Efficiency and ergonomics

Mr. Hicks,

Interesting article. I wonder if efficiency should be further explained? Or perhaps that was part of you intent, to expand on possible answers based on different definitions of efficiency? In the paragraph below, wouldn't one need to know as opposed to what, that made your actions more efficient?

Because part of the reason I split wood is for the exercise. If I have to keep lifting and bringing down the hammer; if I keep having to knock the top of the wedge sideways, to re-align it; if from time to time I knock the log, with the wedge embedded in it, off the chopping block on which I cut it (the only reason it is on the log pile as shown here is artistic license), so that I have to have to pick it up and replace it on the block; well, that's more exercise. I just don't need as many split logs as I could easily make with the straight-grained ones, so from the point of view of exercise, the slower, more difficult logs are more efficient. The two definitions of "efficiency" are pretty much diametrically opposed.

I think your last sentence agrees with that. Am I wrong?
 
oftheherd said:
. .. I think your last sentence agrees with that. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. As I say at the beginning, "efficiency" must refer to what you are trying to do. To pretend that it has any meaning on its own is feeble-minded. For example, I read recently that Holland was one of the most "efficient" countries in the world. What, if anything, would that mean? Don't ask Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch politician, for a start...

Cheers,

R.
 
Interesting Roger.

I have often thought about efficiency and exercise, when recommending a bicycle for someone. One can buy a 15 pound bike, or spend far less and buy a 40 pound bike. On the face of it the 40 pound bike would seem more efficient for exercise, but less so for going a long distance.

But my experience is that the light bike makes up for burning less calories, by being more enjoyable, and therefore more likely to be used. But if the bike is too light, it will be so expensive that the rider will worry about taking it shopping, and the like, and not use it.

Of course the best choice probably lies in the "middle" somewhere? Unless of course, one goes the way of the RFF "GAS" and buys two or three bikes.
 
nikonhswebmaster said:
Interesting Roger.

I have often thought about efficiency and exercise, when recommending a bicycle for someone. One can buy a 15 pound bike, or spend far less and buy a 40 pound bike. On the face of it the 40 pound bike would seem more efficient for exercise, but less so for going a long distance.

But my experience is that the light bike makes up for burning less calories, by being more enjoyable, and therefore more likely to be used. But if the bike is too light, it will be so expensive that the rider will worry about taking it shopping, and the like, and not use it.

Of course the best choice probably lies in the "middle" somewhere? Unless of course, one goes the way of the RFF "GAS" and buys two or three bikes.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've often thought the same thing. One of my friends did in fact buy the heaviest bicycle he could easily find, using precisely this logic; but I totally agree that there comes a point where you just can't face riding the damn' thing. My own bike probably weighs about 25 lb, with rack and panniers, but it's an 18-speed all-terrain Overbury's Fell Rider and although I very rarely ride it truly off road, I do ride on unmade roads and farm tracks, so it's an excellent compromise for me.

And Frances and I may indeed be on the point of buying another bicycle each (she also has an Overbury's), just to go to Arles: ultra-cheap clunkers from Emmaus, a charity shop. We'd not be riding far, and a bicycle trailer would just about carry enough pictures for an exhibition. We could then take the car; park it a mile or so outside the city centre (parking is more and more difficult); and use the bicycles while we're there. Or we may just forget about an exhibition and take the motorcycle.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, I certainly agree with you, an aperture ring is what I like best, and I'll add to that; I like a shutter dial also. Here is the most efficient way I found to split wood, just wait around until Hal does it: 1964.

1964 by John Carter, on Flickr
 
Look at an elevation profile of The Netherlands.
Does the electric motor and necessary hardware make up for it's own weight? What happens when the battery is dead? Just like the silly electric cars beyond city limits.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
nikonhswebmaster said:
Interesting Roger.

I have often thought about efficiency and exercise, when recommending a bicycle for someone. One can buy a 15 pound bike, or spend far less and buy a 40 pound bike. On the face of it the 40 pound bike would seem more efficient for exercise, but less so for going a long distance.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the purpose. In flat terrain, weight does not really matter, once accelerated, it is all wind and roll resistance. Most of my city bikes tend towards mid weight, as they are everyday tools and it is pretty flat here. There is not much point in going below 24 pounds if I pack another 30 pounds shopping on it - lighter ones often have a permitted total load that won't even permit twenty extra pounds, and feel pretty wobbly in that condition. Even in the country house (right next to a hill castle, with a 18% ascent) I split between a very light rigid mountain bike ("the Uphill") for fun and a quite heavy one that can tow a trailer bike, my son and a few day's worth of shopping.
 
Funny how on a film/rangefinder forum a discussion of efficiency begins with splitting logs and goes directly to riding bicycles. It is as if most of the readers have split / still split logs, and have ridden / still ride their bicycle.

I build my guitars with as few power tools as possible, and consider it more efficient, for what I am doing, the most efficient and best way.

Of course "the best way" enters the realm of Religion & Politics.
 
Setting the aperture on the lens is a straightforward thing to do but I don't think it's the most ergonomic way to do it. For ergonomics it's important that you can set the aperture in every situation and you can always see what aperture you have set.

With a Leica M you never get a feedback in the viewfinder about the aperture. When I want to change aperture while looking through the viewfinder I always go through this mind exercise: Zeiss -> 3 clicks to the next full aperture, Leica -> 2 clicks to the next full aperture. And at night you have no chance to see the aperture without a torch. I need this because I'm out after dark with camera on the tripod fairly often.

With most professional cameras you set the aperture via a dial (thumb or forefinger) and get a constant feedback with the shoulder display and in the viewfinder. AFAIK Fuji is the only maker that has an aperture ring on the lens. Had these and I don't think it's an advantage. Just a bit more retro feeling. The Fuji GFX is interesting again because it has a shoulder display again in contrast to the Fuji X cameras.
 
tom.w.bn said:
With most professional cameras you set the aperture via a dial (thumb or forefinger) and get a constant feedback with the shoulder display and in the viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Or you set the aperture via the aperture ring and got a constant feedback through a window in the finder - that was pro state of the art by the mid sixties and generally common by the seventies. Leica somehow missed out on a in-camera aperture display when everybody else grew one - if they had not stepped backwards in development, a M5 successor would probably have had it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top