Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Zomet Chagaz in America for YT Stove Safety? #1077275
    zaidy64
    Member

    Actually there seem to be at least two other mechanical gas timers that are functionally (and presumably halahicaly) equivalent to the Zomet Chagaz – but with standard USA Pipe Fittings (though both seem to focusing on the Gas BBQ / Fireplace safety/savings markets as @ChicagoBubby alludes to). Gasav-R and Fire-Magic.

    I actually have been using the Gasav-R for the last few years for Yom Tov Propane BBQ (i.e. much more convenient to use this timer with a standard 20# propane tank – instead of having to resort to 1# coleman “camping” propane tanks [with adapter hose] which last a couple of hours). I bought it from the importer Waldale who apparently has it manufactured in Taiwan (seems to also be available on Amazon and a few BBQ accessory stores).

    I’m considering installing it for our gas stove as well (seems to be a win-win-win on Halacha-Safety-Savings) before Shavuos – though for sure interested in any advice / insight from anyone (e.g. friend-of-@ChicagoBubby or anyone else) who has done this already.

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075225
    zaidy64
    Member

    @Joseph: clarification of the green light: While in Shabbos mode, the green light is on to definitively indicate that no internal LED transmitter will be pulsed in the near future (e.g. within the next five seconds) so it is “safe” to move the plastic blocker.

    Once the red warning light comes on (also in Shabbos mode) an internal LED may potentially be pulsed in the near future though (as detailed in my earlier post) this Transmission event may be randomly delayed (i.e. the pulse will happen and not safe to move- although e.g. it could be up to 30 seconds later).

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075218
    zaidy64
    Member

    @nishtdayngesheft: When you move “the plastic in front of the sensor” the metzios is that the switch will always be able to intitiate the opposite event (i.e. vs. unblocking) because not only is “the system … programmed to recognize that the light is on” as @DaasYochid guesses, but in fact the attempt to send/receive a pulse via a pair of transmitter/receiver devices inside the switch is always essentially an instantaneous programmed event sequence.

    Thus immediately after initiating such an event (“Attempt a Transmission” in the loshon of patent US7872576) the [switch] system is programmed to infer and record (i.e. into processor memory) the position of the blocker. As @RebbeYid pointed out [last week] this is as if the “single computer controlling everything says, I’m going to shine a light into my own eye, and if this human puts something in the way, I won’t turn on his light…”.

    All of the random delays described in the patent, have no effect on the metzios of an individual Transmission event. Instead, the kinds of randomness they introduce include:

    [A] How long to wait (i.e. from time warning light turns green) to initiate a Transmission event.

    How long to delay after the Transmission event, to decide if the results of that event indicate the switch should be changed.

    [C] Pseudo-randomly decide if an indicated switch change event (e.g. turn on/off externally controlled light) should actually take effect now, or if to instead re-start a new cycle (i.e. [A] wait/transmit/etc.)

    So while at the macro level the change in the external circuit (i.e. lights on/off) may theoretically be delayed for a very long time (i.e. by random cycle of A/B/C happening to occur numerous times) it would seem IMHO that the changes happening within the switch at the micro level are of at least equal concern, and need to be dealt with in any complete analysis of why the entire mechanism might (or not) be muttar lechatchilah.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)