Jump to content

rlubikey

Members
  • Posts

    514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by rlubikey

  1. Andrew, if you change the amount of gas coming out of the engine, it changes the amount sucked in. That means you have to modify the fuelling to accommodate this. I can confirm this is true. I took to using ear plugs on longer runs to keep my sanity until I managed to change to a standard system. Some poor fool (sorry) enthusiastic driver wanted to swap for a sports exhaust. He's probably not on such good terms with his neighbours now. Cheers, Richard
  2. Yes, I use Audacity for transcribing vinyl to CD - especially old records not released since. You can clean up the sound - although de-clicking I find best done manipulating the waveform "by hand"- and split into tracks ready for burning. If you enjoy this sort of thing (I do) it becomes quite engrossing. Perhaps I should have been a studio engineer! But as to CD-to-tape, I think you are stuck with real time. Cheers, Richard
  3. Chris, I think you'll find NPTF simply means NPT-Female. NPT is of course National Pipe Thread, an American standard which is a taper thread. There is only one NPT thread - no variations, unlike UNified-Coarse & -Fine threads. Cheers, Richard
  4. Here you go, the Triumph 2600 MkIII Saloon Prototype from Canley Classics web site museum section. It says "These cars have unique bonnets, nose cones to fit the longer deeper 2600 engine." You can see the power bulge a bit like on the MkI saloon has been added, and somehow the nose looks different, but difficult to judge from this angle on the small photo. Perhaps a trip is in order next time Canleys open their museum for the day. Dave??? Cheers, Richard
  5. You're right of course Clive. How long is it compared to the 2500? Would an "engine back" work?
  6. I believe the Rover 2600 is one of those "what if" engines. As already said, it was developed from the Triumph 2500 for the Rover/Triumph big saloons. Being overhead cam it is taller than the older engine. Someone (Canleys?) had a picture of a Triumph 2000 test vehicle for the 2600 engine, which had a large rectangular raised section in the bonnet. The cross-flow design used the single cam layout of the Dolly Sprint and apparently the performance was so good that they had to de-tune it so it didn't embarrass the Rover V8 engines used in the top range models. I can't seem to lay my hands on any tuning catalogues from the period, but I haven't spotted anyone offering hotter cams to restore the power this engine should have given. I suppose the problem is that this was a one-car-engine. Just imagine what it could have been with a decent cam, then add 4-valves per cylinder - a Rover 2600 Sprint! Give it a go and let us know how you get on. Cheers, Richard PS: Leave the 2300 well alone - it was gutless, presumably to go in a cheaper stripped down model.
  7. Were you ever one of the "Backroom Boys" for Blue Peter Roger? Cheers, Richard
  8. They're on a common dimmer and it doesn't work with at least one conventional bulb. Sounds like maybe the LEDs are dodgy. Sold as dimmable, but does it actually say that on the packet? Even so, I would remove the dimmer and try direct on the mains, then you know to either get an LED compatible dimmer ... or new (different) LEDs. Richard
  9. Colin, from memory, conventional dimmers switch the leading edge of the mains waveform. LED compatible dimmers switch the trailing edge. Also, the LED has to be dimmer compatible and I can't see anything on that packet that says your bulb is. Is the dimmer an in-line jobbie in the mains lead? Is there more than one bulb in each decanter? If so, try one conventional bulb and one LED. My guess is that the dimmer can't "see" a bulb - it doesn't recognise the LED as a light bulb. If there's only one bulb then take the dimmer out of circuit to check it does actually work, then go and buy an LED compatible dimmer. Cheers, Richard
  10. The question is Nigel, which glycol? There's ethylene glycol, and there's propylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is nasty stuff but it's cheap. However, the corrosion inhibitors break down quickly - 2 or 3 years. Whereas the inhibitors in Propylene glycol are more stable and last 20 or 25 years. also, Propylene glycol is nowhere near as poisonous. I can't find an MSDS but it sounds to me as though 4life is based on Propylene glycol and I suspect that's how they get their "enhanced" performance. If so then it's just a "pre-mixed" Propylene Glycol anti-freeze. I run my Spit with domestic central heating heating antifreeze which is Propylene Glycol with 20 years life, compatible with all cooling system materials, and not too poisonous so no disposal issues. The long life means it works out way cheaper in the long run. Cheers, Richard
  11. Yes, the UK Spit passenger side had the warning light BW at least as early as 1977. Cheers, Richard
  12. No James, they didn't look anything like that on my old late (X-reg) Spit, which were just the same as my current ('77) model. Cheers, Richard
  13. "Wireless" - how quaint! Martin, the problem with Spit/GT6 door speakers is they will foul the window when it's wound down if they are too deep. I can tell you from personal experience how dispiriting it is to hear that THUNK as the window hits first time you wind it down. It won't wind any further, and then you put two and two together. I think the only place any speaker will fit - unless you want to chop a hole in the door inner skin - is the bottom rear corner. Take the door panel off and, with a straight edge across the inner skin, measure the distance to the wound down window. It's not much - only just over an inch I think. 30mm, something like that? You could add the thickness of the door trim panel, but remember to keep something for clearance. I did this recently and the ones I fitted say "Radiomobile" but there's no model number and I can't find the box, sorry! They're about 125mm diameter. However, I simply trotted down to my local friendly independent motor factors and they opened the glass case and I measured what they had. You won't get anything special in such a slim speaker, but with the top down and the wind rushing past, who cares! Hope this is some help. Cheers, Richard
  14. Not being a guitar god like Doug, my fingers also get cracked skin & I've tried all the usual suspects of skin cream - Neutrogena, E45, Norwegian Formula, and remember there was a fad of udder cream a few years ago which everyone said was the bee's ... It wasn't. Atrixo make the one I use. Not the "M'ladies boudoir" one in the light green tub, but the ordinary "intensive protection" stuff in the mid-green tub. The trick is, after rubbing it into your finger tips, briefly run cold water over them - just a few seconds - and dry with a towel. This takes away the slippy greasiness but leaves your skin protected with what seems like a slight waxy layer. I imagine this is what keeps the natural oils & moisture in and also stops the roughness from snagging on things like fabrics. Cheers, Richard
  15. Silicone brake fluid is based on silicone oil. Silicone oil - I was surprised to find - is NOT compatible with silicon rubber! So it's POSSIBLE that they've used silicone rubber seals. However, I agree it's much more likely that they simply haven't tested DOT-5 silicone brake fluid and they won't warrant something they haven't tested. When you work in electrochemistry you start to get a bit nerdy about chemical compatibility! Cheers, Richard
  16. Alan, I believe it's only function is as a switch for a puny little light on the dash - someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Here are some photos which may help - blue things are off the dual MC donor car. I had forgotten that the strengthening web is also different (lower) on the dual MC cars. The siamesed brake strengthening web and clutch bracket is to accommodate the 6-cylinder PI plenum. Sorry about the flash rust - that shower really caught us on the hop! Cheers, Richard
  17. Agree with that! Having had this happen to me on my (dual circuit) Spit, I would also choose a dual circuit over single any time. You only find out when you're actually braking that there's a problem and if it happens, having the presence of mind to go for the handbrake is one of those things that takes a second or two to percolate through the old grey cells. The brake pedal goes further down (because you have no pressure in half the MC) but you still have some retardation. If you're driving like the road is your personal race track then that won't be enough. If you're being a bit more leisurely it probably will. I converted my 1977 Spit with bits from my '79 model when it went to that great scrap yard in the sky. You need the MC of course, plus the lower and steeper angle bracket (to hold the MC lower so it doesn't touch the bonnet) and you already know about the dish in the bulkhead so it clears there (like the one behind the battery for US models which had dual circuit years earlier). I simply declared the change to the insurance company - no problem there. Then the standard setup is front one circuit, rear the other. As has been said, less likely to spin when you panic and hit the pedal hard - which you will!!! I did not fit the PDWA (Pressure Differential Warning .... don't know what the last one is) as it only illuminates a silly little light on the dash - which you probably won't even notice. You'll know something's wrong because your foot WILL feel the difference! Cheers, Richard
  18. If that was "The Truth About Boosting Your Immune System" on BBC1 two Wednesdays ago, it was intriguing that she said to supplement with 400IU (which is the line the NHS pedals) but showed pictures of bottles of 1,000IU and 4,000IU - and the 4,000IU was shown again at the end of the programme. A bit of editorial conflict perhaps - do we keep to the NHS message or say what the presenter wants to put over? Cheers, Richard
  19. Erring on the side of stupidity more like it. It's true that one size doesn't fit all, but 400IU is for bone health only - there's a very obvious connection between vitamin D and rickets - which has only really affected human-kind since the industrial revolution with people working in factories, narrow streets and pollution limiting access to sunlight. 4000IU is absolutely safe or the NHS wouldn't make the claim - in fact much higher levels are safe but they have added a generous safety margin. I'm sorry to hear that you both had issues PeteH. Absolutely the best vitamin D you can get comes from sunlight, which of course is free. We didn't evolve to get it from food, though those living further north do just that. You have to eat a lot of fish. Eskimos eat oily fish for breakfast, dinner and tea. Cheers, Richard
  20. Hi Doug. Yes, this spring and summer was great. Warm and sunny and I was a "Gentleman of Leisure" so got out most days. I was able to build up my tan so that I didn't need any sunscreen. Hours in the saddle around the middle of the day meant we must have got really good levels. This is something people don't mention - you need to be out in the sun in the middle of the day in April/May and August/September, and for a few hours around midday in June/July. A morning or evening stroll isn't good enough as the sun's too low. Also, with so many people working - and eating lunch - at their desks, you only have two days a week to take the sun. What proportion of the time here in Blighty do we have warm enough days to bare our arms and legs on those two days each week? When we had much more out-door lives we would have got the exposure on the few days available, not least because we were probably labouring away and glad to roll our sleeves up! Cheers, Richard
  21. Tony, there's insufficient evidence at the moment that vitamin D will help with rust ... or oil leaks. Cheers, Richard
  22. Colin, the gov't/NHS advice is to take 400IU/day, which is marginally just enough for bone health. Vitamin D researchers and the results of many trials, both before and during COVID, say that we should be taking much more than that because the other benefits of vitamin D (immunity, inflammation, cancer, brain health and loads more things I've forgotten) only happen with much higher blood serum levels. The NHS does admit that 4,000IU/day is safe, and I would suggest something like this amount is what most people need to achieve 100~150nmol/L, which is what our ancestors would have had. But because we lead such indoor lives these days (even people in Italy and Spain are vitamin D deficient) we don't get enough sunlight, and with the advent of sunscreen we shield our skin from UVB when we do venture outside. Personally, I'm against mandatory fortification of foodstuffs, but I think that a lot of people who haven't gone in to the science don't know what level they need to take. And the NHS keeps bleating that 400IU is enough. It isn't - it's no where near enough! Cheers, Richard
  23. We listened to a Radio 4 documentary about vitamin D 10 years ago, and my wife and I have taken 2,000IU/day of vitamin D (plus 100ug K2 to keep the calcium in the bones) ever since. I've been following and occasionally contributing to the discussion over at the TR Forum, so when I learned back in March that you could get a blood test for £29, we got ours done. My Nearest & Dearest was 89nmol/L and I was 63nmol/L (this is 25(OH)D3). This was at the very end of winter - the sun is too low at our latitude for our skin to make vitamin D for 6 months from November to March so it was the perfect time for a blood test. The results taught me 2 things; different people take different amounts of vitamin D to achieve a given blood serum level (even accounting for weight) and 2,000IU is too low to achieve the sort of blood serum level which our ancestors would have had - 100~150nmol/L. We now take 4,000IU/day. There is a vitamin D estimator spreadsheet which you can download and play with. In my case it was 29% out compared with the test results, but at least it would get you in the ball park. It shows that the NHS 400IU/day is totally pathetic - marginal even for bone health and useless for the other benefits including innate and adaptive immunity, airway inflamation, etc. which require 100~150nmol/L 25(OH)D. Taking vitamin D is very safe and cheap so, as has been stated - there is no down side except a small dent in the wallet. The fact that government and the NHS keep saying vitamin D's benefit is not proven, reminds me of tobacco and climate change denial. You just have to throw in the element of doubt by saying the case is not proven, to kick the can down the road and maintain the status quo. It's unethical to do a randomised controlled trial on smoking, and you can't do an RCT on the planet (cuz we've only got the one!) so people with and alternative agenda simply point to the doubt. That's the tactic they used to keep selling cigarettes, and some still do with fossil fuel. The question is, what's the alternative agenda for vitamin D deniers? Cheers, Richard
  24. Oh ... I don't remembering it touching there. Have you got the chrome caps on the B-post? Maybe it does touch there if 41 is missing. The blocks, from memory, are about 1/2" thick, so if you can find a spacer to simulate, you could see what difference it makes.
  25. Parts 41 and 42 here. It's 41 which are the hard blocks.
×
×
  • Create New...