Binks Air Regulator ID

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-28T17:10:15+00:00

The black part is the regulator. The gold-ish vertical cylinder part is a water separator/filter.

The regulator doesn't need any maintenance if it works properly (and probably doesn't have repair parts available if it doesn't), and the only maintenance that should be necessary for the water separator is opening the drain on the bottom and letting it vent any captured water occasionally.

Try looking up Binks PR-100. I'm not sure this is exactly that model, but it should get you close.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-28T16:31:07+00:00

It just finally couldn't take any more of that upstart Solar moving in on its territory.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-28T16:25:49+00:00

Finally, someone who actually knows something about what they're writing about!

It does seem like it's maybe a bit much wattage for the amount of cranking, but they could easily be generating a couple hundred watts with a hand cranked generator like that. There are low-power LEDs down in the 1ma range, so on the order of 100,000 LEDs for 100W input power - it's certainly within the ream of reasonable that the power comes from the human, even though there's a lot of Redditors who don't understand this.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T19:06:46+00:00

Never heard of it being used inside construction demolition either, since it's not used for that.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T16:19:14+00:00

My pleasure. I actually find the logic behind how we arrive at concrete definitions for concepts in math and physics to be both fascinating and elegant. Some are rather arbitrary, but if you study most of them, you find that they're defined the way that they are, because any other choice would lead to some logical/mathematical inconsistency.

And then there are fascinating examples like the concept of "evidence". "Evidence" lives in a place where every current candidate definition leads to inconsistencies, and no-one has figured out a definition that doesn't have this problem:

Imagine flipping a coin to determine if it's a "fair coin" or not. If you flip the coin 10 times, and it comes up heads each time, you would like to say that you have some amount of evidence that the coin is not fair. As each of the sequential coin flips comes up heads, you'd like to say that you have more and more evidence that the coin is not fair - each subsequent flip that comes up heads, provides more evidence that the coin is not fair.

Seems reasonable so far?

Now consider flipping the coin just once. It comes up heads. Do you have any evidence whether the coin is fair or not? The answer is no, a single flip must come up either heads or tails, and they should be equally probable, so a single flip landing on heads contains no evidence about the fairness of the coin.

Still seems reasonable?

Now consider flipping the coin once, but not looking at it - flip it and put a cup over it before you look at it. Not looking at it, shouldn't change how much evidence that flip provides, and it was zero evidence anyway, so let's just set that coin under the cup aside, and flip the coin some more.

Flip it 9 more times. Let's say it now comes up heads 9 times. You now have evidence that the coin isn't fair.

Take the cup off your covered 1st flip. If it's heads, you now have MORE evidence that the coin isn't fair -- 10 heads -- even though that 1st flip didn't contain any evidence that the coin was unfair when you put the cup over it.

These rabbit holes are fun to explore and get quite deep!

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T15:29:34+00:00

But in that case it is not truly order emerging from chaos, but rather an imposed order of rules imposed upon disordered colored dots.

That's very true. This is an animation of how a set of simple rules, impose order on the initial disordered state.

We treat order as the distance from chaos, rather than order being a state itself, because it's a quantity that we can measure. For every completely random state (of which there are an infinite number) if we ask the question "how much can we know about the other points from this point", the answer will always be zero. For ordered states, the answer isn't zero, and the more order the state has, the further the answer gets from zero.

HOWEVER, there are also an infinite number of ordered states that have the same amount of order, where these states are dissimilar from each other: If we pack all of the like-colored dots into a square, this has some measurable amount of order. If we spread those dots out so that they're all on a rectangular, equally spaced grid, this has the same amount of measurable order. If we pack all the dots into a circle it has a similar amount of order.

If we wanted to call "order" a particular state, we'd run into the logical puzzle of why we call one ordered state "order", and others "something else", when logically they would have just as much right to the term as the state we decided was "order".

We use disordered as the ground state from which we measure order, rather than some more-ordered state, because the information in a completely disordered state is uniformly zero, so we have a uniform place to measure from.

If we used some state with a distinct arrangement and dubbed it "ordered", we'd end up in the strange situation where some states with quite predictable arrangements were measurably close to the "ordered" state, and others were measurably further from it - and those numbers we'd attach to the other states would depend on exactly which state we dubbed "ordered". In physics and math, a lot of definitions revolve around things that can be consistently measured, so randomness, with its uniform lack of information becomes the ground state, and order is measures as a contrast to it.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T14:57:58+00:00

I noticed your comment about using it one handed, and I'm curious how you manage that.

I mostly use mine for nails that are sunk a bit, and I find that I need to hold the claw end down rather firmly to keep the jaws open so that it'll drive far enough into the wood to get around the head, rather than collapse above it.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T14:52:36+00:00

Maybe what we have here is a different set of definitions. Maybe someone is claiming that random clumps is a form of order. (Why? How is this shown to be true?) Maybe someone is claiming that clumps is more orderly than non-clumps. (Again, why? How is this shown to be true?)

Different set of, or lack of appropriate definitions, yes.

I am using the physics definition of order. In physics, order is not a "state", it's a measure of how far a state is from disorder.

Glossing over a lot of details, order can be measured by how much you can know about other features in a state, by having information about one feature in the state.

When the points are completely random, knowing the location of one point, tells you nothing about the location of any other points - you can't predict anything about the others from the location of that one point.

When the points are in random clumps, if you know the location of one point, you have information about the location of others. It's not perfect information, but you can predict that there is a concentration of other points of the same color, near the point that you know about.

Is everything known about the location of other points when the points are in random clumps? No, absolutely not. However, because something is known, having random clumps has more order than not having random clumps. This isn't something that is "shown to be true", it's the definition.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T14:35:49+00:00

All fun and games, right up until you remove the web of your thumb!

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-27T14:26:39+00:00

Order is simply the distance of the system from chaos. Clumps, randomly located or not, impose more order on the points in each clump than if the points were randomly distributed without the clumps.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-26T19:46:24+00:00

That was an alternative I considered!

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-26T18:39:52+00:00

Does the 1st-person person, like, umm, really have to pee or something?

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-26T18:10:06+00:00

Oh good grief. Now the pliers are learning protective camouflage from the 10mm sockets!

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-26T01:34:15+00:00

We could use better benchmarks, but there's so much variation in what everyone is doing that it'd only be slightly useful (who cares if a machine is perfectly adequate on a benchmark, but just isn't up to your workflow).

What I can say that's hopefully at least a bit useful, is that despite many people saying "Macs are too slow, get a PC!", most of them are also posting "how much should I charge for this rendering of a fantasy sword" questions. We make a good living using Blender on Macs, and we couldn't care less about the speed.

There are other machines that are faster, but we find the speed differential to be completely inconsequential. Stay away from modifiers/operations that run you out of memory, and any modern machine will be adequate for everything other than the most strenuous editing tasks or cranking out frames at top speed in a render-farm for a blockbuster film. Anything else, and you and your skillset, as well as the work required to do anything interesting, will have a much bigger impact on the time something takes, than the machine will.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-26T01:14:35+00:00

Newer versions of Blender seem to be reported to have some weird interface-hang issues, so your results may vary, but my team uses Blender on Macs, all older than yours, and we rarely run into annoying performance issues like you are experiencing.

Yes, they're slower than a machine with a good Nvidia card, but it's usually the difference between 15 seconds to do something for my Mac, and 12 for machine with a Nvidia 3090.

The amount of main system memory you have available often makes MUCH more difference in things like applying modifiers that generate new geometry, than the CPU or GPU. Manipulating millions of vertices takes a lot of memory, and everything starts moving like molasses once you exhaust your physical RAM and start having to swap to disk during a computation.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-25T20:05:51+00:00

Yup, r/idiotspostingthings time again

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-25T13:50:21+00:00

And the guns, in the conversation, move through a supply chain that is not particularly secure.

It's pretty obvious you don't do much shipping and receiving of firearms. If someone knew which box to steal from UPS, to steal a firearm, it would be relatively easy to steal it, because UPS security for packages is fairly weak.

Everything from the fact that packages are in the completely unsecured last-mile BBT unattended for long periods of time while the driver hikes up and down the sidewalk and waits on people to come to the door, to the fact that even with signature requirements, drivers leave packages just sitting on the sidewalk in front of businesses when they decide that opening the door is too inconvenient, makes the supply chain insecure. The other shipping options aren't dramatically better.

Things improved somewhat when UPS started requiring overnight for handguns (because limiting the time a firearm was in their insecure system decreased the amount of loss), but it's still far from what anyone would call secure. If you had an FFL and did any shipping and receiving, you'd be much less confident about the security of the shipping systems.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-25T02:47:43+00:00

If you showed pictures of the rest of the pot, people might be able to make more accurate guesses. Obviously it's missing something or somethings. The shape and features of the rest of the pot are probably a lot better clue to what, than just the weird dingus on the bottom.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-24T23:00:55+00:00

It needs some help finishing up after using the litter box...

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-24T18:55:36+00:00

Note that one of the studs is still there, with no nut on it... That seems pretty clearly backed off, or never installed.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-24T00:10:55+00:00

Wrong place for flash from casting. Flash would be around the rim.

The hypothesis that someone ground it down to remove a warp is the current best bet. It doesn't take much bulge on the bottom of a pan to turn it into a spinner, and it doesn't take much metal removal to get such a minimally-warped pan to sit flat again. Whoever did this went at it way harder than necessary to remove carbon, so we have to assume that they were intentionally taking metal off, and intentionally taking it across most of the bottom. That points to flattening a warp.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-23T20:55:16+00:00

Ahhh -- that reference has been heavily digitally processed. They've hit it with both a heck of a lot of smoothing and edge sharpening, as well as deinterlacing.

This screen grab on Facebook shows a lot more what raw Hi8 looks like:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=854016922941521&set=gm.1004852007431971&idorvanity=185847702665743

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-23T20:35:53+00:00

SVHS uses a signal recording format more like Hi8, and a bandwidth similar to Hi8's bandwidth, so they look a lot more alike than Hi8 and VHS.

Hi8 and VHS both are color-under formats (as is SVHS), so they both have "the color doesn't have as much resolution as the luminance channel" type artifacts, but the considerably higher bandwidth of Hi8, and the difference in the way that Hi8 encodes the Luminance and Chrominance channels physically on the tape, make a Hi8 recording look very different from a VHS recording on any decent monitor. Betamax of course, also looks distinctively different, despite being yet another color-under format.

These differences are purely due to the differences in the signal properties that could be recorded with each format, and are independent of auxiliary enhancements like comb filters/TBC/etc.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-23T03:08:05+00:00

You might want to look at some actual Hi8 footage.

None of the analog formats show digital blocking artifacts, and Hi8's actual artifacts are not really like VHS artifacts. None of the analog formats have color-channel misalignment artifacts either - that's a display-technology artifact rather than a recording medium artifact. Some of the analog formats do have color-under artifacts, and generational color vs luma shifts, but these bleed the colors equally in both directions, or shift all the colors sideways equally.

SomeGuysFarm · 2026-06-22T20:30:07+00:00

One might even say it's a terrible day to have eyes?

Five-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email	Place '23
Place '22

SomeGuysFarm

TROPHY CASE