"Becca" > wrote in message
...
> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Phil..c wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Should try Morse then
>>>
>>
>>
>> -.-. .- .-. .-. .. . .-. / .--. .. --. . --- -. ... / .-. ..- .-.. . /
>> ...-.-
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>
>
> -.-. . .-.. .-.. / .--. .... --- -. .

Doo wah diddy diddy dum diddy doo.

George L

Becca wrote:

> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> Phil..c wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Should try Morse then
>>>
>>
>>
>> -.-. .- .-. .-. .. . .-. / .--. .. --. . --- -. ... / .-. ..- .-.. .
>> / ...-.-
>>
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>
>
> -.-. . .-.. .-.. / .--. .... --- -. .
>
>
> Becca

.... -- ... / .-- --- .-. -.- ... / ..-. --- .-. / -- . / - --- ---
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> On Fri 11 Sep 2009 07:41:39p, ffu told us...
>
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > -->Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > -->
> > -->> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the
> > days -->> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
> > -->
> > -->If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
> > -->difficult to be polite.
> > -->
> > -->> My 2400 baud modem
> > -->> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what
> > it -->> was for?
> > -->
> > -->
> > -->2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
> >
> > I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update
> > usually at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it cutting
> > edge.
> >
>
> My first computer, a Kaypro 10, had an internal 300 baud modem. Apart from
> Usenet, Fidonet, etc., I was a member on several interactive bulletin
> boards. In conversaston mode, I could usually type faster than the replies
> I was receiving. I soon upgraded to an external 2400 baud modem.

You must be a very fast typist. It was usually figured that uploading
(which was typing back then) was 75 baud. That translates to 7.5 bytes
per second, or characters per second. Assuming 5 characters plus a
space per word, that's 1.2 words per second, which is 75 wpm. That's
still pretty fast typing. If my math is correct, then 300 baud would be
300WPM.

I believe that many 1200 baud modems were configured for 75 baud upload
and the rest download, since people read much faster than they write.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

George Shirley wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>
>>> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
>>> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>>
>> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
>> difficult to be polite.
>>
>>> My 2400 baud modem
>>> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
>>> was for?
>>
>>
>> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>
> No, Dave, 300 baud was stone age, 2400 baud was iron age. <G>

I will give you bronze. Iron age would be 14.4K, and 56K would be the
steam era.

Dave Smith wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>
>>>> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
>>>> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>>>
>>> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
>>> difficult to be polite.
>>>
>>>> My 2400 baud modem
>>>> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
>>>> was for?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>
>> No, Dave, 300 baud was stone age, 2400 baud was iron age. <G>
>
> I will give you bronze. Iron age would be 14.4K, and 56K would be the
> steam era.

I don't remember if it was 300baud, or 1200baud I first used (on the
job), but I do know it was at 1200baud I was seriously irritated at for
the first time as the slow rate of transfer for a specific file to
download was preventing me from working further that day.

Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for $2300
when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory, and a 5Gb
hard drive.

Back on topic: KF works pretty good for me, as the couple of people that
sincerely irritate me are absent from daily reading (unless of course
someone responds to them). But since there are only three in my perm
file across all of usenet, I consider myself lucky. I do generally like
diverse thoughts and opinions.

As to goggle groups, I pretty much don't worry about it as the September
server I use for primary usenet does an excellent job on their server
for filtering out spam. I see only a few spams on a daily basis, and
those will normally gain me a server error when I click on those posts
as the server has already deleted them.

Bob

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
>>>>> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>>>>
>>>> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it
>>>> is difficult to be polite.
>>>>
>>>>> My 2400 baud modem
>>>>> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
>>>>> was for?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>>
>>> No, Dave, 300 baud was stone age, 2400 baud was iron age. <G>
>>
>> I will give you bronze. Iron age would be 14.4K, and 56K would be the
>> steam era.
>
> I don't remember if it was 300baud, or 1200baud I first used (on the
> job), but I do know it was at 1200baud I was seriously irritated at for
> the first time as the slow rate of transfer for a specific file to
> download was preventing me from working further that day.

The first PC I bought (after a CoCo 2) was an XT. The 20 meg hardrive
was $430. A dot matrix printer was about $450. I later upgraded to a
286 by buying a motehrboard and installing it myself.


> Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for $2300
> when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory, and a 5Gb
> hard drive.

That X system with a hard drive, printer and colour monitor was about $4500.

> Back on topic: KF works pretty good for me, as the couple of people that
> sincerely irritate me are absent from daily reading (unless of course
> someone responds to them). But since there are only three in my perm
> file across all of usenet, I consider myself lucky. I do generally like
> diverse thoughts and opinions.

I appreciate diverse thoughts and opinions too, but there are a few
people who are so abrasive that I am not at all interested in what they
have to say. Their comments are likely to be rude and obnoxious.




> As to goggle groups, I pretty much don't worry about it as the September
> server I use for primary usenet does an excellent job on their server
> for filtering out spam. I see only a few spams on a daily basis, and
> those will normally gain me a server error when I click on those posts
> as the server has already deleted them.

Thanks to topic filter filters, like shoes, purses watches, Nike and
other brand names, I don't get much spam either.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> George Shirley wrote:
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
>>>>>> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
>>>>>
>>>>> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it
>>>>> is difficult to be polite.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My 2400 baud modem
>>>>>> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
>>>>>> was for?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
>>>>
>>>> No, Dave, 300 baud was stone age, 2400 baud was iron age. <G>
>>>
>>> I will give you bronze. Iron age would be 14.4K, and 56K would be the
>>> steam era.
>>
>> I don't remember if it was 300baud, or 1200baud I first used (on the
>> job), but I do know it was at 1200baud I was seriously irritated at
>> for the first time as the slow rate of transfer for a specific file to
>> download was preventing me from working further that day.
>
> The first PC I bought (after a CoCo 2) was an XT. The 20 meg hardrive
> was $430. A dot matrix printer was about $450. I later upgraded to a
> 286 by buying a motehrboard and installing it myself.
>
>
>> Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for
>> $2300 when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory,
>> and a 5Gb hard drive.
>
> That X system with a hard drive, printer and colour monitor was about
> $4500.
>
>> Back on topic: KF works pretty good for me, as the couple of people
>> that sincerely irritate me are absent from daily reading (unless of
>> course someone responds to them). But since there are only three in my
>> perm file across all of usenet, I consider myself lucky. I do
>> generally like diverse thoughts and opinions.
>
> I appreciate diverse thoughts and opinions too, but there are a few
> people who are so abrasive that I am not at all interested in what they
> have to say. Their comments are likely to be rude and obnoxious.
>
>
>
>
>> As to goggle groups, I pretty much don't worry about it as the
>> September server I use for primary usenet does an excellent job on
>> their server for filtering out spam. I see only a few spams on a daily
>> basis, and those will normally gain me a server error when I click on
>> those posts as the server has already deleted them.
>
> Thanks to topic filter filters, like shoes, purses watches, Nike and
> other brand names, I don't get much spam either.
>

I was being frugal. I stayed with my radio shack PC1 with 8k of memory,
and a three pen printer (no hard drive), until I just couldn't stand it :-)

And even if the 286 was cutting edge at that time, DOS sucked :-)

Bob

"Bob Muncie" > wrote in message
...
>
> Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for $2300
> when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory, and a 5Gb
> hard drive.
>

That must have been useful! I remember buying my first PC in '91 or '92,
and it must have been soon after Windows 3.1 came out because they wanted me
to pay extra for a set of Windows diskettes. I said no, all I use is Quatro
Pro and Word Perfect for DOS. Well, the computer came with Windows, it just
wasn't configured to load it at start up. I soon figured that out once I
decided to try it out. That PC was a 386 with 2 MB RAM and a 80 MB HD. No
built in modem, and IIRC it was still several years before I started
tinkering with the mb and added an internal modem, I think my first was a
2400 bps. I had the original case from that PC in use for probably 10 years.
First loaded the PC with as much memory as it would take. Then found a
bigger hard drive. Then upgraded mb. Then swapped out the video card.
Then added internal zip drive. Then added CD drive. Then swapped out CPU
with one from Evergreen. Added fan. Power supply fan ball bearing smoked
and killed it so replaced power supply. Then I discovered the usefulness of
laptops and have never used a desktop at home since.

Cheryl wrote:
>
> "Bob Muncie" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for
>> $2300 when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory,
>> and a 5Gb hard drive.
>>
>
> That must have been useful! I remember buying my first PC in '91 or
> '92, and it must have been soon after Windows 3.1 came out because they
> wanted me to pay extra for a set of Windows diskettes. I said no, all I
> use is Quatro Pro and Word Perfect for DOS. Well, the computer came
> with Windows, it just wasn't configured to load it at start up. I soon
> figured that out once I decided to try it out. That PC was a 386 with 2
> MB RAM and a 80 MB HD. No built in modem, and IIRC it was still several
> years before I started tinkering with the mb and added an internal
> modem, I think my first was a 2400 bps. I had the original case from
> that PC in use for probably 10 years. First loaded the PC with as much
> memory as it would take. Then found a bigger hard drive. Then upgraded
> mb. Then swapped out the video card. Then added internal zip drive.
> Then added CD drive. Then swapped out CPU with one from Evergreen.
> Added fan. Power supply fan ball bearing smoked and killed it so
> replaced power supply. Then I discovered the usefulness of laptops and
> have never used a desktop at home since.
>

Damn... You sound like me :-) I upgraded the 286 I had till death. It
started actually with a 40 MB hard drive, and I just upgraded from there
until it died. I did keep the heavy duty keyboard for several years past
it though, as it was as familiar as my wife to my fingers, and just as
good at not letting me down. I think I just didn't want to let it go.

Bob

Bob Muncie wrote:

> I was being frugal. I stayed with my radio shack PC1 with 8k of memory,
> and a three pen printer (no hard drive), until I just couldn't stand it :-)


My Coco 2 had a port in the side to stick a modem or the interface for a
disc drive. I bought a gizmo that stuck into that port that was supposed
to allow up to four interfaces, but you could not use them together. You
could not use the disc drive and the modem at the same time


> And even if the 286 was cutting edge at that time, DOS sucked :-)

I confess to having liked DOS. I read the manual and even too a course
on it and had a pretty good grasp on it. Early versions of Windows
sucked, and they needed a lot more speed and memory so I upgraded to a
386. That seems like generations ago, at least in computer generations.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>
> > I was being frugal. I stayed with my radio shack PC1 with 8k of memory,
>> and a three pen printer (no hard drive), until I just couldn't stand
>> it :-)
>
>
> My Coco 2 had a port in the side to stick a modem or the interface for a
> disc drive. I bought a gizmo that stuck into that port that was supposed
> to allow up to four interfaces, but you could not use them together. You
> could not use the disc drive and the modem at the same time
>
>
>> And even if the 286 was cutting edge at that time, DOS sucked :-)
>
> I confess to having liked DOS. I read the manual and even too a course
> on it and had a pretty good grasp on it. Early versions of Windows
> sucked, and they needed a lot more speed and memory so I upgraded to a
> 386. That seems like generations ago, at least in computer generations.
>

I guess to be honest, I really didn't hate DOS as much as window 3.1. My
first PC was a mac, so of course, windows seemed like a retarded
red-headed step child in comparison.

I still think the windows/Intel based pc would have died way back in the
day, if not for mac having complete control on their hardware, and
costing a literal arm & leg for replacement parts. They were light years
ahead on their OS/interface.

Bob

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:17:23 -0400, Bob Muncie > wrote:

-->Dave Smith wrote:
-->> George Shirley wrote:
-->>> Dave Smith wrote:
-->>>> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
-->>>>
-->>>>> Killfiling seems so silly. Isn't it mostly a leftover from the days
-->>>>> where even text-only used significant bandwidth?
-->>>>
-->>>> If nothing else, it saves you the temptation of responding when it is
-->>>> difficult to be polite.
-->>>>
-->>>>> My 2400 baud modem
-->>>>> just can't keep up with all these unwanted headers? Is that what it
-->>>>> was for?
-->>>>
-->>>>
-->>>> 2400??? You can't be serious. That is almost stone age.
-->>>
-->>> No, Dave, 300 baud was stone age, 2400 baud was iron age. <G>


Yes 300 baud was stone age. Bought my first 286-12 for $2460, two years and a
386-40 was $1744.50 with a 40 meg. HD and 1 meg of ram upgrade for $243.00
(I upgraded from 1 meg. to 4 one saturday, 486-33 was next, then a 486dx4 100,
then the Pent 1 was $1300.00. I remember standing with my two brother in laws
at 6AM one cold monday morning for the Office depot to open up as they had a
brand new hard drive on sale the WD 540 meg. for $350.00 God I've spent alot
of money of equipment over the years.


-->>
-->> I will give you bronze. Iron age would be 14.4K, and 56K would be the
-->> steam era.
-->
-->I don't remember if it was 300baud, or 1200baud I first used (on the
-->job), but I do know it was at 1200baud I was seriously irritated at for
-->the first time as the slow rate of transfer for a specific file to
-->download was preventing me from working further that day.
-->
-->Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for $2300
-->when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory, and a 5Gb
-->hard drive.
-->
-->Back on topic: KF works pretty good for me, as the couple of people that
-->sincerely irritate me are absent from daily reading (unless of course
-->someone responds to them). But since there are only three in my perm
-->file across all of usenet, I consider myself lucky. I do generally like
-->diverse thoughts and opinions.
-->
-->As to goggle groups, I pretty much don't worry about it as the September
-->server I use for primary usenet does an excellent job on their server
-->for filtering out spam. I see only a few spams on a daily basis, and
-->those will normally gain me a server error when I click on those posts
-->as the server has already deleted them.
-->
-->Bob

On 2009-09-13, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
> Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for $2300
> when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory, and a 5Gb
> hard drive.

Donchya mean 5Mb hard drive?

nb

On 2009-09-14, Bob Muncie > wrote:

> first PC was a mac, so of course, windows seemed like a retarded
> red-headed step child in comparison.

That's pretty much how I felt about the Apple II when I had to step
down to one from a Wang mini-mainframe running unix. So far, despite
all Apple's advances in the last 30 yrs, nothing has changed.

nb

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:01:25 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Bob Muncie wrote:
>

>> And even if the 286 was cutting edge at that time, DOS sucked :-)
>
> I confess to having liked DOS. I read the manual and even too a course
> on it and had a pretty good grasp on it. Early versions of Windows
> sucked, and they needed a lot more speed and memory so I upgraded to a
> 386. That seems like generations ago, at least in computer generations.

DOS is boss!

your pal,
blake

brooklyn1 wrote:

> "Felice" wrote:
>> "notbob" wrote:
>>> ffu wrote:
>>>
>>>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update
>>>> usually at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it
>>>> cutting edge.
>>>
>>> That's nothing. I started with a Swahili tribesman on a binary drum
>>> set downloading limericks in machine language. Reeeally slow till I
>>> upgraded to the Santana rhythm section.
>>
>> This whole thread seems like a "Mine is smaller than yours" contest.
>>
>> Felice
>>
>
> Yes, comparing their IQs.


Lil' Wayne seems especially eager to boast of his manual dexterity...I guess
it helped him to become the Stradivarius of the Skin Flute, lol...

--
Best
Greg

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:44:15 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> "Felice" wrote:
>>> "notbob" wrote:
>>>> ffu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I started with a 300 baud, start downloading a 1 meg file update
>>>>> usually at bed, and by morning it had been download. God was it
>>>>> cutting edge.
>>>>
>>>> That's nothing. I started with a Swahili tribesman on a binary drum
>>>> set downloading limericks in machine language. Reeeally slow till I
>>>> upgraded to the Santana rhythm section.
>>>
>>> This whole thread seems like a "Mine is smaller than yours" contest.
>>>
>>> Felice
>>>
>>
>> Yes, comparing their IQs.
>
>
>Lil' Wayne seems especially eager to boast of his manual dexterity...I guess
>it helped him to become the Stradivarius of the Skin Flute, lol...

Duh'Wayne has a once a week gig on the Conan Obrien show, he's the
Masturbating Bear! LOL

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-09-13, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>> Along those same lines of usefulness, I purchase my first 286 for $2300
>> when they first came out :-) I think it had a 128mb of memory, and a 5Gb
>> hard drive.
>
> Donchya mean 5Mb hard drive?
>
> nb

He doesn't know what he means and he has a hard time saying anything.
128Mb of RAM in a 286? He also hates DOS, then likes it but hates Win 3.1.

D

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:01:25 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Bob Muncie wrote:
>>
>
>>> And even if the 286 was cutting edge at that time, DOS sucked :-)
>> I confess to having liked DOS. I read the manual and even too a course
>> on it and had a pretty good grasp on it. Early versions of Windows
>> sucked, and they needed a lot more speed and memory so I upgraded to a
>> 386. That seems like generations ago, at least in computer generations.
>
> DOS is boss!
>
> your pal,
> blake

I had DR DOS in my first machine. It was even better!

Actually it was the same...maybe worse.

D

On 2009-09-14, D 2 > wrote:

> I had DR DOS in my first machine. It was even better!
>
> Actually it was the same...maybe worse.

I still keep a few versions of DOS (6.22, 98) on hand. You can never
tell when they might come in handy. I draw the line at 5-1/4"
floppies, though.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-09-14, D 2 > wrote:
>
>> I had DR DOS in my first machine. It was even better!
>>
>> Actually it was the same...maybe worse.
>
> I still keep a few versions of DOS (6.22, 98) on hand. You can never
> tell when they might come in handy. I draw the line at 5-1/4"
> floppies, though.

I have a couple of 5-1/4" floppy drives in my spare parts box. lol I don't
tinker with computers anymore but I can't bear to get rid of my parts box.

Actually, I really do need to get a desktop up and running so I might make
use of the parts. I just had TED installed in my circuit breaker box, and
the receiver collects power usage data and loads it on a PC. I don't leave
the laptops on 24/7 so one of my old PC might come in handy.

http://www.theenergydetective.com/index.html

Kind of ironic that you have to use electricity to monitor it, but ... it is
what it is.

On 2009-09-14, Cheryl > wrote:

> http://www.theenergydetective.com/index.html
>
> Kind of ironic that you have to use electricity to monitor it, but ... it is
> what it is.

the problem is, it appears to be an overall household device. What
the whole place is sucking down. Not real helpful in identifying
individual appliances.

The Kill-A-Watt lets you look at each device in the house. Them
wall-warts be suckin juice 24/7.

http://tinyurl.com/lxgwjv

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-09-14, Cheryl > wrote:
>
>> http://www.theenergydetective.com/index.html
>>
>> Kind of ironic that you have to use electricity to monitor it, but ... it
>> is
>> what it is.
>
> the problem is, it appears to be an overall household device. What
> the whole place is sucking down. Not real helpful in identifying
> individual appliances.
>
> The Kill-A-Watt lets you look at each device in the house. Them
> wall-warts be suckin juice 24/7.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lxgwjv
>
> nb

I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I now know that
the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is the hot water heater, and
it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents an hour to run. It runs only in 4
minute intervals.

On 2009-09-14, Cheryl > wrote:

> I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I now know that
> the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is the hot water heater, and
> it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents an hour to run. It runs only in 4
> minute intervals.

Interesting. How much to turn off H/W heater and only fire up when
needed, say, during the day. IOW, how many Ws to heat water from cold
tank?

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-09-14, Cheryl > wrote:
>
>> I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I now know
>> that
>> the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is the hot water heater,
>> and
>> it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents an hour to run. It runs only in 4
>> minute intervals.
>
> Interesting. How much to turn off H/W heater and only fire up when
> needed, say, during the day. IOW, how many Ws to heat water from cold
> tank?
>

Not sure, but I don't think I'd want to try. It's a 55 gal tank. But, I
think that I'll look at getting one of those water heater blankets. I've
also noticed that just by running the hot water in the kitchen sink will
sometimes kick in the water heater, even if it hasn't warmed up coming out
of the faucet before I turn it off. Like for hand washing. Having this
reminds me to just turn on the cold water for hand washing.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:03:44 -0400, "Cheryl" >
wrote:

>
>"notbob" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2009-09-14, Cheryl > wrote:
>>
>>> I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I now know
>>> that
>>> the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is the hot water heater,
>>> and
>>> it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents an hour to run. It runs only in 4
>>> minute intervals.
>>
>> Interesting. How much to turn off H/W heater and only fire up when
>> needed, say, during the day. IOW, how many Ws to heat water from cold
>> tank?
>>
>
>Not sure, but I don't think I'd want to try. It's a 55 gal tank. But, I
>think that I'll look at getting one of those water heater blankets. I've
>also noticed that just by running the hot water in the kitchen sink will
>sometimes kick in the water heater, even if it hasn't warmed up coming out
>of the faucet before I turn it off. Like for hand washing. Having this
>reminds me to just turn on the cold water for hand washing.

If you turn off your hot water heater you won't have hot water, bet
you knew that. Even if you turn it off in the morning and no one is
home to use hot water all day it will cost three times more to reheat
the entire tank from cold than to maintain the set temperature until
you come home in the evening... and it will need at least an hour to
reheat your 55 gallon tank, so you won't have any hot water when you
first come home, and I bet you will sometimes forget to power it up,
so you'll likely need to put it on a timer. It's wasteful to shut
down a hot water heater unless no one will be home for three days or
more. Most folks in the US use significant quantities of hot water
several times a day, it would be very inconvenient to close down a hot
water heater... one trip to a fast food dump wastes more energy...
shuting down a hot water heater for a day won't save the price of one
Happy Meal.

"brooklyn1" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:03:44 -0400, "Cheryl" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"notbob" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> On 2009-09-14, Cheryl > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I now know
>>>> that
>>>> the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is the hot water
>>>> heater,
>>>> and
>>>> it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents an hour to run. It runs only in
>>>> 4
>>>> minute intervals.
>>>
>>> Interesting. How much to turn off H/W heater and only fire up when
>>> needed, say, during the day. IOW, how many Ws to heat water from cold
>>> tank?
>>>
>>
>>Not sure, but I don't think I'd want to try. It's a 55 gal tank. But, I
>>think that I'll look at getting one of those water heater blankets. I've
>>also noticed that just by running the hot water in the kitchen sink will
>>sometimes kick in the water heater, even if it hasn't warmed up coming out
>>of the faucet before I turn it off. Like for hand washing. Having this
>>reminds me to just turn on the cold water for hand washing.
>
> If you turn off your hot water heater you won't have hot water, bet
> you knew that. Even if you turn it off in the morning and no one is
> home to use hot water all day it will cost three times more to reheat
> the entire tank from cold than to maintain the set temperature until
> you come home in the evening... and it will need at least an hour to
> reheat your 55 gallon tank, so you won't have any hot water when you
> first come home, and I bet you will sometimes forget to power it up,
> so you'll likely need to put it on a timer. It's wasteful to shut
> down a hot water heater unless no one will be home for three days or
> more. Most folks in the US use significant quantities of hot water
> several times a day, it would be very inconvenient to close down a hot
> water heater... one trip to a fast food dump wastes more energy...
> shuting down a hot water heater for a day won't save the price of one
> Happy Meal.

Duh. That's why I said I wouldn't try it.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:00:01 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>Wang

That's a name from the deep dark past!



--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 2009-09-15, sf > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:00:01 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>Wang
>
> That's a name from the deep dark past!

The last remnants of Wang I recall was the built-in image viewer on
older M$ Window systems (NT, 98, etc). Appears to be gone from XP.

nb

Cheryl wrote:

>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ... >On 2009-09-14,
> Cheryl > wrote:
> >
> > > I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I
> > > now know that the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is
> > > the hot water heater, and it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents
> > > an hour to run. It runs only in 4 minute intervals.
> >
> > Interesting. How much to turn off H/W heater and only fire up when
> > needed, say, during the day. IOW, how many Ws to heat water from
> > cold tank?
> >
>
> Not sure, but I don't think I'd want to try. It's a 55 gal tank.

They have tankless systems these days, that heat water on demand. I'd
be interested in something like that, as I don't use a lot of hot water.




Brian

--
Day 225 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:00:01 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> >Wang
>
> That's a name from the deep dark past!

It amazes me how many huge computer companies, ones that I thought had a
permanent place, have disappeared, been swallowed up or fallen into
obscurity.

Wang was a big computer company, and then they cornered the market in
high end dedicated word processors. Once every little personal computer
could do word processing, I never heard about Wang any more.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 15 Sep 2009 17:24:19 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Cheryl wrote:
>
>>
>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> ... >On 2009-09-14,
>> Cheryl > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I looked at the kill a watt. The TED can do load profiles. I
>> > > now know that the appliance the sucks up the most electricity is
>> > > the hot water heater, and it's about 3.5 kwh, or about 50 cents
>> > > an hour to run. It runs only in 4 minute intervals.
>> >
>> > Interesting. How much to turn off H/W heater and only fire up when
>> > needed, say, during the day. IOW, how many Ws to heat water from
>> > cold tank?
>> >
>>
>> Not sure, but I don't think I'd want to try. It's a 55 gal tank.
>
>They have tankless systems these days, that heat water on demand. I'd
>be interested in something like that, as I don't use a lot of hot water.
>
Have you looked at them seriously? They're expensive and water supply
is an issue. Other than that, they are a good idea.
http://homerepair.about.com/od/plumb...less_hwh_4.htm

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:31:27 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:00:01 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>> >Wang
>>
>> That's a name from the deep dark past!
>
>It amazes me how many huge computer companies, ones that I thought had a
>permanent place, have disappeared, been swallowed up or fallen into
>obscurity.
>
>Wang was a big computer company, and then they cornered the market in
>high end dedicated word processors. Once every little personal computer
>could do word processing, I never heard about Wang any more.

I had two Micron computers back in the day when they were at the top
of the heap. Who hears about them now? I didn't know they still
existed - but I just looked them up.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 2009-09-15, sf > wrote:

> Have you looked at them seriously? They're expensive and water supply
> is an issue. Other than that, they are a good idea.

Very expensive in the US. Almost prohibitively so. This is strange,
as I've heard they are quite common in Europe. Any you Old World ppl
care to comment?

nb

"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>They have tankless systems these days, that heat water on demand. I'd>>be
>>interested in something like that, as I don't use a lot of hot water.
>>
> Have you looked at them seriously? They're expensive and water supply> is
> an issue. Other than that, they are a good idea.
> http://homerepair.about.com/od/plumb...less_hwh_4.htm

Water supply is an issue? Hmm.

I had one at my farm in the US and I have one now that is dual purpose. It
heats water all year and it heats the water for the radiators in summer.
I'm convinced I saved an extra cost in gas savings. If you leave the house
8 hours a day or for 3 weeks vacation it costs nothing but produces hot
water the moment you return.

I found them much better than tanks, although I have to wait for the cold
water to leave the pipes between the garage and the bath, about 12 feet.

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-09-14, D 2 > wrote:
>
>> I had DR DOS in my first machine. It was even better!
>>
>> Actually it was the same...maybe worse.
>
> I still keep a few versions of DOS (6.22, 98) on hand. You can never
> tell when they might come in handy. I draw the line at 5-1/4"
> floppies, though.
>
> nb

This was DR DOS, not MS DOS. From the folks at Digital Research! Other
than that is was about the same.

Remember the 8" floppies?

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:53:15 -0400, D 2 > wrote:

-->notbob wrote:
-->> On 2009-09-14, D 2 > wrote:
-->>
-->>> I had DR DOS in my first machine. It was even better!
-->>>
-->>> Actually it was the same...maybe worse.
-->>
-->> I still keep a few versions of DOS (6.22, 98) on hand. You can never
-->> tell when they might come in handy. I draw the line at 5-1/4"
-->> floppies, though.
-->>
-->> nb
-->
-->This was DR DOS, not MS DOS. From the folks at Digital Research! Other
-->than that is was about the same.
-->
-->Remember the 8" floppies?


They were 5 1/4", I had 6 in my dos software. Then the 3 1/2 floppy came about,
only had 3 in the dos software then.

ffu wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:53:15 -0400, D 2 > wrote:

> -->Remember the 8" floppies?
>
>
> They were 5 1/4", I had 6 in my dos software. Then the 3 1/2 floppy
> came about, only had 3 in the dos software then.

http://oldcomputers.net/floppydisks.html
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:45:48 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-15, sf > wrote:
>
>> Have you looked at them seriously? They're expensive and water supply
>> is an issue. Other than that, they are a good idea.
>
>Very expensive in the US. Almost prohibitively so. This is strange,
>as I've heard they are quite common in Europe. Any you Old World ppl
>care to comment?
>
>nb

New World here...

Until maybe last year, I thought of them as being installed at each
water need (sink, washer). Now they are "whole house" water
heaters.... if your house is 800 sq ft (actually, I visualize 600 the
way they are described).

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:42:37 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
>"sf" ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>They have tankless systems these days, that heat water on demand. I'd>>be
>>>interested in something like that, as I don't use a lot of hot water.
>>>
>> Have you looked at them seriously? They're expensive and water supply> is
>> an issue. Other than that, they are a good idea.
>> http://homerepair.about.com/od/plumb...less_hwh_4.htm
>
>Water supply is an issue? Hmm.
>
>I had one at my farm in the US and I have one now that is dual purpose. It
>heats water all year and it heats the water for the radiators in summer.
>I'm convinced I saved an extra cost in gas savings. If you leave the house
>8 hours a day or for 3 weeks vacation it costs nothing but produces hot
>water the moment you return.
>
>I found them much better than tanks, although I have to wait for the cold
>water to leave the pipes between the garage and the bath, about 12 feet.
>
I like the idea, but they have to improve the product to fit Amerian
homes.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.