Essentially what you have is something akin to a series of micro bevels. As long as you keep within an angle range, then all is fine ... and I do think that this is an easy method of sharpening. However, like everything sharpening, there are compromises.
This method would be suitable for bevel down planes, where the bevel angle is not critical, and mortice chisels, which I suspect were all honed this way when you consider the rounded backs of vintage OBMC. I would not consider it for bevel up planes, where you want a specific angle, and I would not sharpen my bench chisels like this as I could not ride the bevel if I needed to pare bevel down.
"...He is doing what I believe was a dominant sharpening method in the 18th C...."
What would make you think that? I don't know of a single old source that suggests this.
Larry, this is not exactly a new topic. I do not have historical evidence since I never searched it out. However there are others who have and whose opinion I value. In fact there is an ongoing discussion on WN about secondary bevel on mortice chisels. This has reached the point where discussion has turned to the shape of a bevel. The most recent participants are Adam Cherubini, who has this to say ..
What can you contribute to this discussion?
Did you read Warren Mickley's post? While many contemporary or relatively recent writers suggest abnormal sharpening for mortise chisels, which is what that thread is about, I don't know of any that suggest a rounded bevel. I don't know of any period texts that would lead one to the conclusion that a rounded bevel was "a dominant sharpening method in the 18th C."
Warren reported his observations about mortising chisels, and notes that 18C chisels, in his experience, were not sharpened with multiple bevels (i.e. a secondary bevel). He went on to acknowledge that a rounded bevel (and rounded heel) were possible methods of sharpening at that time. He does believe that their mortiicing chisel and plane blades were sharpened differently.
Adam believed that the woodworkers of the 18C went further than this: "I've never seen an old mortise chisel that didn't have a rounded bevel. Often the heel is rounded as well to make one smoothly curved bevel.
I think the reason guys did this is that they didn't have good coarse abrasives. So they ground low and honed high so that touchups only had to deal with the short secondary bevel. The secondary bevels aren't apparent on old chisels because they rounded the bevel as I said.
I think Bob's right that they did this with plane irons too."
Let me add another possible piece of the puzzle. Stephen Shepherd reports on Moxon that joiners would not permit their workers to (hollow) grind their blades. http://www.fullchisel.com/blog/?p=998 So then how did they sharpen - honing a full bevel is ineffecient. So either their used microbevels or a continous rounded bevel. Is this a reasonable extrapolation of mine?
But tell us more Larry - what are your opinions about rounded bevels, what do you consider to be the dominant sharpening method(s) for chisels and plane blades in the 18C ... ? What can you add that is helpful to this thread?
Let me get this straight Derek. You want me to wade in with an opinion on something that's already muddled to obscurity by the fantasy land crowd? I'm not too impressed with your sources.
Okay, let's start with Shepherd's blog on this. First, he wasn't talking about Moxon. The book he's talking about is The Joiner and Cabinetmaker and we don't know who the author is but it was published in 1839. Moxon's Mechanick Exercises or the Doctine of Handy-works was published in serial beginning in 1678. What I have in front of me is from Moxon's 1703 edition and is The Art of Joinery. Moxon does indeed discuss grinding but on the large sand stone grinding wheel commonly used at the time. Rather than quote the whole section I'll just do this small part, "...But if it be true set on the stone and steadily kept to that position, your bevel will be hollow: the smaller your grindstone is the hollower it will be. You may know when it is well ground by the evenness and entireness of the edge all the way...." In other words, no rounded bevel or even facits. Moxon also describes the "flat grind stone" which is likely of the same sand stone but doesn't turn. That's what was described as in use in The Joiner and Cabinetmaker.
One has to be careful Derek, and try to understand the authors and context of sources. Moxon wasn't a joiner, he was a printer and it's only a matter of speculation as to why he used images of French tools to illustrate his stuff on joinery. Or one has to understand that many today are more into the romance of period stuff than into actual historical facts. Shepherd may rail about grinding away tools with modern grinders but I can only hope you have gained enough experience grinding to know one doesn't grind all the way to the edge when grinding. If you're "grinding away" your tools it's because you don't know what you're doing.
All I can take from Shepherd's blog is that he never learned to grind. I can understand that because there's been a steady perpetuation of the fear of grinding based mostly on lack of basic ginding knowledge.
When I see you misinterpret questionable sources and not even get that information right or understand the sources they're using then come up with a statement like, "...He is doing what I believe was a dominant sharpening method in the 18th C...."
it makes me wonder about the value of a PhD today.
That's not an attempt at discussion Larry - that's just your usual diatribe. So far you have managed to insult five people.
How about just offering up some information about sharpening in the 18C? This is a forum dedicated to sharing information and opinions, it is not a court of law. Actually, it would be good hearing from the OP and others as well.
I pointed out a misinformed statement you made that runs counter to all the period sources. Your responses make it clear you don't have any of these sources yourself and don't even know the differences between them. In short your research is worse than just sloppy.
Why don't we turn the table a little. What have you contributed to this thread? Is there anything other than misinformation and personal attacks you have to offer?
I am about to put you on ignore. It appears impossible to hold a discussion with you as you go for the person rather than just say, "I disagree. This is how I see it ...", and then offer either information or a logical argument to back up your statements.
If I am incorrect in either my understanding of a historical event(s) or in the practical application of woodworking, then I am really quite happy to accept this, since it affords an opportunity to learn something new. I cannot say that I have learned here what actually is, only what is not.
Why does it all have to be some big mystery, Derek? When I read any of the old sources from Moxon to the Audels books of the 1950's it's all amazingly familiar. It's all the same steps. Sharpening is always simple and straight-forward until all the gimmicks were added. I'm sorry but honing guides, ruler tricks, magic metals and all the other nonsense only make sharpening an exercise in failure.
I don't really care how Jacob, Metod or anyone else sharpens. If Jacob wants to lose control of his bevel geometry through some sweeping motion, I don't care. If Metod's first experience with a cutting edge that's actually been honed on both faces comes from trying something radical that gets rid of the mess left by the ruler trick or Brent Beach's nonsense, I may be amused but I don't really care.
I do care about traditional trade practices, a series of steps and techniques that evolved so that the average person can make incredible things with the careful and deliberate application of their tools. Good sharpening is at the very core of traditional trade practice. I like to see people experience success with their woodworking rather than failure. That's why misstatements like the one you made in your first post irritate me.
When someone sets themselves up as some kind of expert, I think they have some obligation to make some effort to get things right. Your pal Cherubini is a good example here. If one listens to him they'll believe earlier woodworkers didn't worry about flat stones, flat backs and proper sharpening. Why? Well, because he says so--there's never any attribution to any period source. That's why it's a good idea to actually know what's in the period sources. While the different sources may cover a lot of the same material they often give small glimpses into actual practice. For instance, reading The Joiner and Cabinetmaker one will learn that an employee in a shop was subject to a fine if they left the stones out of flat. I've never had an employer threaten to dock my pay for something no one cared about.
Sharpening is always simple and straight-forward until all the gimmicks were added. I'm sorry but honing guides, ruler tricks, magic metals and all the other nonsense only make sharpening an exercise in failure.
I don't really care how Jacob, Metod or anyone else sharpens. If Jacob wants to lose control of his bevel geometry through some sweeping motion, I don't care.
I'm glad you don't care! I don't lose control of my bevel geometry though - the edges stay at 30º or near enough, and that's all that counts.
My reason for believing that this is how they did it (before crazy sharpening kicked in) is that it is fast, easy, effective and requires least kit; priorities of craftsmen through the ages!
The only thing that I've seen in reference to sharpening was that it was done by apprentices and could take 20 minutes per iron.
The amount of time that it takes to use a hollow grind or a jig (presuming one isn't farting around with a ruler trying to measure projection, and has made a device to fit the iron to the jig in one push) is minimal, and the fact that you get exact results every time makes it more than worthwhile for chisels and smoothers.
Is there any written literature to suggest how much faster sharpening was, say 200 years ago, for a smoother? I think it probably takes me 3 minutes to use a jig to resharpen a double-iron smoother, probably about the same for the planes that have hollow ground irons, and a lot of that time is in taking the plane apart. Being able to relieve the corners exactingly in either case makes it worth the trouble. Only planes with more camber have a sort of disregard for the bevel.
"...My reason for believing that this is how they did it (before crazy sharpening kicked in) is that it is fast, easy, effective and requires least kit; priorities of craftsmen through the ages!"
Your unique insight may be of some value but I'd like to see some evidence. All the period sources I know of indicate grinding, flat stones, uniform bevels and such were part of the sharpening technique. One of the best descriptions was in Peter Nicholson's 1845 Mechanic's Companion but the information from Moxon and The Joiner and Cabinet Maker are similar and consistent. You can read Nicholson's book on line at http://tinyurl.com/39fbpnq and the description of sharpening is on page 93.
I spent a little time reading you stuff on "sharpening." I couldn't get past your note on flat stones. Just as every story has two sides, so does every sharp cutting edge. Your methods focus completely on the bevel and ignore the flat face. In that regard you might as well be using a honing guide because they also get people to focus only on the bevel.
My experience is that almost all sharpening problems people have involve the flat face of the tool, not the bevel. Most of those come from inconsistent honing right at the edge. Plane irons are especially prone to wear on the flat face. This flat face wear has to be addressed each time you sharpen. It has to be removed. While that wear is slight, it grows to be a big problem when not addressed every time you sharpen. If you intend to remove it by working only on the bevel, you'll have to hone away a lot of steel every time you sharpen. I agree that it probably wouldn't matter much if one's stones weren't flat as long as they all had exactly the same uniform curve. If they don't have the exact same curve, you'll spend most of your honing time making the whole flat face of the tool conform to stones with different faces. I don't know a way to keep uniform and identical curves on stones but it's pretty easy to keep them uniformly flat. That's why one wants flat--it's easy and repeatable.
The difficult part of sharpening is keeping your stones and flat faces uniformly flat. It's pretty easy to do and if you make the effort you'll soon realize that each time you sharpen you are also doing all the prep work for your next sharpening. I find a lot of value in the old techniques and I think you've missed most of it.
Certainly not unique and I'm not particularly claiming any historical accuracy. But if it works and is easy then others would have found it so and followed the same reasoning. There must have been many sharpening scenarios without access to grindwheels, after all it has been going on since the stone age, before the wheel was invented!
I do sometimes doubt written records - if a craftsman is asked to describe a 'correct' technique he may well feel obliged to pass on some ideal notion which he doesn't necessarily practice himself. Telling apprentices to flatten stones does not mean you do it yourself.
My experience is that almost all sharpening problems people have involve the flat face of the tool, not the bevel. Most of those come from inconsistent honing right at the edge. Plane irons are especially prone to wear on the flat face. This flat face wear has to be addressed each time you sharpen. It has to be removed. While that wear is slight, it grows to be a big problem when not addressed every time you sharpen. If you intend to remove it by working only on the bevel, you'll have to hone away a lot of steel every time you sharpen.
Another function of the wonderful cap iron is to protect the face and confine wear to close the bevel. Plane irons aren't like knives with 2 bevels. They could be with a bit of clever re-design, and I suppose a bevel down without a cap iron has to be treated as such. But capped, or bevel up, then just the one bevel counts, with a bit more attention to remove the burr and keep the face flat.
As for flat stones - I keep them flattish by spreading the burden, but they all seem to end up dished end to end and sometimes slightly convex across the width. Either way it doesn't matter - you keep an eye on the progress of the bevel you are forming on the steel and ignore the stone completely.
The only function of the cap iron is to get a hold of the blade so the mechanism can advance and retract it and it does that poorly. Mostly the bloody thing is just in the way and slows down getting the blade in and out to sharpen it. " Wonderful" is a term I could not possibly imagine applying to the cap iron.
Sharpening ideology wars and the hysterical-historical disputes of the Woodworking Schoolmen and Pedants! Wunnerful entertainment but imagine how one new to sharpening must feel about the above wedge of woffle weighing on one's conceptualiser organ. I prefer your cut through their dark stuff.
Obtain or grind a suitable bevel and a flat back at the edge-end (quality blades always come with both, these days). If making one's own bevel, grinders, belt sanders, waterwheels or even kerbstones can all be used. Take yer choice.
Use the Brent Beach guide, or Charlesworth ruler-trick, if the back of the blade is too lumpy/wonky to make flat all over in less than a few minutes. Or put the time in for more bladeback flat. (Best to buy a modern blade with the back already flat).
Use a modern jig to put on a suitable microbevel and a camber if wanted, using any of the available sharpening materials via a succesion of medium, fine, superfine grits (diamond, waterstones, ceramic, microgrit paper even oilstones - they all work).
Keep the edge sharp via hand honing on a bit of rouge/oil-impregnated leather until the inevitable dubbing requires a remaking of the microbevel. Modern blade steels keep their edges a long time so honing takes a few minutes per hours of planing or chiselling; remaking bevels then takes even less time per cutting hours.
Carvers need a couple of additional procedures/skills as well as the associated shaped stones (diamond, ceramic, waterstones and Arkansas all work) to achieve edges on their various shapes.
All the rest is just angels dancing on that pin.
No one needs to know what auld fellahs did 150 years ago, even if it might be interesting historically. And there's the rub. History is often ideology dressed up in selected and interpreted bits of "fact". Sharpening wars seem to use history akin to that of Large Religious Institutions or the Official Version propagated by The Party. In other words, not-history.
Lataxe, probably too modern and also bound for woodworkers hell.
There is no reason for the average person to freehand a blade (other than maybe scrubs and jacks where it's the easiest thing to do), ex hollow ground, when there are better methods now. The only exception to that being japanese irons, and even then I can't argue that there isn't a case for speeding things up by using microbevels (one who has properly sharpened a kanna on natural stones won't argue that it can take quite a while if the iron is to go back to a medium stone because of significant wear - in theory it is fast to fix freehand, but in practice, it takes longer than using a honing guide).
This post and larry are dead on. Success the first time is the key to sharpening an iron or chisel, and quality and uniformity of the job is important.
Sharpening tools is not a chase for history, it is to have a consistent properly sharp tool when you're done without unneeded hassle, and without the need to check or to redo the job because you've stuck a freshly sharpened smoother to a piece of wood and noticed that you are not getting a uniformly shiny surface.
If it takes someone that much effort to flatten their stones, or that much effort to use a honing guide or hollow grind, somewhere they missed the boat or maybe they're seriously lacking somewhere. I've flattened mine at least once every session i'm in the shop since I've taken up this hobby. With a diamond hone, it takes about 30 seconds.
The average beginner would be very poorly served by trying to put a freehand bevel on a dulled final smoother or paring chisel, and it's likely that most users would be, too. it isn't the 1800s, and there's no reason to pretend it is.
David I am not arguing with you I am agreeing but the Japanese blades are great to hone free hand because the bevels are so large and the softer steel (iron) that makes up most of the blade has a significant "drag" and so it is easy to tell when one is up on the cutting edge part of the blade which feels hard and slick ( much less drag) .
I am writing this not so much to you or for you but to the beginners reading this so they know how cool the Japanese blades are and why they may just catch me sharpening them free hand after all my table pounding about how a jig is the best way to go ( for Western style blades that are not bimetal blades.
I would sharpen or at least hone free hand more if the majority of my blades where laminated bimetal blades because then I could go by feel.
Nothing is black and white across the board.
98% of the time I am a jig man though. No argument there.
Thanks Lataxe I was beginin' to wonder if I was talking to my self. In that case there is no reason to type it all out. I can just babble away on the couch to all my imaginary friends.
None of them are woodworkers though. They kind of just give me the confused dog look when I start arguing sharpening techniques with them.
Larry, not getting into the back and forth at all about what's right, aside from to see this comment regarding that blog post (which I didn't see until today) - glad to see it.
I would like to see someone wear a chisel down to nothing honing a dry hollow grind with medium and fine stones - it'll never happen, and if someone managed to ever do it from actual use and honing dull edges, good for them for actually doing that much work - most chisels, antique or not, will never be in danger of that much use.
I don't know who (and excluding carpenters who might be dry grinding dime store rc52 hardness chisels) other than turners really wastes away a measurable part of a tool when they grind or hone any hand tool edge. Their tools are all new.
That blog post made no sense to me. I have over 100 "edges" (chisels, planes, gouges) that I bought used, and never have I once seen any evidence of someone grinding away tools (at least not something that looks to have been done in the hobbyist woodworer era - maybe by a carpenter on a 175 year-old fore plane, but you can hardly hold that against the people who are using a hollow grind now). I never ground to the edge with a dry grinder unless I blunted an edge on an old chisel to remove nicks, nor have I seen a used tool that was ground to the edge on a dry grinder. I have countless tools that were several years old when I got them, that had been sharpened several times, but still had their original factory grind on them, and countless more where *not enough* sharpening was done to keep an edge in decent shape.
The idea of possibly holding off on honing, or skimping on it, to be really cheap with the material in a tool makes no sense at all. It's like only heating coffee to lukewarm for the fear that you'll wear out fire.
I would like someone to show me all of the modern tools that have been honed away given that there seems to be more talk of sharpening online than there is sharpening occurring in workshops. No clue why there seemed to be a whole long string of "hooray..great post" after it, either. Is there really that much fear that all of the antique edge tools are going to disappear in a pile of dust at the hands of a hobbyist woodworker?
I used to be one of those profligate grinders, grinding right up to the edge every time a hollow grind needed to be renewed. Being a product of the modern (nonexistant) guild apprentice system, which is to say I learnt the trade on the job, in three different shops, the advantages of the holow grind were impressed upon me, but alas, the advantages of moderation in grinding were not. I had to learn that on my own--and I'm a slow learner.
Nevertheless, over the past 30-some-odd years of grinding, I have worn out a few blades. And Charles Hummel in the book Hammer in Hand, quotes a mid 19th century apprentice "have finished my fore-plane iron and flung it aside, and Lyons is to get me a new one."
If you use the things, and keep them sharp, eventually, they are used up. Most tools are not used daily, and fewer are kept sharp. Demonstrating at a craft fair years ago, a spectator watching me work. He says to me, "Two things I thought I'd never see, and I just saw one of them." "What's that?" I asked. "A full roll of electical tape, and a sharp wood chisel."
I wonder how many of the older tools are in a shop that is as prolific as yours in terms of output.
You're definitely the exception to the rule, actually using your tools a lot and keeping them sharp (as you note, few used daily and fewer actually kept sharp).
The only planes I have that have really had worn irons are 1 #7 ohio, and a couple of wood planes that have been cast off once their irons were fully done. The way the iron was sharpened on both suggests they haven't been used in a very long time.
I hope that in 30 years, I have some worn out tools to show, but what I'll probably have is a lot of tools with some wear and a lot of life left.
I hope I am not the only person who isn't really worried about whether or not my tools wear out, regardless of the sharpening or use method. I don't see a lot of virtue in using a chipped iron or notched chisel solely to avoid "wearing it out" on a grinder.
So, I've been absent for 4 months, and the first thread I read is another Williams vs. Derek Battle Royale.
I visit daily but there is not a lot of posting and even less discussion. The new format is rather cold I feel. Plus, the inability to inbed pictures means that it is not possible to post articles here, or at the least, post pictorial examples in replies (I have mentioned this to Gina). I'd love to see the spirited discussions of before, even with all the piss and vinegar. It's still my job to keep an eye on the Hand Tools forum, making sure that everyone gets a reply, but it is getting increasingly difficult to find something to reply to.
I see 'rounded bevels' as not so much a method, more the absence of one. If you are honing in a hurry with as much energy as you can muster, you will probably end up with a rounded bevel. But this is perfectly OK as long as it is rounded under and the edge angle isn't compromised.
So you might as well adopt it as a method because it is effective, quick and easy.
As for sources - there is absolutely no mention of primary and secondary bevels (and all the modern sharpening obsessions) in any older books that I have seen. I think sharpening was taken for granted and has only recently gone crazy.
Concave (reflective) surfaces, bevels included, will make you look fatter. However, if you have some extra (unwanted?) weight to throw around, 'convex' is the way to go. If you are spindly, then 'concave' will give you preview of how you might look after 22 (as in Catch-22) years of body building.
I must say sitting through all that text was some thing I had to really force myself to do. Feeling that I have already explored those forests and not found my pray. And yet I keep searching because so many highly experienced masters can't be wrong. So I keep "listening" but each time it gets more tedious. Mostly all the "this is this type of stone and this is this type of stone" I skipped a bit here and there. So I may have missed the bit I am asking about there. The number one reason I think I CONTINUE TO struggle through these hand sharpening descriptions is Frank Klausz in his old tools video sharpens by hand and really goes to town. A marvel to watch as is most of his on cameral work.
I kept expecting to run across a bit that said that when using the fine stone to move against the edge as if shaving off some then as soon as that is felt then back off the edge a bit and take off some of the rounded bevel. I didn't find it.
Isn't that the important bit here ?
I couldn't help agree with him when he said it is difficult to get the edge oriented exactly right when using a jig and that is why it is faster to sharpen by hand.
I think he is talking the older jigs. If he were using the modern Veritas with the domed roller, optional, and the setting bar then it is quite easy to set up for the perfect orientation of the edge to the stone.
All the comments about not being able to get enough downward pressure on the bevel because of the jig's wheel taking some of the load and "needing lots of downward pressure this and lots of downward pressure that" is completely untrue and unnecessary when using water stones.
I want everyone to realize here that my training in woodworking is limited.
Rather than make lots of pieces with questionable tools and techniques I began with what I call playing scales and reading notes. This means I took a necessary skill , sharpening for instance, and worked at it for days, weeks, hours and hours a day until I got stellar results. I can sharpen by hand. I can sharpen badly dulled twist drill bits by hand with nothing more than a diamond hone.
God it is so much easier with the proper jigs especially when tired and faced with a pile of tools to sharpen.
All this holding just so with my finger pressing here, holding there, guessing about the rest tends to make my finger joints lock up from over use just thinking about it. Remembering back to when I ACTUALLY WAS exerting all that downward pressure and hold and guessing and my finger joints did lock up .
I still sharpen my pocket knives and kitchen knives as he seems to described but you know what ? It would be soooo much easier with a nice honing jig.
My test of a pocket knife is will it cut through a medium size plastic wire tie without much effort ? And afterward when held at a pealing like angle to the surface and drawn back a bit sink into the skin surface of a tomato or bell pepper with only the weight of the knife?
Neither one of these tests is going to go well with much of a convex bevel I know this for a fact.
Thanks for letting me get all that out.
SO is he saying to move the edge against the stone until one feels it grabbing, to determine when right down on the very wire edge, and then work the convex bevel to cut it back from the edge or else how do we determine we are right on the edge and not just missing honing it and working only on the convex. I got the bit about the oil pressing out but that happens to some degree before right down on the edge and is tedious to look for when flailing away like Frank Klausz goes at it.
Still exploring this hand held technique.
My thought was.. What were the 'common' sharpening stones used in that Era? I picture, in my mind, a very large in circumference, foot pedal or water driven limestone wheel. Or maybe the top of a 'Flat Mill Stone' for a flat grind?... And then again Japan has used flat water stones for thousands of years.
As to 'not hollow ground'.. With a large diameter wheel, the concave grind can appear very flat unless very closely inspected.
I liked it so much I will do further research on the subject.
I have a set of chisels with an approximate 26 degree 'factory angle'. I put an approximate 30 degree 'hollow grind' on the tip about 1/8 inch wide. Not a Math Major so I am not sure what the true cutting angle is. They will NOT shave hair from my arm. However, they will sure cut end grain and face gain of the hardwoods that I use all day long. I love how I can smooth off end grain with them. I use no back angle on the blades. Just as flat as I could make them.


DigiMarCon Middle East 2018 Digital Marketing Conference will be held from October 23rd to 24th, 2018 at the luxurious Hyatt Regency in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Whether your goal is to reinforce customer loyalty, improve lead generation, increase sales, or drive stronger consumer engagement, the DigiMarCon Middle East 2018 program has been specifically designed to help attendees develop their audience.
DigiMarCon Middle East 2018 offers all of the elements you need to achieve digital marketing success! Conventional thought will be challenged, new ways of thinking will emerge, and you will leave with your head and notebook full of action items and ideas to lead your agency / team / account to even greater success.
Come to DigiMarCon Middle East 2018 and discover how to thrive as a marketer in a world where everything is digital.
For more details visit digimarconmiddleeast.com.


text:
import { idForProvider } from '../../../_utils/idForProvider'
import testMatrix from '../_matrix'

export default testMatrix.setupSchema(({ provider }) => {
  return /* Prisma */ `
  generator client {
    provider = "prisma-client-js"
  }

  datasource db {
    provider = "${provider}"
    url      = env("DATABASE_URI_${provider}")
  }

  model Component {
    id         BigInt              @id @default(autoincrement()) @db.BigInt
    title      String
    categories ComponentCategory[]
  }

  model ComponentCategory {
    id         BigInt      @id @default(autoincrement()) @db.BigInt
    name       String
    components Component[]
  }
  `
})

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


If you have a business with several Email Accounts, chain mail and viruses can easily get around the workplace. With this guide and some basic Search Quote Queries you should be able to remove all these emails from your active accounts without requiring a login for these accounts. Before you start you will need to know the email address which is sending the chain mail.
Visit the control panel and in the search bar at the top of the screen, search 'email'.
Select 'Email Accounts'. From this page, scroll down to the heading 'Email Accounts'.
From the 'Email Accounts' page, select the 'More' option and from here select 'Manage Disk Usage'.
From this page, select the account you would like to remove the specific email from, you can do this through the drop down menu or you could search using the search bar.
When you have chosen your specified Email account. Chose the Mailbox you suspect the email to be in. If you have come to this guide in order to remove chain mail from the account – this will be in the inbox. From here click 'Manage' for that mailbox.
Under the heading 'Messages to delete:' using the drop down menu, Select 'Custom query…'. .
Where 'unwanted email'is the email address of the spam or chain mail is being sent from. Now click 'Delete Permanently'.
This will remove the email from the inbox. This should be repeated for all the accounts if you suspect chain mail or a virus across your accounts. This should prevent the spread of the unwanted mail within your accounts by removing all emails which match your query.
There are also a number of other search queries available in which can be used in this text box, if you are interested please see our guide on Search Queries and Dovecot Queries.


The world's largest diamond company, Russia's Alrosa, has appointed Rebecca Foerster as president of its U.S. operations, a role in which she will work on developing the miner's polished sales in the country, the company said, according to Diamond World.
Foerster, who was previously executive vice president of strategic planning and marketing for Leo Schachter Diamonds, will also oversee the miner's U.S.-based customer service. Prior to her tenure at Leo Schachter (since 2007), she held the position of Vice President at the U.S. Representative office of Rio Tinto, one of the three largest diamond mining companies in the world.
"Ms. Foerster has a wealth of experience in companies that represent almost all parts of the diamond pipeline, from diamond mining to diamond-jewelry sales," Alrosa deputy CEO Yury Okoemov said Friday.
"She knows the specifics of the diamond business and is well aware of American market needs. We believe that her experience and expertise will best help to solve our US company's tasks," he added.
Foerster will be based out of Alrosa's New York office, which reopened in 2018. The company has already held rough and polished auctions there in 2018 and plans to offer further sales this year.
The addition of the New York office helped Alrosa sell a combined $463 million worth of special-size stones at 32 rough auctions globally last year.
The miner will hold 37 sales this year, in Russia, Belgium, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Hong Kong, and the U.S.


Home / Communication / Events / Seventh Annual Conference of the Biomedical Research Technology Platforms.
Seventh Annual Conference of the Biomedical Research Technology Platforms.
The implementation of the new program of research and innovation in the European Union, Horizon 2020, has objective to improve the health and well-being of European citizens through new and more effective treatments, diagnostic imaging techniques.


Italo Barrel-Botti (1923-2003) American, "Passengers Boarding a Cruise Ship", signed center right, oil on canvas, 24" x 36"; framed 25" x 37".
This cheerful work, painted with Barrel's signature palette knife, depicts passengers boarding a pleasure boat on a bright sunny day. The mountains in the background suggest Greece or elsewhere in the Mediterranean. The three figures in the foreground, moving toward the crowd and framed by the reflection of the ship, serve as a transition from the calm landscape on the left to the hectic scene on the right, effectively dividing the painting into three vertical strips, each a complete thought within the unified whole.
For whatever reasons, Italo Barrel-Botti went by several names: George Barrel-Botti, Italo Barrel-Botti and George Barrel among them. He was born in New York in 1923 and studied at Columbia University, the Brooklyn Academy of Fine Art, the Leonardo da Vinci School of Art in New York, and the Art Students League of New York, where he eventually became a teacher.
In an undated artist's statement, he writes, "Barrel's work has been featured in exhibitions at the National Academy of Design, New York; Allied Artists of America; American Watercolor Society; Audobon Society; Salmagondi Club New York Town Hall; and American Society of Casien Painters.
sailing boats and colorful floral arrangements."


text:
Onsite solar PV
Microgrid & Virtual Power Plant (VPP)
Energy as a Service (EaaS) & Power Purchase Agreements (PPA)
Lighting Retrofits (LED)
Company news, Food Processing and Agribusiness, Manufacturing, News, Project news
More Than 5000 Solar Panels Installed at Coca-Cola Amatil Eastern Creek
August 18, 2020	| by	Team@Verdia
More than 5,000 solar panels have been installed at Coca-Cola Amatil's Eastern Creek facility and the 1.7Megawatt (MW) solar PV system is officially up and running.
The system was switched on in March 2020, and has a generating capacity of 2,500MWh of electricity per annum, helping to reduce Amatil's onsite energy use by 12% and an emissions reduction of more than 2,100tonnes per annum.
Time lapse footage of the installation at Coca-Cola Amatil's Eastern Creek facility was taken between October 2019 and March 2020.
Between the months of April to July 2020, the system at Eastern Creek has generated energy equivalent to the power of 360,000 clothes dryer cycles everyday, 1,072 fridges, and 91 average homes powered.
In just four months since being switched on in March 2020, the carbon emissions saved by the system are the equivalent of 184,000 litres of fuel burnt, and the removal of almost 250 passenger vehicles off Australian roads.
Verdia has delivered 3.5MW solar PV program across Coca-Cola Amatil's three largest bottling sites in Australia. The installation across three industrial-sized properties in Western Australia, Queensland and NSW, is one of the largest commercial rooftop programs in Australia.
Verdia was recently awarded Australian Partner for Growth Award in the Corporate & Social Responsibility category at the 2020 Coca-Cola Amatil Partner for Growth Awards. The Award recognises partners who have helped Amatil make positive change to the community and contributed to the organisation's sustainability.
amatil, CCA, Coca Cola Amatil, commercial solar, eastern creek, energy savings, renewable energy, rooftop solar, time lapse
Level 11, 201 Kent St
© Verdia Pty Ltd 2019 - Privacy - Copyright

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
iPhone Review
"Totally man. All iPhones are great. But this one is just so sick. I think I'm going to get the matte black one."
Josh Ginter
I'm getting older.
I was lucky enough to get an iPhone 7 Plus at 8:15AM on launch day. I played around with it for a day and fell back in love with the large Plus-sized screen. It was like returning home, in a way.
I'm so glad to be back to the Plus-sized iPhone.
I pulled into the gas station early the next morning, pumped my gas, and headed inside to pay. I pulled out my iPhone, double-tapped the home button, and tapped my iPhone to the credit card terminal to pay for my gas.
It took half a second for the young, spunky cashier to notice my new toy.
"Hey! Is that the new iPhone?"
I chuckled.
"You bet," I said. "Picked it up yesterday."
"Do you mind if I hold it for just a sec?"
I nervously shrugged.
"Ok. Sure. Why not?" I replied.
The cashier took the phone carefully, tapped the home button, swiped to the left on the screen, and immediately had the camera up and running.
"Woah," the cashier began, "2x is awesome! And the antenna lines are gone. And the home button feels wild. Dude, that iPhone is so sick. So sick. What do you think of the new iPhone?"
"Well…" I paused to think for a second. I wasn't exactly sure what "Sick" meant. "You know, it's an iPhone. Same old iPhone. It's a bit faster, with a slightly better camera, and a bit of a brighter screen. If it's an iPhone, it's going to be great, right?"
I threw that "Right?" part in there just in case the excited teenage cashier was a non-iPhone user, but my Canadian-esque worry was misplaced.
That short conversation is pretty reflective of the iPhone today:
The iPhone's design is instantly recognizable.
The iPhone's camera is a headline feature.
The iPhone's software is consistent, no matter the device.
The conversation also pointed out that the younger generation — who may not even remember a time when the iPhone didn't exist — is immediately more skilled and savvy with the device than myself. But I digress.
I've owned the iPhone 4, iPhone 5, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, and now iPhone 7 Plus. Five iPhones, four screen sizes, and five screen size changes.
But throughout those five iPhones, one thing always remained: the iPhone.
Despite Phil Schiller's list of 10 new features, the iPhone 7 Plus is still very much an iPhone.
Every generation brings a few wanted changes. Every generation rids itself of past flaws. And at the very core of each generation is the reality that the iPhone is a superior device. A device beyond replacement. A device in little need of change.
Of course the iPhone 7 Plus is the greatest iPhone yet. It's faster, stronger, and smarter than ever before. I mean, it darn well better be.
But fortunately, it's still an iPhone. My trusty, ever-evolving iPhone.
On stage, Phil Schiller talked about 10 new features of the new iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, and he began with the iPhone's new design.
But let's not kid ourselves: There's very little new here in terms of design. There are only a few discernible design changes in the new iPhone 7 Plus, all of which are visible upon a more keen eye or closer inspection.
The most obvious design change is the larger camera module on the back of the iPhone 7 Plus, and antenna lines that now round the top of the device.
The most obvious of those changes are the redesigned antenna lines, and it's only extremely obvious on the Rose Gold, Gold, and (arguably) Silver models. Having the antenna lines wrap around the top of the chassis allows for the most seamless look we've ever seen on an iPhone, and I think this design choice is an absolute marvel. It looks even better on the Black and Jet Black models.
The removal of the headphone jack leaves a cleaner, perfectly symmetrical bottom edge on the iPhone 7 Plus. I believe this is what Steve Jobs and Jony Ive wanted the iPhone to look like from the onset, and after 10 iPhone generations, we finally have symmetry.
That camera bump is now an honest to goodness bump. But it's the most beautiful bump you will ever see.
We certainly don't have symmetry up in the iPhone's camera corner. Unlike the iPhone 6 and 6s, where the camera bump appeared to look like a pushed-on, flat-head thumb tack, the iPhone 7 Plus has a milled, purposeful, and beautiful camera bump. Where the Black iPhone 7 Plus takes the cake in terms of sleekness, the Silver model's camera bump is the pinnacle of camera bump design — the way the ridge reflects light just emits elegance.
When looking at the iPhone 6s Plus and 7 Plus straight on, the only giveaway between the devices is the increased size of the front speaker. The earpiece speaker extends a little further to the edges of the iPhone, giving more space for the front-firing stereo speaker. Because of the size of the bezel around the iPhone's screen, any way to make more use of the bezel helps the iPhone look sleeker.
There are small design changes throughout the iPhone 7 Plus, like the slightly altered design of the volume buttons.
But, despite all the design bragging, the iPhone 7 Plus looks a lot like the iPhone 6 Plus and 6s Plus before it.
A few other observations in terms of design
Some of the legal markings on the bottom of the iPhone's back side have been removed. Like the presumed idealistic and symmetrical bottom edge, I believe, one day, all markings aside from "iPhone" will be removed from the backside.
"iPhone" and all legalese is written in a new font. San Francisco has officially won the typographic war inside Apple's headquarters.
The volume buttons on the left side no longer have that shiny aluminum finish in between them. The space between the buttons is now finished in the same manner as the rest of the iPhone's edge.
The second camera on the iPhone 7 Plus hinders the phone's ability to lay flat on a desk even more so than prior generations. I never noticed the iPhone's inability to lay flat in prior generations, but this one is definitely apparent.
That second camera also makes previous generation cases inaccessible. I have an old Twelve South Bookbook for iPhone 6 Plus/6s Plus which I was hoping would fit the new iPhone. Alas, it wasn't meant to be.
The backside is now free of legal markings, has a new "iPhone" font, and looks more consistent than ever with those altered antenna lines.
I've been very specific about design changes in the iPhone 7 Plus because of how few there are. Perhaps the biggest design change is the inclusion of the new Jet Black model. The Jet Black's precision finished exterior is something to behold. But between the smudges on the front and the smudges and scratching on the back, I'll be just fine with my unchanged Silver model.
Much has been made of the iPhone 7 Plus' new home button. Be it the skin contact needed to activate the taptic engine, or the hingey feeling it gives the bottom of the iPhone, or the odd tactile feedback it gives when pressed, early indications seemed to point to disappointment with the new home button.
The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus' home button is no longer a button. Instead, it's a sensor which is activated when your bare finger presses down. The Taptic Engine inside the iPhone vibrates, much like the trackpads on the new MacBook and MacBook Pros. It doesn't feel like a real click at all, but I think the feedback grows on you after awhile.
I think the button — or whatever you want to call it — eventually grows on you. You quickly get used to the odd sensation it gives when pressed, and the little vibrations and haptics built into iOS are nearly addicting. Those haptics are something I believe only Apple can pull off properly.
On occasion, I've found the iPhone 7 Plus' A10 Fusion chip to be too fast for the new home button. iOS will begin to return to the home screen before I can double press the button to bring up the multi-tasking app switcher. It's not a bad experience at all, it's just a small downside of the new home button.
The home button comes with three different settings and your preference is set when you boot up the phone for the first time. I immediately jumped to the hardest setting, as it seems most have done. I wouldn't be surprised to see the most sensitive setting eliminated in the future and an even higher pressured setting to take its place in a software update.
Like the removal of the headphone jack, the benefits of changing the home button to an internal Taptic Engine outweigh the costs of having a physical button. The initial shock of the home button change wears off quickly, which is the only real issue with the new button — I pressed my wife's iPhone 6s home button just now and it felt alien to me.
Here is benefit number one of a changed home button: IP67 water resistance. The new iPhone 7 Plus can be dunked in water up to 1 metre for a total of 30 minutes, which helps to eliminate occasional concern about dropping your iPhone in the sink, toilet, or lake. Apparently you shouldn't go swimming with the iPhone, but you can probably wear it in a pair of trunks in the shower if you'd like.
I've never once dropped my iPhone in the sink, toilet, or lake, but I'm pretty sure many people will be grateful for the iPhone's new water resistance.
There's also an odd side effect to the iPhone's water resistance: the water resistance, or lack thereof, of your case of choice. I went out to purchase a Storm Gray iPhone 7 Plus leather case on day one, and it was a bit of a dreary, misty kind of day. I immediately realized I was more worried about my case getting wet than my iPhone. I know of a company which makes waterproof leather, so I wonder if Apple should look into this for their now-water-resistant iPhones.
It should be noted that Apple doesn't cover water damage in its iPhone 7 and 7 Plus warranty. Perhaps this is a bit of a head-scratcher, but Apple is quite clear the iPhone is water resistant and not water proof. My best guess is Apple recommends picking up a new Series 2 Apple Watch for those times where you need to go deep sea diving with an Apple device.
There are some quibbles with the iPhone 7 Plus' dual camera system. Photography is governed by physics, and while it's proven software can overcome an immense number of physics hurdles, we aren't to the point yet where the iPhone 7 Plus outperforms a dedicated camera. Simulated bokeh can be incredibly smooth, but the algorithm creating the bokeh can't miss a spot without our eyes noticing the error. Same goes for muddied edges and noisy backgrounds in low light.
The iPhone 7 Plus is not a better camera than the camera you have in your camera bag.
Despite anything Apple will tell you, the iPhone 7 Plus is still not as technically sound as a dedicated camera. However, that doesn't mean this isn't the best everyday camera for everyone to use.
However, for the first time, I fervently recommend the iPhone 7 Plus over any dedicated point-and-shoot camera. As an entire package, from the shutter release and focal lengths, to the optical image stabilization, to the display's color reproduction, to the built-in editing features, and to the sharing features at the end of your shot, the iPhone 7 Plus has instantly become my most used camera system.
The camera housing on the back of the iPhone 7 Plus has a greater protrusion to make room for a 12MP, f/1.8 aperture 28mm camera and an f/2.8 aperture 56mm camera. The larger f/1.8 28mm camera allows in 50% more light than its predecessor, while the 56mm lens allows iPhone 7 Plus shooters to zoom optically to 2x. The additional camera creates an entirely new realm of iPhoneography, even if its results are less than satisfactory at times.
The iPhone 7 Plus' 28mm camera trumps the 56mm camera, any day of the week. The 6-element, f/1.8 aperture lets in piles of light, yields sharper results than ever before, and has pushed the iPhone's camera in low light beyond what I thought was achievable.
Take a look at these photos. The first image was shot with the iPhone 6s in natural light, while the second was shot with the iPhone 7 Plus. While they aren't identical photographs, you'll quickly see which camera captures more light and better sharpness. But perhaps more importantly, I'm willing to bet you'll notice the difference in color quicker than anything else.
Shot with the iPhone 6s in natural light. Note the colors and sharpness.
Show with the iPhone 7 Plus in natural light. The iPhone 7 Plus' vibrancy and wide color capture is out of this world.
The color coming out of the iPhone 7 Plus, especially under low light, is absolutely stunning. The iPhone 7 Plus photo is sharper, more vibrant, and has a noticeably shallower depth of field. That these improvements came year-over-year is nothing short of mind blowing.
There's a lot at play to bring this new and improved 28mm into this realm. For one, the optical image stabilization (now available on the smaller iPhone 7 camera as well), combined with the f/1.8 aperture, allows the sensor to absorb more light and for longer than ever before. Apple claims the new sensor can be exposed to light up to three times longer than the iPhone 6s, thanks to the OIS/aperture combination.
Aside from focal length, the 28mm camera's biggest differentiator from the 56mm camera is its aperture. The 56mm's lens doesn't let enough light in to perform well when shooting indoors. We spent our Canadian Thanksgiving weekend indoors thanks to some rain (and snow!), and every shot of our nieces and nephews with the 56mm/2x focal length turned out mushy and noisy. Flipping back to 1x made short work of the indoor setting. Long story short, if you're looking to test the iPhone's low light capabilities, focus your efforts on the improvements in the 28mm camera.
Despite the shortcomings of the 56mm camera — specifically, the f/2.8 aperture and the lack of OIS — the inclusion of 2x optical zoom ushers an entirely new realm of iPhoneography into play. I spent most of our recent trip to Europe with a 55mm lens glued to my camera, so I expect this second camera to be my bread and butter in the long run.
First, the 56mm lens provides a new type of compression to your photos. Here's an awesome animation to illustrate what I mean:
This animation quickly shows how different focal lengths change the compression of an image. The 85mm focal length is known for giving the best compression to highlight the human face.
The closer you get to the 85mm focal length, the closer you get to a very natural compression for the human face. Aside from the lack of background blur generated in past iPhone cameras, the 28mm compression was the second biggest culprit for horrible iPhone portraiture.
Now, with the 56mm lens, we can pull something like this out of the hat:
Shot with iOS 10.1's Portrait Mode.
The comfortable compression and simulated background blur make this photo look like it came out of a $1000+ DSLR.
Facial compression is one thing. Another is the ability to eliminate the cruft in the foreground when shooting upwards at architecture, or to shoot a telephoto-styled landscape. Gone are the days where you shoot a scene at 28mm with the intent of cropping the bottom third to better articulate the purpose of the image. Instead, at 2x, you can prioritize the subject of your photo at the press of a button.
Shooting at 2x is a great addition to the iPhone, but the "telephoto" lens could use some improvements as we go forward. In low light, the 56mm's photos are borderline unusable.
Again though, the 56mm camera has some major shortfalls. In low light, the camera is atrocious. I don't have a single 56mm shot I'm happy with from our Thanksgiving weekend — every 2x shot has noisy, messy backgrounds, poor color, poor sharpness, and poor depth of field. Without OIS and with its f/2.8 aperture, the 56mm camera is not meant to be a speed demon.
Note: As of the time of writing, Portrait Mode was only available as part of the iOS 10.1 Public Beta. As such, any noted shortfalls may or may not be improved or fixed entirely upon official launch.
The 56mm camera's hallmark purpose is Apple's "Depth Effect" feature, whereby iOS uses both cameras simultaneously to create a depth map of the subjects in your image and to algorithmically blur the background surrounding your subjects. This background blur — or bokeh — helps to bring better focus to your subject. You can see the iPhone find the subject in your photo and blur out the background in real time, something even DSLRs cannot do.
This is the original shot without the depth of field effect applied.
When there are soft, transparent areas, or where your subject isn't as obvious in the viewfinder, the iPhone's machine-learning still has a few things to pickup. It doesn't take long to spot the errors in this photo — something a DSLR or mirrorless camera is unable to mess up. Under quick browsing circumstances, and on the smaller iPhone 7 Plus screen, the errors are much harder to notice. But put these photos on a larger 27" Retina iMac, and I've found myself hitting the delete button more often than not.
After the depth effect has been applied. It's fairly easy to pinpoint some errors when closely inspected, but when jumping through images in your camera roll, these photos look stunning.
This "Portrait Mode" shoots at the 56mm focal length, so it's naturally quite poor in low light or with fast moving subjects. The iPhone gives you feedback at the bottom of the viewfinder and asks you to move forward or backward in order to put the subject the appropriate distance away from the camera. Once shot, the iPhone applies the background blur and other small corrections before saving both the non-Depth-Effect image and the Depth-Effect image in your camera roll.
Under good light, and with subjects who create an opaque shape to the background (i.e. no transparent areas between someone's pigtails and their neck, for instance), this Portrait Mode creates incredible images. For photos like this to come out of my smartphone feels ethereal — sublime even.
Portrait Mode on the iPhone 7 Plus has a ways to go, but it has a tremendously bright future. It's hard to imagine this not being the future of photography in general — software picking up where the physical hardware cannot overcome the physics of photography. Without a doubt, this machine-learning Portrait Mode will be met with competing software on full-fledged DSLRs and mirrorless cameras someday. It'll be interesting to see how Apple fits into the software-infused photography industry in the coming years.
Front Facing Camera
I shoot so few selfies, I don't feel comfortable making any comments.
I don't shoot many selfies, but when I do, I use the iPhone 7 Plus. The front facing camera is the best front camera on any iOS device.
Objectively, Apple has improved the front facing camera to include a 7MP sensor and wide color capture, allowing your selfies and FaceTime video calls to be sharper and more vibrant. Here's the single selfie I found on my iPhone so far, just as an example.
Videographers have a wide, wide world of technical specifications to make them drool. I have no idea what bit rates and 4:2:2 recording are, so forgive me for my naive take on the iPhone 7 Plus' video capabilities.
In short, I'm selling my GoPro.
Coming from an iPhone 6s, this is my first go-round with optical image stabilization. To get handheld stabilization in the iPhone that is on par with a $250 gimbal you can buy for a GoPro is an absolute win, and has me wanting to learn more about video.
Here's an unstabilized video I shot in Mykonos this summer. I worked very hard to keep my hands stable on this one to capture as much detail as possible. Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to spot the bumps.
And here's a short video of me walking towards my wife at the local park. Even though I stood still and panned the landscape with the iPhone 6s in the video above, the iPhone 7 Plus' stabilization makes my movement feel smoother and more controlled in the video below.
Many people have been spoiled with this OIS since the iPhone 6s Plus, so I'm a little late to the party. But overall, I know now why they raved about last year's hallmark camera feature.
Apple wouldn't be able to brag about all those colors if it weren't for its new display. Of all the new features in this year's iterative iPhone, its wide color gamut display could be the most noticeable difference when first firing up the iPhone. Not only that, the new display is brighter than ever before.
The iPhone's new wide color gamut display is instantly noticeable.
Apple has heavily promoted the iPhone's ability to shoot wide color gamut photos, but there will be a large group of people who can't view those photos in their full wide color gamut quality. I'm in one of those groups — I edit photos on a 2014 5K iMac and even that machine doesn't ship with a wide color gamut display. To state the iPhone shoots photos that are too high quality to be properly viewed on Apple's two-year-old iMac says something about both the quality of the iPhone's camera and about the quality of the iPhone's new display.
The iPhone's wide color gamut display is the only display of its type in my household. As such, I prefer browsing photos on the iPhone and then editing on the larger iMac display.
I'm probably on the outside looking in, but fortunately for most people, photos shot on the iPhone are best viewed on the iPhone as well. I wouldn't say there's an overly large incentive to import your iPhone photos into your Mac. Instead, with RAW support, editing photos on the iPhone's display is likely your best bet for pure color accuracy.
A subtle front-facing cosmetic change on the iPhone 7 Plus is the extended speaker/earpiece. Put side by side with a 6s Plus, the bigger speaker becomes quite apparent. On its own though, you'd be hard pressed to notice the cosmetic change.
When looking at the iPhone 7 Plus straight on, the only discernible change is the larger front speaker/earpiece.
But navigate to the music app and turn up the volume, and you're bound to hear the difference. From increased volume for music, videos, and podcasts, to louder, more apparent notification alerts and ringtones, these louder stereo speakers are impressive.
I fired up good ol' Shoot to Thrill on my wife's iPhone 6s and on the 7 Plus, and you don't need to listen for more than two seconds to know which phone is louder. The iPhone 6s sounds more narrow, as though the sound is being emitted from a little box. Not only is the sound less loud, it's less complete. The iPhone 7 Plus' speakers are louder, more complete, and have a noticeable amount of increased volume on the low end. Where the iPhone 6s surprises you with sound, the iPhone 7 Plus can flat out knock your socks off if you don't know what to expect.
Instead of an analog headphone jack, we now have more room for louder speakers and improved microphones on the bottom of the phone.
Apple calls these stereo speakers, but they don't fire in opposite directions. On the bottom edge, the speaker fires as it always has. With the front speaker situated in the earpiece, you've got a second, front-firing speaker. I'm not sure if this fits the purest definition of the term "stereo speakers", but the speakers do play right and left channels, allowing for a more rounded, more complete sound.
I can't boast and claim I know this ultra-large, diverse group of individuals who have firmly held opinions about the analog headphone jack. For the 15 to 20 people I've talked to about the absent headphone jack, I have yet to find someone who has said Apple is absent-minded in their decision.
In short, I'm just not convinced the group of people who don't use an analog headphone jack is as small as it's been made out to be in prior, more critical reviews. Put another way, there are tons of people who just don't care that the analog headphone has been removed.
The headphone jack has been removed from the newest iPhones. Oh well.
I'm one of them. I opened the Lightning EarPods on the morning I received my iPhone 7 Plus just to see what the connector looked like, and I literally haven't touched them since. And I know I'm not alone.
As a result, I'm overly positive about the decision to remove the headphone jack. Removing the jack makes room for increased battery life, improved haptic vibrations, and a water resistance rating we haven't had before. Without a doubt, the cost/benefit tradeoff is tremendously favourable in my arena.
Which isn't to say this isn't a big change for a large group of different individuals. The headphone market is clearly a big one, so someone has used that headphone jack extensively in the past. For those people, I can understand this decision could change your workflow slightly. To read some of the extra-critical opinions about removing the headphone jack though, you'd think Apple committed economic suicide. I believe these opinions are slightly overblown.
I'm very excited to try Apple's AirPods when they are officially released. The W1 chip and incredibly easy connectivity to Bluetooth devices seems like a dream (finally) come true. But, to be honest, I'm more excited to try the AirPods with the Apple Watch than I am to connect them to the new iPhone.
Performance and Battery Life
While you'll notice the slightly new iPhone 7 Plus design, and you'll notice the improved wide color gamut display along with the jaw-dropping dual-camera portrait photos, the most subconscious and impactful improvement in the iPhone 7 Plus is its boosted performance.
The iPhone 7 plus screams. It rips from one end of iOS to the other, with no hiccups, no glitches, and no pauses along the way. Had an old tab in Safari you wanted to revisit? Don't worry, the 7 Plus' 3GB of RAM will still have the tab instantly available. Want to process 4K video in iMovie? Apple's A10 Fusion SoC tears through the footage. Need to edit some RAW photos from your Sony camera in the car between shoots? Again, the iPhone 7 Plus' processor gets the job done faster than ever before. So fast, in fact, that the iPhone 7 Plus outperforms the MacBook on which I'm writing this review — a 2016, Core m5 MacBook which costs well north of double the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus.
The iPhone 7 Plus' A10 Fusion chip is extraordinarily fast, outpacing some of Apple's notebooks.
From Apple's website:
With an all-new four-core design, the A10 Fusion chip's CPU has two high‑performance cores and two high‑efficiency cores. The high‑performance cores can run at up to 2x the speed of iPhone 6, while the high‑efficiency cores are capable of running at just one-fifth the power of the high‑performance cores. That means you get the best performance and efficiency when you need it.
Coming from an iPhone 6s, I find it difficult to understand how much of a difference those high-efficiency cores make for battery life. With the iPhone 7 Plus, I can now get at least two days of use between charges, and I have Bluetooth and many location services operating throughout the day. This would have killed that iPhone 6s by about 4:00PM, without a doubt. How much of this increase is attributed to the new A10 chip and how much is attributed to the increased battery size is beyond me, and I can only mention how amazing it is to never worry about my phone dying at the wrong time of the day.
Some people have noted the dual camera system and Portrait Mode as slight battery hogs on the iPhone 7 Plus. I haven't used Portrait Mode for long periods of time, but the computing power needed to create that depth map seems like a logical explanation for quickly-drained battery life.
This experience may not be shared by everyone though. My sister has a new iPhone 7, and she kills her battery on a daily basis. Compare this to her old iPhone 6 making it through each day, and I'm left wondering if she has a defective battery. I've told her to visit the Apple Store, but if her experience is any indication, there's a chance my incredibly improved battery life isn't a blanket improvement for everyone.
Quick Addendum: The New Apple Leather Case
This year's Apple Leather Case is the best yet. Last year, I took a look at a wide range of iPhone 6s cases for The Sweet Setup and came away most impressed with both of Apple's offerings. In the end, I had to side with the Silicone Case, just because of how mushy the buttons felt on the Leather Case.
Apple's new iPhone 7 Plus Leather Case in Storm Gray.
In a way, I wonder if Apple read our review. Every complaint I had about the Leather Case was addressed this time around. The Leather Case comes in the same colors as last year along with new Storm Gray and Sea Blue colorways. The Leather Case now has a smoother, more rounded camera cut out, machined aluminum sleep/wake and volume buttons, and a more pronounced debossed Apple logo.
Last year's leather case had a hard plastic rim around the outside of the camera cutout. This year's case slowly tapers down to the iPhone's backside. I appreciate the subtle change.
The case's machined aluminum buttons are a major improvement over last year's buttons.
Over time, the Saddle Brown Leather Case for the iPhone 6s began to show its age. Usually that saddle brown color ages very well, but my cases tended to pick up the color of my pants pretty quickly — I have blue-y, dirty corners which are very worn down. The iPhone 7 Plus Storm Gray has so far aged a bit better than the Saddle Brown 6s case, but I'm sure only time will tell how it truly ages.
I think the Storm Gray color looks a lot like a weathered rock after picking up some scratches and bruises.
Like the iPhone itself, Apple continues to iterate away at its cases. From the horrid iPhone 4 bumper to the catastrophic iPhone 5c case, Apple has appeared to learn from its mistakes. The latest Apple Leather Case is the best I've ever used and has quickly become a must-have day one purchase for any new iPhone.
Off the top, I mentioned I was getting older. This is iPhone Number Ten, and iPhone Number Five for Josh. Until now, I've been swept off my feet by newer and newer features that only the latest iPhones possessed.
The iPhone 7 Plus feels like a turning point for me. It quickly reminded me about everything I loved in the 6 Plus — the larger software keyboard, better battery life, and bigger screen size were all things I was very excited to return to. All the headline features, like water resistance, a new home button, and that dual camera system were nice side bonuses that made the purchase that much easier.
Never before, though, has an iPhone upgrade felt like such a frivolous purchase. The iPhone 6s Plus, in all respects, is still an incredible phone. I mean, it still has better real world speed than Samsung's latest Note 7 (any phone will be faster than a scorched, recalled Note 7, mind you). I admire Apple's continuous iteration. I'm grateful for everything that is new inside the iPhone 7 Plus. It's easily the best iPhone yet. But it's not replacing a poor iPhone by any stretch.
So, down here on Planet Earth, do the new iPhone 7 Plus features garner an upgrade for 6s Plus users?
"You know," I added quickly before leaving the gas station, "If you don't have the cash, I'm not sure the new iPhone is a must-have upgrade."
The cashier looked puzzled and slightly shocked.
"Actually?"
I replied pretty matter of factly.
"Well, it's an iPhone. It's got a cool camera and it's faster, but I'm not sure it's $800 (CAD) faster. You can drop this one in the water, but you probably don't drop your phone in the water anyway. Plus, the old one has the headphone jack."
He raised an eyebrow.
"Makes sense. That is a ton of money for only a few new features. The phone even looks the same as last year's!"
He took to my comment just as I had hoped.
The cashier quickly threw a question in before I left.
"Hey, did you see the new Apple Watch Series 2?"
I smiled, opened the door, and answered as I left.
Magzter Gold
WordBook — English Dictionary and Thesaurus for iOS
PCalc for iOS


Moving to a new house can be an exciting process. However, it can also be extremely stressful, particularly if you're not sure how to best sell your current home. The rules and costs of property can be complicated. SiteCheck Home Inspect, LLC offers certified home inspections so you can trust your home is valued at the price you're selling it for. Our home inspector is certified, experienced and educated. Offering attic inspection, drywall inspection, and townhouse inspection and more, you can be sure that no stone will go unturned no matter what your circumstance. We will be happy to help you ensure your structure is in great condition. For more information on our services, please contact SiteCheck Home Inspect, LLC in Herriman, UT.


text:
British Columbia 'Ethical, honest, fiscally responsible.' B.C. Legislature officers respond to explosive allegations of misspending
'Ethical, honest, fiscally responsible.' B.C. Legislature officers respond to explosive allegations of misspending
Wendy Stueck
Published February 7, 2019 Updated February 8, 2019
Sergeant-at-Arms Gary Lenz, left, and Clerk of the Legislative Assembly Craig James make a statement to media in Vancouver, B.C., on Nov. 26, 2018. The men were suspended with pay and escorted from the legislative buildings by police last November.
BEN NELMS/The Canadian Press
The two B.C. Legislature officers alleged to have misspent hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds on items including lavish holidays, alcohol and a wood splitter have filed responses to those allegations and deny they have done anything wrong.
Clerk of the House Craig James and Sergeant-At-Arms Gary Lenz issued statements on Thursday saying they have responded as fully as they could to the allegations in a report written by Speaker Darryl Plecas.
The responses have been sent to the all-party committee of the Legislature that oversees the precinct, and both said on Thursday evening they hope their responses will be made public.
"I have responded to each and every allegation contained in this report," Mr. Lenz said in a written statement. "I have maintained from the day when I was publicly removed from my position and the legislative buildings under police escort that I have committed no wrongdoing. The negative impact this has had on me and my family is immeasurable."
Mr. Lenz said his service over the past 13 years has been "ethical, honest, fiscally responsible, trustworthy and non-partisan," and that he has not acted in a manner unbecoming to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
In his statement, Mr. James said he had responded as well as he could to the concerns raised about his behaviour, given the short time provided and "in the absence of access to records and staff."
"I maintain, as I have all along, that I have not done anything wrong which justifies the actions that have been taken against me, or the unfair and prejudicial manner in which those actions have been taken," Mr. James said in his statement.
"I am depending on the [Legislative Assembly Management Committee] and the members of the House to review the information that I have provided carefully, and treat me fairly," he added.
The men were suspended with pay and escorted from the legislative buildings by police last November. Mr. Plecas released his report on Jan. 21, alleging flagrant spending and other abuses of taxpayer money.
B.C. government promises major accountability reforms at legislature in wake of controversy Subscriber content
B.C. Auditor-General says she's begun audit into allegations of inappropriate spending at legislature
B.C. Speaker's report raises concerns about broader culture of 'entitlement' in Legislature: Horgan
Follow Wendy Stueck on Twitter @wendy_stueck