Monster Beats and B&W headphones are a waste of money, merely a fashion accessory.

Monster are yes, but the B&W stuff is properly good. They, arguably, make some of the best sounding speakers in the world so there is actual knowledge going into their headphones. Read any review as to how good they are. I’ve got some P3s and they are the dogs danglies. Also have some UE Triple Fi’s and Sennheiser HD580s and the B&Ws are every bit as good.

They are prototype engines so can’t really say much about hem, but they are for car applications. Probably a generation or so away from production, but based on current engine models with fancy tweakery to fuelling and boost systems, and some interesting warm-up strategies and bits and bobs to make them more efficient when not up to temp.

It’s all going very downsized petrol engine on the whole though – small, highly boosted petrol engines can get you all e benefits of a small petrol, plus most of th economy benefits of a diesel. Look at engines like the new Ford Fox 1.0l – amazing little engine that is driving like a 1.8-2.0l but giving you the fuel economy of a 1.0l. Same with Fiat twin air. Most of the big manufactures have a similar one coming up. Even BMW will be using a 1.5l turbo petrol as their base engine in the very near future.

But you are comparing nearly a two litre car with a one litre . My Gf 1.2 corsa is way better around town than my merc but not as good on a long run as its revving too high at 70-75.

And to be honest you have hit the nail on the head with this as it’s frankly impossible to just say from the fuel which is better from a situation – but the generalisations given above are still correct. There are some engines that will break those generalisations. We’ve got a couple of gasoline engines at work that blow diesels out of the water for fuel economy, and some diesels that are very efficient when cold. But they have some pretty high tech stuff in.

ISTR something about modern small petrol engines having their cats closer to the engine so that they warm up quicker from cold. Problem being that they then run way too hot on a run, so the engine has to run rich to cool the exhaust gases – and it does this by squirting in more petrol so further reducing economy.

Yes, most petrol engines will now have a close-coupled (or close-coupled-ish) catalyst, so that it heats up quickly to get the emissions down as quick as possible. You also have a component-protection fuelling for when the engine is running fully-loaded (or wherever it is determined to be necessary) and things like turbos, cats etc are getting a bit toasty. You wouldn’t see this on a normal drive though (well, depends how you drive I suppose…..)

Losses due to friction, and the thermal efficiency of an engine are two entirely seperate issues.

Your right in that a diesel will have heavier components to deal with the increased combustion pressure and torque it will produce (nothing to do with compression ratio) and clearly when cranking and cold it will take a bit more energy to get the thing spinning, but that is what a second or so?

A diesel engine is more thermally efficient than a gasoline engine meaning that more of the energy from combustion goes into actually pushing the piston down rather than warming up the engine. This is why a diesel takes longer to warm up than a gasoline – as Molgrips mentioned, it’s because a Diesel is TOO efficient which means it doesn’t get to it’s most efficient operating point as quickly (a weird paradox I know). Your right in that the exhaust is clearly very hot, but that is because even the best diesel engine is only about 35% efficient – that is still a LOT of heat coming out of the exhaust!

EDIT: Or to put it another way, if you had a diesel and a gasoline engine of the same rotating mass, same block/head mass, same oil volume, same coolant volume etc (basically two identical engines), the diesel would take longer to warm up than the gasoline would.

As I said earlier , on long runs the difference in mpg between petrol and diesel isn’t that great but on shorter journeys a diesel is significantly better .

Sorry, that is still the wrong way round. On long, cruising journeys you will, generally speaking, get better fuel economy out of a diesel than a petrol by quite a bit. On medium, less cruise-y journeys there probably isn’t a huge amount in it with modern engines. As the journey gets shorter, the petrol will get better fuel economy than the diesel.

Molgrips is pretty much bob on with his explanation. A he mentions, the weird thing is that a petrol is less efficient whilst warming up, but because it gets there quite a bit quicker than a diesel then it evens out to actually be better whilst the journey is short!

Small boosted petrol is what I’ve got (golf tsi).

The economy isn’t that far off a diesel on longer A road type journeys, but I wondered if diesel would be expected to drop a similar 25% on a 40min heavy traffic trip?

Sorry, missed that bit! If that is the sort of driving, then it would be a bit of a toss-up between the two. I doubt you’d see a 25% drop in fuel consumption. The diesel would be less efficient to start with, but when warmed up the torque curve could be to your favour in traffic. On the other hand the petrol will be more efficient to start with but endless pulling away and stopping would drop the efficiency a bit.

An efficient engine is an efficient engine and to suggest it is the worst thing for diesels [ cold start is bad for all engines so that aside] is meaningnless – though it is stw dso I expect someone to try.

I see your point, but that isn’t strictly true. An engine only reaches it’s peak efficiency at a reasonably narrow temperature, speed, and load range. Outside of that it is down to the engine design and calibration as to how good it is (cold start, warm-up, high load, low engine speed, etc). A gasoline engine will get to it’s most efficient point in terms of temperature and also the speed/load range being used more quickly than a diesel for short, urban driving so it is more efficient. As the journey starts to get longer and driving turns to crusing rather than stop-start, that is where a diesel will be operating in it’s most efficient band and you see diesels move away in terms of economy.

First off, get the camera out of any automatic mode – this just allows you to rattle off photo after photo without having to think about anything. Use it just on Aperture priority for a longish period (a few weeks say), and get used to seeing what changes in aperture do to your photos. Then do the same with Shutter priority. Then do the same in either of those modes, or in Program, but with manual ISO and see what that does. After that, you should then have a good idea of what each of the three parts of the exposure triangle do and how they affect the photo, and will hopefully then have an idea of what mode, and what settings to use for the effect you want (and the compromises you may have to make for it).

If you aren’t sure what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO do in terms of exposure, then a quick google should get you the basic idea, but doing the above will put it into practice a lot better than reading a book.

IMO anyway.

Yeah, short trips definitely not a diesel’s best mode of operation.

If it is primarily going to be used for short journeys, then a small, boosted petrol engine will get you far better economy on the short journeys and won’t be far off on the longer ones.

All about Yamahas for a first one – not much can beat an FG series IMO.

Don’t even think about brands etc. I went in looking at some Thirty Two’s after reading loads of reviews and thinking they would be the best for me. Came out with a pair of Vans, narrowly beating some Nikes. I didn’t realise Vans and Nike even made snowboard boots! Whatever pair you get, just make sure your heel doesn’t lift as mentioned above – absolutely critical to having any control on your toe edge and to avoid crazy pain in your calves!

Elterwater at the weekend

[/url]
Elterwater[/url] by mark.braith[/url], on Flickr

The Canadian Dudes I bought my setup from said (somewhat tongue in cheek) that the order of importance was – Buy good bindings and boots (*that match up in intended purpose*) and then nail the bindings to a door.

Haha, interesting way of saying it, but that’s a very good point. If you haven’t got any of your own gear, then definitely definitely spend your money on a decent set of good-fitting boots before you buy a board. A nice board is great, but the difference between rental and your own boots is incomparable.

Bataleon Goliath or Whatever would be my suggestion – the TBT can be a bit marmite (to those who’ve tried it, but to those that haven’t as well…), but I found it to be ace. Really improved in terms of confidence, speed, control and generally everything. Virtually eliminating the slight fear of catching an edge just allows you to attempt a lot more than you normally would – well that was my findings anyway!

Yes, definitely not superglue – a friends widescreen cracked while he was washing it (with a pressure washer) and it was traced to the previous owner sticking the mirror back on with superglue.

Get some proper windscreen adhesive – it’s thick black stuff that is specially designed to bond windscreens in so you know it won’t affect the glass. Not worth the risk using anything else IMO.

I had a look at driving across the states and pretty much none of the rental companies I looked at factored the drop off charge into the quoted price so I’d have a check on that as it can add on quite a chunk. If its already on then sounds pretty good!

Yeah, I think you need to set it up on the computer with all the music on first – it basically scans the collection, matches it and uploads anything it can’t find in the iTunes store. The iPhone is just a ‘receiver’ – it can’t match songs or anything like that.

The service is great once it’s all working if that is any consolation….

Just missed your last post! If it’s lit with paper, then if it is thin enough I would try lighting from the rear. Maybe build a frame for it (if it’s not on one already) to keep it taught and then either fire a flash into it or just have some permanent white lighting shining from behind and below (to avoid any hotspots). Not a flash/lighting expert, but I can’t see why that couldn’t look quite good.

I reckon having it around the tree/stick is a great idea – every other scarf seller would have it around a person and to be perfectly honest, a scarf is a scarf is a scarf in terms of how it actually looks on a person – what people would be looking for are the designs, colours etc which this does in an imaginative way. The close-ups are a great idea as well (and look brilliant!). In terms of possible minor improvments, biggest one is as people have said above to make the background a bit whiter. Not sure on your lighting set-up, but maybe having one purely for the background would work. Or Use a fabric background and light it from the rear? Would diffuse quite nicely then.

Really? Wow.

I thought the whole point of Christianity was because it provided a moral compass on how to live your life (as has been asserted on STW previously). If the whole thing is ultimately pointless than that would seem to be something of a contradiction?

Yeah, there seems to be a consensus among non-christians that to be a Christians you have to be very goody-two-shoes, never do anything wrong sort of thing. Now, 100%, part of the Christian doctrine is to love and care for others, but this is not something that is exclusive to being a Christian – as has been mentioned many times before, there are plenty of amazing people out there doing amazing things and they don’t believe in God. In a lot of cases, sadly, there are more people doing good ‘Godly’ things who don’t believe in God than there are those who do. So the doctrine is there that as a Christian you should help others etc, but the big big caveat is that whether you do so or not does not affect your reconcilliation with God through Jesus. So someone who is the most caring generous Christian is viewed equally in God’s eyes in terms of salvation as someone who is 100% a Christian but does nothing ‘good’. It is one of the trickier bits of doctrine to get your head around, but it is there as a core belief.

I found a list of what christians believe!

Hmm, that’s a pretty sketchy list (thats a slight on the BBC, not on you by the way!)

Bit on Saints is purely a Catholic belief not a general Christian one.

God loves everyone unconditionally (though people have to comply with various conditions in order to achieve salvation) – just plain wrong. The WHOLE point of Christianity is that there is nothing WE can do to be saved. Again, this is something that creeps into Catholicism, but not generally Christianity.

Human beings can get to know God through prayer, worship, love, and mystical experiences – Haha, ok, get their point, but apalling wording!

The middle one is the biggy – Christianity is not a salvation by works type deal. This kind of goes with the comment above about deathbed salvation – yes, it is possible that if someone on their deathbed truly repents then it doesn’t matter what they have done during their life. A sin is a sin is a sin in God’s eyes – one of the slightly more difficult to grasp bits of doctrine, but an important one!

Is my reply appearing to anyone? It said its posted but for some reason I can’t see it?!?!

EDIT: Yes it is thre…..was looking on the wrong page….

The ones who allow a divorcee to remarry. That’s about the single clearest comment from Jesus about a concrete, modern issue that I can think of in the bible. Yet, the Church of England allow remarriage.

Great, yeah, thats probably a good one. From my experience as a Christian (both Anglican and Evangelical-ish) and those of others I know and have read etc, the general teaching in the church on divorce is: Divorce is not good, marriage is something that we believe God created for man and woman to be together and is sacred, so to split it is not good. Jesus said this as you mentioned and that is what we believe. BUT we also believe, even more strongly and on top of that, that there is not ONE of us that is without fault and sin. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. So, although divorce should be avoided (and most churches have great counselling teams for marriages in difficulty to try and avoid it), if it does happen, then there is no condemnation on the couple – they are no more sinful than anyone else. If they then re-marry, then that is a great thing – they are entering into another sacred bond under God and this is good!

Hope that makes some sense, please feel free to pick any bits that don’t and I’ll try and explain further.

What about the christians who take their doctrine from some of the bible but miss out the bits that they find inconvenient?

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I’ll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

Are Catholics not Christians?

I asked this before, but perhaps you could enlighten us as to which Christian groups are pro-condoms and pro-same sex marriage? Then we can avoid any embarrassing confusions or unfair representation in the future.

So, using the beliefs of catholics to describe christianity is probably ok?

Catholics are Christians in that they have the same Christ, but in a lot of ways that is where it ends. The utter core teaching of Christianity is that there is NOTHING that WE can do to redeem one’s sins – it is only Jesus who can do that. Catholicism has the teaching (as mentioned above) that Jesus cleansed our Sins, but you also have to actually do a load of good deeds in order to make sure that happens.

That is a HUGE difference in terms of theology. One has believers doing good works because they WANT to and there is NO MOTIVATION for doing so (and this of course is not saying that believers only can do good works – I think you know what I mean), whereas the other has them doing good works because they NEED to in order to save themselves.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

Yes and No. Same God – yes. Same Jesus – yes, Same Holy Book – yes, Same saints – no, that is just a Catholic thing.

This sums it up best (this is a quote on how Catholicism and Protestantism are different):

They’re the same as they were at the Reformation. There are three significant ones. First is the question of final authority. Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory. Second, Catholics view the church as an extension of Christ’s incarnation. For them, the church is divine as Christ was divine. One result of this is the Catholic proclamation: “Come to the church for salvation, for faith in the church and faith in Christ are one act of faith.” That leads to the third difference: salvation. The Catholic catechism makes it very clear that you are born again and justified through baptism. That means faith plus a certain rite — which is administered by the church — is necessary for salvation. So, the church essentially grants salvation. Although this salvation is “by faith,” additional grace enables us “to work” to attain eternal life. And that’s the problem with saying we speak the same gospel. One of them is clear: Christ did it; we can’t add anything to that. The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.

There is a lot of Doctrine in the Catholic church that has been made up by the church (this is where the condom thing comes from as well as the other stuff noted above). Now, ok, I’ll take it that some of you don’t believe that the Bible was inspired by God – BUT there is a big difference between Christians who take their doctrine solely from the Bible, and the Catholic church where the doctrine from the Bible is taken and then other stuff added on later, essentially to add in what their current thoughts are.

Not a Catholic bashing – but it is very important in ‘discussions’ like these to be clear that when you quote stuff that is Catholic teaching, it is not necessarily the same as Christian teaching.

Hope that makes sense!

How about the last Pope, does he count as a Christian? He gave a speech in Africa saying condoms were sinful and they should prevent the spread of HIV by not having sex.

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

It’s the same argument as the anti-contraception one; the religious know that the best way of making new believers is procreation, contraception and gay relationships preclude this.

Just as a quick clarification, that view (anti-contraception) is purely a Catholic one, not a Christian one as a whole.

And one of the reasons I don’t buy Apple products anymore. All the other manufacturers do it as well, they just don’t ram it down your throat quite as hard.

Really? This the company that basically releases one model a year for each part of their range rather than countless different, pretty much identical products that a lot of other companies do. Has the release of the new one made the old one suddenly not do what you wanted it to do and what it did yesterday? Just how technology rolls really.

8O that’s going to sting in the morning….

Haha, they can get the bloke to 128,000 ft but can’t read a windsock…..

Ok, that was/is incredible :)

The top-end Berghaus stuff is basically back to being best-in-the-business stuff. Their helmet compatible hoods are generally regarded as the best you’ll get out there, and the general quality and design of the Xtrem and MtnHaus stuff is right up there with the likes of Rab, Haglofs, ME, etc. Have been this |-| close to getting a Velum active shell jacket as the fit and finish are incredible, but my current Marmot shell is still going strong so can’t really justify it – a properly nice jacket though.

And to add something more technical – the own brand waterproof fabrics from any of the big brands that make mountain kit (North Face HyVent etc) will be easily good enough so I wouldn’t even bother looking at anything Gore-Tex as you will not need the performance. Most of the in house fabrics are at the level Gore were a few years ago now – the Gore, eVent, Polartec stuff just gets you that last level of breathability and durability that you’d need at the top of an Alp.

Hope that helps!

For a ‘pub coat’ as the OP is looking for, there is really no need to go with any of the big mountain names – just get something that is comfortable and looks good. Which probably means North Face.

The other brands whilst, arguably, better kit will also be slightly overkill for just throwing on around town. I think just find something you like the look of and job done.

Dislocated my thumb in Grizedale last July and it took the best part of a year to fully get strength back in it. Apparently the problem is that it stretches the tendons which just take a long long time to heal as the blood supply isn’t huge. I’d get to a hand therapist at your surgery/hospital and they will probably give you some medical grade silly putty and exercises to do with it which should get it going quicker.

Layer up, but no

Brilliant – kept to the Red Dwarf formula that works, didn’t try anything new or clever – sorted! Looking forward to the rest!

Very very very generally speaking – Yamaha if you want the most authentic Piano tones, Roland if you want more pad-y, synthy style stuff but still good piano tones. Both would be great though – the Roland probably a bit more multi-purpose and the yamaha a bit more piano-like. I think the consensus is that if you are purely after an electric piano then the Yamaha’s are hard to beat.

Little bit on the pricier side, but B&W p3s are amazing – the sound from such a small pair of headphones is superb. You wouldn’t be disappointed!