The Lemon Fool

Bminusrob wrote:I am more in agreement with the suggestion of hot air hand driers being useless. In my experience, they are designed to make a lot of noise for no good reason other than blowing drops of water from your hands onto your trousers, therefore making in look as if you have an incontinence problem.

More than sixty years ago our school introduced hot air hand driers, and we were often paraded to show visiting dignitaries how up-to-date we were. Unfortunately those first-generation driers had reliability problems. The heated filament used to give up the ghost by erupting (red hot) onto little hands, and also the electrical insulation was dodgy - you quickly learned which buttons not to touch. But I must say that I find the current blow-downwards driers quite acceptable. Its the blade up-blowers (introduced by Dyson?) that I find totally unacceptable - blowing bugs, and other things straight up into your face. I say "other things" since apparently they have known to have been used to excite other parts - with the evidence left behind.

simsqu wrote:I would like to invite members to suggest the Planet's most useless piece of equipment.

The Dyson airblade hand dryer model dB
https://www.dyson.co.uk/commercial/hand-dryers.html

The trough collects the water removed from your hands and blows it onto your face

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Humane mouse traps

Obviously the little sods are going to find their way back to your property. Or are you really going to drive them 100 miles down the road and release them into woodlands remote from any human habitation!! Really?

Matt

But hopefully they will find more comfortable lodgings on the way back to your habitation. I tried out this policy with my greenhouse mice last year - with limited success. I suspect they really liked the peanut butter in the traps, so were willing to bypass better looking establishments on the return journey.

Howyoudoin wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote:"Smarter"
Pfffttttt....

Ha ha. You bought a suit jacket recently so I guess you want to look presentable sometimes? Otherwise, why bother?

HYD

Indeed, but strictly no double cuffs, or ties*
Double cuffs are just...pointless, and trap crumbs

*other than weddings, funerals, interviews etc

'Happy or not' smiley face machines at airports. My 9 year old gives very random feedback depending on the time of day we're ever flying on holiday.

Cheers, OLTB.

scotia wrote:They ploughed up our roadside grass and part of our park grass, and scattered wildflower seeds to make "pollination corridors". It looks OK the first year, but thereafter it degenerates into a weed patch with the strongest and ugliest winning.

After our council stopped using weedkiller on the roadside verges, they turned instead to strimming off all the vegetation that had been making it hard for drivers to see where the road surfaces ended and where the unforgiving stone walls began.

After a few months of petrol strimming, they began to appreciate for the first time that weeds really grew quite a bit faster than anyone on the council had ever appreciated. And that something else would be needed rather urgently if they were to stand any chance of getting into the Best Kept Villages shortlist. Besides, cars were getting scraped on the stone walls again. Nobody was happy except the workmen on overtime who cleared the verges.

The solution? Buy a load of gas flamethrower wands, of course. And designate a special bin for recycling the dozens of empty butane/propane cartridges that were now piling up. (Another environmental triumph. )

A couple of months later, the scorched earth policy had resulted in not one but two problems. First, the council had discovered that a flamethrower wand can't burn off any part of the weed that happens to be below ground, such as the roots. (Gosh, who'd a thought it?)

And secondly, that they'd scorched the paint off all the railings and had accidentally started several brush fires. They're back to the petrol strimmers again. And to hell with the manpower cost.

BJ

scotia wrote:

TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Humane mouse traps

But hopefully they will find more comfortable lodgings on the way back to your habitation. I tried out this policy with my greenhouse mice last year - with limited success. I suspect they really liked the peanut butter in the traps, so were willing to bypass better looking establishments on the return journey.

When we bought Bungee Towers, 25 years ago, it was a full-on restoration project with a sizeable mouse problem. Being temporarily out of our minds, we bought some humane mouse traps and baited them up in the kitchen, and then laid some of them by the disgusting old gas cooker.

The following morning, they were nowhere to be seen. We eventually found them up-ended at the other end of the kitchen, maybe 15 feet away from their original location, and two of them had been chewed into pieces.

You know that scene in Jaws where Roy Scheider says, "You're gonna need a bigger boat"?

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:... we bought some humane mouse traps and baited them up in the kitchen, and then laid some of them by the disgusting old gas cooker.

<snip>

You know that scene in Jaws where Roy Scheider says, "You're gonna need a bigger boat"?

A few years ago we had a mouse problem (our cat would bring them in alive, then lose interest and leave it to scurry for cover).

I built a mouse trap from a council recycling box, placing some peanut butter at the end of a "balanced plank" that was accessible via a ramp. The idea being that the mouse would ascend the ramp, walk out onto the plank which would tip under the added weight of the mouse, depositing said critter into the box.

The mk1 version failed - turns out mice are quite light and weren't tipping the plank.
The mk2 version failed - turns out mice can easily leap out of a box that's over a foot high.
The mk3 version failed - turns out a mouse will, once it has eaten the peanut butter, chew through a plastic box.
The mk4 version failed - turns out that a mouse will leg it through the small gap you make as you lift the lid to see what's inside.
The mk5 version failed - turns out Mrs VRD really didn't like having a box of mice in the house.
The mk6 version worked brilliantly - we got a dog, the cat refused to share the mice and stopped bringing them inside.

The dog still eats peanut butter...

VRD

FInancial Regulators.

Dod

We don't have a mouse problem, cats catch them bring them in through cat flap give them to dog - terrier - who promptly kills them. Works well except when you have guests for dinner and they do this as a cabaret show.

R6

Tarot Cards

dionaeamuscipula wrote:Tarot Cards

Good for a variant on 52 card pick-up. 78 card pick-up would be even more fun.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Talcum powder
AiY

When those squeaking floorboards and that creaking staircase are on the verge of driving you to distraction you'll wish you had a supply of talcum powder.

Rhyd6 wrote: Works well except when you have guests for dinner and they do this as a cabaret show.

R6

You must have very strange guests.

We do gvonge, we do!!
One of the most useless of kitchen gadgets has to be the electric knife. If you buy a chainsaw you're advised to go on a course to train you how to use the damn thing without cutting off the odd arm or leg but get an electric knife as a pressie and you're let loose in the kitchen with an efficient implement for cutting off the odd finger or two. They were useless for carving a joint but at one time they were a "must have" gadget. Goodness alone knowns why.

R6

Regarding kitchen equipment, what about electronic scales.

We have electronic scales, which use energy to do what can be done purely with gravity.

And the energy used doesn't even replace gravity, it just uses it to show the weight in an electronic display rather than relying on a mechanical pointer.

Watis

dionaeamuscipula wrote:Tarot Cards

I knew you were going to say that

Watis wrote:Regarding kitchen equipment, what about electronic scales.

We have electronic scales, which use energy to do what can be done purely with gravity.

And the energy used doesn't even replace gravity, it just uses it to show the weight in an electronic display rather than relying on a mechanical pointer.

Watis

My son's dog would disagree. I was placed in charge of the dog's feeding for a few days, and was informed that the ration was 85 grams, twice daily. I used the electronic scales provided, and kept pouring out the dog food until I saw the magic 8 and 5 digits. It did look rather a lot - but the dog did not object. It was only when my bountiful supply was checked (after a few days) by my wife that I discovered I was on the ounces range and the dog was receiving 8.5 oz - which I believe is about 238 grams. Whenever food is now due to be dispensed to the dog, he looks hopefully at me.

My local Parish Council. They're happy to call a 'Climate Emergency' but fail to keep clear a nearby drainage ditch on their property which prevents flooding to local houses including mine.

RC

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

simsqu wrote:I would like to invite members to suggest the Planet's most useless piece of equipment (including any other stuff you feel you want to add - tee hee)

Could I humbly start the ball rolling with The Handheld Leaf Blower, usually seen being held by a diffident teenager in the local Council's livery, as he wafts it back and forth in an insouciant manner so as to shift desultory leaves from one patch of park to another two feet away, and back again, leaving a trail of both noise and unburnt petrol pollution in his wake.

1. Talcum powder
2. Button flies
3. Cotton buds
4. Straws
5. Traffic lights
6. Smart motorways
7. Snow ploughs
8. Wrinkle cream
9. Anaglypta
10. Ties
11. Tank tops

AiY

Strongly disagree on Number 11. A good looking size 44 double D woman in one of those low cut affairs is no useless piece of equipment.