Illuminating a bell push

 I have this bell push which most people don't seem to see. They knock with their knuckles on the door's window which, if I'm out the back of the house, is useless. I'm not sure if it's the hight that puts it in most people blind spot. It's a brass bell on white wood so contrast wise should be easy to spot. 

I decided to illuminate it to see if that would make it more noticeable. I have to say that delivery people still knock at first but seem to spot the bell and ring after.

  

This is the bell push. The push itself is transparent plastic with a brass button 

 

From the rear you can see the white paint from the door frame but there isn't a lot of room to fit bulb.  I should also say that the bell is powered via a transformer at 20v ac.

First I covered the inside with insulation tape. 

 

 

 I thought I was going to have to mount 4 LEDs around the outside  and was going to use a glue gun to hold them in place

 

However, I discovered that there were two almost perfect holes to fit the LEDs 

Because the power supply is 50Hz ac the LEDs would flicker. I also needed to reduce the current through the LEDs to stop them overloading and also stop them shorting the push and having the bell ring continuously.

This is my solution.

 

After some soldering and wire bending 

 

Then in situ just before trimming and connecting.

And finally working

2020 Labour - What's gone wrong

I’ve been watching the Labour party leadership race in 2020 and have become confused as various prospective candidates and supporters argue over the direction to take Labour in. 

The debate seems to be able to swing in different directions because Labour has lost its meaning to itself and therefore many others. 

Some hold onto the past and Labours routes formed out of the trade unions. Others seem to think that has all been solved now, or doesn't appeal to enough voters to win an election.

So what went wrong at the 2019 election?  This is multifaceted but here is my take: -

1. Jeremy Corbyn is a man of principle and conscience of passionate and caring. Consultative and inclusive. He is not aggressive and didn’t have the charisma to carry any assertiveness. He appeared too tolerant, abdicating leadership in favour of democracy. This is too simplistic but; you only need civil servants to implement actions if all decisions are made by the collective. Over the years leading up to the 2019 election little seemed to be done to fight back at the right-wing press. Was it some naïve belief that the truth would win out? By time of the election Jeremy’s reputation was a horror story. 


2. The coup, anti-Semitism and public infighting. This showed a lack of leadership too. Not Jeremy’s style but to kick out people who didn’t follow the rules would have sent a message. Better out than festering within. As it was these stories just kept on adding to the reason not to vote Labour. If eventually you’ve decided you are not going to vote Labour where do you go? 


3. Brexit. Leaving the EU was something that Jeremy had wanted. He and others, thought it was undemocratic and too bureaucratic. However, when the referendum came along, reality came home. The consequences of leaving were far worse than staying. But again, the drip, drip propaganda of the right-wing press was imbedded in the consciousness of people. Life was hard, jobs were gone, bananas were straight and it was all the fault of the EU and immigrants. The time to listen and do something was when Mrs Duffy confronted Gordon Brown in 2010. She said, what many felt, not necessarily the truth, but their truth. The Labour leader was condescending and eventually called her a bigot.


4. What does Labour stand for? There was and is no simple message. Everyone thinks they understand what a Business is and therefore think they understand what the Tories stand for. Labour is for; workers, woman, LGBT, disabled, ethnic minorities, immigrants, refugees, elderly, education, NHS, nationalisation, social housing. The message is complicated and confusing. If workers are unfairly exploited I don’t care if they are female, LGBT or any of the other groupings, they are a worker and Labour must support them. If they are a business owner and exploiting their workers, I don’t care if they are elderly or disabled they are wrong and Labour should oppose them.  We need a simple message and not a piecemeal one that the opposition can pull apart bit by bit. When Boris was asked what “Get Brexit Done” meant he faffed and repeated “Get Brexit Done”. Everyone understood it even if they didn’t know what it meant. “For The Many, Not The Few” was slight longer a little divisive but nevertheless relatively simple. However, when Jeremy was asked what it meant he would try to explain some of the facets, get interrupted, leaving the audience confused and less confident that they knew what it (and therefore Labour) meant.  


5. Policies where a felt like a wish list. They may have been costed and doable but they were too diverse and too many. Ensuring everybody has affordable broadband is a plausible. Promising free broadband was incredible and unnecessary. The cost advantage of nationalising infrastructure was not made clear enough. Too many industries were mentioned. I for one wondered where all the new (presumably lower paid) CEO’s were coming from. Labour was in their own bubble and unable to see how it looked from the outside.

Whoever gets elected uniting the party is a common goal. I think it will need the centerists or the left-wing to issue a "put up and shut up or clear off" if Labour is going to rebuild and stand a chance of winning an election. It's been quite cathartic putting my thoughts down.

Why do people appear more selfish these days.

I've noticed that many people appear to be more selfish these days than when I was younger. Especially in London and comparing the 1970s (when I first started working in London) with 2020.

This is apparent from boarding public transport, to shopping, work and even just walking.

Boarding a bus there would be a sense of "fair play". Disabled and pregnant people would be given priority without the need for a sign, without someone having to point out the situation. Ignorant arseholes, either pretend not to notice, or so wrapped up in their mobile phone that the world outside them doesn't matter/exist.

Also boarding a bus people would queue, and where queue was not possible, they would board in the order they arrived. Even if the bus was empty and there was no doubt that everyone would get on, the person that was there first had earned the right to be able to select the best seat for themselves. Today you can be barged aside by otherwise respectable looking people for no other reason than they want to be first.

Is it fear of missing out or, I'm all right Jack?

In or Out of the EU

I've hummed and harred over whether I should vote in of out of the EU for the UK.

My only real reason for voting out is that the structure of the EU organisation. The leaders in the EU are appointed, not elected and are therefore largely unaccountable. They seem to be old political leaders that have lost their positions in their own country's democratic structure and are given jobs as a form of pension. 

Even if they were good and have a "lot of experiance" they have probably lost their drive, ambition, vision and energy to fight for anything the inertia of the EU bureaucracy would resist.

However even worse than this is that many are corrupt, or at least complacent, to value for money in EU expenditure. They have country loyalties and loyalties to colleagues in their old governments that manifests as a bias in the decisions and spending, especially of low profile projects.

And all this means that if they do a very bad job, as unelected officials they cant get kicked out. I'm also concerned with TTIP and the way the EU is negotiating it.

On the other hand the reason to vote to stay in is the moderating effect of the EU on an increasingly right wing and rich elite, which seems to want to subjugate ordinary working people to the lowest possible income while they take the maximum income and blame all the ills of the country on the poor. The junior doctors dispute is a prime example where these workers are being asked to do more for less. Yet when they fight back they are painted as the bad guys for not doing as they are told. 

Another example is this article in the Daily Telegraph 10 Dec 2015

Apparently workers getting paid for their drive to their first job of the day is going to increase business cost. This is so surprising that the British Government has to issue a warning for those business leader who are not paying attention...! 

You don't see the same warnings when CEO salaries or bonuses go up, or when they get some massive pay off and pension package. Apparently these costs to the business don't count. No warning is needed as all the business leaders are paying attention, it means they can get more next year.

However there is another reason why paying people while they travel to their first job is justified. When companies first had vehicles for employees they would be parked in the company car park (motor transport) over night. People would travel to work in their own time and at their own cost pick up their vehicles and travel to their first job. At the end of the day they would leave their last job and park the vehicle in the company car park before making their way home.

This was to do with company insurance (so they said) and what the tax man saw as a taxable perk if people took vehicles home. Plus vehicles were expensive and often formed a pool so that several drivers might use the vehicle over a week.

In the 80's this started to change. The cost of insurance wasn't an inhibition any more. Pool vehicles gave way to allocated vehicles as cost came down. The car parks were valuable land to be used or sold off and there wasn't the loss of productivity as people tokk vehcels to and from the company car park. The parking cost were lost to the business and become a public cost as vehicles were parked on the road. Where thieves might break into a fleet of vehicles in a car park and work undetected (steeling all the batteries, tools etc) in a dispersed home parking model this attractive target was removed. 

In conclusion the businesses had the reward of allowing people to park at home. Have used that money or forgotten it and now want the workers to be unpaid while they get to their first job. The EU saw through this ruse and stopped it 

While I doubt there will be any radical changes in the EU there will be no adverse right wing changes and since Scotland has ousted Labour, there may not be a Labour government for some time. So to keep the Tories (and other right wing views) in check I think (not certain) I'm going to vote to stay in.

Core business v outsourced services

If an NHS trust has £1b budget and £800m is maintaining the buildings then it maybe understandable why funding doesn't reach the core services. 

A commercial operation with £1b of profit to invest, the £800m would not contribute much to increasing the profits for next year and so represents a poor investment. There would be a serious look at how to reduce it and no option would be off the table. 

But there is more in the detail that does't make sense. The builders and labourers repairing and maintaining the building earn more than the nurses repairing and maintaining the patients. The architects and lawyers earn more than the doctors. This can be explained partly by supply and demand but doesn't make it right.

The organisation of the NHS is primarily there to administer health care free of charge at the point of delivery. Everything else is non-core and should be outsourced to someone better able to deliver those services. From cleaning, to the manufacturing of medicine, to building maintenance. At least that is the traditional idea of accountants to make the companies look more profitable and efficient.

The way it works is that money paid to a third party (even if essential to delivering the core business) is money that in theory can be reduced by re-tendering for suppliers forcing them to reduce their costs. In practice it doesn't often work that way. An example.

A care home company was persuaded by their accountants to sell of their property and rent it back. This reduced the capital in the company and made it look more efficient and therefore more profitable. share price went up, the banks were ready to lend more. The directors were so pleased they gave themselves a bonus.

The land that they owned was going up in value and the new owners wanted more rent. The old folk had fixed and limited incomes and couldn't pay more. The company could afford it at first as they had their pot of money from the sale and cheap loans from the banks. But in just 5-years they were in trouble and 7-years they were bust. The increased value of the property would have made them financially look inefficient but would not have made one jot of difference to the core business.  

What they had forgotten was not that the property was their core business, but that it was a core tool for their business.

In the case of the NHS it would be like employing all the nurses from an agency. Obviously nuts as these nurses get paid much better and the NHS couldn't (and can't) afford it. But what is so wrong with the NHS having its own in-house building services?  It is clearly a major cost and must therefore be a core tool to deliver the service. No buildings no NHS.

Of that £800m they are paying out there will be at least £200m of profit to the suppliers. Bringing that in-house would effectively double the amount of money available to deliver health care.

Although I've made this about the NHS this applies to other business that have outsourced parts of their business that are essential.  While I don't admire him Rupert Murdock brings everything that is core inside. In the UK Sky have built and operate their own satellite earth stations. Not core to producing a TV Channel, (otherwise everyone would have one) but without it no TV and Rupert has learnt that you can't be held to ransom from the print unions and others. He even owns TV content producers like 20th Century Fox, so he can run the supply chain end to end without anyone else. 

Population Growth

Just an observation; 

There are numerous YouTube clips that explain population growth. They factor in: medicine, wealth, education, contraception, movement to city dwelling as factors driving down population growth. These are all historical factors that are assed with hind sight.

None of these models mention the effect of new technology. e.g. Transport and the past restriction and current ability to travel (migrate) as a factor. The other big factor is the media. 

From TV to internet, media shows people in the developing countries how much easier/”better” life is in the developed world.  Programmes, adverts, films with people in nice cloths, house, and cars (Isn’t that part of what broke down the iron curtain?). 

The assumption is that the developing nations continue to develop and the population stays put while it happens. However, with the knowledge and ability that technology brings, why would they waiting for their nations to catch up with the developed nations (one or two generations)?

Would they not travel to where life was “better” now (for them and their children rather than just their grandchildren)? 

Assuming it is the educated and wealthy that migrate away, what drives development in the country they have left? Do these countries develop slower, or not at all? Does the birth rate remain high, so breaching the UN’s expected population plateau of 10-billion?

I don’t know the answers, but the models that exist (publicly) are based on historical data and take no account of “what if?” scenarios. Projecting the past forward unmodified is as a bit naïve. 

Anyway, global warming, a superbug, WWIII and the meteor of doom are other possibilities that will make this point mute. 

Refurbishing 1 - Lime & Cement Mortars

I recently moved into an old London house (built in 1864). It has not been refurbished, but had some work done on it in the 1970's when the outside toilet was modified to lead off the kitchen and become a bathroom. Central heating was installed in the 1980's

The old steel gas pipes are still in place and connected although the fittings have long gone and ends capped off.

Electricity has been added in stages. There is no "consumer unit" just a series of isolation switches and large bakelite fuses. I have some lead sheathed cable with cotton and rubber insulation still in use with 15Amp and 5Amp round pin sockets.

The mains water supply is lead pipes.

Windows are single glazed wooden sash, apart from two at the back which are draft louvre.

Much of the external concrete mouldings, window sills and brickwork is in poor condition and been badly repaired in the past.

Internally there is some damp that has rotted some joists and damaged plaster work.

The house is in a conservation area which limits what I can do. I'm retired and decided to undertake the refurbishment myself (slowly) This is a 1st of a series on my progress as I seek to find out what and how to do it.

The first job is to stop the damp. One area is under the front door step that has rotted the hall joists. This has happened before as I can see where the joists have been replaced, however little to nothing was done to prevent the water coming in and they have rotted again.

I need to take out the door step and investigate and prevent for the future.

Knocking out the doorstep is one thing but I need to replace it after and this lead me to investigate mortars. Here is the summary of my finding on mortars...  


Why Lime Mortars?
A1) You mustn’t have a mortar stronger then the masonry (because it damages the masonry).
A2) It’s better than cement only mortars 

Background
Cement was invented in 1824 and not perfected until 1860 dominating construction in the UK in the 1930’s. Lime mortars are the principle mortar used in construction until then. 
Pure lime mortars behave as if they are flexible and lime cement mortars are slower hardening and remain more flexible than cement sand mortars. Lime, therefore, enhances the ability of the brickwork to accommodate stresses caused by building movement and cyclical changes without excessive cracking.  A water saturated brick can be as much as 10% bigger then when full dry. These natural movements in a building cause stress. In cement only mortars the mortar can be stronger than the brick and can cause the brick to crack and/or spall (flakes off).

Mortar is an expendable part or the construction and is expected to last around 100-years before repair (e.g. re-pointing). It will turn to dust over time as part of its job of holding the brickwork together and allowing movement.

Benefits of Lime

Workability - Lime improves the plasticity and workability of mortar, while providing a high degree of cohesiveness it also spreads easily under the trowel.

Water retention - Lime mortars have higher water retention, creating an improved bond as there is more contact between masonry and mortar. Retention of water in mortar improves carbonation in pure lime mortars and results in best conditions for early hydration of cement lime mortars – thus reducing cracking and water penetration into hardened mortar joints. The closer bond also reduces water penetration after hardening and has a positive effect on thermal insulation.

Mortar strength - The use of lime in mortar reduces the compressive (load carrying) and flexural (bending) strength of the hardened mortar.

Vapour permeability and Freeze-thaw - Vapour permeability of mortar improves with increasing lime content. A high lime mortar can act as a 'wick', to allow water vapour to pass out from the building enabling the structure to effectively 'breathe'. Vapour permeability allows any moisture to evaporate, thus reducing the risk of freeze thaw deterioration.

Autogenous (self) healing - Should hairline cracks develop in the mortar, the combination of lime, moisture and carbon dioxide from the air can help to seal the crack by the formation of calcium carbonate (limestone). The crystals that are subsequently formed by this process help to plug the cracks.  Repeating the process turns the lime based mortar to dust over a period of around 100 years. Cement based mortars crack and need replacing earlier.  Most commonly affects the exposed surface (pointing).

Types of Lime

Air Lime – non-Hydraulic/Quicklime/Putty Lime - Uses atmospheric carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate.

Hydrated Lime – Will not set while in contact with water and is added to cement mixes to give the benefits of lime.

Hydraulic Lime  - Fat lime -  Uses the process of Hydrolysis to set, so will set while in contact with water. Used in Lime+Sand only mixes. Setting time for lime only mixes is much slower. 

Motars
Usually consist of 3 or 4 parts, but other additives may be used.

1. Aggregate – e.g. sand, provides the bulk of the mortar
2. Binder – e.g. Lime and/or cement, binds the aggregate together and the mortar to the masonry
3. Water – Catalyst for binder and bonds the mortar parts together as a cohesive substance.
4. Filler – materials which are added to a mortar to bulk up the mix and fill voids

Mix

Hydrated Lime Mix – by volume
                   Use                                 Sand Lime       Cement
General Building above ground       5   1           1
General Building below ground             6   1           1
Internal Walls                                       9   2           1

1. Dry mix until very even mix
2. Add water slowly and stop when the mix looks slightly too dry
3. Mix the wet mortar for a good 10 minutes and the mix will eventually become more workable