On 1/23/2022 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> 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.

I agree playground equipment has changed. Some of that is fashion, some
of it is Safety Inflation. (Everything must always be made safer than it
was before.)

But merry-go-rounds or seesaws have certainly not disappeared in our
area. As recently as November we took two little kids to a fancy
playground where I had the job of spinning the platform merry-go-round
as fast as I possibly could.

I think aside from fancier, more innovative equipment to provide new fun
experiences, the most common changes have been these:

1) Playgrounds are much more likely to have wood chip surfaces rather
than plain dirt. (But I'll note those soon get kicked away under the
swings Tom worries about.)

2) New playground equipment is designed to preclude any sharp edges at
all. For example, special fasteners tend to be used instead of classic
nuts and bolts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/24/2022 6:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> 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 ;-)

We're considering an electric car. Of course, the weight penalty is huge.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 6:26:25 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 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.

You are less than a technician. So perhaps without the slightest understanding of engineering you should stop tell other people your lies of total ignorance.

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:38:39 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/24/2022 6:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Am 23.01.2022 um 01:47 schrieb John B.:
> >> 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
> >
> > 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 ;-)
> We're considering an electric car. Of course, the weight penalty is huge.

I'd like to know exactly where the weights of these cars are coming from. They are showing the weight of a 2022 Camaro at about the same weight as a 1982 Buick Century. The Buick was totally steel. The bumpers were steel, the wheels were steel, the engine was a carbureted engine with a cast iron block and a cast iron intake manifold.

The new cars are largely plastic with steel bracing like an aircraft. The wheels are aluminum, Many of the engine blocks are aluminum though many are the original cast iron blocks from the 80's they are fuel injected so they have no manifolds All of the suspension components are cast aluminum. Why would they show the same weight for these cars? There's more aircraft technology in a new car than older auto technology. So either the weights listed on the older cars or the newer ones have to be incorrect.

Tesla's are anywhere from the same weight as a IC auto to almost twice the weight for a SEDAN!

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 12:32:06 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 6:26:25 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
> You are less than a technician. So perhaps without the slightest understanding of engineering you should stop tell other people your lies of total ignorance.

Lies like "pwm is used for testing cables" and "light lines is a common term for fiber optics".

Keep flailing tommy, Meanwhile, we aren't holding our breath waiting for a link that lists TDR as an example of PWM. lol.....

On 1/24/2022 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/23/2022 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I agree playground equipment has changed. Some of that is
> fashion, some of it is Safety Inflation. (Everything must
> always be made safer than it was before.)
>
> But merry-go-rounds or seesaws have certainly not
> disappeared in our area. As recently as November we took two
> little kids to a fancy playground where I had the job of
> spinning the platform merry-go-round as fast as I possibly
> could.
>
> I think aside from fancier, more innovative equipment to
> provide new fun experiences, the most common changes have
> been these:
>
> 1) Playgrounds are much more likely to have wood chip
> surfaces rather than plain dirt. (But I'll note those soon
> get kicked away under the swings Tom worries about.)
>
> 2) New playground equipment is designed to preclude any
> sharp edges at all. For example, special fasteners tend to
> be used instead of classic nuts and bolts.
>
>

Some of it is natural progression and good design. See also
Leco baby seats, known in the bike shop as a 'finger biter'

https://www.etsy.com/listing/83793188/vintage-1960s-childs-bike-seat

I agree with you that much of it is 'safety inflation'.

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

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 5:51:30 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@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.
They don't have playground toys around here. Baseball diamonds and such are now standard.

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 7:14:29 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/21/2022 8:36 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 1/20/2022 8:39 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:10:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40 degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to maneuver back onto the bike path.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but a lot less than usual.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
> >>>>
> >>>> :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
> >>> >from Lil' Abner
> >>>> http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
> >>>> although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
> >>>> to fall on yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
> >>>> can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
> >>>> better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
> >>>>
> >>>> From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
> >>>> "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
> >>>> strength."
> >>>>
> >>>> From
> >>>> https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
> >>>> "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."
> >>>>
> >>>> From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
> >>>> "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
> >>>> strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
> >>>> for properly."
> >>>>
> >>>> From
> >>>> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/216527/do-magnets-ever-lose-their-magnetism-and-if-so-how-long-does-it-take
> >>>> "A temporary magnet can lose its magnetization in less than 1 hour.
> >>>> Neodymium magnets lose less than 1% of their strength over 10 years.
> >>>> Permanent magnets such as sintered Nd-Fe-B magnets remain magnetized
> >>>> indefinitely."
> >>>>
> >>>>> Then you can explain why modern PM starter motors have such a high failure rate.
> >>>>
> >>>> So far, all I've seen is a Kunich allusion to that high failure rate..
> >>>> Can you give us a reputable link with evidence that their failures are
> >>>> so terrible? Maybe some data?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm joking! Of course you can't!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Can you give us a reputable link with evidence that their failures
> >>> are so terrible? Maybe some data?"???
> >>>
> >>> Good Lord! Don't you realize that Tommy doesn't have to offer proof of
> >>> anything? Tommy simply follows the teaching of Dr. Goebbels who taught
> >>> that "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
> >>> eventually come to believe it."
> >>>
> >> I have a more than usual (less than Mr Slocumb)experience
> >> with maintenance of classic motor vehicles and among the
> >> least trouble-prone systems is a 12v starter motor with big
> >> heavy iron magnets. Never saw one fail except for bearings
> >> and the bendix drive. Solenoids do stick (best remedy- smack
> >> smartly with something heavy, especially in cold weather)
> >> but respond well to a good cleaning and lubrication.
> >>
> >> I don't recall reading anything about starter motors so,
> >> since my auto library is nearby, I checked the official GM
> >> service manuals for 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 just now. Each
> >> has 15 sections (engine specs/setup, cooling, exhaust, fuel,
> >> suspension, gearbox etc). There's no mention of starter
> >> motor service in all four thick books.
> > That's because GM never was into servicing the way that Ford and especially Chrysler were. My Chrysler factory service manuals from the '60s through the '80s are thick tomes that tell you how to fix everything in great detail (including rebuilding the carburetor, overhauling the transmission, starter and alternator, etc.), because they wanted the dumbest mechanic in Podunk to be able to keep the customers happy. Same with Porsche. GM, not so much. They want to sell you a new car when the old one breaks.
> >
> I don't own any Chrysler manuals (never owned a Chrysler
> product) but GM manuals cover myriad service details such as
> soldering in new diodes to the alternator, rebuild/repair of
> every other system. What fails in a Chrysler starter? Not
> much, I would assume.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
All Chrysler and some Ford products use a starter relay mounted on the fenderwell which feeds power to a starter-mounted solenoid. When cranking, only the current for the starter relay has to go through the ignition switch, minimizing current draw through the ignition switch. GM never adopted this good design.

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> writes:

> 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.

Way too long. I didn't see the picture, but I'll believe that it's in
there somewhere. I haven't seen either one in a number of years -- old
ones disappear and are not replaced. I did a websearch on new merry go
rounds, and discovered that they are now offered with mechanical speed
governors to keep the tykes from overdoing it. In the US market you
might not be able to buy any other kind.

Twenty years or so ago we saw the old merry go round at my wife's old
school. It had a handwheel brought up in the center, which remained
stationary so that you could turn it from there instead of running
around it. Zoom. Long gone, of course.

>> 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.

German grass must be tougher than US grass, under the swings ours was
always quickly destroyed.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 1/23/2022 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I agree playground equipment has changed. Some of that is fashion,
> some of it is Safety Inflation. (Everything must always be made safer
> than it was before.)
>
> But merry-go-rounds or seesaws have certainly not disappeared in our
> area. As recently as November we took two little kids to a fancy
> playground where I had the job of spinning the platform merry-go-round
> as fast as I possibly could.

Perhaps Ohio is behind the safety curve. Ten or fifteen years ago I
could have easily located playgrounds with both seesaws and merry go
rounds, now I don't know of any near me. I haven't searched, there
probably some old ones somewhere.

> I think aside from fancier, more innovative equipment to provide new
> fun experiences, the most common changes have been these:
>
> 1) Playgrounds are much more likely to have wood chip surfaces rather
> than plain dirt. (But I'll note those soon get kicked away under the
> swings Tom worries about.)
>
> 2) New playground equipment is designed to preclude any sharp edges at
> all. For example, special fasteners tend to be used instead of classic
> nuts and bolts.

--

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:00:07 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 8:38:39 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/24/2022 6:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> > Am 23.01.2022 um 01:47 schrieb John B.:
>> >> 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
>> >
>> > 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 ;-)
>> We're considering an electric car. Of course, the weight penalty is huge.
>
>I'd like to know exactly where the weights of these cars are coming from. They are showing the weight of a 2022 Camaro at about the same weight as a 1982 Buick Century. The Buick was totally steel. The bumpers were steel, the wheels were steel, the engine was a carbureted engine with a cast iron block and a cast iron intake manifold.
>
>The new cars are largely plastic with steel bracing like an aircraft. The wheels are aluminum, Many of the engine blocks are aluminum though many are the original cast iron blocks from the 80's they are fuel injected so they have no manifolds All of the suspension components are cast aluminum. Why would they show the same weight for these cars? There's more aircraft technology in a new car than older auto technology. So either the weights listed on the older cars or the newer ones have to be incorrect.
>
>Tesla's are anywhere from the same weight as a IC auto to almost twice the weight for a SEDAN!

Tommy, the Internet is your friend, see
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/why-are-modern-cars-so-heavy
Mandated Safety Features Add Mass
Comfort and Convenience Features Add Weight Too
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/24/2022 5:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 1/23/2022 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I agree playground equipment has changed. Some of that is fashion,
>> some of it is Safety Inflation. (Everything must always be made safer
>> than it was before.)
>>
>> But merry-go-rounds or seesaws have certainly not disappeared in our
>> area. As recently as November we took two little kids to a fancy
>> playground where I had the job of spinning the platform merry-go-round
>> as fast as I possibly could.
>
> Perhaps Ohio is behind the safety curve. Ten or fifteen years ago I
> could have easily located playgrounds with both seesaws and merry go
> rounds, now I don't know of any near me. I haven't searched, there
> probably some old ones somewhere.

Well, we have grandkids of an appropriate age for playgrounds. We tend
to visit a lot of them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/24/2022 5:45 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> I did a websearch on new merry go
> rounds, and discovered that they are now offered with mechanical speed
> governors to keep the tykes from overdoing it. In the US market you
> might not be able to buy any other kind.

Interesting! I mentioned being tasked with spinning one at a pretty new
playground last autumn. I worked like heck but couldn't get it over,
oh, maybe 50 rpm. I wonder if it had some sort of governor.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:10:19 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40 degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to maneuver back onto the bike path.
> >>>
> >>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but a lot less than usual..
> >>>
> >>> 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...
> >
> >> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
> >
> > Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
> :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
> from Lil' Abner
> http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
> although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
> to fall on yourself.
>
> However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
> can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
> > Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
> I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
> better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
>
> From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
> "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
> strength."
>
> From
> https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
> "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."

>
> From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
> "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
> strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
> for properly."
>

Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too. Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30 miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?

> From
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/216527/do-magnets-ever-lose-their-magnetism-and-if-so-how-long-does-it-take
> "A temporary magnet can lose its magnetization in less than 1 hour.
> Neodymium magnets lose less than 1% of their strength over 10 years.
> Permanent magnets such as sintered Nd-Fe-B magnets remain magnetized
> indefinitely."
> > Then you can explain why modern PM starter motors have such a high failure rate.
> So far, all I've seen is a Kunich allusion to that high failure rate.
> Can you give us a reputable link with evidence that their failures are
> so terrible? Maybe some data?
>
> I'm joking! Of course you can't!
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On 1/24/2022 7:45 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:10:19 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40 degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to maneuver back onto the bike path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but a lot less than usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
>>>
>>> Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
>> :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
>> from Lil' Abner
>> http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
>> although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
>> to fall on yourself.
>>
>> However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
>> can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
>>> Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
>> I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
>> better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
>>
>> From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
>> "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
>> strength."
>>
>> From
>> https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
>> "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."
>
>>
>> From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
>> "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
>> strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
>> for properly."
>>
>
> Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too. Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30 miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?
>

Of course, I'm not the one claiming that magnets spontaneously become
useless! I too have compasses that are decades old and work perfectly.

I also have a collection of modern magnets I use for various things -
magnetic welding clamps, a collection of beer bottle caps in which I
glued high strength magnets to hold post cards and notes on the
refrigerator door, etc. etc. I also have some I've harvested from
defunct hard drives. Despite being dropped, impacted, and in some cases
heated, all continue to work. Most of these are modern magnets
(neodymium or similar) that are pretty robust.

I remember long ago (age 17, IIRC) demagnetizing something or other in
physics class by means of a coil that was fed AC electricity. The trick
was, if you suddenly shut off the coil with the item inside, it would be
magnetized. If you pulled it away while the coil carried current, it
demagnetized.

Bike related: I recall that Jobst once constructed a rig to re-magnetize
Sturmey-Archer Dynohubs that had been improperly disassembled. If you
took those apart without a proper "keeper" they demagnetized. I machined
my own "keeper" that allowed me to dismantle and repair the one I now
use on my three speed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 1:45:20 AM UTC+1, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:

> Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too. Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30 miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?

https://theafsluitdijk.com/

Lou

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 3:20:47 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
> I also have a collection of modern magnets I use for various things -
> magnetic welding clamps, a collection of beer bottle caps in which I
> glued high strength magnets to hold post cards and notes on the
> refrigerator door, etc. etc. I also have some I've harvested from
> defunct hard drives. Despite being dropped, impacted, and in some cases
> heated, all continue to work. Most of these are modern magnets
> (neodymium or similar) that are pretty robust.
>
> I remember long ago (age 17, IIRC) demagnetizing something or other in
> physics class by means of a coil that was fed AC electricity. The trick
> was, if you suddenly shut off the coil with the item inside, it would be
> magnetized. If you pulled it away while the coil carried current, it
> demagnetized.
>
> Bike related: I recall that Jobst once constructed a rig to re-magnetize
> Sturmey-Archer Dynohubs that had been improperly disassembled. If you
> took those apart without a proper "keeper" they demagnetized. I machined
> my own "keeper" that allowed me to dismantle and repair the one I now
> use on my three speed.

In the beginning of my career we used a lot of PMDC motors in our engines. The lifetime in our applications were always problematic: wear of the brushes and when they draw a lot of current (used out of spec or in case of an error situation) they loose torque because the magnets got demagnetized. They got replaced by BLDC motor when the came available and affordable and stepper motors. In some of my designs a used very strong magnets to hold parts in place and for preload bearings. That are excellent applications for strong magnets.

Lou

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/2022 7:45 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:10:19 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40
>>>>>> degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't
>>>>>> like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy
>>>>>> fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag
>>>>>> and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park
>>>>>> ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I
>>>>>> think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he
>>>>>> leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that
>>>>>> probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to
>>>>>> maneuver back onto the bike path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail
>>>>>> because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland
>>>>>> Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road
>>>>>> that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner
>>>>>> with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I
>>>>>> made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay
>>>>>> Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist
>>>>>> going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in
>>>>>> that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many
>>>>>> people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot
>>>>>> of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland
>>>>>> Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but
>>>>>> a lot less than usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>>> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
>>>>
>>>> Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and
>>>> a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
>>> :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
>>> from Lil' Abner
>>> http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
>>> although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
>>> to fall on yourself.
>>>
>>> However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
>>> can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
>>>> Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials
>>>> they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
>>> I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
>>> better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
>>>
>>> From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
>>> "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
>>> strength."
>>>
>>> From
>>> https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
>>> "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."
>>
>>>
>>> From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
>>> "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
>>> strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
>>> for properly."
>>>
>>
>> Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used
>> inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over
>> Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too.
>> Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I
>> presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall
>> dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am
>> talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30
>> miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't
>> really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just
>> left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have
>> not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would
>> point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?
>>
>
> Of course, I'm not the one claiming that magnets spontaneously become
> useless! I too have compasses that are decades old and work perfectly.
>
> I also have a collection of modern magnets I use for various things -
> magnetic welding clamps, a collection of beer bottle caps in which I
> glued high strength magnets to hold post cards and notes on the
> refrigerator door, etc. etc. I also have some I've harvested from
> defunct hard drives. Despite being dropped, impacted, and in some cases
> heated, all continue to work. Most of these are modern magnets
> (neodymium or similar) that are pretty robust.
>
> I remember long ago (age 17, IIRC) demagnetizing something or other in
> physics class by means of a coil that was fed AC electricity. The trick
> was, if you suddenly shut off the coil with the item inside, it would be
> magnetized. If you pulled it away while the coil carried current, it
> demagnetized.
>
> Bike related: I recall that Jobst once constructed a rig to re-magnetize
> Sturmey-Archer Dynohubs that had been improperly disassembled. If you
> took those apart without a proper "keeper" they demagnetized. I machined
> my own "keeper" that allowed me to dismantle and repair the one I now
> use on my three speed.
>
>

The shape of the B-H curve for a magnetic material tells you how hard a
material is to demagnetize. The squarer the curve is, the more resistant
the material is to demagnetization. Older materials (eg: SA dynohubs) were
not so good in that regard.

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 4:14:39 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/24/2022 5:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 1/23/2022 8:51 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> >>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@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.
> >>
> >> I agree playground equipment has changed. Some of that is fashion,
> >> some of it is Safety Inflation. (Everything must always be made safer
> >> than it was before.)
> >>
> >> But merry-go-rounds or seesaws have certainly not disappeared in our
> >> area. As recently as November we took two little kids to a fancy
> >> playground where I had the job of spinning the platform merry-go-round
> >> as fast as I possibly could.
> >
> > Perhaps Ohio is behind the safety curve. Ten or fifteen years ago I
> > could have easily located playgrounds with both seesaws and merry go
> > rounds, now I don't know of any near me. I haven't searched, there
> > probably some old ones somewhere.
> Well, we have grandkids of an appropriate age for playgrounds. We tend
> to visit a lot of them.

Real grandparents always have concern for the safety of their grandchildren. Your not raises questions.

On 1/25/2022 9:28 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2022 7:45 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:10:19 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40
>>>>>>> degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't
>>>>>>> like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy
>>>>>>> fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag
>>>>>>> and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park
>>>>>>> ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I
>>>>>>> think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he
>>>>>>> leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that
>>>>>>> probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to
>>>>>>> maneuver back onto the bike path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail
>>>>>>> because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland
>>>>>>> Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road
>>>>>>> that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner
>>>>>>> with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I
>>>>>>> made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay
>>>>>>> Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist
>>>>>>> going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in
>>>>>>> that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many
>>>>>>> people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot
>>>>>>> of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland
>>>>>>> Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but
>>>>>>> a lot less than usual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and
>>>>> a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
>>>> :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
>>>> from Lil' Abner
>>>> http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
>>>> although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
>>>> to fall on yourself.
>>>>
>>>> However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
>>>> can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
>>>>> Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials
>>>>> they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
>>>> I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
>>>> better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
>>>>
>>>> From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
>>>> "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
>>>> strength."
>>>>
>>>> From
>>>> https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
>>>> "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
>>>> "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
>>>> strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
>>>> for properly."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used
>>> inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over
>>> Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too.
>>> Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I
>>> presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall
>>> dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am
>>> talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30
>>> miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't
>>> really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just
>>> left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have
>>> not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would
>>> point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?
>>>
>>
>> Of course, I'm not the one claiming that magnets spontaneously become
>> useless! I too have compasses that are decades old and work perfectly.
>>
>> I also have a collection of modern magnets I use for various things -
>> magnetic welding clamps, a collection of beer bottle caps in which I
>> glued high strength magnets to hold post cards and notes on the
>> refrigerator door, etc. etc. I also have some I've harvested from
>> defunct hard drives. Despite being dropped, impacted, and in some cases
>> heated, all continue to work. Most of these are modern magnets
>> (neodymium or similar) that are pretty robust.
>>
>> I remember long ago (age 17, IIRC) demagnetizing something or other in
>> physics class by means of a coil that was fed AC electricity. The trick
>> was, if you suddenly shut off the coil with the item inside, it would be
>> magnetized. If you pulled it away while the coil carried current, it
>> demagnetized.
>>
>> Bike related: I recall that Jobst once constructed a rig to re-magnetize
>> Sturmey-Archer Dynohubs that had been improperly disassembled. If you
>> took those apart without a proper "keeper" they demagnetized. I machined
>> my own "keeper" that allowed me to dismantle and repair the one I now
>> use on my three speed.
>>
>>
>
> The shape of the B-H curve for a magnetic material tells you how hard a
> material is to demagnetize. The squarer the curve is, the more resistant
> the material is to demagnetization. Older materials (eg: SA dynohubs) were
> not so good in that regard.
>

Thank you! That, sir, was fascinating:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/electromagnetism/magnetic-hysteresis.html

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

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 6:20:47 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/24/2022 7:45 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:10:19 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40 degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to maneuver back onto the bike path.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but a lot less than usual.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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...
> >>>
> >>>> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
> >>>
> >>> Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
> >> :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
> >> from Lil' Abner
> >> http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
> >> although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
> >> to fall on yourself.
> >>
> >> However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
> >> can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
> >>> Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
> >> I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
> >> better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
> >>
> >> From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
> >> "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
> >> strength."
> >>
> >> From
> >> https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
> >> "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."
> >
> >>
> >> From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
> >> "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
> >> strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
> >> for properly."
> >>
> >
> > Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too. Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30 miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?
> >
> Of course, I'm not the one claiming that magnets spontaneously become
> useless! I too have compasses that are decades old and work perfectly.

And neither did I but you have no problem lying about it. Why is that?
> I also have a collection of modern magnets I use for various things -
> magnetic welding clamps, a collection of beer bottle caps in which I
> glued high strength magnets to hold post cards and notes on the
> refrigerator door, etc. etc. I also have some I've harvested from
> defunct hard drives. Despite being dropped, impacted, and in some cases
> heated, all continue to work. Most of these are modern magnets
> (neodymium or similar) that are pretty robust.

So despite supposedly being a mechanical engineer you would never for one second consider the actual impact of a small magnet glued into a bottle cap falling a couple of feet with the increased aerodynamic drag. Every time you post I have a greater understanding of your ability to think. Or should I say, inability?

Anything concerning Jobst is a waste of time.

On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 4:45:20 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:10:19 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 1/20/2022 4:08 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:38:29 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >> On 1/20/2022 2:14 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>> I hit the road shortly after that posting and besides it being 40 degrees, there was heavy fog with a visibility of 1/4 mile. I didn't like riding in traffic that cannot tell the difference between heavy fog and wet roads and the Daytona 500 so I got off of the main drag and road on the bike trail. Entering the bike trail there was a park ranger parked in such a manner that you could pass on the road. I think he got out to pick up some paper. But in the cold why would he leave his door half open? So I cut by on the grass verge that probably barely had enough traction being soaking wet for me to maneuver back onto the bike path.
> > >>>
> > >>> Because of the fog and nothing to see I was watching the trail because of the cracks everywhere. I finally made it to the Oakland Airport which has a bike path along one side of the road. I road that into Alameda and there was so damn much traffic at the corner with the coffee shop on it that I just rode past and returned. As I made it to a main rode that feeds the industrial section down on Bay Farm Island I was rather surprised to see a large group of cyclist going the opposite direction. There must have been 20 cyclists in that group. This is a working day! Where are they getting that many people with that much time off? Because of the fog, I missed a lot of normal markers such as a bridge over a creek at the Oakland Colosseum. But no matter, the trail had people and riders on it but a lot less than usual.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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...
> > >
> > >> You certainly do have lots of problems! Even permanent magnets that go bad!
> > >
> > > Well, if I rode a 1985 touring bike with bar end friction shifters and a mechanical speedometer, I probably wouldn't have ant problems either.
> > :-) Actually, Tom, I think you would. You remind me of this character
> > from Lil' Abner
> > http://www.deniskitchen.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/BP_240.B.JPG
> > although Joe tended to be a jinx for other people. Your misfortune seems
> > to fall on yourself.
> >
> > However, there's something to be said for sticking with technology you
> > can understand. Hey Tom, have you tried a fixie with solid tires? :-)
> > > Why don't you give us a dissertation on modern magnets, the materials they are made from and their relative strength and longevity?
> > I'll start with some simple citations. When you disprove these using
> > better information, I'll see if a rebuttal is justified.
> >
> > From https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-magnets-wear-out/
> > "a modern samarium-cobalt magnet takes around 700 years to lose half its
> > strength."
> >
> > From
> > https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24732911-800-does-magnetism-decay-over-time/
> > "Modern magnets made of rare earth alloys may even last for centuries."
>
> >
> > From https://mpimagnet.com/education-center/how-long-will-your-magnet-last
> > "Your permanent magnet should lose no more than 1% of its magnetic
> > strength over a period of 100 years provided it is specified and cared
> > for properly."
> >
> Frank, how do you properly care for a magnet? I have a magnet I used inside my map case on top of my handlebar bag. Guided me all over Europe in 1992. Along with the paper maps I put in the map case too. Its a thin plastic piece with a spinning arrow inside. Points North I presume. Guided me from Rome Italy up to north Germany and that seawall dike along the north edge of The Netherlands. Lou knows which one I am talking about. They have a bike trail on the top of the dike. 20-30 miles long. I have not cared for my magnet any since 1992. Didn't really take care of it too much during the summer of 1992 either. Just left it inside the plastic case. Would it still work today since I have not cared for it at all for the past 30 years? Do you think it would point South today instead of North since I have not cared for it?

zero longitude was chosen among other reasons because it was very close to magnetic north and actual north. I don't remember what the pole wander has done to that but since most of Europe is close enough to zero longitude that you can pretty much ignore magnetic correction. As for preventing damage to a compass magnet - don't hit it with a hammer on a hard surface. Compass magnets are very small and very light and it takes a great deal of force to demagnetize them. Also remember that magnetic force is logarithmic and drops rapidly as the distance from the source is increased. So a magnet in a compass isn't attracted to the possibly sheetmetal case but to the Earth's magnetic poles which are very much more attractive. Now, navigation maps show magnetic deviation. road maps do not require compass readings save in the oddest of situations.

On 1/25/2022 11:21 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> zero longitude was chosen among other reasons because it was very close to magnetic north and actual north. I don't remember what the pole wander has done to that but since most of Europe is close enough to zero longitude that you can pretty much ignore magnetic correction. As for preventing damage to a compass magnet - don't hit it with a hammer on a hard surface. Compass magnets are very small and very light and it takes a great deal of force to demagnetize them. Also remember that magnetic force is logarithmic and drops rapidly as the distance from the source is increased. So a magnet in a compass isn't attracted to the possibly sheetmetal case but to the Earth's magnetic poles which are very much more attractive. Now, navigation maps show magnetic deviation. road maps do not require compass readings save in the oddest of situations.

Too many errors there to bother listing. It's just Tom being Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 8:51:38 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/25/2022 11:21 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > zero longitude was chosen among other reasons because it was very close to magnetic north and actual north. I don't remember what the pole wander has done to that but since most of Europe is close enough to zero longitude that you can pretty much ignore magnetic correction. As for preventing damage to a compass magnet - don't hit it with a hammer on a hard surface. Compass magnets are very small and very light and it takes a great deal of force to demagnetize them. Also remember that magnetic force is logarithmic and drops rapidly as the distance from the source is increased. So a magnet in a compass isn't attracted to the possibly sheetmetal case but to the Earth's magnetic poles which are very much more attractive. Now, navigation maps show magnetic deviation. road maps do not require compass readings save in the oddest of situations.
> Too many errors there to bother listing. It's just Tom being Tom.

Frank, I gave citations. Why haven't you? Why are you under the mistaken belief that you are an authority on anything? From you previous comments we now know that you have break-downs and failures like everyone else but you simply don't mention them because then you could become less of an authority in your own eyes. Not that it matters because you're no authority at all in anyone's.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 1/24/2022 5:45 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>> I did a websearch on new merry go
>> rounds, and discovered that they are now offered with mechanical speed
>> governors to keep the tykes from overdoing it. In the US market you
>> might not be able to buy any other kind.
>
> Interesting! I mentioned being tasked with spinning one at a pretty
> new playground last autumn. I worked like heck but couldn't get it
> over, oh, maybe 50 rpm. I wonder if it had some sort of governor.

Sounds possible. I have not seen one of these governors, just read a
few sales blurbs.