General > General Technical Chat
Coin cell safety improvement a world first in Australia
james_s:
--- Quote from: themadhippy on December 27, 2020, 10:50:48 pm ---
--- Quote ---Who washes dishes by hand? I'll occasionally wash something that way if I need it right away or if it's too big to fit well in the dishwasher but I don't know anybody who regularly does their dishes by hand
--- End quote ---
you do now,dont own,never had nor ever want a dishwasher,total waste of energy, space and money
--- End quote ---
Space, yeah there is that, UK houses are tiny compared to what I'm used to, no way around that. Money? I got my dishwasher for free but even a new one is only a few hundred bucks. Energy? It costs pennies per wash cycle, and washing by hand isn't free either, I end up using a lot more water washing by hand because the rinse water isn't recirculated at all, it runs right down the drain for each individual dish. A dishwasher also normally heats the water as it circulates so it stays hot without having to drain it and bring in more hot water. The main thing is time, a dishwasher cuts the time I spend washing a load of dishes down to a fraction, and time is by far the most valuable commodity I have. It is the one single thing that I cannot acquire more of and with the time saved not doing a chore I loathe a dishwasher would be an absolute bargain at 10 times what they actually cost.
tszaboo:
--- Quote from: james_s on December 27, 2020, 10:55:23 pm ---
--- End quote ---
I'd be inclined to tell you to vacate so I can move someone else in there.
[/quote]
Well, unfortunately, you don't get to do that.
--- Quote from: james_s on December 27, 2020, 10:55:23 pm ---Frankly that wording "most laws are made for you" gives me the creeps. Big Brother knows best. Did you ever read the novel "1984"? It is frightening.
--- End quote ---
So typical. You cannot even imagine anything between "FREEDOOOM!!!" and a dystopian communism, do you.
Yes, if we mandate companies to install a small screw so small children don't choke to their death, we will live in a dystopia. And laws are stupid. And stupid people should die. And spending 30 seconds on a safety measure, is wrong, it makes your life unbearable. Really, you cannot see that you are being an ignorant [insert word here], ranting about safety laws in other countries...
--- Quote from: james_s on December 27, 2020, 10:45:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: vk6zgo on December 27, 2020, 07:09:33 am ---Maybe with a machine, but it makes no difference with a human, who can see where the gunk is & remove it.
--- End quote ---
Who washes dishes by hand? I'll occasionally wash something that way if I need it right away or if it's too big to fit well in the dishwasher but I don't know anybody who regularly does their dishes by hand, nearly everyone has a dishwasher.
--- End quote ---
Have you ever stepped outside your country? Your state? Or, you know, see any documentaries on Fox news about other countries?
tooki:
--- Quote from: themadhippy on December 27, 2020, 10:50:48 pm ---
--- Quote ---Who washes dishes by hand? I'll occasionally wash something that way if I need it right away or if it's too big to fit well in the dishwasher but I don't know anybody who regularly does their dishes by hand
--- End quote ---
you do now,dont own,never had nor ever want a dishwasher,total waste of energy, space and money
--- End quote ---
Dishwashers use far less water (and because of that, far less energy) than handwashing. I have no idea where some people get the idea that dishwashers waste energy, because the exact opposite is true.
tooki:
--- Quote from: james_s on December 27, 2020, 01:41:45 am ---
--- Quote from: tooki on December 27, 2020, 12:17:01 am ---IMHO, the US doesn't have a problem of excessive regulation, but of poorly-designed legislation.
But first, a lot of legislation isn't what people think it is. Your example of the gas cans is a perfect one. The law itself is not nearly as draconian or unreasonable as you make it out to be.
The CARB regulation requires the cans to seal automatically and to be made such as to reduce permeation of the fuel. It does NOT ban a vent:
--- Quote ---A portable fuel container system may incorporate a secondary opening (i.e. an opening other than the opening needed for the spout) provided the secondary opening is not easily tampered with by a consumer, and it does not emit hydrocarbon vapors in excess of the amounts specified in this procedure during fueling, storage, transportation, or handling events.
Any secondary opening that relieves pressure and improves fuel flow during dispensing shall be normally closed and must automatically return to the closed position when released.
--- End quote ---
Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/fuel-containers/pfc/pfccp501.pdf (the certification requirements)
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/consprod/fuel-containers/pfc/pfcreg2016.pdf (the regulatory order itself, which references the certification requirements and gives them power of law)
The regulation places limits on vapor escape, requires it to be self-closing, so people don't accidentally leave it uncapped, and specifies that it may not leak. What the law doesn't do is tell manufacturers how to implement those requirements. What this means is that some manufacturers will take the easy and cheap route by making some shitty product with no vent.
But it is possible to make compliant cans that work just fine: https://www.jlconline.com/tools/trucks-equipment/gas-cans-that-actually-work_o
In fact, the regulatory order itself expressly allows for manufacturers to apply for an exemption from what little implementation details are given, if they have an "innovative" design that accomplishes the same goals a different way than the law envisions:
--- Quote ---The Executive Officer may exempt a portable fuel container from one or more of the requirements of section 2467.2 if a manufacturer demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that, due to the product’s design, delivery system, or other factors, the use of the product will result in cumulative TOG emissions below the highest emitting representative portable fuel container system in its product category as determined from applicable testing.
--- End quote ---
This seems to me to be a very sensible, reasonable law, written such as to not prescribe a particular product design.
In other words, don't blame a law (which itself is perfectly sensible, both in intent and expression) for the shoddy work of crappy manufacturers who are simply too lazy to get it right.
--- End quote ---
No, the law is not sensible, the law is garbage. It was poorly thought out and poorly implemented, and it is an objectively true fact that 100% of the products compliant with the law are inferior to those on the market prior to the law, about 90% of them are complete shit and the other 10% cost three times as much as the old ones that worked. It's the self-closing mandate on the vent that makes it useless, so that nearly everybody who actually tries using one of these cans quickly modifies it to eliminate the problem. Only an idiot leaves the vent cap open when they're done using the fuel can, doing so allows the expensive fuel to evaporate and contamination to get in. Really, how hard it is it to close the vent when you finish and why do we need a law that mandates a stupid overly complex self closing vent? What next? Automatic zipping pants so people don't forget to put their pecker away when they finish peeing? No thanks, I'll drill a hole and install a tire valve stem as a vent and replace the nozzle whenever I encounter one of those cans, it is a functionally superior solution. Or I can pick up a can next door in Canada because they're sensible enough to have not adopted the ridiculous US law.
How anyone could say that the gas can law is sensible with a straight face I truly cannot understand. What the law intended may in some "treat everyone like helpless children who cannot be trusted to do anything right" society be reasonable, the unintended consequence that it actually results in is an array of worthless products that are compliant with the law as written but do exactly the opposite of what the law intended. That is virtually the definition of a stupid law written by people with no understanding of the thing they were trying to legislate. I don't think anyone who has ever actually used one of those newer cans could possibly agree that they're an improvement.
--- End quote ---
I can tell you’ve neither read the law itself, nor did you carefully read anything I wrote. Nor have you given two seconds’ thought as to why the law was needed: regulations occur because lots of people don’t act responsibly. If they did, we wouldn’t need regulations. Manufacturers of gas cans shouldn’t have needed to be told to design the canisters such as to not leak, and to be made of materials the gas doesn’t permeate. Consumers shouldn’t have needed to be told to close them. Yet every garage or shed holding an old style gas can constantly reeked of gasoline, indicating ongoing vapor leakage.
magic:
--- Quote from: Gyro on December 27, 2020, 11:03:04 pm ---The whole premise of something being safe (coin cell, live mains, or whatever) because it can't be accessed without the use of a tool has become worthless in a modern world, where pretty well everyone has the tool bits, even the tamper proof ones!
--- End quote ---
In the Democratic People's European Union mains extension cords increasingly use rivets for that reason |O
Hooray for repairability and sustanability :-DD
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version