«

In article <ja1ie6$mc5$>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
>Somewhere on teh intarwebs bugalugs wrote:
>> On 16/11/2011 10:06 p.m., Frank Williams wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:45:13 +1300, bugalugs<>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/2011 2:49 p.m., Frank Williams wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:01:53 +1300, (Your
>>>>> Name) wrote:
>>>>>> In article<j9sjjp$qpc$>,
>>>>>> victor<> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Total rubbish as some time back we had a power cut and we lost our
>>>>> Analogue Phone due to the fact that some one at the exchange had
>>>>> forgot to check the batteries.
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't they just duck down to Dick Smith and get a couple ???
>>>
>>> Do they sell 50v Batteries..?
>>
>> They could string some together. Wouldn't the exchange do that?
>
>Of course they do, as there's no such thing as a 50V cell (TTBOMK) it stands
>to reason that a 50V source would be a 'battery' of cells.

I recall when at school (a long time ago now), there was an old 1.5 V
battery supposedly surplus from the phone exchange. It was a lead acid
battery, about a foot square and almost 3 foot high (that's about 30 x 30 cm
and perhaps 50 cm high for the younguns ). It was 10 A.

The answer to the question on everyone's lips (what happens if you put a
screw driver across those large screw terminals ), is ...

it welds itself to the terminals and has to be kicked off.
Yes, a chuck of screw driver flew off in a random direction too.

On 17/11/2011 3:50 p.m., Robert Cooze wrote:
> On 17/11/11 16:07, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article<ja1ie6$mc5$>,
>> "~misfit~"<> wrote:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs bugalugs wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/2011 10:06 p.m., Frank Williams wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:45:13 +1300, bugalugs<>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/11/2011 2:49 p.m., Frank Williams wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:01:53 +1300, (Your
>>>>>>> Name) wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<j9sjjp$qpc$>,
>>>>>>>> victor<> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Total rubbish as some time back we had a power cut and we lost our
>>>>>>> Analogue Phone due to the fact that some one at the exchange had
>>>>>>> forgot to check the batteries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Couldn't they just duck down to Dick Smith and get a couple ???
>>>>>
>>>>> Do they sell 50v Batteries..?
>>>>
>>>> They could string some together. Wouldn't the exchange do that?
>>>
>>> Of course they do, as there's no such thing as a 50V cell (TTBOMK) it
>>> stands
>>> to reason that a 50V source would be a 'battery' of cells.
>>
>> I recall when at school (a long time ago now), there was an old 1.5 V
>> battery supposedly surplus from the phone exchange. It was a lead acid
>> battery, about a foot square and almost 3 foot high (that's about 30 x
>> 30 cm
>> and perhaps 50 cm high for the younguns ). It was 10 A.
>>
>> The answer to the question on everyone's lips (what happens if you put a
>> screw driver across those large screw terminals ), is ...
>>
>> it welds itself to the terminals and has to be kicked off.
>> Yes, a chuck of screw driver flew off in a random direction too.
>>
>>
>>
> The memory's I started life in the post office (Telecom) There was a
> room full of those cells two rows of them both banks 50 volts each.
> there was some very large copper bars running the length of the
> exchange. anything metal was said to vaporise if shorted across the +
> and - Rail there was a also a large rectifier room where the mains from
> out side was turned into DC 50V. last but not least there was a big
> Diesel generator for when the mains went out. although the voltage was
> low the amperage was in the 1000's of amps

Most exchanges and communication installations were set up like that.
Most had batteries large enough to run the exchange for some hours after
which the diesel generator would cut in. There was usually enough diesel
stored to run the exchange for a couple of weeks. (microwave
installations which could be snowed in) In some exchanges the Mains
powered a large electric motor which drove a ton or so of flywheel.
When voltage dropped, or failed the diesel would fire up and drive the
flywheel which would then drive the electric motor which would then
become a generator.

--
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

On , , Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:21:39 +1300, Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie
flipphone) that works on the XT network., Frank Williams
<> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52:22 +1300, victor <> wrote:
>
>>On 13/11/2011 2:16 p.m., Your Name wrote:
>>> In article<j9mr3s$ao4$>, Richard<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/2011 6:25 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.
>
>>The terrestrial analogue is replaced by HD DVB-T, plus the SD satellite
>>service to give a sum total of much better service than the old
>>transmitters and translators with their co channel interference.
>>You are correct that both services are not free, neither is analogue
>>television, they are paid for by the broadcaster who recovers the cost
>>from advertising revenue, sponsorship, government grants etc.
>>The analogue transmission system also costs money to maintain, and is
>>now redundant and obsolete for the purposes of the broadcasters.
>>If you don't want to buy equipment to receive the free to air digital
>>transmission, that is your choice, the broadcasters have no obligation
>>to provide you with the analogue service.
>>PAL broadcast has joined the skip load of obsolete junk I am happy to
>>see the last of along with ISDN, VGA, CRTs, dot matrix printers, floppy
>>disks, gramophones and VCRs. Next to go is the analogue telephone.
>
>
>
>The chap is a nutter so Please dont feed the Trol.

THE ULTIMATE IRONY!!!!!

In article <>, Allistar
<> wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > On 11/12/2011 9:58 AM, Your Name wrote:
> >> Telecom have only last week started really pushing the switch off via TV
> >> adverts with Gary McCormick and Stacey Daniels (there were one or two
> >> adverts before, but this new one seems to be playing more often).
> >
> > Havent seen any ads about it, but have got many texts on the old
> > dinosaur phone about it
> >
> >> Many people are still happy with the phone they have and are only being
> >> forced into changing by Telecom turning off the "old" system (one that
> >> they promoted as the best thing since sliced bread when it was launced
> >> despite many countries, and even Vodafone NZ, already deciding the
> >> technology wasn't any good - no doubt it was cheaper, and the dollars
> >> would have been the only thing Telecom bothered looking at).
> >
> > CDMA was basically forced on them by the govt at the time not allowing
> > telecom to have any 900MHz spectrum, there was only CDMA hardware
> > available for 800MHz then, not till the US pulled finger and got GSM and
> > then UMTS on 850MHz was there any other option for telecom to run.
> >
> >> There are similarities with TV. The government's silly "digital
> >> changeover" is largely unnecessary since most people are happy without
> >> the over-priced "Free"view, and TV networks are always over-hyping shows
> >> that are already canceled overseas. :-\
> >
> > Overpriced? Its FREE. hence the name.
>
> It's only free if you're not a taxpayer. Otherwise it's not free as every
> tax payer has paid for it.
>
> > Closer to switch off I expect that winz will be throwing money at
> > upgrades for poor people.
>
> TV is a luxury and not what WINZ are for. If people want a new non necessary
> entertainment device I don't see why the taxpayer should pay for it.

Why not?? In SOME cases the taxpayer already pays for boy-racer modified
cars, boozing and pokie machines in the pub, ciggies, etc., etc. Although
not a necessity, TV is definitely more important than any of those.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Allistar wrote:
> Richard wrote:
[snip]
>> Closer to switch off I expect that winz will be throwing money at
>> upgrades for poor people.
>
> TV is a luxury and not what WINZ are for. If people want a new non
> necessary entertainment device I don't see why the taxpayer should
> pay for it.

LOL, I take it that you have the luxury of never having to have dealt with
W&I?

A few years back, after I split with my partner I needed to buy a
replacement vacuum cleaner, which I did on Hire Purchase. I then made an
appointment with W&I and asked for assistance in re-paying the debt. I was
told that vacuum cleaners weren't on the list of items that they would help
to re-pay! I thought that was odd as surely a clean home is a healthy/ier
home, especially where children are involved.

I asked if I could see the list of eligible items and was told that I
couldn't! I asked about a few household items and if they were eligible for
assistance with re-payments and was rather disgusted at the answers. I don't
remember them all off-hand (and she only answered a few questions before
clamming-up on me) but, while they wouldn't help me to pay for a vacuum
cleaner to keep my home healthy they *would* in fact help me if I had a TV
(of whatever size) on HP!*
[*] To be accurate, they *would* help me pay for the vacuum but it was
'recoverable', meaning that it would have to come out of my future benefit.
However payment assistance for a TV wasn't recoverable, W&I essentially paid
for your TV for you without it effecting your benefit in any way.

I find the priorities to be out-of-whack personally. However, when it comes
time for me to switch to 'Freeview' I'll double-check, then have a tradesman
install a satellite dish and reciever. <shrug> I don't get frequent
'food-grants' like most of the leeches around here. My anxiety disorder
keeps me out of the offices and away from their paymasters for the most
part.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

In article <>, Allistar
<> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > In article <>, Allistar
> > <> wrote:
> >>
> >> TV is a luxury and not what WINZ are for. If people want a new non
> >> necessary entertainment device I don't see why the taxpayer should pay
> >> for it.
> >
> > Why not??
>
> Because it's an unnecessary luxury.

So are the other things I listed. The point was that WINZ (or whatever
name they use now) already pay out money used for unnecessary luxuries.



> > In SOME cases the taxpayer already pays for boy-racer modified
> > cars, boozing and pokie machines in the pub, ciggies, etc., etc. Although
> > not a necessity, TV is definitely more important than any of those.
>
> Better to pay out vouchers which can only be used on certain things.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to work or be easy to enforce. People will
simply sell the vouchers, or products bought with them, to someone else to
get cash.

On 2011-12-03, ~misfit~ <> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Allistar wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Closer to switch off I expect that winz will be throwing money at
>>> upgrades for poor people.
>>
>> TV is a luxury and not what WINZ are for. If people want a new non
>> necessary entertainment device I don't see why the taxpayer should
>> pay for it.
>
> LOL, I take it that you have the luxury of never having to have dealt with
> W&I?
>
> A few years back, after I split with my partner I needed to buy a
> replacement vacuum cleaner, which I did on Hire Purchase. I then made an
> appointment with W&I and asked for assistance in re-paying the debt. I was
> told that vacuum cleaners weren't on the list of items that they would help
> to re-pay! I thought that was odd as surely a clean home is a healthy/ier
> home, especially where children are involved.

Good grief my parents owned a vaccum cleaner before a fridge. Hell yes,
people should have the resources to keep the home clean. After x random
spots checks shows taht it is then lets talk TV.
>
> I asked if I could see the list of eligible items and was told that I
> couldn't! I asked about a few household items and if they were eligible for
> assistance with re-payments and was rather disgusted at the answers. I don't
> remember them all off-hand (and she only answered a few questions before
> clamming-up on me) but, while they wouldn't help me to pay for a vacuum
> cleaner to keep my home healthy they *would* in fact help me if I had a TV
> (of whatever size) on HP!*
>
>[*] To be accurate, they *would* help me pay for the vacuum but it was
> 'recoverable', meaning that it would have to come out of my future benefit.
> However payment assistance for a TV wasn't recoverable, W&I essentially paid
> for your TV for you without it effecting your benefit in any way.

Big firms move so slowly that they are way out of touch. Common sense gone
long ago, even though the individuals on the front line can so see it gone.

>
> I find the priorities to be out-of-whack personally. However, when it comes
> time for me to switch to 'Freeview' I'll double-check, then have a tradesman
> install a satellite dish and reciever.

It might be a Tersetial areial, or you might have a choice.

On 2011-12-03, Allistar <> wrote:
[snip] about WINZ paying for TVs

>
> Because it's an unnecessary luxury.
>

Okay, lets check the datum here.

1) What is an unecessary luxury?
2) What is a necessary one?
3) What is plain luxury?

From a society point of view one could argue that a luxury is something that
half the households do not have.

Or is a luxury something one can not really afford, no matter what ones
income?

The wider aspect is one which is really just many shades of grey

In article <>, Gordon <>
wrote:
> On 2011-12-03, Allistar <> wrote:
> [snip] about WINZ paying for TVs
> >
> > Because it's an unnecessary luxury.
> >
>
> Okay, lets check the datum here.
>
> 1) What is an unecessary luxury?
> 2) What is a necessary one?
> 3) What is plain luxury?
>
> From a society point of view one could argue that a luxury is something that
> half the households do not have.
>
> Or is a luxury something one can not really afford, no matter what ones
> income?
>
> The wider aspect is one which is really just many shades of grey

It doesn't matter - a TV set is not a necessity, especially in those
houses where kids are going to school hungry and with worn out shoes, and
existing money is wasted on booze, ciggies, boy-racer cars, etc.

Besides which, it was the Government who decided they knew best and want
to turn off "normal" TV broadcasts, so IF it was such a necessity, then
the Government should be the one paying for EVERYONE to get a new TV /
set-top box for free ... and paying for it via a cut in their own existing
over-bloated salaries.

On , , Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:06:59 +1300, Re: OT: Cheap clamshell phone (ie
flipphone) that works on the XT network., Allistar <> wrote:

>Gordon wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-03, Allistar <> wrote:
>> [snip] about WINZ paying for TVs
>>
>>>
>>> Because it's an unnecessary luxury.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, lets check the datum here.
>>
>> 1) What is an unecessary luxury?
>
>A TV.
>
>> 2) What is a necessary one?
>
>A necessary luxury? That's an oxymoron. If it were necessary it wouldn't be
>a luxury.

Things are only ever black or white for you.
>
>> 3) What is plain luxury?
>>
>> From a society point of view one could argue that a luxury is something
>> that half the households do not have.
>
>No, a luxury is a thing one does not absolutely require.

Ok, a person is severely disabled and is sitting at home unable to work and
never be able to work.
They have no parents or children and have no contact with any distant relatives.
They are currently staring at a blank wall.
Is a TV a luxury item for a person like that?
Should they receive any money from the state welfare system to be able to get a
TV?
It is a simple question with a black and white answer (yes or no.)
Would you care to give a one word answer from the two options I have given you?