Member postings for ChrisH

Quite right Neil - well said!

martin p - i have sent you a pm re clocks

Chris

As my wife and I both fall into the "elderly vulnerable adults with underlying health issues" we have been self isolating for the last two weeks and fully expect to continue to do so for the next 14 weeks minimum, or however long as it takes. We are not fed up with this or the on-going prospect at all; we accept that is is how it has to be.

What does upset us is the attitude of the younger generation who think all the government requirements on social distancing, cutting out unnecessary unessential journeys and staying at home, going out for exercise just once a day and shopping infrequently, just do not apply to them and carry on regardless.

They have a touching but totally misplaced faith in their own immortality. Unfortunately, a load of them are going to die before they get the message and reality sets in. Sad, but some people only learn the hard way, many not even then.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

So well done with the helmet of water on the barbie! Perhaps those idiots may now learn to think.

Chris

Johnboy25 - seen similar from Dutch contractors working in the UK trying to get their power tools to go, mostly they used matches not big sticks but............ H&S, eat your heart out!

Coming in on this thread very late in the day and I admit I have not read all the posts, but, I see several posts say if a plug (in the UK) does not have an intergral fuse it's illegal, and that the kit needs a CE mark, which I understand all electrical equipment certified for use within the European Union must have. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My question is, if we have to have a fuse in a plug in the UK, why are there no fuses in any plugs on French electrical equipment? (Or is this another one of the one rule for us and another for them and to hell with standardisation across the EU?) And following on from there, why are all domestic UK electrical power circuits ring mains and in France they are radial. And why in the UK do we use flat twin and earth cable with the earth wire a smaller diameter than the others, but in France earth, live and neutral wires must all be of the same diameter (UK flat twin and earth is not allowed to be used in France)?

I am not trying to make any points here at all, I really just do not understand these things and would be grateful if anyone could explain! I thought the whole point of the EU (when we were in it) was that all had to follow the same rules, when evidently there are differences and we didn't.

Chris.

Ho Humm!

Sorry - can't help, I come from a long line of wet shavers.

But I do remember the smell you mention from when I did try an electric shaver, many many moons ago, when I, and the world, was young. Put me off rather.

On the basis of a) having to avoid EMI and b) pleasing SWMBO, the second being by far the most important considering the need to get Shed Capex Spend passed in the future amongst other considerations, I'd change to wet shaving as the easy way out, no worries option, personally. Simples!

Remember KISS!

Chris

Neil, you may well be right, but that is not what was written, and without constantly following all the comments and claims made everywhere, in the press and on the internet, one does not necessarily know what was meant, as opposed to what was written. Never assume.

Chris

".......somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change........."

Come on, really? Please explain therefore why climate changed when there wasn't humans around, millions of years ago, or more comparatively recently, over the last few thousand years when there were world populations back then of maybe only a few millions.

Climate has always changed, the only augment today surely is how much are humans currently aggravating it.

Chris

Actually, in the context of world population and climate change this is not only an 'interesting' fact but it is also completely relevant.

Back in the 1990's I worked for what was then a major horticultural company, one of the largest growing tomatoes and peppers under glass in the UK. Back then the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere was about the same as has been quoted for now, and all the growers were going daft for more CO2. Why? A greenhouse full of tomato plants would very soon reduce the ambient CO2 levels within the glasshouse to drastically low levels. The solution was to pump CO2 into the glasshouse to restore levels. But in fact the growers did far more than that. They ran their gas-fired hot water boilers during the day when heating was not needed, stored the hot water produced in insulated storage tanks - for circulating through the glasshouses at night when heating was needed, and cooled the exhaust gasses produced which also removed the water vapour and pumped the CO2 rich gasses into the glasshouses to suppliment the natural CO2 existing. But the growers also did it for another advantage. If was found that every 1% increase in CO2 produced a corresponding increase in production yield (I think it was, memory is deserting me!) of 1kg per plant. More yield/plant = more money. And lots and lots of plants and lots and lots of 1% increases in CO2 over a long growing season = lots and lots of more money! That is why the figure of 1000ppm inside the glasshouses was quoted - that's what levels the growers were after. But the fact is that the greater CO2 levels resulted in far more food produced - and THAT is the very important fact.

Where is this leading? Towards the feeding of the world, that's where.  OK, more tomatoes isn't going to solve it on it's own, but it is indicative and food production will become increasingly what we need to focus on. Yes the climate is changing, but it always has done, nothing new there, the only augment is how much humans are aggravating it. World population is a far greater threat in my eyes, as it seems to be just shooting upwards and seems totally out of control.

All that population are going to need food, water and energy. And all three will be in ever shorter supply. Eventually, satisfying that vast population will become unsustainable and war will result, a natural reaction as people try to look after and provide for their own. Unless a virus or disease doesn't do for the population in reducing world numbers first.

Not a pleasant prospect to look forward to, either option, but I fear it could be closer than we might like to think. I hope I have not digressed from the OP too far!

Chris

Edited By ChrisH on 23/02/2020 15:33:13

Edited By ChrisH on 23/02/2020 15:37:59

One of the ships in the fleet the company I worked for had, had a visit from an engineer with a degree. His thesis written for his degree was on boilers. He was being shown round the ships engine room when they came upon this large piece of 'equipment'. Whats that asked the degree engineer? Thats the boiler replied the ships engineer.

I also worked in the food industry for many years. There, the engineering department were a necessary evil, just to be tolerated at best, with all the production and packaging staff sure in their knowledge that they knew better. Except when their machines broke down of course.

Thanks for the 'heads up' Michael - downloading all episodes as I type and looking forward to viewing them

Chris

I had a scammer the other day who asked about my motor accident which was not my fault. That's unbeliveable I said, how did you know I'd had an accident, it's only just happened, I'm still in the car waiting for the paramedics to arrive I said. She changed tack, and asked about any accidents I'd had in the past 50 years - well, it sounded like 50 years but could have been just 5. How did you know I'd been driving for over 50 years I asked, click, brrrrr.......

And another caller blocked. If I don't recognise a number I don't answer it and if the same or a very similar number comes up again, usually from a place where I know nobody or do business with nobody, then that gets blocked.

Senior management is only too keen to answer the phone even when it's a strange number, or call them back if they've rung off. I try and put her off doing that saying if they really want to talk to you they will call back. Let them pay for the call. If I do get a caller who gets through I decline from saying anything and just put the phone down "off the hook" for ten minutes or more.

What I do tell my family is, if a stranger phones and asks is that whoeversname they are calling, is that them, NOT to say yes, as they record that and the use that recording to claim that they authorised the purchase of whatever overpriced scam item they are flogging, which you will never receive anyway.

Welcome to the forum Alf - I have fond memories of Aarhus from the late 1960's when I went there a few times when I was at sea.

Chris

Agreed Martin, both as a result of safer measures being put in place, a more aware approach as what is safe and what is not and a more realistic approach from employers and employees alike. It is a shame that some people do not display a sense of common sense or have a too zealous approach at times which often has the opposite effect and puts people off, discouraging rather than encouraging. You have to take the employees with you!

What is interesting is seeing how other countries approach the H&S issues that raise so much concern here. For example, to return to this thread's OP - go onto YouTube and watch our American cousins on a lathe, guards there are not, or none that I have seen! Same for mills, unless of course they are CNC machines.

You would have thought that being in the EU we would have had a unified approach to H&S across the EU, but oh no. In the 1990's on factory visit we commented on an operator smoking in a paint spray booth in France, yes, really!, and in a factory in Holland, a 12" or so diameter circular saw with half the blade above the table, completely unguarded and the floor area surrounding the saw covered with short lengths of about 1" diameter tube, a tripping/slipping horrific accident waiting to happen. Our Dutch guide was quite surprised and complexed when we queried the safeness of this situation, like 'but what is wrong?' and was amazed when we said that in England the Factory Inspector on seeing that would have probably put a prohibition order on them! Earlier in the 1980's , looking at a bottling machine operating in NI without any guarding at all, we asked why did they not have any guarding. As only the Irish could respond, they said oh yes we have all the guards, they're in the store, we don't bother with them - as indeed the unguarded machine always had been operated from new, it having never been designed to be guarded in the first place as it was originally considered to be unnecessary when first designed.

Sorry, this has taken the OP a little off track!

Chris

Edited By ChrisH on 13/11/2019 17:32:26

Sorry Robert, but you are wrong in your criticism of me in both respects.

Regarding your "Unsafe Action", the guard was removed so that a potentially "Unsafe Condition" could be addressed. You seem not to have appreciated the significance of what was written in the whole paragraph. I said the guard interferred too much with the setting up process. This it did. If the job to be milled is not very well secured to the mill table then the likelihood exists that it can move when being machined. This could result at best with a damaged part and broken cutter; at worst the part could be flung off the table and cause the operator serious or possibley fatal injury. I like to try to avoid such situations arising so if the guard got in the way of me applying clamps etc and bolting it all down, being able to get the spanner on the nuts, then it is right in my mind to remove it. Better the job is securely fixed down. The last sentence in that paragraph said that I fitted a temporary - meaning not permanent thus removable - screen (guard) to stop swarf and coolant being flung out. I should have said that this is the length of the table giving a better length of protection; I could have also said that if it stops swarf and coolant being flung out it also stops me trying to put my hand in to the cutter area too, but I sort of assumed that folk reading that would figure that for themselves. So I removed a badly designed guard and replaced it with a better one, hardly an Unsafe Action.

No-where in my post did I advocate removing guards to others, so where you deduced that from is a mystery. Look, if someone wants to remove all the guards from their machine, or in reverse, totally enclose their machine with guards, then that is up to them. It is their machine, their shed, their responsibility; I would not presume to advocate any action to them, it's nothing to do with me, but having worked as a H&S advisor I would not advocate removing guards to others, unless, as in my case above, it is to be replaced with better guarding.

What I did try to do in my post was make the point that a) too often guarding fitted to machines is badly designed in that it prevents the operator in running the machine efficiently, or sometimes not at all as has been alluded to in other posts in this thread, or the maintainence engineer easily accessing the parts to be maintained, and b) guarding should be designed and fitted once the designer has seen for him or herself how the operator and engineer have to go about their respective tasks. A well guarded machine is usually a joy to operate in comparison to a badly guarded machine, and the bonus to the production manager is not only does he/she know it is a well guarded machine for their operators but production line efficiency usually rises as a result of it too.

Having been involved in the application of guarding to numerous machines, some built in a time before modern standards were required and thus were never designed to be guarded, I know only too well the issues involved. I also know, having seen first hand examples, the lengths some operators will go to circumvent badly designed guarding, human nature being what it is, leaving the machine in an Unsafe Condition.

Chris

I've been using lathes on and off for over 50 years, but all the lathes I've used were old ones - my lathe at home is circa late 1960's early 1970's. No lathe I used ever had a chuck guard fitted, and I've lived happily without one, most of the time. The only time I would like one is when I'm using coolant, so save on the mess going all over the shed floor, but otherwise I've never felt I needed one. I never stand in way of the swarf coming off, never leave a chuck key in the chuck - my initial training left a huge impression on me - and don't use two chuck keys on 4 jaw chucks.

But I see new lathe increasingly have a guard fitted in front of the toolpost as well, and for the life of me cannot understand why. In my shed that would be the first thing to be binned, but there is only me in my shed.

My mill/drill had an interlocked guard fitted in front of the quill action bit. That got binned very quickly, it interfered too much with setting up processes. Too often guards fitted to machines prevents the operator from seeing exactly what is going on too. A temporary screen gets put in place to stop chips and coolant getting flung all over the shed, but is quickly able to be removed out the way when required.

The important thing about guards is that they should be designed with the operation and maintenance of the machine in mind, so that their interference with the discharge of both tasks are minimised. This should be borne in mind when guarding is designed, but is very often not, guarding usually seemingly being designed by someone sitting at a desk far away from the shop floor, who has never had to operate or maintain (or even seen?) the machine they are designing guarding for; if they had, that guarding would have surely been very quickly redesigned!

If a guard interferes with the natural operation of a machine by its operator, human nature being what it is, then ways will be quickly found to circumvent the guard - and from experience in production industry, that is a proven. Guarding design is not the walk in the park designers often seem to think it is. Anyone can slap a secure 'screen' around a machine or tool, but can you then operate it?

Remember also, whether in your own shed on your own or in the firms shop, an accident only ever happens due to there being an unsafe action taken or unsafe condition existing. It therefore the responsibility of all of us to ensure unsafe conditions do not occur, neither do we take unsafe actions, however we operate our machines or provide for our own safety.

Have a nice day!

Chris

I agree Ian, went on PayPal last night I couldn't see a way either - PayPal seem to be light on actually giving useful information and instructions on how to work their system it seems to me.

Chris

Re scam emails, whenever I get an email purporting to be from PayPal, or whoever else, that seems even a tad suspect I always check the senders email address; It then quickly become obvious that the sender is not from wherever they say they are and I forward the email to scam@Paypal etc, or whoever else without opening it and then delete it straight away.

Chris

Oldiron, I quite agree with you about mentioning Ebay, I think I must have written that on automatic having read it that way so many times on here, but Ebay it was that they bought their goodies on and charged my PayPal account for it.

I quite like the the idea that you manually transfer. funds to PayPal before you make a purchase, didn't know you could do that, and also to set up a bank account dedicated for the PayPal account that will not pay out unless funds are available; however PayPal has a facility that allows a purchase to be made and paid for by PayPal, who then debit your account several days - 7 in this case - later, which is what happened here. That would need to be deactivated as in my case, the scumbag got their goods a week before PayPal got paid by me.

I can quite believe that you have fraudulent activity via PayPal and similar accounts, I just don't understand how. What is needed is an authorisation email or whatever before a payment is made, but I suppose the hackers would get past that too. All very worrying.

Bill, thanks for the "Agent" tip when calling PayPal, I will try that as I want to find out how to make my account more secure than it obviously is now.

Chris

For those of you who have PayPal accounts, it would pay you to check your transactions activity listings on a very regular basis, as well as your bank accounts.

I just happened to log onto my on-line bank on Monday and noticed immediately 2 large PayPal transactions had gone through that day, plus another one several days earlier, totalling about £400.

All transactions relate to purchases on the well known online auction site but our account on that site had not been compromised, or at least, no-one had used our account there to make the purchases

I have to say PayPal responded very quickly; I raised the unauthorised purchases with them immediately and within a few hours had an email back to the effect that they agreed and had refunded my money. This I could see on my PayPal account straight away although it was only today that I was able to transfer the money back into my account. Phew! So in that I cannot fault them but it shows that security there can be compromised.

We obviously changed our PayPal password and security questions/answers straight away, but what is bothering me is how someone was able to use our PayPal account in the first place to make these purchases.  Anyone with bright ideas on this please shout!

Unfortunately, PayPal is one of those sites where it is very difficult to actually talk to a human and ask the questions it would seem. Call by telephone and you just get recorded messages, try online chat and you just talk to a useless computer.

I for one will now be keeping a far more close a watch on my PayPal, Ebay and bank accounts in future!

Chris

Edited By ChrisH on 12/09/2019 14:52:08

Edited By ChrisH on 12/09/2019 14:53:34