Nuts (and bolts)

I often wonder why all the tap handles in my new bathroom and kitchen are loose; and why the nut falls off the door of my new wood-burning stove every other day. I am of an age at which new problems seem obviously due to slipping standards, or to the forgetting by callow youth of the wisdom of their elders. So I assume that these loose nuts are symptomatic of some failure of modern workmanship, or of modern materials. I suppose there are several possible explanations, besides 'bad luck'.

Perhaps the coefficient of friction (µ) of common materials has changed? For example, teflon is 10 times 'slippier' than steel, while de-greased steel is some 30% 'grippier' than normal steel [1]. Aluminium grips on aluminium, but not on steel. The oxide layer on materials like aluminium and steel makes a considerable difference to the grip. There is a plethora of data [1] on coefficients of friction, but all-in-all I could not identify in this area a convincing explanation for my loose nuts.

The nuts and bolts that held our bicycles and cars together for half a century before the second world war were defined (pitch, mean diameter, depth of groove) in factions of an inch. Metrication has, of course, minutely changed these linear dimensions to make them fit a metric scheme, and so I wondered if the engineers making the conversions from inches to millimetres had 'rounded' in such a way as to degrade the gripping power. If we define "lead angle" as arctan (lead/(π x mean diameter)) [2], first of all we find lead angle of metric standard bolts curiously variable. A 7 mm diameter bolt (pitch = 1 mm) should, on the face of it, grip appreciable better than the similar sized 6 mm diameter bolt (pitch = 1 mm), and the 4 mm diameter bolt appreciably worse (pitch = 0.7 mm). However, when we compare standard metric bolts with British Standard Whitworth, or American Screw Thread, we find that the new lead angle is significantly less, and should therefore be less prone to work loose.

(Bicycle threads are different. They were (and are) deliberately made with a finer thread, so even with 'amateur' servicing they are less prone to wriggle loose.)

So why then the loose tap handles, fire-door, etc. There is one measurement in the standard metric bolt that is less friendly to security than found in older standard threads, and that is the angle formed by the two sides of the groove. It is now 60º. It was 55 º in the BSW (and was 47.5º in the British Association fine instrument threads). This means that the load, which [a] generates friction and [b] generates the resultant force that causes loosening, is far from 'normal' to the interacting surfaces, but is applied at a glancing angle. I wonder if this is significant.

Wouldn't it be champion if my ruminations on this matter ultimately led to a new international thread standard, and a generation of tap handles that stayed firm indefinitely!

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm
[2] "Lead" is the distance of advance up the axis of the bolt for each turn of the helix. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_(engineering)

Occidentis, MORPETH, UK.

The lazy apostrophe

How I deprecate the sudden upsurge of the 'lazy' apostrophe, and the needless confusion it causes. I am not talking about incorrect apostrophes (for example the 'Greengrocer's' apostrophe — "Cauli's 50p/lb"). I am talking about the more-or-less random omission of letters in written English as though attempting a phonetic transcription of lazy speech. Is this just a passing fad amongst journalists? I would hate to think that there is a new editorial policy sweeping our country.

Examples can be found in almost any newspaper these days; for example Susannah Clapp in 'The Observer' (2010.05.30) provides the following:
"It's notorious for a production in 1613 during which the Globe theatre burnt down.."
"Still, there's another strand to the play…
"There is plenty that's incendiary." (Why not "There's plenty that's incendiary."?
"Men died as a consequence and Keller's business partner has been jailed…"  Oh no! Sorry! The last is a genuine 'possessive' apostrophe.

One objection to the 'lazy' apostrophe is that it looks like a legitimate possessive. A second is that it robs the sentence of its verb. (Shortening "cannot" to "can't" is a different matter; it saves space, it does not remove the verb, and it does not resemble a possessive.) Above all, why this 'lazy' apostrophe is not (in my view) legitimate is that in written English we are not (in general) writing the sounds we intend to convey but the ideas we intend to convey. We do not write "innernashnal" or "aluminum", but "international" and "aluminium". The words are pronounced in different ways round the world.

I put these points a few weeks ago to the Editor of The London Review of Books, but got no reply; but then, there is no reply, is there!

Occidentis, MORPETH, UK.

It's the candidates, stupid!

    I have adapted the rightly famous "Its the Economy, stupid!", to form a new slogan to be used inside the UK's Liberal Democratic Party:

     "It's the CANDIDATES, stupid". 

    The quality of a candidate matters. In analysing results there has been practically no mention of 'personal'  effects. Pundits say the results are all over the place, as though they have given up trying to understand the trends, but meaning of course that some candidates do better than average and some do worse. Some show a 'swing' of + 8%, while the national trend was essentially zero gain; others loose a 'safe' seat. 

    The Lib Dem share of the national vote has inched up over the years: '92=17.8%, '97=17.8%, '01=18.0%, '05=22.1%, '10=23.0%.  Once again people seem to miss something. They think this is natural, because it is something that has been happening all their lives, and they have given up trying to discern the causes. But I suspect that one significant meaning is that the quality of candidates has been rising steadily over the decades. Success in one election means more people are prepared to step forward next time, and  so the effect builds. 

    An Alternative Vote system is not 'Proportional'. With an Alternative Vote system it will be vital not to be the 'bottom' candidate in any constitiuency'; their votes get lost. A candidate who comes second could however end up as MP when the re-assigned votes are totted. 

Weighted members 2

Weighted members: further remarks

 

Electoral Reform Society

6 Chancel St.

LONDON, SE1 0UU

25 April 2010

 

Dear Sir,

Proportional Representation by Weighted Members

In a letter to The Times on 7^th April I outlined what I called "Proportional Representation by Weighted Members". (See below). The idea is so simple that it has probably occurred to many people, but it is not currently being discussed and I therefore think it would be worthwhile for you to examine the suggestion. It has some merits and in some respects a superiority over all currently canvassed schemes for the reform of parliament.

Essence

In essence the suggestion is that current constituencies are not changed and nor is the voting system at general elections. However, subsequently, at each division of the House of Commons the inequalities in representation are repaired by weighting the members according to the total votes cast for their party at the election by which they were elected to parliament. Thus, at the 2005 general election, each Labour member represented 26,860 votes, each Conservative member 44,306 votes, each Lib Dem member 96,482, etc.. Each Lib Dem member at the Ayes lobby counts for 96,482 votes, each Labour member for 26,860 votes. (See Table below)

Features

Parties that won no seats in a general election would have no influence on the decisions of the House. However, provided that at least one member were elected to parliament, and voted on a particular issue, their voting strength would exactly represent the opinion in the country (in so far as a political party has a definite policy on, or a predictable attitude to, the issue in question.

The geographical relationship between a member and a constituency would remain. However, a member with a party affiliation would additionally represent voters in other constituencies who support his party but who failed to elect their representative and whose votes would therefore be wasted in the current system.

The personal qualities of an individual candidate would remain vital in getting him elected to the House (as is not the case with party list systems).

The most powerful single party would presumably be asked to form a government, which might not be the party with the greatest number of seats. Its cabinet would presumably bring forward policies to the House, where they might get blocked by a coalition of minor parties (in the likely event that no one party had greater than 50% of the total votes cast at the general election; viz  in the event of a 'hung parliament'). However, it is not the case that such blockage would be inevitable with a hung parliament as it is absurd to suppose that responsible members would vote repeatedly for chaos. Party whips and members thinking for themselves would have to assess each measure on its merits; which seems no bad thing.

Unique advantages

[1]  The system of PR by weighted member is extremely easy to institute. It requires no change to constituencies of the conduct of elections. It requires only that the party affiliations (if any) of members of parliament be known officially, and their names taken at each division of the House of Commons.

[2]  The system can even be instituted without the consent of the two major parties, who traditionally (and understandably though cynically) resist any reform that would weaken their political dominance.

[3]  It allows the examination of the effects of a proportional parliament without the fearsome step of dismantling the present system.

[4]  It might therefore be considered as a way of  pressing the case for reform of the House.

 

I would appreciate your considered views.

Yours sincerely,  Ian West

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Table of weightings for the 2005 parliament

	2005 General Election				Votes per seat
Party	Seats	% Seats	% Votes	Total vote
Labour	356	55.2	35.3	9,562,122	26860
Conservative	198	30.7	32.3	8,772,598	44306
Liberal Democrat	62	9.6	22.1	5,981,874	96482
UKIP	0	0	2.2	603,298
SNP	6	0.9	1.5	412,267	68711
Green	0	0	1	257,758
Demo. Unionist	9	1.4	0.9	241,856	26873
BNP	0	0	0.7	192,746
Plaid Cymru	3	0.5	0.6	174,838	58279
Sinn F司n	5	0.8	0.6	174,530	34906
Ulster Unionist	1	0.2	0.5	127,414	127414
SDLP	3	0.5	0.5	125,626	41875
Independent	1	0.2	0.5	122,000	122000
Respect	1	0.2	0.3	68,094	68094

 

 

Tipping

Tipping and the Law

I am glad that the question of tipping has come up for clarification, but I am not confident that the right choice has been made. I find tipping divisive, ill-directed, and productive of the worst kind of obsequiousness. I understood it was illegal in New Zealand in the fifties and believe it should be elsewhere. It is most important to avoid confusing 'gratitude' and 'salary'. And to avoid the bizarre position they have reached in the USA, where a waiter has to pay tax on the mere assumption that he is getting tips! Good food is as important as good service and we certainly do not need the discretionary aspect of tipping to reward either; we simply stay away from bad restaurants and patronise good ones. 

Of course tips should not be counted as part of the waiter's wage. But I do not see why a Service Charge could not be levied by the restaurant and used to pay staff wages; all staff; including cooks and scullery staff, and not just the smarmy waiter who crouches by your table and tells you that he is called Jason and will be attending to your needs this evening. Customers should be asked NOT to leave money on the table.

Weighted members

 

Dear Sir,

There are strong arguments for some form of proportional representation in the house of commons, and some arguments against. If the house more nearly represented the country there would be more consensus behind acts of parliament, votes would count and democratic participation would (probably) increase. On the other hand, the greater stability would make it harder to change our institutions dramatically and whimsically, and this would doubtless appear as a disadvantage to some. (The complaint that centre parties would constantly be "in power" is utter nonsense and I shall not discuss it.)

 

However, there are a number of different systems by which a more proportional house could be achieved, and each of these inevitably involves changes of some sort, changes which will appear to some people to outweigh the advantages; larger constituencies, coalition governments, complicated ballot papers, etc.

 

My suggestion of "weighted members" is very simple and requires no change in the constituencies, nor voting arrangements in the country. (Indeed, it is dangerously simple because it does not even need the agreement of the two major parties which has hitherto blocked all attempts to introduce proportional representation.  A single maverick, acting alone could inaugurate a transparent and almost totally representative parliament.) It can easily be observed that, after the 2005 general election, each Labour member represented 26,860 votes, each Conservative member 44,306 votes, and each Lib Dem member 96, 482 votes, etc. Labour, as the party with the greatest number of total votes, would still have been asked to form the government. Each member would still have represented the same constituency that voted them in. But at each division of the House their voting weight would be augmented by the votes of those citizens who are dis-enfranchised by the present system.  Each Labour member passing into the 'Ayes' lobby would carry 26,860 votes, each Tory 44,306, etc.

 

(This simple system can even be applied retrospectively, and we can examine whether or not the Thatcher government had a mandate for the privatisation of our utilities and transport networks.)   

Yours sincerely,

 

7 April 2010

 

Ian West

12 Longhirst Village

MORPETH, NE61 3LT

(tel: 01670 791880; e-mail: ianwest001@tiscali.co.uk)

2005 General Election
	Seats	% of	% of	Total vote	Votes per
		Seats	Votes		seat
Labour	356	55.2	35.3	9,562,122	26,860
Conservative	198	30.7	32.3	8,772,598	44,306
Liberal Democrat	62	9.6	22.1	5,981,874	96,482
UKIP	0	0	2.2	603,298
SNP	6	0.9	1.5	412,267	68,711
Green	0	0	1	257,758
Democratic Unionist	9	1.4	0.9	241,856	26,873
BNP	0	0	0.7	192,746
Plaid Cymru	3	0.5	0.6	174,838	58,279
Sinn Féin	5	0.8	0.6	174,530	34,906
Ulster Unionist	1	0.2	0.5	127,414	127,414
SDLP	3	0.5	0.5	125,626	41,875
Independent	1	0.2	0.5	122,000	122,000
Respect	1	0.2	0.3	68,094	68,094