zigbee???
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 18 May 2010 14:16 D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi Joerg, > > Joerg wrote: >> D Yuniskis wrote: >>>> Sure you can. I accepted the default names because there's only one >>>> each. But you could also name one Alpha, the next one Bravo, or >>>> whatever. Or HP5L_Office, HP5L_Lab. >>> >>> So, it gives you some way of *naming* them? >>> >>> I.e., if I you went out tomorrow and bought *two* MORE >>> LJ5L's and plugged both of them in at the same time, >>> how would they appear in your "printers list"? How would >>> you know which is A and which B? >> >> Control Panel -> Printers and Faxes -> right-click on the Printer >> where you wish to change the name -> Type in a name that sounds cool. > > Yes, but the point of my example was, you have *two* of these identical > printers seen, now, for the very first time by you *and* your > machine at exactly the same instant. How does it differentiate > between them? HP5L_1 and HP5L_2? How do you know which is _1 > (since *it* -- or something -- decided to call one of them > _1 and the other _2) > Why don't you connect only one at first, let it find it, call it HP5L_1, and then connect the next one? >>> Even MS realized their folly when they belatedly added >>> support for the TCP/IP protocols. >>> >>> Different for SOHO applications in which you can eliminate the >>> need for a name server, etc. >> >> Well, ok, for a company the size of Dupont or Ford this might not be >> so good. But here it simply works. > > Yes, MS networking was designed for SOHO's, not "businesses" > (It can be used there but it increases maintenance issues) > Hmm, as said before we didn't have maintenance issues. Not at the small start-up and not at the 100+ employee division and there the whole big production was connected via it as well. >>> When I build a new machine, first thing I do is retrieve the >>> log from FTP server for whichever machine is closest in >>> personality to the one I am building. >>> >>> <shrug> I wouldn't recommend this approach to larger businesses. >>> But, for me, it is a good balance between recordkeeping and >>> efficiency (I can't afford the time to *be* an IT department!) >> >> Larger businesses are actually going paperless. Well, some. I have as > > <grin> Most of the "paperless" offices I've been exposed to > generate MORE paper than ever! They just don't *keep* it as > long! > When I visited a new client for the first time last November they signed my consulting agreement and gave me the signature page but only kept a scan for themselves. > I think I barely use a single ream of paper in a year. The biggest > threat for me is some of these 1000 page datasheets. Try as I might, > I just can't trudge through 1000 pages "on a screen" when I am doing > the initial design (I can easily consult a PDF as a *reference*, ex > post facto, but not when I am initially trying to grasp the > various I/O's available, the restrictions on their use, shared > resources, etc. -- I like thumbing through *pages* with a pen in > hand to make notes...) That's because Acrobat Reader is so friggin' slow and many docs don't work with other programs. And it crashes all the time here. > >> well but I can't part with my old databooks and I will never trust >> manufacturers to keep legacy datasheets because mostly they don't. So >> those 10ft of shelf space in the hallway must be mine, and my wife >> knows that. She stopped asking for it :-) > > I pruned a lot of databooks a few years back (I had 80 "copy paper" > cartons full of them). It was just *way* too much bulk to hold > onto. > > I saved anything that pertained to old projects. And, some old > "classics" that have long since been out of print (older tomes > seemed to have "better information" -- not just "data"). Too > many new datasheets are "vanilla" -- or, outright contain > grossly incorrect application data. Yep, with datasheets it sure shows that the old guard has retired. Wait until the baby boomers are all gone, then it's going to be really, really bad :-( -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: D Yuniskis on 18 May 2010 14:57 Hi Nico, Nico Coesel wrote: > Now where on the subject of electricity usage: anyone knows how much > his refrigerator uses? A couple of months ago I found myself in the > refrigerator department of a white goods store. The average > consumption is about 300kWh per year (I'm talking about a small > European size refrigerator). That is about 10% of my total electricity > usage! I think the refrigerator and hot water heater (whether it be gas or electric) are the two biggest energy hogs in most households. The design of most refrigerators is very inefficient -- open the door and all the "cold" falls out (nowadays there seems to be a slight trend towards returning to the "freezer on bottom" which can help). Ideally, you should be able to "ground source" the condenser coils but I imagine the gains would never offset the inconvenience. "On demand" water heaters look promising. But, their pricing structure is ridiculous! Yeah, I *moght* be able to make up the added cost in terms of energy savings over the life of the WH... but, *only* if it NEVER needs service! (I can just see the PLUMBER coming out: "You need a new microprocessor card. They're $500. I'll have one for you in a week..." -- "Um, couldn't I buy an entire WH for that $500 you're going to charge me???") The same holds true for solar water heaters. It would "make sense" here (lots of sunshine). Until you look at the costs! A few kilobucks. *And* you're still stuck with something that requires a PLUMBER to deal with ELECTRONIC devices! (plus the added mechanical load on the roof, etc.) When guaranteed MTBF exceeds 15 years, they *might* make sense... Meanwhile, anyone for a Stirling Engine?? :>
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 May 2010 16:40 Joerg wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > Joerg wrote: > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>> Joerg wrote: > >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>> Joerg wrote: > >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>>>> D Yuniskis wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Michael, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If I can scrape up the $100 before they others are gone, I'd prefer a > >>>>>>>>> newer and faster server that draws less power. :) > >>>>>>>> Why? :> Is there a reason you *need* a "server" instead of > >>>>>>>> a regular desktop machine? I.e., I only run my servers > >>>>>>>> because I want long term reliability (power supplies and > >>>>>>>> spindles). Most of my regular work I do on consumer > >>>>>>>> grade machines. Servers tend to get reliability at the > >>>>>>>> expense of noise and size. :< > >>>>>>> The server can go into a closet with the other network hardware, > >>>>>>> cable modem and netwoerk switch hardware. It free up desk space where I > >>>>>>> work on computers, as well. ... > >>>>>> And makes your electric meter really spin up :-) > >>>>> And? > >>>>> > >>>> Oh yeah, I forgot, it just comes out of the wall outlet so it's free :-) > >>> No. 'And' means I can work faster from a local server. The quicker > >>> I finish what I'm working , the sooner it gets shut down. Without a > >>> dedicated server, files are scattered over hard drives, CD-ROM, DVD & > >>> USB sticks all over the place. I may have five computers up to find > >>> what I need. I also want to run a real NNTP server to allow me to > >>> filter out some idiots and countries before they ever hit my computer. > >>> > >> That can also be done by a non server-grade PC, they usually use less > >> electricity. > > > > > > Not all servers are energy hogs. The main difference is redundant > > power supplies and cooling fans to improve reliability. The other > > difference is the case. Rack mounted to keep them and the cabling in its > > place while allowing easy access for service or upgrades. > > > > Some gaming computers have a 1 kW power supply. You can run multiple > > commercial servers on less power. > > > > > > > >>> Would you like to compare electric usage? > >>> > >> WRT my file server, yes, anytime. Hint: It runs on a wee 12V line. > > > > > > I'm talking the total usage for your home & business. My bill has > > run around $50 for the last few months. ... > > A Dollar number means nothing because electricity is much cheaper in > Florida. How many kWh in one month? Last month's bill was typical here, > 652kWh which comes to around $75. And this includes: > > - Running a 3000+ sqft building > - Pool pumps which eat the lion's share > - Security perimeter lighting all night > - HP boat anchors running all day long Mine was 406 kWh with two refrigerators, electric heat, all the computers and lighting. Then there is the computer network with the cable Modem, various servers, hubs & ethernet switches, plus TV and CCTV security cameras. Add a couple laser printers and three inkjet. BTW, my TV draws less than you NAS, what little time it's on. A whole 6 W, a few hours a day. My electric rate is: Base Rate : 6.886 cents/ kWh Fuel Charge : 4.611 cents/ kWh Total Charge: 11.497 cents/ kWh or $46.68 + tax. > > ... There is at least one computer > > on, around the clock. At times, there are five or more for hours at a > > time. If you can get by with what you have, that's great, but I have > > close to 500 CD-ROMs full of driver software, and around 120 GB of > > drivers and other information scattered across a bunch of older hard > > drives. Also, a server doesn't have to run 24/7 for my needs. I > > generally only spend some time, two or three days a week working on old > > computers. Your image of a server is a full rack with a dedicated 30 > > 240 VAC service. Mine is a rack mount cased computer that draws about > > the same as an average desktop computer. > > > > Have you measured it? Rack mounted servers can be real power hogs. Measure what? I told you that I haven't picked it up, yet. How much over the 325 Watt power supply rating do you think you'll get before the supply dies? > The li'l 12V LAN drive I have is 500GB. They also have 1TB, 2TB and 4TB > versions at similar economic power intake but I don't need this much and > thus didn't want to spend the extra dough for something I'll never need. You're comparing apples & oranges. You have NAS, not a server. > It uses around 10W when running, BTW. Try that with your server. > > > > > The HP ProLiant DL140 I posted a link to has a single 325 W power > > supply, which is smaller than a lot of desktop computers. For one thing, > > servers don't need fancy video cards that can double the power > > requirements. Some have redundant supplies, but can run on a single > > supply. Server power supplies are usually better designed, and more > > efficient than the $6 supply shipped with a new desktop. If they > > weren't, servers would drop like flies. It would cost a lot more to > > cool a data center, and require larger backup power sources. > > > > Servers don't need large and power hungry monitors. They don't need > > chrome bumpers or tail fins, either. They are designed to do a job > > reliably, and efficiently > > > > My LAN drive doesn't either, makes very little noise, and it's smaller > than my bible :-) The KJV bible is about 5 MB of text. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Jim Thompson on 18 May 2010 19:01 On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:40:57 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: [snip] >> >> A Dollar number means nothing because electricity is much cheaper in >> Florida. How many kWh in one month? Last month's bill was typical here, >> 652kWh which comes to around $75. And this includes: >> >> - Running a 3000+ sqft building >> - Pool pumps which eat the lion's share >> - Security perimeter lighting all night >> - HP boat anchors running all day long > > > Mine was 406 kWh with two refrigerators, electric heat, all the >computers and lighting. Then there is the computer network with the >cable Modem, various servers, hubs & ethernet switches, plus TV and CCTV >security cameras. Add a couple laser printers and three inkjet. > > BTW, my TV draws less than you NAS, what little time it's on. A whole >6 W, a few hours a day. > > >My electric rate is: > >Base Rate : 6.886 cents/ kWh >Fuel Charge : 4.611 cents/ kWh >Total Charge: 11.497 cents/ kWh > > or $46.68 + tax. > [snip] 4597 kWh / $347.79 .... 7.566�/kWh 2x 5 Ton A/C Units Pool/Spa/Water Fall Pumps 4 PC's on 24/7 Separate Sub Zero Refrigerator and freezer Freezer in garage Aquarium pumps 24/7 All-Electric except for BBQ: propane. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Joerg on 18 May 2010 20:44
Michael A. Terrell wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> Joerg wrote: >>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: [...] >>>>> Would you like to compare electric usage? >>>>> >>>> WRT my file server, yes, anytime. Hint: It runs on a wee 12V line. >>> >>> I'm talking the total usage for your home & business. My bill has >>> run around $50 for the last few months. ... >> A Dollar number means nothing because electricity is much cheaper in >> Florida. How many kWh in one month? Last month's bill was typical here, >> 652kWh which comes to around $75. And this includes: >> >> - Running a 3000+ sqft building >> - Pool pumps which eat the lion's share >> - Security perimeter lighting all night >> - HP boat anchors running all day long > > > Mine was 406 kWh with two refrigerators, electric heat, all the > computers and lighting. Then there is the computer network with the > cable Modem, various servers, hubs & ethernet switches, plus TV and CCTV > security cameras. Add a couple laser printers and three inkjet. > Electric heat? In Florida? File a request for your fair share of global warming. And then be kind and send some of that over here. > BTW, my TV draws less than you NAS, what little time it's on. A whole > 6 W, a few hours a day. > > > My electric rate is: > > Base Rate : 6.886 cents/ kWh > Fuel Charge : 4.611 cents/ kWh > Total Charge: 11.497 cents/ kWh > > or $46.68 + tax. > > > >>> ... There is at least one computer >>> on, around the clock. At times, there are five or more for hours at a >>> time. If you can get by with what you have, that's great, but I have >>> close to 500 CD-ROMs full of driver software, and around 120 GB of >>> drivers and other information scattered across a bunch of older hard >>> drives. Also, a server doesn't have to run 24/7 for my needs. I >>> generally only spend some time, two or three days a week working on old >>> computers. Your image of a server is a full rack with a dedicated 30 >>> 240 VAC service. Mine is a rack mount cased computer that draws about >>> the same as an average desktop computer. >>> >> Have you measured it? Rack mounted servers can be real power hogs. > > Measure what? I told you that I haven't picked it up, yet. How much > over the 325 Watt power supply rating do you think you'll get before the > supply dies? > >> The li'l 12V LAN drive I have is 500GB. They also have 1TB, 2TB and 4TB >> versions at similar economic power intake but I don't need this much and >> thus didn't want to spend the extra dough for something I'll never need. > > > You're comparing apples & oranges. You have NAS, not a server. > What difference does it make in daily life? (other than that mine is much more economical). > >> It uses around 10W when running, BTW. Try that with your server. >> >>> The HP ProLiant DL140 I posted a link to has a single 325 W power >>> supply, which is smaller than a lot of desktop computers. For one thing, >>> servers don't need fancy video cards that can double the power >>> requirements. Some have redundant supplies, but can run on a single >>> supply. Server power supplies are usually better designed, and more >>> efficient than the $6 supply shipped with a new desktop. If they >>> weren't, servers would drop like flies. It would cost a lot more to >>> cool a data center, and require larger backup power sources. >>> >>> Servers don't need large and power hungry monitors. They don't need >>> chrome bumpers or tail fins, either. They are designed to do a job >>> reliably, and efficiently >>> >> My LAN drive doesn't either, makes very little noise, and it's smaller >> than my bible :-) > > > The KJV bible is about 5 MB of text. > I meant the physical size :-) Although I do have the New Testament in SMT, size of a cigarette pack, for the road. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |