially
features a shoe mount
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pujNqcrJMsM

Rolf

Am 24.01.2022 um 02:51 schrieb Radey Shouman:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 1/22/2022 7:41 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 15:24:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> I'm commenting on a general trend
>>>>> in society that I've mentioned often before: "Safety inflation."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quite pervasive. What's perfectly accepted as adequately "safe" one
>>>>> year seems to frequently become, well, advised against ten years later.
>>>>> Then labeled as reckless maybe ten years after that. In some cases,
>>>>> declared illegal maybe ten years later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples abound.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that automatic crash detection and reporting doesn't become de
>>>>> rigueur for cycling in the future.
>>>
>>>> Somewhere I read that the slide and swing sets that used to be common
>>>> in school yards all over the country are now not seen as frequently
>>>> because "little Johnny" might get hurt and kids walking to school...
>>>> Oh MY Goodness! We can't have that it is too dangerious.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, when I was in grade school "swing sets" were common and we walked
>>>> to school, in fact there was a school ordinance that you couldn't ride
>>>> or drive to school (no parking space) and, I don't remember anyone
>>>> being injured.
>>>>
>>>> Or my pet complaint, the sign on my ladder that "Improper use may
>>>> result in injury or death".
>>>
>>> Fat Johnny, clearly you haven't been back to the US in a long time. ...
>>>
>>> As for swings, they were dangerous and that is why they
>>> disappeared. Children would continue going back and forth until they
>>> were up to 90 degrees and the then they would tip over and fall
>>> inwards and drop children on the back of their skull and there were
>>> many deaths from that. Since there was no way of making those swings
>>> both cheap and safe, they eliminated them.
>>
>> I know it's bad to disagree with Tom, but to report from the real world:
>>
>> Swings are as common around here as they ever were. About 30 years
>> ago, one local playground did remove a "jungle gym" or "monkey bars"
>> climbing set because a girl fell and broke her arm, and the parents
>> sued the school system. But the swings remained, and are still
>> there. In fact, several new sets have been installed both here and in
>> two other towns I know well and visit often.
>>
>> It is true, though, that playground equipment is fancier than in the
>> past. Today my wife and walked by a brand new playground under
>> construction just half a mile here. Instead of a climbing set ("jungle
>> gym") made of steel bars, there's a novel set that looks like a three
>> dimensional network of rope segments. Maybe it's safer because you
>> couldn't fall directly to the ground.
>>
>> Another huge playground set in a different park we frequent is three
>> platforms tall, probably 25 feet or so to the top. It has two
>> tunnel-style slides from the top platform down. No kid could fall out
>> of the slide (although that park does have conventional slides as
>> well.) Interstingly, I've seen teenagers climbing up the top surface
>> of the cylindrical slide tunnels - something I'd judge far more
>> dangerous than anything one would reasonably try with a conventional
>> slide.
>>
>> (I'd ask Tom for citations about those "so many deaths" from kids
>> falling off swings, but I know that would be futile. )
>>
>>> The problem with you isn't that you are stupid, its just that you know so much that isn't so.
>>
>> I'm just going to leave that there for the irony factor.
>
> Playground equipment has changed, and not just by being fancier.
>
> When is the last time you saw a merry go round,

https://goo.gl/maps/V9uF7YZgJJLqZiWc8 - When did that Corona thing
start? - the playground was locked off for a long time.

> The surface used to be dirt, or gravel, now they are
> cushy wooden mulch, or a rubber surface on which to fall.

Gravel below a swing is not modern standard but sand, grass or rubber
surface all are fine.

Rolf

Am 23.01.2022 um 01:47 schrieb John B.:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 13:40:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 4:48:28 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2022 2:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 11:09:05 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2022 11:36 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 4:53:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> motors since the late 1940's and I can't ever remember a starting
>>>>>>>> motor failing on the electrical side although failure or malfunction
>>>>>>>> of the "bendix drive" did happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, I might add, after the early 1950's my experience encompassed
>>>>>>>> auto's trucks, airplanes and boats. All with electric starters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your dementia has obviously grabbed the reins and you are galloping
>>>>>>>> madly toward the finish line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And as I said that you with your claimed mechanical expertise seem to
>>>>>>> not know - is that earlier starter motors did not fail as I was
>>>>>>> talking about because they were made in a different manner. But go
>>>>>>> right ahead and tell us you know about this. I was working on cars
>>>>>>> with my father handing him wrenches from 5 years old. That was how I
>>>>>>> learned fractions years ahead of my classmates. So continue to talk
>>>>>>> about it as if you understood the problem.
>>>>>> Tom, you described a AAA mechanic whacking the starter motor to get
>>>>>> yours to work. That's a classic case of a stuck solenoid, not a motor
>>>>>> problem, and it's been known for many decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True family story: My wife's mother used to tell of the Coke bottle she
>>>>>> kept under the hood of their Nash Rambler. She used it to hit the
>>>>>> starter when it wouldn't start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She wasn't an engineer either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank, please stop showing your ignorance of new type cars with PM
>>>>> starter motors. They have a spring loaded starter gear and not a
>>>>> solenoid. Whether you've learned it or not - mechanical devices progress
>>>>> as rapidly as electronics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How new?
>>>> Here's a 2021 Camry system, remarkably similar to my 1965
>>>> Corvair except the Camry solenoid is a cute bronze-y color.
>>>>
>>>> https://motogurumag.com/diagram-mvxbqc/
>>>>
>>> They have both.
>>>
>>> The solenoid is energized by the ignition switch and applies voltage to the
>>> starter motor. The “spring loaded starter gear” is driven by the starter
>>> motor via a helical spline. The inertia of the gear forces it out on the
>>> shaft, where it then engages with gear teeth on the flywheel to start the
>>> engine. When the engine overruns the starter, the over speed of the engine,
>>> plus the return spring pushes the starter gear back along the helical
>>> spline, which disengages it from the flywheel.
>>
>> Exactly, from memory they stopped using electromagnetic starters and solenoids in the late 80's. This is when gas mileage started becoming important with the rapid growth of the price of gasoline. Suddenly the weight and frontal area and aerodynamic drag started becoming important. Before that those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs. Today a large size car like my Ford Taurus weighs 6,000 lbs and the aerodynamic drag is so low that on my trip to Arizona and back I averaged as much as 38 mpg. My car is 2007.
>
> "those monster cars weighed between 8,000 and 10,000 lbs" ???
>
> Really?
>
> https://www.carsguide.com.au/ford/ltd/car-dimensions/1975
> Weight - 1760 kg... or 3880.1358 lb
> https://tinyurl.com/3nh4tnrv
> 1970 Ford Fairlane/Torino - 3,116–3,774 lb
> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s16345/ford-galaxie.aspx
> weight - 3730 lbs
> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s11870/ford-custom-deluxe.aspx
> weight - 3060 lbs
> https://www.conceptcarz.com/s7517/ford-deluxe.aspx
> weight - 2970 lbs

It's interesting that most European cars at those times were well below
2000 lbs while today the industry seems to agree world-wide that a
proper car weighs around 4000 lbs ;-)

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 7:07:07 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 6:38:28 a.m. UTC-5, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 5:56:43 AM UTC-5, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 9:45:19 PM UTC+1, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 2:30:30 PM UTC-5, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Is there a reason for this snotty remark?
> > > > It's called sarcasm, and should be treated as such. Given the level of vitriol from a few members here (guilty as charged) it was pretty tame.
> > >
> > > Don't you think we can do with a little less sarcasm here? I think we do.
> > >
> > > > Like you, I appreciate the plug-n-play simplicity of the single-component solution and certainly prefer it over the magnet/reed switch with the (albeit minor) alignment issues,
> > >
> > > That was my point. It is less complicated for most people but we get 'sarcasm' from someone who doesn't actual use it.
> > >
> > > >but at the end of the day such advancements don't really enhance my cycling experience to any great extent. If I didn't have a cadence monitor at all it wouldn't affect my riding habits at all, so there is a certain amount of credibility with a comment like "gee, how have I survived this long without that?"
> > >
> > > That was not the point. Someone mentioned here how the latest cadence/speed sensors work. I corrected that with a link and dang here comes Frank saying it is complicated and fool that I am I tried to explain why it isn't complicated but more simple and than we get sarcasm. The whole process pisses me off. I think I go 'visit' Jay for a while. WTF.
> > >
> > Lou, I think we need more people here with less vitriol, not the other way around, and yes we could do with less sarcasm. However, before we can get to that level, we need to get rid of certain members who post off-topic lies, misinformation, and hate, then attack anyone who disagrees with them as stupid, fat, ignorant, communist, fascist, ......etc. regardless of evidence presented showing their claims are incorrect. When discussion topics like the ones below are posted consistently, a little sarcasm which was _not_ directed at anyone personally is the least of our (admittedly first-world) problems here.
> >
> > 45% of Democrats want Concentration Camps for Unvaccinated
> > UK Government also says Tom Kunich Right, you Monkeys Wrong
> > New York Times says Tom Kunich right, RBT monkeys wrong
> > CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says Tom Kunich right, you monkeys wrong
> > Amateur Hour: Another Day, Another CDC COVID Reversal
> > Even the pretense of science is gone from global warming hysteria
> > If this is even half-true
> > More on Covid-19
> > Portrait of the netstalker Peter Howard, AKA funk master
> > An unquestionable disgrace of American "Justice"
> > Comedy at its finest
> >
> > That's just the past month. I unfortunately get sucked into it - mea culpa - but I appreciate the fact that you manage to stay above the fray.
> If you use a dedicated Newsgroup reader you can simply killfile those trolls and those who persist in responding to them.
>
> If you don't use a dedicated Newsgroup reader, you cab simply not click on any threads they start or hijack.
>
> Doing either saves me a lot of aggravation.
>
Points well-taken....

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> That is sort of like Jeffy claiming that using TDR isn't an example of pulse width modulation because he things that you can use a single pulse width to measure any length of wire.

Again, you brain-dead half-wit, changing a static pulse width for a TDR measurement is _not_ PWM. PWM is _not_ used to test cables. Through all this back-and-forth, you have yet to provide any support to your claim that PWM is used to test cables, or even the TDR uses PWM (it doesn't). That you claim it doesn't prove it. Even the links you _have_ provided make no mention of PWM. Show us a link - any link - which supports the idea that PWM (stated specifically as PWM) is used in testing cables, or even TDR, or even that in TDR the pulse width is 'modulated' (not 'changed' but actually using the term 'modulated'). And no, using the generic definition of 'modulate' as an indication of change does _not_ cut it in the context of electrical signals. PWM is a very specific electrical control technique having no application in testing cables.