Here is a list of all the postings Paul Rhodes has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Citic acid|
I am now conditioned when "lemon juice " is mentioned to recall McArthur Wheeler.
So has a a cognitive bias produced a conditioned reflex?
Sorry this is no use to the OP in his enquiry.
|Thread: Not the time to be complacent about Covid|
Keith; doctors do not refuse treatment because of obesity or smoking. Rather they assess that the outcomes would be so poor as to make surgery an unacceptable risk to the patient with these adverse factors.
Circlip; I agree with much that you say except the what was most likely a tongue in cheek suggestion of some sort of purity test before treatment. I applaud your measures to protect your own health.
pgk; again I agree with most of your posting but must suggest an inaccuracy. Correct me if I am wrong but vetinary practice has not been using mRNA vaccines for many years. AFAIK this is new technology, and is certainly deployed for the first time in humans with some Covid vaccine (Moderna Pfizer etc) . I agree that millions of doses have demonstrated marvellous safety but this was a gigantic human biological experiment. Though one I support it would be foolish to ignore the concern raised by the University of Brisbane experience of rushing to produce just such an RNA vaccine (abandoned last December). Briefly they used materiel which produced a positive HIV test in a number of the trial subjects. I read, but an not isolate the source, that the building block was material taken from the HIV virus which of course is extensively studied, so readily available. The researchers blithely stated post hoc that "they had considered this possibility". Glad I was not a volunteer!
I remain aghast at the strident demonising of very often ill educated people. Those most guilty are the zealots who hammer on about "the science' when, with masks, spread by fomites and mRNA manipulation these scientific authorities have, like the rest of us, feet of clay.
Gerhard, sorry that ill health visiting your family. I did smirk at the paradox of obsessive mask wearing and a lockdown.
I am a compliant member of society wry this disease, but I still bridle at the hysteria. The latest data for Scotland is that last winter produced the second highest excess mortality in 30 years. That is right even with an increased population now there was a winter in living memory with more winter deaths than this Covid winter. Last year 23,370 was the excess winter deaths, 4,300 more than average. Roughly half are attributed to Covid in the official statistics. The other half showed no clear pattern. However last week a professor of chest medicine gave evidence to a parliamentary select committee, that lung cancer diagnosis had been set back 25 years by a return to late diagnosis and advanced disease.
IIRC this rough equity of direct to indirect effects of disease is very similar to the W Africa Ebola experience. A much nastier disease with a 35% mortality (UK Covid 0.19% , not the 0.9% modelled by Imperial College "The Scientists" in March), was so terrifying that the knock on effects through migration etc resulted in high secondary mortality.
While I like SOD I deplore its party politicisation only a fool would point to the USA as unique in this respect.
Only a heartless fool would suggest ,even as I assume made in jest, denying treatment to the unvaccinated as a policy of victim shaming based on the totally false "doctors have refused to treat the fat or smokers"narrative. This and the derisive term "anitvaxxers" should be treated as the discredited portmanteau "deplorables". Let us have sensible debates free from the new obsession of name calling those who hold differing views.
Sorry Clive that is a load of old cobblers. The vaccine ( I have had 3 ) protects the individual from severe infection. . The vaccinated can ,and will spread the disease with the same facility as the un vaccinated. The un vaccinated assume the risk of severe disease for themselves, but present no excess risk to others. As severe disease is almost wholly defined by old age, and the over 70s have 94% vaccination cover (UK), the mainly young or stupid are almost irrelevant.
|Thread: Hermes. A Company in Total Confusion!|
Richard on the occasions I do sell something I document the packaging process with a few snaps just to give me some "proof". Touching wood, I have had no need to defend my packaging abilities....yet.
Your contract with the merchant. His with the courier. If your merchant declines to fulfil his end of the bargain, I would speak to Trading Standards., if the credit card/PayPal route is closed to you.
IMHO you should not be negotiating with the courier.
The cynic in me makes me wonder if this is not the merchants first rodeo, and perhaps a grain of truth in the initial response from the courier.
|Thread: Broken tap extraction|
Might be enough proud to Dremel a slot and gently back out with a well fitting screwdriver or impact driver.Heat applied while retaining gentle screwdriver torque might assist.
|Thread: New use for a slide rule|
........no doubt read "On The Beach.."
I will pick up my jacket on the way out.
|Thread: How can you check that DVLA field of vision machine is OK.|
I do not wish to be unduly provocative but you don’t explain what you mean by ergonomics in this matter.I have accepted that the “simple mathematics” are more prone to error at 3m. But we seem to agree that otherwise the test is the same.
If by ergonomics you are referring to the new point you raised about the crude and arbitrary Snellen test being the sole determinant of safety to drive, then we are fully in accord. It is an expedient screening for gross defects in visual acuity. VA is but one component of vision in driving.
I am sorry but I still find it unconvincing that Mark’ varifocals should give a sharp image at 3m when the object came from 6 via a mirror, but be difficult/ impossible when reading at exactly the same 3m when reading the half sized image.. This is not to doubt the honesty of Mark’s assertions but rather to question the science that both you and he accept.
Michael please explain the "fudge". I naively thought that simple maths was the basis of optics. It is perfectly possible to get identical results from a 3m Snellen as a 6. A 3 m chart is more sensitive to positional errors than a 6.
Mark you clearly hold a view on this which is strongly felt ,but despite Michael's support seems illogical. If you apparently can not focus adequately at 3m then whether that object is a larger one which has arrived from 6 m it is still the same size that you have to identify at 3m. I simply can not follow why you feel you can read accurately at 3 m in one system but not at 3 metres when the image size is identical, but derived differently.
As for varifocals tuned to there distances onlyIf you had simple trifocal less with an absolute correction I would see your point, but the variable blended lens should give you satisfactory vision all the way out.
I may be misunderstanding varifocals , and my mathematics was always fudged( at best), so please correct me.
Windy, the screening eye tests are subject to many variables from dementia as above, arthritic hands, or just not having a good day! You illustrate this yourself by declaring a static field defect, yet claiming near 100% pass in recent tests. Quite correctly the screening errs towards false positives rather than false negatives so that early warning and treatment is offered to asymptomatic patients at an early date. The cost of this is alarming a small number who have nothing wrong with them.
Mark, I doubt the professional use of half size printed charts. If they use professional screens ,due to size of room, they are very accurately calibrated and are no different to a 6 m printed chart(all to do with the angle the image subtends at the retina etc). Frankly I do not see how this makes any difference to your visits to the optician. With varifocal being a gradation, you should simply move your head to find the sweet/sharp spot. Personally I think varifocals are a money spinner for opticians and am invariably disappointed by them....others love them.
|Thread: Barrier Creams|
Change you oil(s) Jon? So attempt to avoid issue directly rather than secondarily.
|Thread: Coronavirus death stats|
Rod, I rarely contribute to these threads, but can not face rooting about on a cold garage floor for a dropped titanium M6 bolt.
The deaths “from” covid were inflated and each part of the constituent countries in the UK records differently. In Scotland Covid was made ,by statute a notifiable disease thereby mandating its reporting...even on suspicion . So no influenza deaths were recorded ( they are not notifiable). The suspicion was softened and its capture firmed up.
However the annualised death rathe was still higher , and if you are in your sod bed , it perhaps matters naught which statistical or administrative box is ticked.
A bit like Mark Twain suggesting that ” to a man carrying a hammer everything looks like a nail”.
Strangely my wife has just sneezed and the garage seems attractive again....
|Thread: Non-renewable energy|
John, the debate that you question explicitly accepts exists!
You are aware that a "consensus" is a spread of views and is not "science".
Does a serious scientist differ from an ordinary one by agreeing with your interpretation? Next you will talk of settled
NDIY , if it were but so simple as to ignore scientific debate ,rename the devil as “CO2” and proselytise.
|Thread: Electric vehicles|
In large part the initiative is more political than practical.Who advises and have they not understood that green at point of consumption differs from green at the point of production? Expect not as the same system pushed us towards diesel that the man in the street knew then to be unpleasant, and now knows to have its own dangers.
Having but one government minister ( in 33 I am told ) with a science degree, perhaps "diversity" in a grown up understanding of its broader meaning should be addressed.
An earlier poster was spot on that the future will be a mixed energy economy. My city uses hydrogen fuelled buses, to a fanfare almost as loud as some of our self congratulatory posters here. The cost is 4-5 times that of diesel, and they stop 4-5 times more frequently because of interlocks and sensor warnings ( again my source tells me). They certainly pollute not the town, but require a large electrical sub station to feed the hydrogen production.
If the political green (sorry) light is to stimulate debate and encourage energy innovation I am all for it. If it is taken as confirmation by blinkered green enthusiasts that battery is the "one true way", then we are heading up a cut de sac with no charging point at its terminus.
|Thread: Gloves in a Bottle|
Michael, an easy mistake to make . Even with your misreading of the product your call to
read the SDS rather than the advertising blurb is well made.
I was nearly adding to your post that the active ingredients your post highlighted were not in play in the product
referenced by the OP.
Like you I read the ingredients of the original /native formula and concluded that there was no magic dust involved.
Was that your conclusion?
Michael G's link is for a different product.Its active chemicals confer SPF.
The native product seems like a simple moisturiser with dimethicone and glycerin being prominent. The beauty is the lack of perfumes and nasty preservatives.
Dr Wayne Weber MD appears to be a 78 year old gynaecologist and I see no claim that he is a "Board Certified Dermatologist" other than in the advert. It my limited research is true, makes his endorsement less than weighty you might think.
If it works use it. I would.
|Thread: Taking a pair of wire cutters to a standard baseball cap|
Interesting libertarian information Jeff. It may explain the observed effect of wearing reducing the IQ of the wearer by 5%. However it does not explain the observation that wearing a baseball cap backwards induces a 10% reduction in IQ.
Bandersnatch you can have your vision corrected within reason to anything you wish, though the astigmatism remains . You will have a fixed focal length (generally on NHS), so if you corrected perfectly for near vision you would require distance correction and vice versa. In effect you have approached this with the ageing eye as the poor old lens becomes less plastic as it develops a cataract.
Not everyone adapts to the one eye long one short approach and as noted stereoscopic vision can be impaired(though the brain uses other cues).
Speak to your surgeon /optician .
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.