Safety lites on gar. door opener

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

No claim, no exclusion... :)

[hallerb]

well if a lost kid happens to get trapped by your door that exclusion may see you lose your home your retirement and everything else you worked a lifetime for.

or perhaps just a criminal proscuetion ???

or just living with having killed a kid and the scorn of friends neighbors etc....

but hey 30 minutes and a doorbell button is very expensive and a big hassle.

not worth the effort

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

Yep.

After all, I still have FPE breakers...

--

[dpb]

George wrote: ...

Actually, it came to me "why" in many cases, particularly ones like this...

It's just _so_ much sport to tweak the nanny-cops and watch/read the (utterly predictable) righteous outrage and indignation... :)

--

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

OK, let's consider this scenario a little...

A "lost" kid is going to wander by this particular farmstead that is some several miles from any residential area or highway in an area that is topographically flat and treeless to the point one can see telephone poles clearly on the horizon in any direction 5 miles away and then once having gotten here rather than approach the house is instead going to go into a fully detached garage, locate the garage door opener button that is at least 4-ft off the floor (probably close to 5-ft as it is mounted about a foot above the light switch) so this poor unfortunate lost tyke of a soul has to be a decent-sized/aged kid and open it then push it and then deliberately go stand or lie down in its path and wait for it to close on him/her.

OK, yeah, I'm worryin' now...

--

[Willie The Wimp]

Neither statement is 100% valid.

It depends on all kinds of things. In this instance, consider what happens to the prob. of crushed kid after a "Now, go out and play in the traffic, kids"-type mom moves in next door.

And if that doesn't convince ya, try:

Willie

[dpb]

Precisely. Specifically on the characteristics underlying probabilistic model (for random events) which is why I used the earlier easier-to-see-than-some-others example...

--

[dpb]

[e-mail] wrote: ...

That isn't, agreed, but--got me thinkin'. I _might_ just velcro the remote to the header outside...then wouldn't have to walk around the fence into the yard and around to the other in order to get in from the farmyard side...I like it!!! :)

[HeyBub]

No, if I were watching the door go down, I could monitor whether a kid was stuck beneath. Then I could make a decision about whether to rescue him (or her).

As for logic being stretched, thieves are opportunists. With 50 house on the street, only one of which has the garage door open in the middle of the night, which of the 50 do you think will be the most enticing?

Maybe I'm missing something; what part of my logic do you fear is "stretched"?

[HeyBub]

Hmm. What you're describing is known as "The Maturation of the Odds."

It doesn't exist. I hope.

You're saying we should worry about the moon crashing into the earth? Bolivia declaring war on the U.S.? Ted Turner accepting Jesus as his personal savior? The Washington Monument falling over in a high wind and crushing a tourist from Lithuania who had just bought a tutti-fruity ice cream cone?

The mind reels! Thousands - nay millions - of new things to worry about.

[Harry K]

So you never leave the door open while you are home and working around the place? that is where your logic falls apart.

Harry K

[sligoNoSPAMjoe]

Well it was not stated, but I believe everyone was speaking of random events. With randon events prior events have zerro effect on future events.

[HeyBub]

Oh. Inasmuch as the whole discussion had to do with the door coming down (or refusing to do so), leaving the door up intentionally does not enter the equation nor, for that reason, did I consider it.

That said, if I intentionally leave the door open while I'm working around the house AND some thieves start to haul off my stuff AND I discover same, I will scoop out their lungs with my bulb-planting tool.

[Harry K]

The 'crushed kid', which is most of the reason for the safety lights, is not usually due to your intentional closign of the door but with kids playing and _them_ closign the door.

You can look at it as "nanny state" but it is a safety issue. The so- called 'nuisance' of the door stopping because you interrupted the beam is a straw man. In 20 years of my new door, it has never done that to me and I make no effort to evade the eyes. Hmmm...I wonder if there is a slight delay before it activates, i.e., a momentary disruption not activating it?

Harry K

Harry K

[Harry K]

I tested my door this morning, yes, there _is_ a short delay built in. I can stand there and wave my boot back and forth with no effect. I have to hold it steady for a short time before the door reversal kicks in. Since mine is around 20 years old, I would assume (yes I know) that all modern ones do. There goes your 'nuisance'

Harry K

[HeyBub]

Not mine. I never said anything about "nuisance."

You're erecting a straw man argument for someone else entirely.

[Harry K]

You are correct. You inserted the "thieves" bit which is about as absurd a reason as 'nuisance'.

As to "not mine". How do you know? Remember you apparently have them installed so you couldn't check it.

Harry K

[dpb]

Harry K wrote: ...

Well, I can confirm that assumption isn't true -- the pair on the one I just installed were/are interrupted simply by the manual pull cord rope passing between the beam. I had initially just set the two on the rail supports while finishing the installation/adjustment and the rope traveling w/ the carrier was/is sufficient. It's roughly a 1/2-sec interruption based on door travel speed and rope diameter. No way could wave a foot back and forth and not interrupt it.

--

[dpb]

dpb wrote: ...

Actually, on reflection it's much shorter time than that -- when first started testing to adjust up/down travel limits, etc., didn't realize the rope was crossing the beam at first as I had thought I had placed them beyond it's travel point so kept thinking it was a binding/force problem preventing closing/causing reversal.

Finally, after deciding couldn't be that, took the rope itself and flung it across the beam and it still caused the unit to reverse. At that speed it couldn't have intersected and occluded the beam for more than a few tenths of a second. I'd conclude from that there's no time delay at all in the standard-duty models anyway.

I've not taken time to figure out what input it expects but I'm wondering if the present-day ones aren't a current loop instead of simple continuity as a jumper alone isn't enough. I presume a properly-sized resistor across the terminals would do the trick to fake the correct input impedance but it is, of course, simpler to just make the circuit...

--

[Harry K]

Hmmm...Now I wonder if when I ws waving my boot it was actually in the beam. I may have been above it. I'll try it again next time I'm out there.

Harry K