Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #70276 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-03 03:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-08-15 07:54 +0000 |
| Articles |
20 on this page of 1000+
— 39 participants
Thread has 3370 articles; only the first 1000 are indexed. |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Browse in flat view
Thread has 3370 articles; showing the first 1000 in depth-first order. Use the flat group view to see the rest.
Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-03 03:18 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-03 01:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-03 06:08 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-04 00:13 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-03 22:24 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-04 02:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-03 23:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-04 05:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-04 08:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-04 15:13 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-06 08:42 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-05 19:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-06 09:30 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-05 23:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-06 06:21 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-06 05:59 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-06 02:05 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-07 18:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-08 15:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-04 04:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-04 07:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-04 08:26 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 09:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-04 06:16 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 09:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-04 20:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-04 15:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 12:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-04 22:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 13:20 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-04 14:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-04 19:34 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 12:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 08:19 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 20:53 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 18:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 20:06 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-02 21:31 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 08:22 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 10:33 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 10:32 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 10:31 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-05 05:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 12:11 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-06 11:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 19:57 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 13:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 20:58 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-06 19:55 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 19:30 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 14:33 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-07 06:56 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 19:06 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-07 22:18 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-07 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 09:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-07 21:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 12:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-08 10:36 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-08 12:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 04:13 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-08 00:58 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-08 13:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 10:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-09 10:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-10 18:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-10 19:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-11 12:08 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-11 18:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 19:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-08-12 04:06 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-12 18:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 19:46 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-12 10:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-11 18:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 21:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 04:31 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-11 11:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 20:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-12 10:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-12 23:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-13 09:14 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-13 12:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-13 22:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 04:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-14 03:00 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-14 11:08 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 23:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-15 01:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-14 19:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-15 03:00 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-15 11:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-15 02:56 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-15 13:32 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-16 00:28 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-15 16:30 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-16 02:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-16 20:20 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-16 13:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 01:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-17 00:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 10:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-17 18:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 20:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 00:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-18 01:50 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-18 10:59 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-18 07:11 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-18 17:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 22:16 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-19 01:33 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 09:33 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-19 12:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 12:31 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-19 14:20 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 01:16 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 10:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-19 21:35 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 01:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-20 05:24 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 02:35 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 10:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 22:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 22:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-17 01:31 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-17 00:49 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 10:44 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-18 00:33 +0000
CD-DA and CD-ROM (was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-18 09:38 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-18 01:16 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-17 15:23 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 14:32 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-08-17 10:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 22:33 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-18 17:53 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-19 01:52 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 09:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-19 17:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 09:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 00:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 10:30 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-20 19:00 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 09:36 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 00:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-19 21:53 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-18 22:28 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-18 17:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-19 02:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 00:50 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 10:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-19 21:58 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-19 01:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-19 22:02 +1000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 13:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-19 01:13 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-18 19:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-19 03:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-19 09:28 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-19 17:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-19 18:21 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-20 09:50 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-20 05:15 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-20 19:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-20 19:24 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-20 20:17 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-21 00:57 -0400
POLITICS!! (was ... Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-21 21:24 +1000
Re: POLITICS!! (was ... Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-21 12:32 +0100
Re: POLITICS!! (was ... Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-21 20:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-21 20:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-21 13:14 -0700
Re: Teslas and Toyotas Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-22 18:35 +0000
Re: Teslas and Toyotas rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 04:37 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-22 14:07 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-22 19:55 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-23 00:42 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 19:51 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 14:15 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-24 17:01 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 23:04 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-24 19:19 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 01:36 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-25 11:20 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-26 14:37 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 13:51 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 19:42 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-26 22:01 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-26 16:07 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-26 22:34 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 03:38 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 11:47 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-27 13:04 -0700
Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:19 +0200
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-27 15:08 -0700
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 00:35 +0200
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 03:17 +0000
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:55 +0200
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 10:24 -0400
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:06 +0100
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 21:40 +0200
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:00 +0100
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2025-08-29 12:16 -0700
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 20:23 +0100
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2025-08-30 10:37 -0700
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 23:57 +0100
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-31 20:18 +1000
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-31 20:16 +1000
Capitalism and Population collapse [Re: Costs of transport] Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-31 13:46 +0000
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 03:11 +0000
Re: Costs of transport Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 10:19 +0100
Re: Costs of transport The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 10:45 +0100
Re: Costs of transport Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 10:56 +0100
Re: Costs of transport The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:23 +0100
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-29 08:30 -0700
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:14 +0100
Re: Costs of transport [Was: Pickup trucks for city boys] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 06:06 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-27 21:32 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 03:24 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 03:02 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 20:49 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-28 21:16 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:27 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 14:25 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 10:20 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 21:15 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 18:51 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 21:17 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 23:12 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 22:43 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-28 17:26 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 04:01 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:58 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 19:00 +0000
Herbs and banks "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 21:47 +0200
Re: Herbs and banks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:48 +0000
Re: Herbs and banks The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 07:56 +0100
Re: Herbs and banks c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 02:59 -0400
Re: Herbs and banks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:50 +0000
Re: Herbs and banks Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-30 14:12 -0700
Re: Herbs and banks rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 23:09 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 21:53 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:27 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-30 10:31 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 19:47 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 01:07 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:43 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-30 02:31 +0000
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-30 07:21 +0200
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 14:00 +0200
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 20:45 +0000
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:35 +0200
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 21:46 +0000
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 02:21 +0200
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 05:32 +0000
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:28 +0200
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:32 -0700
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 01:27 -0400
Re: Auto financing (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:02 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 02:29 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 22:28 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 22:34 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:10 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 23:43 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:04 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:59 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-29 21:24 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:36 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:53 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 22:33 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:47 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 23:45 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 03:22 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-31 12:09 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-31 21:57 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 10:30 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 23:44 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 03:55 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:05 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-30 10:05 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 23:47 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 04:18 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-31 21:09 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 18:42 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-01 22:47 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:30 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-02 21:47 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 18:45 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-29 20:17 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:32 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 22:38 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:53 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:29 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 23:49 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 03:49 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-27 06:10 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-08-27 12:06 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-27 22:40 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 16:20 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-08-27 13:18 -0500
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:42 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-27 19:49 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 21:57 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 21:43 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 00:38 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-28 21:28 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:35 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-28 22:15 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 10:18 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 17:34 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 09:57 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-29 08:52 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 23:56 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 11:16 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-30 09:58 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:08 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 14:26 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 11:14 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-29 21:27 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 13:21 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-08-29 14:04 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-30 10:18 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 22:47 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-29 20:26 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-30 10:28 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:15 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 02:02 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:14 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:10 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-08-30 18:37 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 23:03 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 19:05 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-31 09:07 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 03:41 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 18:55 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 22:54 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-27 16:37 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:40 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-27 19:47 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 21:45 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 03:27 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-27 13:17 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 03:31 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 21:26 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 00:53 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:29 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 09:24 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 18:30 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 21:27 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 23:13 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 15:06 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:01 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:09 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:51 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 22:08 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 10:16 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 03:13 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 15:16 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 10:46 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:14 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 22:15 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:04 +0100
Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:58 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 06:30 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:18 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 19:43 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:34 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:43 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:13 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Halogen lamps. [Was: Soldered connections.] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:36 +0200
Re: Halogen lamps. [Was: Soldered connections.] Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> - 2025-09-03 15:03 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 02:03 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 08:19 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:45 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 03:28 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 08:00 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:16 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-09-01 19:28 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 21:49 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:38 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:41 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:32 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:15 +0100
Storey "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 12:28 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-02 21:59 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 14:52 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 00:45 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:17 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 12:31 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:46 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:03 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:27 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 08:19 -0700
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 07:58 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Soldered connections. Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-09-02 15:24 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> - 2025-09-02 09:39 -0700
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:03 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-02 11:50 -0700
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:27 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 19:27 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:28 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:34 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 07:49 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:29 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:51 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:01 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 01:30 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:36 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 01:07 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 03:28 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-04 12:00 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 11:28 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-04 22:36 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 13:52 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-04 17:53 +0200
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:14 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 03:39 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 21:20 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 19:24 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:36 +0100
Floors [Was: Soldered connections.] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:03 +0200
Re: Floors [Was: Soldered connections.] Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:12 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 01:57 -0400
Re: Soldered connections. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:14 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:08 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:10 +1000
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 19:19 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:57 +0100
Re: Soldered connections. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000
Re: Soldered connections. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 19:39 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-28 23:07 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 18:31 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 04:07 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:54 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:47 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-29 20:49 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:28 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 22:26 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 04:10 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 01:09 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 14:29 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 18:03 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 21:46 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 14:24 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 18:58 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 21:46 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 01:02 +0000
Non glamorous military things "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:38 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 21:25 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 21:05 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 04:35 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-08-29 11:10 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:23 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:21 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 22:28 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:01 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 04:52 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 19:50 +0000
Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 23:01 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-31 07:49 +0200
Re: Electricity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-31 17:22 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-31 21:22 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-31 22:51 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Ian <gay@sfuu.ca> - 2025-08-31 22:31 -0700
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-09-01 08:38 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 04:30 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 10:55 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:05 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 06:35 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:20 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:31 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:07 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:39 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 22:36 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 05:12 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:36 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 06:21 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:19 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:32 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 07:46 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:09 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:41 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 22:45 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 05:02 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 06:10 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:29 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:40 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 05:49 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 02:39 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:55 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:18 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:55 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 21:23 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-04 12:08 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 07:46 -0700
Beds [Was: Electricity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys)] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 19:49 +0200
Re: Beds [Was: Electricity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys)] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 02:44 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 21:25 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-03 15:39 -0700
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:42 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 21:19 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:41 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:56 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 13:24 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:32 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 07:49 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 21:33 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 02:25 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 04:49 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:47 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 06:04 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 12:23 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 06:48 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:36 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:34 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:42 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 05:44 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 01:52 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 08:27 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 06:20 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:01 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 07:24 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:28 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 07:43 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:10 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 21:26 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 00:40 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 08:22 +0000
House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:59 +0200
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:04 +0000
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:47 +0200
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 05:10 +0000
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-02 23:08 -0700
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 03:06 -0400
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:04 +0200
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 09:49 +0100
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:07 +0200
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 13:21 +0100
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 20:29 +0000
Re: House fauna [Was: Electricity Supply] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:39 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 14:41 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 23:53 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-03 04:21 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 08:39 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 04:46 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 01:48 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 21:24 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 02:30 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 04:47 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 05:13 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-02 21:23 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:41 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 05:44 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 12:01 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 00:01 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 12:13 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 12:10 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 04:05 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Ian <gay@sfuu.ca> - 2025-09-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 17:56 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 11:03 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 12:17 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-02 13:09 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 13:39 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 14:51 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 14:48 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 00:40 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:33 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:54 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-06 14:16 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 13:22 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 15:01 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 14:47 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:08 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 19:33 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 00:52 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 09:56 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 00:30 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:11 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:37 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 06:30 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:51 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 21:26 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 09:44 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 10:52 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 06:27 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:41 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 06:55 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 02:05 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 10:32 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 13:06 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-06 20:10 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Electicity Supply Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-06 20:41 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-06 21:39 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 23:16 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 00:20 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-07 13:49 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 15:37 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-09-07 11:25 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 16:54 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-07 16:54 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-07 13:05 -0700
Re: Electricity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 21:34 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-07 16:02 -0700
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 12:07 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 12:02 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-08 17:58 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 19:17 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-08 23:12 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:52 -0400
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 10:34 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 19:23 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 16:53 -0400
Re: Electricity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 01:35 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 22:42 -0400
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:45 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-10 20:00 +0000
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 10:33 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 12:00 +0100
Re: Electricity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 12:02 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-07 18:10 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-07 13:15 -0700
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 11:41 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-08 12:17 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-07 00:20 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 00:25 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:07 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 03:08 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-07 08:50 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 05:03 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:25 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 07:14 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-07 11:44 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 00:16 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-09 02:59 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-09 04:44 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 10:56 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-09 13:34 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:29 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 10:47 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:22 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-09 16:35 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 03:23 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-10 09:56 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-07 11:26 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 15:30 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-09-07 11:19 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 16:52 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-07 00:19 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:22 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:03 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:51 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 01:29 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 01:12 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-07 11:15 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 06:58 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-06 23:56 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:31 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 00:28 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:16 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 15:17 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 10:41 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-01 23:02 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:34 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-02 22:07 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 14:13 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-02 08:28 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 20:11 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 19:34 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:06 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:00 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:10 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-03 11:00 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:30 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:57 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-09-05 20:20 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-06 04:45 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 01:45 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 10:02 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 05:57 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:37 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-09-05 20:25 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:45 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-09-05 20:27 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 10:30 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-09-06 10:54 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:48 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-06 13:54 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-07 23:48 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-06 21:29 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:37 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:22 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:41 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-03 14:59 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-04 22:42 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-04 18:02 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-05 23:38 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-05 18:45 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:35 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:34 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:53 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 21:02 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-04 22:45 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:09 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 22:20 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 08:44 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 17:13 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-04 23:03 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-04 18:06 +0200
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 19:25 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 04:03 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 09:22 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 08:09 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-05 23:57 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:44 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:10 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 10:33 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:46 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 11:14 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 06:44 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 12:02 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-05 23:44 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 19:36 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-06 21:35 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:57 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-06 22:26 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 17:01 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-04 19:16 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 03:45 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-05 09:12 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-06 00:12 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-06 00:10 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-09-05 20:37 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-09-02 15:30 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-02 15:35 +0100
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-03 01:08 -0400
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 23:03 +1000
Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-03 23:00 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 14:34 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 14:32 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-29 18:19 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-29 12:15 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 20:21 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 04:20 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 02:19 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-31 21:45 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-09-01 23:08 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-20 17:17 +0000
[OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-27 10:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-27 22:22 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 10:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 10:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 06:15 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:24 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 08:48 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 17:35 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:36 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 10:05 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 19:03 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 21:33 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 23:22 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-28 17:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-29 08:18 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 11:02 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-28 12:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 23:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 03:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 01:24 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-29 08:19 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-29 04:49 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-20 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-21 14:51 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-21 16:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-21 12:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-29 08:17 +0200
Re: [OT] Electric trucks (Europe) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 13:55 +0200
Re: [OT] Electric trucks (Europe) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:25 +0100
Re: [OT] Electric trucks (Europe) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 16:30 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-24 19:37 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 23:04 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-25 01:29 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-26 04:23 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:54 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:40 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 19:35 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 12:59 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 21:53 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 14:03 -0700
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 22:14 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-27 00:09 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-27 22:46 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-27 20:57 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-28 23:11 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-28 18:35 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 01:16 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:38 +0200
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-28 23:19 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Tim Slattery <TimSlattery@utexas.edu> - 2025-08-28 10:06 -0400
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-29 21:02 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> - 2025-08-30 23:55 +1000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 17:31 +0100
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-26 19:33 +0000
Re: Pickup trucks for city boys rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 04:42 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-21 00:51 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-21 12:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-22 09:49 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-22 20:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-22 19:58 +0100
Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-22 22:46 +0200
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-22 22:03 +0100
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 05:10 +0000
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 11:32 +0100
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-23 04:11 -0400
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 11:38 +0100
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-24 02:27 -0400
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 05:07 +0000
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-23 03:04 -0400
Re: Electric 2CV [Was: Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE] rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 22:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-23 01:17 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 20:54 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-22 23:21 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-23 05:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-24 14:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-24 21:06 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-21 19:04 +0000
High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-21 22:51 +0000
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-22 00:54 +0000
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-22 11:58 +0200
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-22 13:45 +0000
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-22 20:47 +0200
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-22 19:46 +0000
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-22 19:42 +0000
Re: High Fidelity (or maybe not?) - Car Radios c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-23 01:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-20 19:50 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-19 23:30 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-10 01:34 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-10 06:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-10 11:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 22:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 08:59 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-07 20:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-07 23:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-08 15:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-08 20:06 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-08 23:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 00:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-08 22:58 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 04:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:06 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 13:33 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-11 01:04 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-10 23:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-17 13:50 +0200
Good Old DOS and Ancient Windows: TSR Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-08-21 22:35 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2025-08-11 10:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-12 10:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 22:35 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 21:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 00:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 10:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-07 02:56 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-07 08:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-07 03:55 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-07 10:59 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-07 20:39 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 06:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-08 17:58 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 00:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 19:06 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-07 10:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 17:47 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-08 12:03 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 18:12 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-08 12:43 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-08 15:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 23:40 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-08 20:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-08 20:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 00:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-08 22:53 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 23:45 +0800
[OT] Minix "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 23:55 +0800
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 21:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-08 14:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 10:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 12:48 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 21:21 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 10:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 22:17 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 10:26 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 22:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-08 15:38 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 21:20 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 00:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 21:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-12 09:36 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-07 08:18 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-07 14:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 06:46 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 08:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 21:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 14:49 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:30 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 11:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-09 23:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 10:23 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 13:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-10 12:42 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-10 12:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 15:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-08-10 15:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 19:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-11 12:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-11 18:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 20:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-12 01:42 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-12 19:55 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-12 10:41 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-12 18:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-12 19:59 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-13 09:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-13 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 10:52 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-13 03:04 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-13 06:16 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-13 05:22 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-13 11:39 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-13 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-14 01:00 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:19 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-13 20:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 00:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-15 12:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-14 13:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-15 02:19 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-15 13:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-16 09:35 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-16 14:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-16 15:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 06:52 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-17 06:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-16 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-16 00:55 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-16 02:19 -0400
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-16 08:54 +0000
Re: Microsoft Is Abandoning Windows 11 SE rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-15 07:54 +0000
Page 38 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 36 37 [38] 39 40 … 50 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 19:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109cljn$1u3pu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73384 |
On 04/09/2025 17:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active wire >>>>>>>>>> and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>> service. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>> >>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>> >>>> >>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>> >>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >> >> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you >> get anywhere near 168V DC?? >> >> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >> Negative Value of -170V. >> >> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >> 168V DC?? >> >> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, you >> might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! > > Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC > filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out at > a lower voltage. > Don't use an LC filter,. Just a C. Its all a bit more complexe with load as you need to understand about internal resistance of the source, forward resistance of the diodes, size of the smoothing capacitor(s) and so on, plus the ability of the mains to deliver very high short duration peak currents., -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 04:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <daudnVMwSIHABCf1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73395 |
On 9/4/25 2:25 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/09/2025 17:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >>> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active >>>>>>>>>>> wire and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>>> >>>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >>> >>> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you >>> get anywhere near 168V DC?? >>> >>> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >>> Negative Value of -170V. >>> >>> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >>> 168V DC?? >>> >>> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >>> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, >>> you might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! >> >> Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC >> filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out >> at a lower voltage. >> > Don't use an LC filter,. Just a C. Ummmmmm .... 'C', if really high ... can do a pretty good job. However THAT much 'C' has its own design issues. MAY need a relay - that first charges the cap thru a resistor and then finally puts it fully online. On, 'tick', finally ... Frankly, a moderate amount of 'C' - combined with LC stages - will give you the smoothest profile. WILL reduce the DC voltage, but it'll be NICE voltage. AC and DC never QUITE get along. It's all a kludge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 09:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109e6kh$297b5$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73419 |
On 05/09/2025 09:03, c186282 wrote: > On 9/4/25 2:25 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 04/09/2025 17:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mains" is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the >>>>>>>>>>>> Active wire and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in >>>>>>>>>>> an SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* >>>>>>>> has the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. >>>>>>> Double the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>>>> >>>>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>>>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>>>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >>>> >>>> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do >>>> you get anywhere near 168V DC?? >>>> >>>> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >>>> Negative Value of -170V. >>>> >>>> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >>>> 168V DC?? >>>> >>>> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >>>> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, >>>> you might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! >>> >>> Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC >>> filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out >>> at a lower voltage. >>> >> Don't use an LC filter,. Just a C. > > Ummmmmm .... 'C', if really high ... can do a > pretty good job. However THAT much 'C' has its > own design issues. MAY need a relay - that first > charges the cap thru a resistor and then finally > puts it fully online. > You will find that the diodes have forward resistance enough usually and in special cases a thermistor can be used to limit inrush current. > On, 'tick', finally ... > > Frankly, a moderate amount of 'C' - combined with LC > stages - will give you the smoothest profile. WILL > reduce the DC voltage, but it'll be NICE voltage. > No one uses 'L's any more. We have electronics . A modern SMPSU doesnt care about the ripple since its electronically regulated to deliver a smoothed output no matter what the input voltage is, by the magic of negative feedback. I have a late model Fender guitar amplifier that has no mains transformers AT ALL. The mains is SMPSU'ed down to ±70v or thereabouts and the output stages are ALSO PWM to class D. Most of the amplifier is digital as well. Done in software. Modern power FETS and digital circuits were a wet dream when I started designing power electronics. > AC and DC never QUITE get along. It's all a kludge. > Of course they get along. You just have to introduce them properly...:-) -- “Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,” – Ludwig von Mises
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 08:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <tcqdnWLXV9tvTyf1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73424 |
On 9/5/25 4:22 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/09/2025 09:03, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/4/25 2:25 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/09/2025 17:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mains" is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Active wire and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in >>>>>>>>>>>> an SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V >>>>>>>>>>> supplied that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak >>>>>>>>>>> would be about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* >>>>>>>>> has the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. >>>>>>>> Double the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>>>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>>>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>>>>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>>>>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do >>>>> you get anywhere near 168V DC?? >>>>> >>>>> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >>>>> Negative Value of -170V. >>>>> >>>>> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >>>>> 168V DC?? >>>>> >>>>> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >>>>> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, >>>>> you might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! >>>> >>>> Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good >>>> LC filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it >>>> out at a lower voltage. >>>> >>> Don't use an LC filter,. Just a C. >> >> Ummmmmm .... 'C', if really high ... can do a >> pretty good job. However THAT much 'C' has its >> own design issues. MAY need a relay - that first >> charges the cap thru a resistor and then finally >> puts it fully online. >> > You will find that the diodes have forward resistance enough usually > and in special cases a thermistor can be used to limit inrush current. > >> On, 'tick', finally ... >> >> Frankly, a moderate amount of 'C' - combined with LC >> stages - will give you the smoothest profile. WILL >> reduce the DC voltage, but it'll be NICE voltage. >> > No one uses 'L's any more. We have electronics . A modern SMPSU doesnt > care about the ripple since its electronically regulated to deliver a > smoothed output no matter what the input voltage is, by the magic of > negative feedback. I used "L" not long ago ... cheaper/simpler and better documented than software fixes. Expect MANY to go that way - personal and commercial. Very low-amp 'adaptors' and such - ok to go with the 'software' fixes. Need 20/50/100/500 amps though ??? > I have a late model Fender guitar amplifier that has no mains > transformers AT ALL. The mains is SMPSU'ed down to ±70v or thereabouts > and the output stages are ALSO PWM to class D. > > Most of the amplifier is digital as well. Done in software. > > Modern power FETS and digital circuits were a wet dream when I started > designing power electronics. "Mostly digital/synth" amps ??? Gimme analog. There's a certain thing, a certain human-friendly sound ... >> AC and DC never QUITE get along. It's all a kludge. >> > Of course they get along. Um ... no, not really. > You just have to introduce them properly...:-) More like a shotgun marriage ......... Hmmmm .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDGIIJDqWqo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 23:57 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109eq8h$2f2cl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73424 |
On 5/09/2025 6:22 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: <Snip> > No one uses 'L's any more. We have electronics . A modern SMPSU doesnt > care about the ripple since its electronically regulated to deliver a > smoothed output no matter what the input voltage is, by the magic of > negative feedback. > > I have a late model Fender guitar amplifier that has no mains > transformers AT ALL. The mains is SMPSU'ed down to ±70v or thereabouts > and the output stages are ALSO PWM to class D. PWM ... Pulse Width Modulated, I can handle .... but "class D" Class A, 360 degree conduction. Class B, 180 degree conduction, used in Push-Pull to get 360 degree conduction, highly distorted. Class AB, about 200 degree conduction to limit "Cross-Over Distortion" Class D?? Is that Digital Signal Processing or something?? -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 19:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109fb1t$2j9nh$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73463 |
On 05/09/2025 14:57, Daniel70 wrote: > On 5/09/2025 6:22 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > <Snip> > >> No one uses 'L's any more. We have electronics . A modern SMPSU doesnt >> care about the ripple since its electronically regulated to deliver a >> smoothed output no matter what the input voltage is, by the magic of >> negative feedback. >> >> I have a late model Fender guitar amplifier that has no mains >> transformers AT ALL. The mains is SMPSU'ed down to ±70v or thereabouts >> and the output stages are ALSO PWM to class D. > > PWM ... Pulse Width Modulated, I can handle .... but "class D" > > Class A, 360 degree conduction. > Class B, 180 degree conduction, used in Push-Pull to get 360 degree > conduction, highly distorted. > Class AB, about 200 degree conduction to limit "Cross-Over Distortion" > > Class D?? Is that Digital Signal Processing or something?? Pulse width modulation. You convert your audio to a variable duty cycle square wave, of about 100Khz or preferably more. Pass it through a small ferrite choke and you have audio. Since the output devices are all full on (lots of I but no V) or completely off (lots of V but no I) efficiency is in the high 90%., You can simply buy a chip that does it -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 05:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <vhGdnc0Z76GHNCf1nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73384 |
On 9/4/25 12:06 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active wire >>>>>>>>>> and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>> service. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>> >>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>> >>>> >>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>> >>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >> >> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you >> get anywhere near 168V DC?? >> >> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >> Negative Value of -170V. >> >> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >> 168V DC?? >> >> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, you >> might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! > > Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC > filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out at > a lower voltage. At zero load you MAY see those higher voltages. However real world, heavy loads ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 10:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109eaps$2acbn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73430 |
On 05/09/2025 10:10, c186282 wrote: > On 9/4/25 12:06 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >>> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active >>>>>>>>>>> wire and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>>> >>>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >>> >>> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you >>> get anywhere near 168V DC?? >>> >>> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >>> Negative Value of -170V. >>> >>> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >>> 168V DC?? >>> >>> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >>> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, >>> you might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! >> >> Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC >> filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out >> at a lower voltage. > > At zero load you MAY see those higher voltages. > > However real world, heavy loads ...... > In general its about 20% above RMS. So 120vAC would be usable at around 150V DC average -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 05:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <DMSdnXo-uoMMLCf1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73431 |
On 9/5/25 5:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/09/2025 10:10, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/4/25 12:06 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mains" is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the >>>>>>>>>>>> Active wire and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in >>>>>>>>>>> an SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>>>> service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* >>>>>>>> has the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. >>>>>>> Double the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>>>> >>>>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>>>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>>>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >>>> >>>> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do >>>> you get anywhere near 168V DC?? >>>> >>>> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >>>> Negative Value of -170V. >>>> >>>> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >>>> 168V DC?? >>>> >>>> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >>>> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, >>>> you might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! >>> >>> Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC >>> filter. If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out >>> at a lower voltage. >> >> At zero load you MAY see those higher voltages. >> >> However real world, heavy loads ...... >> > In general its about 20% above RMS. > So 120vAC would be usable at around 150V DC average Again - PUT A METER ON IT - in real-life apps. FORGET "The Math".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 11:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109ed64$2acbn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73433 |
On 05/09/2025 10:46, c186282 wrote: > On 9/5/25 5:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> So 120vAC would be usable at around 150V DC average > > Again - PUT A METER ON IT - in real-life apps. > > FORGET "The Math". Well that isn't a great deal of use if you have already ordered 1000 very expensive transformers and capacitors and you find that the voltage is either too high for your transistors to withstand, or too low to deliver the power that your customers demand... The calculations are simple enough. -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ..I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 06:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <Sy-dnZ-mRq2CIif1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73438 |
On 9/5/25 6:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/09/2025 10:46, c186282 wrote: >> On 9/5/25 5:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>> So 120vAC would be usable at around 150V DC average >> >> Again - PUT A METER ON IT - in real-life apps. >> >> FORGET "The Math". > > Well that isn't a great deal of use if you have already ordered 1000 > very expensive transformers and capacitors and you find that the voltage > is either too high for your transistors to withstand, or too low to > deliver the power that your customers demand... Better send back the 1000 transfomers ... > The calculations are simple enough. TELLING you ... the calx will LIE to you. Been there, seen that. Heavier loads, do NOT rely on the calx. Whatever, add 25-50 percent. And yea ... AC->DC ... DO use 'C' *and* 'LC' filtering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 12:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109efvr$2acbn$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73445 |
On 05/09/2025 11:44, c186282 wrote: > On 9/5/25 6:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 05/09/2025 10:46, c186282 wrote: >>> On 9/5/25 5:33 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>>> So 120vAC would be usable at around 150V DC average >>> >>> Again - PUT A METER ON IT - in real-life apps. >>> >>> FORGET "The Math". >> >> Well that isn't a great deal of use if you have already ordered 1000 >> very expensive transformers and capacitors and you find that the >> voltage is either too high for your transistors to withstand, or too >> low to deliver the power that your customers demand... > > Better send back the 1000 transfomers ... > >> The calculations are simple enough. > > > TELLING you ... the calx will LIE to you. > They never lied to me yet... > Been there, seen that. > > Heavier loads, do NOT rely on the calx. > You calculate for the heavier loads. > Whatever, add 25-50 percent. > ...To your product cost, and go bankrupt... > And yea ... AC->DC ... DO use 'C' *and* 'LC' > filtering. Not normally L these days - not at mains frequencies anyway. FAR too expensive -- There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 23:44 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109epgn$2esiv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73384 |
On 5/09/2025 2:06 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-04 15:03, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active wire >>>>>>>>>> and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>> service. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>> >>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>> >>>> >>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>> >>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >> >> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you >> get anywhere near 168V DC?? >> >> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >> Negative Value of -170V. >> >> How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of >> 168V DC?? >> >> If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive >> bumps per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, you >> might get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! > > Actually, you also get nearly 170V dc under some load, with a good LC > filter. Inductors!! You could be right there. I think I've been thinking RC filters. > If the load is higher, you need a transistor to smooth it out at > a lower voltage. Getting Techo, now with serial pass Transistor giving higher Current draw .... but, due to voltage drop over the transistor, the Voltage would be marginally lower. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 19:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109faim$2j9nh$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73462 |
On 05/09/2025 14:44, Daniel70 wrote: > Getting Techo, now with serial pass Transistor giving higher Current > draw .... but, due to voltage drop over the transistor, the Voltage > would be marginally lower. Nope. Today's MOSFETS have WAY less drop than a diode -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 21:35 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109h6an$30gqu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73478 |
On 6/09/2025 4:36 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 05/09/2025 14:44, Daniel70 wrote: > >> Getting Techo, now with serial pass Transistor giving higher Current >> draw .... but, due to voltage drop over the transistor, the Voltage >> would be marginally lower. > > Nope. Today's MOSFETS have WAY less drop than a diode > Ah!! Modern Technology. I'll accept that .... I'm living in the past, 30-odd years ago. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 12:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109h7ji$30ile$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73529 |
On 06/09/2025 12:35, Daniel70 wrote: > On 6/09/2025 4:36 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 05/09/2025 14:44, Daniel70 wrote: >> >>> Getting Techo, now with serial pass Transistor giving higher Current >>> draw .... but, due to voltage drop over the transistor, the Voltage >>> would be marginally lower. >> >> Nope. Today's MOSFETS have WAY less drop than a diode >> > Ah!! Modern Technology. I'll accept that .... I'm living in the past, > 30-odd years ago. The advances in MOSFETS since I left off being a professional hardware designer have been simply massive. Back then they were fragile and slow. Now they can handle thousands of volts and are extremely fast. And extremely low resistance. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 22:26 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109h99n$31a2a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73537 |
On 6/09/2025 9:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 06/09/2025 12:35, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 6/09/2025 4:36 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 05/09/2025 14:44, Daniel70 wrote: >>> >>>> Getting Techo, now with serial pass Transistor giving higher Current >>>> draw .... but, due to voltage drop over the transistor, the Voltage >>>> would be marginally lower. >>> >>> Nope. Today's MOSFETS have WAY less drop than a diode >>> >> Ah!! Modern Technology. I'll accept that .... I'm living in the past, >> 30-odd years ago. > The advances in MOSFETS since I left off being a professional hardware > designer have been simply massive. > > Back then they were fragile and slow. Now they can handle thousands of > volts and are extremely fast. > > And extremely low resistance. > Back in my day, we were still using Valves in High Powered HF Comms. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 17:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109hlsu$34dpd$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73541 |
On 06/09/2025 13:26, Daniel70 wrote: > On 6/09/2025 9:57 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 06/09/2025 12:35, Daniel70 wrote: >>> On 6/09/2025 4:36 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 05/09/2025 14:44, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Getting Techo, now with serial pass Transistor giving higher >>>>> Current draw .... but, due to voltage drop over the transistor, the >>>>> Voltage would be marginally lower. >>>> >>>> Nope. Today's MOSFETS have WAY less drop than a diode >>>> >>> Ah!! Modern Technology. I'll accept that .... I'm living in the past, >>> 30-odd years ago. >> The advances in MOSFETS since I left off being a professional hardware >> designer have been simply massive. >> >> Back then they were fragile and slow. Now they can handle thousands of >> volts and are extremely fast. >> >> And extremely low resistance. >> > Back in my day, we were still using Valves in High Powered HF Comms. Oh yes, I think that transmitting valves only just went out of use in new designs, in say AM transmitters. But the drive to make MOSFETS and other strange beasts capable of chopping 10kV DC into an inverter at several megahertz has resulted in some good things -- Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-04 19:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <109cl2j$1u3pu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73366 |
On 04/09/2025 14:03, Daniel70 wrote: > On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active wire >>>>>>>>> and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>> >>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>> service. >>>>> >>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>> >>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>> >>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>> >>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>> >>> >>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>> >> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. > > Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you > get anywhere near 168V DC?? > Are you serious? > The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak > Negative Value of -170V. Exactly. Bang that through a rectifier into a capacitor and subtract a couple of volts for diode drop and you get 168V DC offload. ON load depends on the capacitor > How could you possibly expect to get an AVERAGE (smoothed) value of 168V > DC?? > By understanding what 'smoothed' actually means in the context of a power supply > If you Full wave rectified the Sine Wave (so you had two Positive bumps > per Cycle) and you then Filtered that (to produce DC), sure, you might > get an UNLOADED 170V DC'ish ..... but not very useful!! > Very useful, depending on the current draw. For light loads it is indeed the average DC voltage -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-05 03:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Electicity Supply (Re: Pickup trucks for city boys) |
| Message-ID | <B5ucnd915aSyCCf1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #73390 |
On 9/4/25 2:16 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/09/2025 14:03, Daniel70 wrote: >> On 4/09/2025 2:13 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 03/09/2025 13:44, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 9/3/25 8:20 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> On 3/09/2025 4:11 am, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-09-02 14:28, c186282 wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/2/25 8:07 AM, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/09/2025 11:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01/09/2025 14:02, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And, as I've mentioned before, here in Australia, our "Mains" >>>>>>>>>> is 240V RMS so peaks out at about 340V between the Active wire >>>>>>>>>> and the Neutral/Earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everywhere it's R.M.S. Which is why mains reservoir caps in an >>>>>>>>> SMPS are 400V rated as are the diodes feeding them... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Somewhere here I read where someone refered to a 120V supplied >>>>>>>> that they typed was 90V effective. To me, 120V peak would be >>>>>>>> about 90V RMS (or effective). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roughly, yes. It's sort of the REASON for 120vac - because >>>>>>> the effective energy is about the same as Edison's old 90vcd >>>>>>> service. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is something wrong with that. 120ac rms aka 170ac *ptp* has >>>>>> the same thermal effect as 120 dc. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, Carlos, but is that "ptp" supposed to mean "Peak to Peak" >>>>> i.e. from Most Positive Value to Most Negative Value?? i.e. Double >>>>> the Peak Value and almost TRIPLE the RMS value?? >>>>> >>>>>>> "AC/DC" appliances, "universal motors", work because 120vac >>>>>>> and 90vdc are very similar in some important ways. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> USA had to support competing systems for quite awhile. >>>> >>>> >>>> Just look at what you get if you put the 120vac through >>>> a full-wave rectifier with a load. It's close, though >>>> not exactly of course, equiv to 90vdc. >>>> >>> No., with capacitative smoothing its nearly 168V DC >>> Its still 120V RMS, even though the waveform is kooky. >>> Its never equivalent to 90V DC in any universe I know of. >> >> Sorry!! WHAT?? By feeding in a 120V RMS waveform, how the hell do you >> get anywhere near 168V DC?? >> > Are you serious? > > >> The 120V RMS waveform has a Peak Positive Value of +170V and a Peak >> Negative Value of -170V. > > Exactly. Bang that through a rectifier into a capacitor and subtract a > couple of volts for diode drop and you get 168V DC offload. Ummmmm ... NOT what I've seen. FORGET the math ... it's working with voltage numbers TOO transient. Put a meter on it. 120vac, properly filtered thru multiple de-ripple stages, becomes about 100vdc - at best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 38 of 50 — ← Prev page 1 … 36 37 [38] 39 40 … 50 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web