Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #12586 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-07-21 02:47 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-07-23 21:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 02:47 -0700
Re: Cutting panels John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> - 2013-07-21 08:05 -0500
Re: Cutting panels Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2013-07-21 10:38 -0400
Re: Cutting panels "Carl Ijames" <carl.ijames@nonono.verizon.net> - 2013-07-21 12:36 -0400
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 09:48 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 14:10 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 16:23 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 21:04 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 16:35 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 17:11 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 16:27 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-23 21:50 -0500
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 21:24 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-24 09:09 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-24 16:02 -0700
Re: Cutting panels hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> - 2013-07-21 16:52 -0600
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 12:35 -0700
Re: Cutting panels amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2013-07-21 09:54 -0500
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 09:32 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 13:36 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 14:04 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 13:14 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-21 14:06 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Rich Webb <webb.ra@example.net> - 2013-07-21 19:42 -0400
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 21:45 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-22 07:51 +0000
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> - 2013-07-23 05:57 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 14:46 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> - 2013-07-23 16:41 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> - 2013-07-23 17:21 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-24 09:26 +0000
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2013-07-25 16:04 -0400
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 13:03 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-23 13:40 +0000
Re: Cutting panels [solved?] Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-23 07:38 -0700
Re: Cutting panels [solved?]/summary Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 15:18 -0700
Re: Cutting panels andrews@sdf.lonestar.org - 2013-07-21 12:45 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-22 19:17 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2013-07-21 19:45 -0400
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 17:07 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Peter Bennett <peterbb@somewhere.invalid> - 2013-07-21 16:57 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 20:58 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-22 09:20 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-22 12:15 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-22 16:17 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-22 18:52 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-23 14:00 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 15:13 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-23 07:09 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> - 2013-07-23 10:03 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 21:59 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 15:54 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-24 13:09 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-24 15:51 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 11:35 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 12:06 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-26 19:44 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 22:21 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-27 08:12 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 13:42 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-26 18:50 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-26 22:49 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-27 00:53 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 10:16 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-26 23:52 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-27 17:36 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-28 12:31 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-28 13:48 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-28 14:20 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-28 16:35 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-28 17:39 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-28 19:38 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-29 11:15 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 16:30 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-29 17:38 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-29 21:45 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-07-30 12:20 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2013-07-21 21:38 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-22 00:39 -0500
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-22 01:39 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-22 19:09 -0500
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-22 20:10 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-23 14:07 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2013-07-22 18:33 +0100
Re: Cutting panels Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2013-07-22 13:44 -0400
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-22 19:00 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-23 10:09 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2013-07-23 11:45 +0100
Re: Cutting panels Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2013-07-23 13:46 +0100
Re: Cutting panels 0bama <0B@nocontrast.org> - 2013-07-23 13:06 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2013-07-23 22:19 +0100
Re: Cutting panels 0bama <0B@nocontrast.org> - 2013-07-24 08:05 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2013-07-23 10:07 -0400
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 01:26 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-23 14:18 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2013-07-23 11:38 -0400
Re: Cutting panels Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2013-07-23 22:32 +0100
Re: Cutting panels Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2013-07-23 21:37 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 16:16 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2013-07-24 10:37 +0100
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-25 01:27 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Gonadicus <gonadicus@no_spam.com> - 2013-07-23 12:46 +0800
Re: Cutting panels sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2013-07-23 04:58 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 16:13 -0700
Re: Cutting panels Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2013-07-23 13:25 +0000
Re: Cutting panels Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-07-23 21:42 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-24 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ksplpj$r4o$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12698 |
Hi Joerg,
On 7/24/2013 1:09 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> You probably *don't* have an equipment rack anywhere in your
>>>> home. And, probably don't want to see a mess of cables and
>>>> equipment. Or *hear* them (fans, etc.). Instead, you want to
>>>> tuck it all into some corner where it is just barely accessible.
>>>> "Make it fit".
>>>
>>> We do, in a utility closet.
>>
>> As in "tuck it all into some corner"!
>
> No, it is a wiring panel with enough space. It even has a large box for
> the WLAN patch connections in case some electronics have to be added
> later. Such as PoE. The only downside is that I have to scoot the
> freezer out of the way when I want to work on the TV amp stuff without
> too much contortion (because the lower back isn't that great anymore).
>
> The room itself is so spacious that I could even fit a small desk and
> chair in there. But that would not be legit (only one path of egress).
But it's still not what you would consider "prime living space".
I.e., you don't put it in the living room, surrender a coat closet
to it, etc. You put it someplace "out of the way" -- because you
don't expect/need to access it often.
E.g., the punchdown blocks for the POTS are located on a wall
in the furnace "closet" with a stainless steel cover "hiding"
them from view. I surely wouldn't want them anyplace *visible*
as they are an eyesore -- even covered with nice shiny stainless!
The irrigation controller sits under an identical stainless cover
out in the garage -- a place that is more tolerant of "eyesores"
yet still not a blatant "wiring nest".
Even *this* panel's location in the bottom of a closet tries hard
not to take up "more useful" space -- nor look like the mess of
wires that it is (i.e., all the cables are trimmed to length and
bundled into a harness that runs along the wall -- low -- to
the router/switch collocated in that closet).
>>> Phone, LAN, TV distribution, vidoe modulator
>>> feedback lines, central sprinkler circuit control, things like that.
>>
>> I have these things all scattered around the house as befits
>> their roles. E.g., the CATV distribution amp is located in the
>> "space" above the front door (what would be an "attic" in a
>> normal house but, here, is just a foot or so "tall"). Barely
>> accessible but rarely *needing* access!
>
> I don't like such things scattered.
Terminating 24 RG6 drops (plus 6 feeds) in someplace "open" takes
up a *lot* of space! Cable doesn't like to bend in tight radii.
OTOH, a pair of 66 blocks for the POTS fit neatly under a 12" square
cover with the cabling fed from *behind* (i.e. through the wall).
So, much easier to find a small space -- that doesn't even need to
have power available -- for it.
Irrigation controller wants to be close to where the wires feeding
the valves will be located. Landscape lighting controller wants
to be adjacent to the transformers and wiring that feed those.
Water controller wants to be near water softener/filtration/metering
devices. Etc.
The advantage of distributing all these things is you don't have to
run *all* the field wiring to a single point.
>> The irrigation controller is located in the garage near the
>> garage door as it's easy to get out through the wall to the
>> valves (well, actually, the valves are distributed all around
>> the yard -- front/back/sides -- but this is where I chose to
>> bring them all through the wall since it is close to the
>> rest of the "water" stuff (future flow meter, valve, master
>> irrigation valve, softener, filtration, etc.) -- things that
>> are handled by the "water" controller! (i.e., a home may
>> or may not have an irrigation system -- but *should* have
>> "water"!)
>
> All in the same utility room here. If anything needs fixing everyone
> knows where the stuff is.
So, you terminate all your phone, irrigation, security (cameras/alarms),
CATV, networking, multimedia, HVAC, etc. stuff in one location? Your
freezer is in one location; why locate the controls for it in another?
Why run raw video to *a* central location when you can process it *at*
the camera and ship what you need (in whatever format you need it) to
wherever it needs to go (displays, recorders, etc.). Likewise, why
have a dozen or more "heavy" (relatively speaking) wires running to
irrigation valves *through* some portion of the house interior when
you know all the valves will be located *outside*?
Just seems like concentrating too much stuff with no real gain.
(unless you need to work on the phones *and* the irrigation
system at the same time?).
Most of the time (by a wide margin), you're interacting with the
user interface for these things. E.g., changing the criteria
that determines when the hot water heater is required to have
"ample hot water" available. *Not* rewiring the controls *into*
the hot water heater! You're comfortable with your hot water
heater in one location and television in another... so why the
desire to have the "controls" for them in the same place?
>> The HVAC controller is located in with the furnace (d'uh!)
>> as that's a convenient place to get at the wiring for the
>> swamp cooler, furnace, ac compressor and "thermostat"
>> (temperature sensor). Since every home needs one *and*
>> every home needs a doorbell (?), that controller also
>> monitors the various doorbell (buttons) and drives a pair
>> of speakers in the ceiling in two different parts of the
>> house. Since AC power is readily available, there, I
>> can spend a fair bit of power "making noise" when someone
>> comes to one of the doors (front/side/back/garage/driveway).
>>
>> Media gets served from a set of processors in a closet
>> off the kitchen (since I need rotating media, there, and
>> places like "in the ceiling" or "in the garage" would not
>> be appropriate.
>
> Over here media gets played where the media gear is, from the living
> room. But you don't have to watch the movie there, it gets transmitted
> over coax back to the utility closet and then into the main
> distribution. Of course with an iso amp so things won't pipe out of the
> antenna.
The RG6 (and "CAT1" -- even though it's really CAT5) here are for
"future owners" who will resort to more conventional media/comms
systems. I.e., I only use three of the RG6 feeds (one from the cable
company, one from rooftop TV antenna, and one from "FM" antenna
hidden up in the ceiling) and *none* of the RG6 "drops". The feeds
run into the closet where the signal is peeled off and rebroadcast
"over IP" (radio programs, TV shows, etc.).
My goal is to distribute *everything* "over IP". I've done this
for audio, already (though I haven't been able to find an affordable
AM/FM radio "box"). I expect video to be a bit more taxing
(designing a good codec with the same sorts of capabilities as the
audio system). I'm currently in the market for a good dual FXS/FXO
interface (prefering a standalone ATA-style device instead of something
that relies on some obsolescent "board" interface)
But, in both cases, the "media" is sourced from the lower 18" of this
"closet". I have a dual OTA DTV receiver (media pump) so I can
source two OTA broadcasts simultaneously (route one to a live
display and the other to a DVR; or both to live displays; or both
to DVRs, etc.). I need to purchase a second one since I think
you need to be able to access 4 "programs" concurrently in a house
of 4 people (sad! but, easy to see two being watched simultaneously
and possibly recording another for later viewing: "Dad, Betsy won't
let me record my TV show cuz she's recording some stupid sitcom
that she's already seen!").
"Consuming" the media happens wherever you have a suitable "player".
E.g., you can listen to a telephone call on a "network speaker"
or (eventually) route it through whatever you are using to listen
to a television program, etc. Of course, you can record it just
as easily. Want to pull weeds while listening to the TV news?
Just pop a BT earpiece in your ear...
>> All of these are integral parts of the automation system
>> so none of them has a user interface, etc. I.e., no silly
>> thermostats, doorbells, etc. hanging off walls in hallways, etc.
>
> I want the thermostat or control where the action is. In our case both
> the swamp cooler and the central HVAC are controlled from the living room.
If you mean "user interface", in that case, it's wherever you want
it to be. I.e., I can alter the heat/cooling while I am working on
one of the cars out in the garage (even though the garage currently
has no HVAC capabilities). Or, while pulling weeds in the back yard.
Or, while driving home from the Dentist. I've even got a very long
range *cordless* phone so I can wander the neighborhood and still
be "in touch" with the house (I don't use cell phones).
That was the whole point of this -- to tie the controls to the
*user* instead of "a spot on a wall" or "a panel in the garage".
And, to then let the definition of "user" evolve (e.g., autonomous
agents).
>> Here, garage is a death sentence for all things electronic. Even
>> with our insulated door it still gets pretty warm in there!
>> (before the new door, it would easily hit 140)
>
> Then the electronics isn't designed right. After all, garage door
> openers are full of electronics and they have to live in the nastiest
> area of a garage, under the ceiling. The cars also have to reside in the
> garage and nowadays they are chockfull of elecrtronic gizmos, most of
> them highly unnecessary.
You know industrial grade components cost more than commercial
grade. Why *pay* for something designed to be able to tolerate
the heat (and North Dakota cold!) of the garage when it doesn't
*have* to sit out there? Do you think your PC will fare well in
the garage -- while IN USE?
You want to be able to down-spec as many components as possible
to keep things affordable (I'm already in the multiple kilobucks
ballpark, here -- for just the electronics!). If you have
to specify multiterabyte solid state disks (to store media!)
rated for industrial temperature extremes instead of off-the-shelf
*commercial* magnetic disks of similar capacity there's a huge
cost penalty. And, longer down-times when you can't just walk
to your local discount store and buy a replacement!
[OK, so maybe *you* will have to DRIVE! :> ]
The bits of kit that I locate "in ceilings", etc. are designed
to handle the environments they are in. But, nothing more.
If it ever climbs to 100C inside my ceiling, the $15 board I've
got tucked up there is going to be the *least* of my worries!
("Don, why is there *steam* coming out of the ceiling?")
>> I keep debating running "air" into the store room in the
>> garage and moving the doorway to open into the interior of
>> the house (instead of into the garage). That's a fairly
>> large space that would be a great home for the freezer
>> (currently in the garage!), my larger printers, plotter,
>> etc. But... <shrug>
>
> Freezer in the garage? That is tough on its compressor.
Yup. But, we don't have much of an option in that regard.
Insulated garage door makes a big difference (and, the fact
that the compressor hugs the floor and not the ceiling).
House is very "open". Translation: not many places to *hide*
things! :<
And, I'd *kill* for a basement!
> So yeah, it
> would make sense to change that. But it's probably as high as on the
> priority list as painting the pool house is here.
>
>>>> I'd like to come up with a "solution" that lets folks figure out
>>>> how best to package/deploy their own version instead of imposing
>>>> a solution. You want to use an equipment rack? Fine! *You*
>>>> figure out where to put it... (I have a friend with one of these
>>>> 5,000sq ft palaces that *likes* making his toys visible. He'd
>>>> probably set it in a 42U rack with glass doors sitting in a
>>>> corner of his living room! "Conversation Piece" :-/ Sheesh!)
>>>
>>> With smoked glass doors and mood lighting :-)
>>
>> I have another friend with a small rack in his *bedroom*!
>> Dunno what the appeal of that is supposed to be... <frown>
>
> Strange. It's usually considered uncool to show so much nerdiness. It
> turns off potential girlfriends. Unless he is already married :-)
<shrug> I think, in his case, he's more interested in the
functionality than the appearance. And, he enjoys "tinkering"
with it. My goal is more a "set and forget" use. I don't like
being a slave to my possessions -- despite all the effort I am
expending towards that goal! :-/
Early in my career, I worried almost exclusively about how well
things *worked* without regard for what they looked like (I have
many prototypes fabricated "on a wooden plank" or "in a wooden
enclosure"). I think its only after you get that skill-set
perfected that you turn your attention to other "niceties"
like appearance, user constraints, etc.
>> [Though, having said that, I've thought of replacing the
>> library card catalog I have ...
>
> What is a library card catalog?
Before electronic "card catalogs" (list of the titles a
library has on hand), each book had an index card describing
it. These were kept in large, monotonous "drawer units".
Typically, one organized "by title" and another "by author".
Usually reasonably nice pieces of carpentry (though out-of-place
in most residential settings).
Mine stands about 5 ft tall and I've located a workstation atop
it that I use while standing (usually for things like starting a
backup, etc.)
>>>> The idea of "custom panels" IN GENERAL makes perfect sense (e.g.,
>>>> the examples you cite). I just don't think many would pursue it
>>>> for *this* project (which would already be hard to get past your
>>>> S.O. -- regardless of how many shoes she has!! :> )
>>>
>>> Mine was real happy after I installed the system, when I showed her how
>>> we can now watch a movie anywhere, including outside.
>>
>> Mine is getting more and more nervous as the "controls" are
>> disappearing. "Why can't I just use change (radio) stations
>> like I used to? What do you mean, there soon will be *no*
>> remote for the TV??" ...
>
> Oh yeah, that would not go over too well with my wife either.
<shrug> Times change. Weigh the "features" you lose by giving
up the conventional remote (of course, make sure you take into
account never being able to *find* the damn things! And, grumbling
each time the batteries die!) with the features you gain from the
new approach. *Then* decide.
[I can undoubtedly design an Ir interface that would allow the
"old" remotes to continue to work. But, what's the point??]
I think a lot of it boils down to a sort of reassurance that
something physical and tangible gives. The same sort of
issue that leads people to develop and maintain *huge*
spreadsheets instead of putting the data into a formal
database and issuing queries against that (i.e., they feel
"reassured" because they can *see* all of the data when it is
in a spreadsheet -- even though seeing it doesn't make it any
more robust or correct; whereas the raw data is hidden -- unless
explicitly called forth -- when you just issue summary queries
on a database!)
>> ... As a concession, I had to install three
>> "control panels" so she can interact with the system in a more
>> "traditional" manner. I've rationalized this to myself by
>> locating them in the three places where you would typically want
>> a quick summary of system status and presenting this visually
>> would be most efficient: the two primary doors by which we
>> enter/exit the house and the hallway to the bedrooms (where you
>> "say good night/morning" to the house).
>>
>> [There's also a panel located in the closet that houses the media
>> servers but that's more of a convenience for *me*... so I can
>> do maintenance work without having to boot up a PC to "talk"
>> to the system.]
>
> But one needs a remote, nowadays. Having to get out of a chair to
> changes stations is so 1950's, and one could pull a muscle :-)
Sure. I just don't restrict the "remote" to something as conventional
and DEDICATED as "The TV Remote" (or DVD or VCR or STEREO or CATV
or...). I.e., where is the HVAC remote? Or, irrigation controller
remote? Or, garage door opener (FOR INHOME USE) remote? Why have
all these numerous little *specialized* boxes when they are all just
*instances* of the same sort of "user interface"! Why have to keep
track of them and maintain them? ("Oh, crap! I left the remote
for the irrigation controller in the dining room...")
>> I have two sorts of "connection points" in the house. One type
>> is dedicated for specific needs. E.g., the drop for the
>> irrigation controller is *just* a network drop FOR THE IRRIGATION
>> CONTROLLER.
>>
>> The "uncommitted" points in the house (24 of them) each have
>> a network drop, CATV drop and a POTS drop. So, you can plug in
>> a laptop, phone or "conventional" (i.e., non-IP) TV in any of
>> those locations.
>>
>> All the POTS drops terminate at a pair of punchdown blocks
>> mounted on the wall alongside the furnace.
>
> To be honest, I haven't completed the 66 blocks. While installing our
> trusty old Cincinnatti Microwave phone quit and I went to buy a new one.
> They stopped making these, so I ended up with a large "system pack" full
> of cordless phones. Made the POTS network I just completed almost
> irrelevant, nothing much plugs into it.
Here, the phone and CATV wiring are a concession to future homeowners.
I see no need for any of them in the years to come. But, I don't
care to argue that point with a prospective home buyer. "You want
a phone jack in every room? Fine. Oh, you want a CATV drop as well?
Sure. Welcome BACK to the 20th century."
>>>> E.g., we've dropped about a kilobuck into *just* the irrigation
>>>> system -- with none of that spent on "labor" or "profit". We
>>>> could never have justified what it would have cost to *contract*
>>>> that job out! If I'd *tried* to contract *this* project out,
>>>> neither of us would *ever* retire (to enjoy it!) :>
>>>
>>> Same here. We just painted the house. It would have cost us around 7k.
>>> This way it cost about $400 in paint and several Saturdays.
>>
>> Yup. Though it's not just "saving money". I find these sorts
>> of "puzzles" to help keep my thinking "pliable" since the
>> sorts of constraints that you face are very different than
>> the "9 to 5" sorts.
>
> It also keeps one appreciative of folks doing non-engineering jobs.
I think it also lets you see the sorts of problems others face
and prompts creative thinking *on* those problems -- even if you
never attempt to actually solve them!
E.g., in the past few years, they have replaced all the service
feeds to the homes in the neighborhood from the gas company. It was
interesting to see how they do this without trenching the whole yard!
(*every* yard!).
This year, they replaced the gas *mains* in the neighborhood. Again,
without digging up the streets. (This was actually REALLY amazing!)
When you look at the "solutions" they've employed, it gives you a
better understanding of where the cost issues are in these problem
domains. Things that you might not have considered, otherwise. Or,
may have *mis*diagnosed in your ignorance.
>> E.g., deciding how to plumb the pressure regulator/master valve/
>> anti-siphon device/main shutoff assembly required a fair bit of
>> 3 dimensional thinking: "Yeah, I can envision all these parts
>> *assembled*. But, will I be able to *disassemble* them once
>> they are positioned in this particular location? Will I be
>> able to unscrew this fitting? Do I need to add a union?
>
> Or it goes like "Oh dang! I should have put a union in there because now
> ...."
Exactly. I replumbed the irrigation tap off the water main recently.
Had previously hired a plumber to do this (what a mistake!). Of
course, *he* had soldered everything together figuring someone like
him would UNsolder things when/if they needed to be replaced.
I, OTOH, replaced everything with threaded fittings/fixtures so
it is relatively easy to service. Granted, using brass everywhere
adds to cost (though it looks a lot prettier!). And, screw fittings
are more expensive than slip joints. But, when you consider the
time spent and the potential time *saved* when/if I need to revisit
it down the road (e.g., replace diaphram in master valve, clean
filter in pressure regulator, etc.)...
>> You also learn things like: galvanized pipe sucks!
>>
>> (e.g., I've replaced everything with copper pipe and brass
>> fittings -- *threaded* fittings instead of slip fittings
>> so it's easier for *me* to service in the future!)
>
> In this area they all happily mixed galvanized and brass and copper.
> Disgusting.
I hadn't realized how dreadful galvanized is! And "steel" nipples!
I'd only ever used copper prior to this.
Unfortunately, I fabricated all of the (irrigation) valve manifolds
out of galvanized. I will have to recreate them in copper when I
have some spare time. <frown> Thankfully, they are each small
projects (four sets of three valves -- the rest are singletons)
so I can tackle them without having to shut down the system for
a prolonged period of time.
>> And, you can control the *quality* of the workmanship.
>> E.g., the *hired* plumber initially installed some of this
>> kit -- and didn't seem to know what "vertical" meant!
>> (No, 80 degrees isn't vertical... it might be considered
>> "upright" by some but it sure isn't vertical!)
>>
>> Finally, it avoids the "Olde Farte" syndrome -- folks
>> who rationalize hiring people to do things because they
>> are too lazy/unambitious to do/learn for themselves!
>> Sooner or later, the body will limit what I can do. Until
>> then, I'd like to "try" as much as I can! :>
>
> Same here.
It's also satisfying to be able to say you've done some of these
things. And, you get a bit of a "reputation" as folks see you
taking them on. E.g., each time I've dug out a tree stump/root
system it's a very protracted and *noticeable* task. People
tend to stop by and peer into the hole (the last one required 7
tons of soil to refill!) when all they see is your *head* sticking
up above ground!
>> [12 tons of rock coming this fall... at least I was smart
>> enough to schedule it when its COOLER!]
>>
>> Having said all that (rant!), I may change my tune after
>> I replace the roof next year... <frown> I guess a lot will
>> depend on how much heavy stuff I have to carry up there!
>> (so far, I've only dealt with 80 pound felt -- heavy but
>> manageable!)
>
> Ok, there I'd rent a lift. Costs less than the doctor visit for the
> prescription pills and cortizone shots, followed by several days in bed
> because you can't move. Happened last time I helped roofing abhouse as a
> volunteer.
I don't know what it is like to replace this sort of roof.
Previous roofs were asphalt shingle. Carrying third "squares"
up a ladder is tedious but not the end of the world. I don't
yet know what is involved for this roof (though I've had to carry
80# felt to make some repairs; and lugging 50-60 pound containers
of paint...)
And, of course, any *lumber* that will be involved. :< The *bulk*
may prove to be a problem!
Sheesh! One of these days my body is going to remind me of its
actual age!! And, it probably won't be very POLITE when it does so!
--don
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5flh4Fr90vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12699 |
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 7/24/2013 1:09 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
[...]
>>> The irrigation controller is located in the garage near the
>>> garage door as it's easy to get out through the wall to the
>>> valves (well, actually, the valves are distributed all around
>>> the yard -- front/back/sides -- but this is where I chose to
>>> bring them all through the wall since it is close to the
>>> rest of the "water" stuff (future flow meter, valve, master
>>> irrigation valve, softener, filtration, etc.) -- things that
>>> are handled by the "water" controller! (i.e., a home may
>>> or may not have an irrigation system -- but *should* have
>>> "water"!)
>>
>> All in the same utility room here. If anything needs fixing everyone
>> knows where the stuff is.
>
> So, you terminate all your phone, irrigation, security (cameras/alarms),
> CATV, networking, multimedia, HVAC, etc. stuff in one location? ...
Yes.
> ... Your
> freezer is in one location; why locate the controls for it in another?
The freezer has only internal controls but it is right next to the
utility panel, in the same room. After the first one died and much of
the food in it spoiled I thought about running a network high-temp alert
but so far haven't gotten around to it.
> Why run raw video to *a* central location when you can process it *at*
> the camera and ship what you need (in whatever format you need it) to
> wherever it needs to go (displays, recorders, etc.). ...
Because re-routing stuff is a breeze when you have home runs. If you
don't then it could mean cracking out the hammer drill, making a mess,
dust, work, blisters.
> ... Likewise, why
> have a dozen or more "heavy" (relatively speaking) wires running to
> irrigation valves *through* some portion of the house interior when
> you know all the valves will be located *outside*?
>
Because central control is, to me, essential when it comes to such
things. Heavy? A normal solenoid doesn't even take 0.25A. I've used
doubled-up CAT5 for that because that only came in 1000ft drums.
> Just seems like concentrating too much stuff with no real gain.
> (unless you need to work on the phones *and* the irrigation
> system at the same time?).
>
Example: Some day you want to control the irrigation from your phone or
via your LAN. With a central closet all you have to build is a board.
Without that it means the hammer drill, dust, noise, sweat ...
> Most of the time (by a wide margin), you're interacting with the
> user interface for these things. E.g., changing the criteria
> that determines when the hot water heater is required to have
> "ample hot water" available. *Not* rewiring the controls *into*
> the hot water heater! You're comfortable with your hot water
> heater in one location and television in another... so why the
> desire to have the "controls" for them in the same place?
>
Say you want to conserve energy. If you really want to push it and lower
the water heater temps a lot you may have to ramp it up and back down
about once a week. To prevent legionaires disease. Ideally this should
happen when hot water is likely not used but, say, one person in the
household is on revolving-time shifts at work. The peaker time thus has
to be changed a lot. If you have no central control this would be a real
pain.
>>> The HVAC controller is located in with the furnace (d'uh!)
>>> as that's a convenient place to get at the wiring for the
>>> swamp cooler, furnace, ac compressor and "thermostat"
>>> (temperature sensor). Since every home needs one *and*
>>> every home needs a doorbell (?), that controller also
>>> monitors the various doorbell (buttons) and drives a pair
>>> of speakers in the ceiling in two different parts of the
>>> house. Since AC power is readily available, there, I
>>> can spend a fair bit of power "making noise" when someone
>>> comes to one of the doors (front/side/back/garage/driveway).
>>>
>>> Media gets served from a set of processors in a closet
>>> off the kitchen (since I need rotating media, there, and
>>> places like "in the ceiling" or "in the garage" would not
>>> be appropriate.
>>
>> Over here media gets played where the media gear is, from the living
>> room. But you don't have to watch the movie there, it gets transmitted
>> over coax back to the utility closet and then into the main
>> distribution. Of course with an iso amp so things won't pipe out of the
>> antenna.
>
> The RG6 (and "CAT1" -- even though it's really CAT5) here are for
> "future owners" who will resort to more conventional media/comms
> systems. I.e., I only use three of the RG6 feeds (one from the cable
> company, one from rooftop TV antenna, and one from "FM" antenna
> hidden up in the ceiling) and *none* of the RG6 "drops". The feeds
> run into the closet where the signal is peeled off and rebroadcast
> "over IP" (radio programs, TV shows, etc.).
>
> My goal is to distribute *everything* "over IP". I've done this
> for audio, already (though I haven't been able to find an affordable
> AM/FM radio "box"). I expect video to be a bit more taxing
> (designing a good codec with the same sorts of capabilities as the
> audio system). I'm currently in the market for a good dual FXS/FXO
> interface (prefering a standalone ATA-style device instead of something
> that relies on some obsolescent "board" interface)
>
That is quite futursitic but it sounds expensive to transfer everything
to IP.
> But, in both cases, the "media" is sourced from the lower 18" of this
> "closet". I have a dual OTA DTV receiver (media pump) so I can
> source two OTA broadcasts simultaneously (route one to a live
> display and the other to a DVR; or both to live displays; or both
> to DVRs, etc.). I need to purchase a second one since I think
> you need to be able to access 4 "programs" concurrently in a house
> of 4 people (sad! but, easy to see two being watched simultaneously
> and possibly recording another for later viewing: "Dad, Betsy won't
> let me record my TV show cuz she's recording some stupid sitcom
> that she's already seen!").
>
> "Consuming" the media happens wherever you have a suitable "player".
> E.g., you can listen to a telephone call on a "network speaker"
> or (eventually) route it through whatever you are using to listen
> to a television program, etc. Of course, you can record it just
> as easily. Want to pull weeds while listening to the TV news?
> Just pop a BT earpiece in your ear...
>
You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring closet :-)
>>> All of these are integral parts of the automation system
>>> so none of them has a user interface, etc. I.e., no silly
>>> thermostats, doorbells, etc. hanging off walls in hallways, etc.
>>
>> I want the thermostat or control where the action is. In our case both
>> the swamp cooler and the central HVAC are controlled from the living
>> room.
>
> If you mean "user interface", in that case, it's wherever you want
> it to be. I.e., I can alter the heat/cooling while I am working on
> one of the cars out in the garage (even though the garage currently
> has no HVAC capabilities). Or, while pulling weeds in the back yard.
> Or, while driving home from the Dentist. I've even got a very long
> range *cordless* phone so I can wander the neighborhood and still
> be "in touch" with the house (I don't use cell phones).
>
> That was the whole point of this -- to tie the controls to the
> *user* instead of "a spot on a wall" or "a panel in the garage".
> And, to then let the definition of "user" evolve (e.g., autonomous
> agents).
>
To me the wiring closet is what makes this easy. I have no ambitions to
peel off signals and such (well, with minor exceptions) but if I ever
needed to then our home-run structure would make this as easy as it gets.
>>> Here, garage is a death sentence for all things electronic. Even
>>> with our insulated door it still gets pretty warm in there!
>>> (before the new door, it would easily hit 140)
>>
>> Then the electronics isn't designed right. After all, garage door
>> openers are full of electronics and they have to live in the nastiest
>> area of a garage, under the ceiling. The cars also have to reside in the
>> garage and nowadays they are chockfull of elecrtronic gizmos, most of
>> them highly unnecessary.
>
> You know industrial grade components cost more than commercial
> grade. Why *pay* for something designed to be able to tolerate
> the heat (and North Dakota cold!) of the garage when it doesn't
> *have* to sit out there? Do you think your PC will fare well in
> the garage -- while IN USE?
>
A good one does. Here in the office it was 91F yesterday and the main PC
was running heavy duty SPICE simulations.
> You want to be able to down-spec as many components as possible
> to keep things affordable (I'm already in the multiple kilobucks
> ballpark, here -- for just the electronics!). If you have
> to specify multiterabyte solid state disks (to store media!)
> rated for industrial temperature extremes instead of off-the-shelf
> *commercial* magnetic disks of similar capacity there's a huge
> cost penalty. And, longer down-times when you can't just walk
> to your local discount store and buy a replacement!
>
I rather buy less in toys and not down-spec.
> [OK, so maybe *you* will have to DRIVE! :> ]
>
> The bits of kit that I locate "in ceilings", etc. are designed
> to handle the environments they are in. But, nothing more.
> If it ever climbs to 100C inside my ceiling, the $15 board I've
> got tucked up there is going to be the *least* of my worries!
> ("Don, why is there *steam* coming out of the ceiling?")
>
"Don, why is there a fire engine in our driveway?" :-)
>>> I keep debating running "air" into the store room in the
>>> garage and moving the doorway to open into the interior of
>>> the house (instead of into the garage). That's a fairly
>>> large space that would be a great home for the freezer
>>> (currently in the garage!), my larger printers, plotter,
>>> etc. But... <shrug>
>>
>> Freezer in the garage? That is tough on its compressor.
>
> Yup. But, we don't have much of an option in that regard.
> Insulated garage door makes a big difference (and, the fact
> that the compressor hugs the floor and not the ceiling).
> House is very "open". Translation: not many places to *hide*
> things! :<
>
Then you need the super-expensive art deco sub-zero fridge freezer combo :-)
> And, I'd *kill* for a basement!
>
Oh, same here. We are on a slope so the one downstairs room is mostly
cool. Into the hillside we have said utility closet and also a small
wine storage. But it's nothing compared to the basement we had in Germany.
>> So yeah, it
>> would make sense to change that. But it's probably as high as on the
>> priority list as painting the pool house is here.
>>
>>>>> I'd like to come up with a "solution" that lets folks figure out
>>>>> how best to package/deploy their own version instead of imposing
>>>>> a solution. You want to use an equipment rack? Fine! *You*
>>>>> figure out where to put it... (I have a friend with one of these
>>>>> 5,000sq ft palaces that *likes* making his toys visible. He'd
>>>>> probably set it in a 42U rack with glass doors sitting in a
>>>>> corner of his living room! "Conversation Piece" :-/ Sheesh!)
>>>>
>>>> With smoked glass doors and mood lighting :-)
>>>
>>> I have another friend with a small rack in his *bedroom*!
>>> Dunno what the appeal of that is supposed to be... <frown>
>>
>> Strange. It's usually considered uncool to show so much nerdiness. It
>> turns off potential girlfriends. Unless he is already married :-)
>
> <shrug> I think, in his case, he's more interested in the
> functionality than the appearance. ...
A bachelor, I suppose.
> ... And, he enjoys "tinkering"
> with it. My goal is more a "set and forget" use. I don't like
> being a slave to my possessions -- despite all the effort I am
> expending towards that goal! :-/
>
> Early in my career, I worried almost exclusively about how well
> things *worked* without regard for what they looked like (I have
> many prototypes fabricated "on a wooden plank" or "in a wooden
> enclosure"). I think its only after you get that skill-set
> perfected that you turn your attention to other "niceties"
> like appearance, user constraints, etc.
>
It's usually after you get married when that transformation happens :-)
>>> [Though, having said that, I've thought of replacing the
>>> library card catalog I have ...
>>
>> What is a library card catalog?
>
> Before electronic "card catalogs" (list of the titles a
> library has on hand), each book had an index card describing
> it. These were kept in large, monotonous "drawer units".
> Typically, one organized "by title" and another "by author".
> Usually reasonably nice pieces of carpentry (though out-of-place
> in most residential settings).
>
> Mine stands about 5 ft tall and I've located a workstation atop
> it that I use while standing (usually for things like starting a
> backup, etc.)
>
Wow! You have this many books that you must catalog them in a 5ft card
cabinet? We (or rather my wife) have ordered them by topic/genre and
then selected a location for each throughout the house.
>>>>> The idea of "custom panels" IN GENERAL makes perfect sense (e.g.,
>>>>> the examples you cite). I just don't think many would pursue it
>>>>> for *this* project (which would already be hard to get past your
>>>>> S.O. -- regardless of how many shoes she has!! :> )
>>>>
>>>> Mine was real happy after I installed the system, when I showed her how
>>>> we can now watch a movie anywhere, including outside.
>>>
>>> Mine is getting more and more nervous as the "controls" are
>>> disappearing. "Why can't I just use change (radio) stations
>>> like I used to? What do you mean, there soon will be *no*
>>> remote for the TV??" ...
>>
>> Oh yeah, that would not go over too well with my wife either.
>
> <shrug> Times change. Weigh the "features" you lose by giving
> up the conventional remote (of course, make sure you take into
> account never being able to *find* the damn things! And, grumbling
> each time the batteries die!) with the features you gain from the
> new approach. *Then* decide.
>
I stay with the remotes. They are always in the same drawer or on the
table and the batteries get changes per checklist once per year. The old
ones are not tossed but used up in "less critical" gizmos such as
portable radios.
> [I can undoubtedly design an Ir interface that would allow the
> "old" remotes to continue to work. But, what's the point??]
>
A higher WAF.
> I think a lot of it boils down to a sort of reassurance that
> something physical and tangible gives. The same sort of
> issue that leads people to develop and maintain *huge*
> spreadsheets instead of putting the data into a formal
> database and issuing queries against that (i.e., they feel
> "reassured" because they can *see* all of the data when it is
> in a spreadsheet -- even though seeing it doesn't make it any
> more robust or correct; whereas the raw data is hidden -- unless
> explicitly called forth -- when you just issue summary queries
> on a database!)
>
That's different. Here, everything is in databases. I use spreadsheets
only as "cheat sheets" when working our circuit designs. Afterwards they
are mostly retired, sometimes parts of them are re-used later.
>>> ... As a concession, I had to install three
>>> "control panels" so she can interact with the system in a more
>>> "traditional" manner. I've rationalized this to myself by
>>> locating them in the three places where you would typically want
>>> a quick summary of system status and presenting this visually
>>> would be most efficient: the two primary doors by which we
>>> enter/exit the house and the hallway to the bedrooms (where you
>>> "say good night/morning" to the house).
>>>
>>> [There's also a panel located in the closet that houses the media
>>> servers but that's more of a convenience for *me*... so I can
>>> do maintenance work without having to boot up a PC to "talk"
>>> to the system.]
>>
>> But one needs a remote, nowadays. Having to get out of a chair to
>> changes stations is so 1950's, and one could pull a muscle :-)
>
> Sure. I just don't restrict the "remote" to something as conventional
> and DEDICATED as "The TV Remote" (or DVD or VCR or STEREO or CATV
> or...). I.e., where is the HVAC remote? Or, irrigation controller
> remote? Or, garage door opener (FOR INHOME USE) remote? Why have
> all these numerous little *specialized* boxes when they are all just
> *instances* of the same sort of "user interface"! Why have to keep
> track of them and maintain them? ("Oh, crap! I left the remote
> for the irrigation controller in the dining room...")
>
We only use remotes where it makes sense. TV, radio, VCR/DVD combo,
garage door openers. In the winter also for Christmas lights. That's
pretty much it. I suppose one can pool all that into a smart phone app
but since we don't have smart phones that won't work.
>>> I have two sorts of "connection points" in the house. One type
>>> is dedicated for specific needs. E.g., the drop for the
>>> irrigation controller is *just* a network drop FOR THE IRRIGATION
>>> CONTROLLER.
>>>
>>> The "uncommitted" points in the house (24 of them) each have
>>> a network drop, CATV drop and a POTS drop. So, you can plug in
>>> a laptop, phone or "conventional" (i.e., non-IP) TV in any of
>>> those locations.
>>>
>>> All the POTS drops terminate at a pair of punchdown blocks
>>> mounted on the wall alongside the furnace.
>>
>> To be honest, I haven't completed the 66 blocks. While installing our
>> trusty old Cincinnatti Microwave phone quit and I went to buy a new one.
>> They stopped making these, so I ended up with a large "system pack" full
>> of cordless phones. Made the POTS network I just completed almost
>> irrelevant, nothing much plugs into it.
>
> Here, the phone and CATV wiring are a concession to future homeowners.
> I see no need for any of them in the years to come. But, I don't
> care to argue that point with a prospective home buyer. "You want
> a phone jack in every room? Fine. Oh, you want a CATV drop as well?
> Sure. Welcome BACK to the 20th century."
>
Well, got to do that. Not everyone wants to live like the Jetsons :-)
>>>>> E.g., we've dropped about a kilobuck into *just* the irrigation
>>>>> system -- with none of that spent on "labor" or "profit". We
>>>>> could never have justified what it would have cost to *contract*
>>>>> that job out! If I'd *tried* to contract *this* project out,
>>>>> neither of us would *ever* retire (to enjoy it!) :>
>>>>
>>>> Same here. We just painted the house. It would have cost us around 7k.
>>>> This way it cost about $400 in paint and several Saturdays.
>>>
>>> Yup. Though it's not just "saving money". I find these sorts
>>> of "puzzles" to help keep my thinking "pliable" since the
>>> sorts of constraints that you face are very different than
>>> the "9 to 5" sorts.
>>
>> It also keeps one appreciative of folks doing non-engineering jobs.
>
> I think it also lets you see the sorts of problems others face
> and prompts creative thinking *on* those problems -- even if you
> never attempt to actually solve them!
>
> E.g., in the past few years, they have replaced all the service
> feeds to the homes in the neighborhood from the gas company. It was
> interesting to see how they do this without trenching the whole yard!
> (*every* yard!).
>
> This year, they replaced the gas *mains* in the neighborhood. Again,
> without digging up the streets. (This was actually REALLY amazing!)
> When you look at the "solutions" they've employed, it gives you a
> better understanding of where the cost issues are in these problem
> domains. Things that you might not have considered, otherwise. Or,
> may have *mis*diagnosed in your ignorance.
>
I do this kind of thinking all the time, comes with my job. The EE stuff
is only to solve a problem from a different world. Aerospace,
industrial, medical, whatever. Got to wear many hats as a consultant.
[...]
> Unfortunately, I fabricated all of the (irrigation) valve manifolds
> out of galvanized. I will have to recreate them in copper when I
> have some spare time. <frown> Thankfully, they are each small
> projects (four sets of three valves -- the rest are singletons)
> so I can tackle them without having to shut down the system for
> a prolonged period of time.
>
I did mine with PVC pipe. Much faster and much easier to reconfigure if
you ever need another tap.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ksufhc$4o7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12723 |
Hi Joerg,
On 7/26/2013 9:13 AM, Joerg wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>>>> The irrigation controller is located in the garage near the
>>>> garage door as it's easy to get out through the wall to the
>>>> valves (well, actually, the valves are distributed all around
>>>> the yard -- front/back/sides -- but this is where I chose to
>>>> bring them all through the wall since it is close to the
>>>> rest of the "water" stuff (future flow meter, valve, master
>>>> irrigation valve, softener, filtration, etc.) -- things that
>>>> are handled by the "water" controller! (i.e., a home may
>>>> or may not have an irrigation system -- but *should* have
>>>> "water"!)
>>>
>>> All in the same utility room here. If anything needs fixing everyone
>>> knows where the stuff is.
>>
>> So, you terminate all your phone, irrigation, security (cameras/alarms),
>> CATV, networking, multimedia, HVAC, etc. stuff in one location? ...
>
> Yes.
Then you have a boatload of cable coming *through* your house
that could have been terminated "where used"? E.g., the
landscape lighting controller is sited just inside the
garage -- and only because she-who-must-be-obeyed doesn't like
the transformers visible on the exterior of the house. No need
to run 4 #12's from the outside wall of the house to someplace
"deep within".
>> ... Your
>> freezer is in one location; why locate the controls for it in another?
>
> The freezer has only internal controls but it is right next to the
> utility panel, in the same room. After the first one died and much of
> the food in it spoiled I thought about running a network high-temp alert
> but so far haven't gotten around to it.
So, you would consider putting "smarts" *at* the freezer and
sending *messages* to some "remote" location instead of running
thermocouple leads to that remote location? But, putting local
smarts at the irrigation controller and sending CONTROL and
STATUS messages to that same remote location is out of the
question?
I.e., this is how I have done everything, here. Put the smarts
where it is most convenient to interface them to the field
wiring; then "talk" to them from "wherever". Including from
the supermarket!
>> Why run raw video to *a* central location when you can process it *at*
>> the camera and ship what you need (in whatever format you need it) to
>> wherever it needs to go (displays, recorders, etc.). ...
>
> Because re-routing stuff is a breeze when you have home runs. If you
> don't then it could mean cracking out the hammer drill, making a mess,
> dust, work, blisters.
I don't see how that is the case. You have to run a cable from
a camera to your central location. Perhaps RS170 down a long
length of coax? How is that any more convenient than processing
the video *at* the camera and shipping a data stream over CAT5
to wherever you want it consumed?
>> ... Likewise, why
>> have a dozen or more "heavy" (relatively speaking) wires running to
>> irrigation valves *through* some portion of the house interior when
>> you know all the valves will be located *outside*?
>
> Because central control is, to me, essential when it comes to such
> things. Heavy? A normal solenoid doesn't even take 0.25A. I've used
> doubled-up CAT5 for that because that only came in 1000ft drums.
But you are assuming central control has to be PHYSICALLY centralized.
You don't run the wires from the pump for your swimming pool into
that same room, do you? Nor the temperature sensor for it *just*
so all of the wires are in one central location!
Rather, you put the pump and power that it requires where it makes
sense FOR THE PUMP (you don't want to run pipe all around your property
just so you can locate the pump somewhere "central"). You make the
control *of* the pump (and pool temperature) available where *that*
is convenient. Perhaps out *by* the pool, in a veranda, etc.
Or, in my case, wherever I can send datagrams to my control
system (i.e., damn near anywhere).
>> Just seems like concentrating too much stuff with no real gain.
>> (unless you need to work on the phones *and* the irrigation
>> system at the same time?).
>
> Example: Some day you want to control the irrigation from your phone or
> via your LAN. With a central closet all you have to build is a board.
> Without that it means the hammer drill, dust, noise, sweat ...
Thats what I am doing *now*. Because the irrigation system can
talk IP to the rest of the automation system I can command it
from <wherever>. My armchair in the living room. While sitting
on The Throne. Or, while driving to the store. I don't care
that the wires that connect to the solenoid valves are terminated
in a small box on the wall just inside the garage door; or in a
central utility closet. As long as I can talk to that box
over IP, I can command it to do what I want, when/*as* I want.
(E.g., second generation of this will be wireless. Put your
controllers wherever you can get at power and forget about them.
No need to string cable through the rafters, etc.)
>> Most of the time (by a wide margin), you're interacting with the
>> user interface for these things. E.g., changing the criteria
>> that determines when the hot water heater is required to have
>> "ample hot water" available. *Not* rewiring the controls *into*
>> the hot water heater! You're comfortable with your hot water
>> heater in one location and television in another... so why the
>> desire to have the "controls" for them in the same place?
>
> Say you want to conserve energy. If you really want to push it and lower
> the water heater temps a lot you may have to ramp it up and back down
> about once a week. To prevent legionaires disease. Ideally this should
> happen when hot water is likely not used but, say, one person in the
> household is on revolving-time shifts at work. The peaker time thus has
> to be changed a lot. If you have no central control this would be a real
> pain.
I can do exactly that. But, without "central WIRING"! Send a
datagram to the water heater telling it to alter its setpoint
temperature to <X>. Then, some time later, tell it to alter
it to <Y>. But, why should *I* have to tell it? An *algorithm*
can tell it these things based on "rules" and observations of
the hot water usage patterns of the occupants of the building!
But, this doesn't require the wires and controls all be centrally
located. Just that they "come together" in some virtual space
at a point where <whatever> (i.e., me or "an algorithm") can
access them.
>>>> Media gets served from a set of processors in a closet
>>>> off the kitchen (since I need rotating media, there, and
>>>> places like "in the ceiling" or "in the garage" would not
>>>> be appropriate.
>>>
>>> Over here media gets played where the media gear is, from the living
>>> room. But you don't have to watch the movie there, it gets transmitted
>>> over coax back to the utility closet and then into the main
>>> distribution. Of course with an iso amp so things won't pipe out of the
>>> antenna.
>>
>> The RG6 (and "CAT1" -- even though it's really CAT5) here are for
>> "future owners" who will resort to more conventional media/comms
>> systems. I.e., I only use three of the RG6 feeds (one from the cable
>> company, one from rooftop TV antenna, and one from "FM" antenna
>> hidden up in the ceiling) and *none* of the RG6 "drops". The feeds
>> run into the closet where the signal is peeled off and rebroadcast
>> "over IP" (radio programs, TV shows, etc.).
>>
>> My goal is to distribute *everything* "over IP". I've done this
>> for audio, already (though I haven't been able to find an affordable
>> AM/FM radio "box"). I expect video to be a bit more taxing
>> (designing a good codec with the same sorts of capabilities as the
>> audio system). I'm currently in the market for a good dual FXS/FXO
>> interface (prefering a standalone ATA-style device instead of something
>> that relies on some obsolescent "board" interface)
>
> That is quite futursitic but it sounds expensive to transfer everything
> to IP.
Think about it: you need some field interface to all these sensors
and controls/actuators. I.e., a single chip microprocessor. And,
a way of talking with that MCU to exchange status and command
messages -- some sort of serial communication protocol (e.g. ethernet).
Instead of putting ALL the I/O's on a single processor and having that
processor "do everything", put the I/O's on *several* processors
and distribute the responsibilities among them. Then, let them
all talk to <something> -- including each other! -- to get
directions as to *what* they should be doing.
Now, instead of running all that field wiring to a central location,
all you need to do is run it to a "convenient point". Or, a *set* of
convenient points!
I.e., terminate the irrigation valves *here*; the landscape lighting
*there*; the garage door opener somewhere *else*; etc. Then, just
bring their "communication interfaces" to a "central" point -- even
if that point varies over time! ("Now I am in the living room
wanting to control something; oops! I've walked into the kitchen
and still want to control that thing!")
Given that you can (conceivably) do the communications wirelessly
(I see lots of downside risk in that approach which is why I haven't
gone that route, initially), you could put little black boxes all
over the place and never have to worry about pulling cables "inside".
[Early on, I had considered designing the irrigation controller as
a bunch of "one valve" controllers scattered, physically, around
the property. So, instead of running cable to their solenoids
from a controller, I would run power+data to their *controllers*
which were located adjacent to each individual valve! But, the
idea of having 16 little PCB's *buried* around the yard just
felt "wrong"... OTOH, I think when someone comes up with an
economical, rugged "moisture sensor" suitable for below grade
use, there will be a market for lots of "smart valves" that sit
on the water distribution line and service one or two plants
individually with "local" control! "Made in China"]
>> But, in both cases, the "media" is sourced from the lower 18" of this
>> "closet". I have a dual OTA DTV receiver (media pump) so I can
>> source two OTA broadcasts simultaneously (route one to a live
>> display and the other to a DVR; or both to live displays; or both
>> to DVRs, etc.). I need to purchase a second one since I think
>> you need to be able to access 4 "programs" concurrently in a house
>> of 4 people (sad! but, easy to see two being watched simultaneously
>> and possibly recording another for later viewing: "Dad, Betsy won't
>> let me record my TV show cuz she's recording some stupid sitcom
>> that she's already seen!").
>>
>> "Consuming" the media happens wherever you have a suitable "player".
>> E.g., you can listen to a telephone call on a "network speaker"
>> or (eventually) route it through whatever you are using to listen
>> to a television program, etc. Of course, you can record it just
>> as easily. Want to pull weeds while listening to the TV news?
>> Just pop a BT earpiece in your ear...
>
> You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring closet :-)
No. All you need in that closet is the media server and however
many pipes it needs to push enough media into your network!
Here, I collocated the main processors (which include those that
actually serve up the media), network switch/router and UPS in
that location. But, the rest of the bits of kit (irrigation,
security, etc.) are scattered around wherever it makes most sense
for them. E.g., the processors that monitor the video feeds are
located up in the eaves, adjacent to their individual cameras.
If the doorbell rings, I can "see" who is at the door without
getting up from my office chair. Or, from the living room couch.
Or, meal prep in the kitchen. Just as easily as I can watch
a movie, etc.
[Note I have't yet designed the video subsystem as there's a fair
bit of BFM there!]
>> If you mean "user interface", in that case, it's wherever you want
>> it to be. I.e., I can alter the heat/cooling while I am working on
>> one of the cars out in the garage (even though the garage currently
>> has no HVAC capabilities). Or, while pulling weeds in the back yard.
>> Or, while driving home from the Dentist. I've even got a very long
>> range *cordless* phone so I can wander the neighborhood and still
>> be "in touch" with the house (I don't use cell phones).
>>
>> That was the whole point of this -- to tie the controls to the
>> *user* instead of "a spot on a wall" or "a panel in the garage".
>> And, to then let the definition of "user" evolve (e.g., autonomous
>> agents).
>
> To me the wiring closet is what makes this easy. I have no ambitions to
> peel off signals and such (well, with minor exceptions) but if I ever
> needed to then our home-run structure would make this as easy as it gets.
If you can afford the space, great! I would *love* to have a closet
(or *room*!) to set aside for automation. Stash all the network
printers in there, the various servers I use for work, etc. Instead
of being relegated to the lower 18" of this silly closet. But,
moving *just* to get a "server room" seems a bit presumptuous! :>
>>>> Here, garage is a death sentence for all things electronic. Even
>>>> with our insulated door it still gets pretty warm in there!
>>>> (before the new door, it would easily hit 140)
>>>
>>> Then the electronics isn't designed right. After all, garage door
>>> openers are full of electronics and they have to live in the nastiest
>>> area of a garage, under the ceiling. The cars also have to reside in the
>>> garage and nowadays they are chockfull of elecrtronic gizmos, most of
>>> them highly unnecessary.
>>
>> You know industrial grade components cost more than commercial
>> grade. Why *pay* for something designed to be able to tolerate
>> the heat (and North Dakota cold!) of the garage when it doesn't
>> *have* to sit out there? Do you think your PC will fare well in
>> the garage -- while IN USE?
>
> A good one does. Here in the office it was 91F yesterday and the main PC
> was running heavy duty SPICE simulations.
90 degrees isn't particularly taxing. It's probably almost that in
my office (poor ventilation and several servers running at once).
I think google's "cold aisle" is claimed to be 80F.
But, Ma & Pa Consumer probably would be annoyed if they had to
replace the "media store" on their multimedia server every year
because it couldn't handle the 140 degrees in the garage
("How do we recover all the stuff we had on the drive before it
died? We had videos of our 50th wedding anniversary with the
grandkids...")
>> You want to be able to down-spec as many components as possible
>> to keep things affordable (I'm already in the multiple kilobucks
>> ballpark, here -- for just the electronics!). If you have
>> to specify multiterabyte solid state disks (to store media!)
>> rated for industrial temperature extremes instead of off-the-shelf
>> *commercial* magnetic disks of similar capacity there's a huge
>> cost penalty. And, longer down-times when you can't just walk
>> to your local discount store and buy a replacement!
>
> I rather buy less in toys and not down-spec.
If you want to be able to control "everything", there is a certain
"price of admission". :<
>> [OK, so maybe *you* will have to DRIVE! :> ]
>>
>> The bits of kit that I locate "in ceilings", etc. are designed
>> to handle the environments they are in. But, nothing more.
>> If it ever climbs to 100C inside my ceiling, the $15 board I've
>> got tucked up there is going to be the *least* of my worries!
>> ("Don, why is there *steam* coming out of the ceiling?")
>
> "Don, why is there a fire engine in our driveway?" :-)
Yeah, I am already imagining what things will be like when
manufacturers start selling products with these sorts of
capabilities. And, users start downloading apps of dubious
quality to *run* their automation...
"Why is my hot water heater set at 190F?"
"Why is all the meat in the freezer thawed?"
"Who left the garage door open?"
"Ack! The roses are sitting in 6 inches of standing water!"
"How did Bob, next door, manage to see me in the shower?"
etc.
>>>> I keep debating running "air" into the store room in the
>>>> garage and moving the doorway to open into the interior of
>>>> the house (instead of into the garage). That's a fairly
>>>> large space that would be a great home for the freezer
>>>> (currently in the garage!), my larger printers, plotter,
>>>> etc. But... <shrug>
>>>
>>> Freezer in the garage? That is tough on its compressor.
>>
>> Yup. But, we don't have much of an option in that regard.
>> Insulated garage door makes a big difference (and, the fact
>> that the compressor hugs the floor and not the ceiling).
>> House is very "open". Translation: not many places to *hide*
>> things! :<
>
> Then you need the super-expensive art deco sub-zero fridge freezer combo :-)
No, the fridge/freezer/WIRING CLOSET combo! Complete with the optional
shoe storage accessory!! :-/
>> And, I'd *kill* for a basement!
>
> Oh, same here. We are on a slope so the one downstairs room is mostly
So, a "walk out 'basement'" (even if it isn't really a basement
per se)?
It's just insane that they *don't* build below grade here (AZ).
Especially considering the heat in Summer. Cooling load would be
absolutely non-existent!
But, I guess you could make the same argument for "up north"
with respect to "heating load" in winter.
Bottom line: they don't do it because it's cheaper NOT to!
> cool. Into the hillside we have said utility closet and also a small
> wine storage. But it's nothing compared to the basement we had in Germany.
In New England, Midwest, Colorado, etc. I always had a basement.
Something you simply took for granted. NOT having one really
changes how you deal with "storage".
E.g., I would store my archives in the basement, previously.
Cool, dry, dark... out-of-the-way. Here, they have to hide
under a bed, etc.
>>>> I have another friend with a small rack in his *bedroom*!
>>>> Dunno what the appeal of that is supposed to be... <frown>
>>>
>>> Strange. It's usually considered uncool to show so much nerdiness. It
>>> turns off potential girlfriends. Unless he is already married :-)
>>
>> <shrug> I think, in his case, he's more interested in the
>> functionality than the appearance. ...
>
> A bachelor, I suppose.
Actually, he is. Though I suspect he would like to change that.
"At least on the weekends..." ;-)
>> Early in my career, I worried almost exclusively about how well
>> things *worked* without regard for what they looked like (I have
>> many prototypes fabricated "on a wooden plank" or "in a wooden
>> enclosure"). I think its only after you get that skill-set
>> perfected that you turn your attention to other "niceties"
>> like appearance, user constraints, etc.
>
> It's usually after you get married when that transformation happens :-)
I've heard that when you are young(er), you want possessions;
when older, "experiences".
<shrug>
In my case, I just want "less hassles". I.e., I want products to
work as advertised (ideally, as *expected*!) and not break down
regularly (I suspect I can't go more than two weeks without
having to fix *something*... toilet, car, computer, TV, etc.)
Maybe hermits/minimalists have the right idea? :-/
>> Mine stands about 5 ft tall and I've located a workstation atop
>> it that I use while standing (usually for things like starting a
>> backup, etc.)
>
> Wow! You have this many books that you must catalog them in a 5ft card
> cabinet? We (or rather my wife) have ordered them by topic/genre and
> then selected a location for each throughout the house.
No. The card catalog actually holds audio cassettes. :>
The drawers are *almost* the correct size for 25 cassettes
per drawer -- with a little slop on the side to make it
easy to remove them individually.
I've been "on a campaign" to discard books -- despite my fondness
for them. They just take up too much space! E.g., when I moved
here, I had 80 "Xerox paper" boxes full of (fiction) paperbacks.
And that doesn't count reference books, text books, technical
literature, magazines, etc. I.e., almost two *tons* of paperbacks!
I've since given most of those away -- cherrypicking two boxes worth
as "must keeps". And, recently turned to the text books and other
references. Similarly, looking for electronic copies of the many
technical articles that I have squirreled away and scanning those
that I can't find on-line.
The idea of an eReader turns my stomach. But, I will concede
this if it gives me a way to shed a few tons of paper! :-(
[I have a pair of old tablet PC's that I may turn into "libraries"...
load all the documents onto them and just leave them on a shelf
*like* eReaders with giant, color screens]
>>>> Mine is getting more and more nervous as the "controls" are
>>>> disappearing. "Why can't I just use change (radio) stations
>>>> like I used to? What do you mean, there soon will be *no*
>>>> remote for the TV??" ...
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, that would not go over too well with my wife either.
>>
>> <shrug> Times change. Weigh the "features" you lose by giving
>> up the conventional remote (of course, make sure you take into
>> account never being able to *find* the damn things! And, grumbling
>> each time the batteries die!) with the features you gain from the
>> new approach. *Then* decide.
>
> I stay with the remotes. They are always in the same drawer or on the
> table and the batteries get changes per checklist once per year. The old
> ones are not tossed but used up in "less critical" gizmos such as
> portable radios.
We are always searching for remotes. Two many gizmos that *need*
remotes located in too many different rooms (I think my office is
the only place that is free of remote controlled devices). The
time and frustration spent trying to locate a remote sort of
counteracts the value of having the remote (esp since we don't
tend to watch much TV, DVD, etc.).
>> I think a lot of it boils down to a sort of reassurance that
>> something physical and tangible gives. The same sort of
>> issue that leads people to develop and maintain *huge*
>> spreadsheets instead of putting the data into a formal
>> database and issuing queries against that (i.e., they feel
>> "reassured" because they can *see* all of the data when it is
>> in a spreadsheet -- even though seeing it doesn't make it any
>> more robust or correct; whereas the raw data is hidden -- unless
>> explicitly called forth -- when you just issue summary queries
>> on a database!)
>
> That's different. Here, everything is in databases. I use spreadsheets
> only as "cheat sheets" when working our circuit designs. Afterwards they
> are mostly retired, sometimes parts of them are re-used later.
Ditto. We track our finances, budget, warranties, etc. as entries
in various databases. Makes it easier to call up the data we need
when we need it. (And, cuts down on the dreaded paper!! :> )
>>> But one needs a remote, nowadays. Having to get out of a chair to
>>> changes stations is so 1950's, and one could pull a muscle :-)
>>
>> Sure. I just don't restrict the "remote" to something as conventional
>> and DEDICATED as "The TV Remote" (or DVD or VCR or STEREO or CATV
>> or...). I.e., where is the HVAC remote? Or, irrigation controller
>> remote? Or, garage door opener (FOR INHOME USE) remote? Why have
>> all these numerous little *specialized* boxes when they are all just
>> *instances* of the same sort of "user interface"! Why have to keep
>> track of them and maintain them? ("Oh, crap! I left the remote
>> for the irrigation controller in the dining room...")
>
> We only use remotes where it makes sense. TV, radio, VCR/DVD combo,
> garage door openers. In the winter also for Christmas lights. That's
> pretty much it. I suppose one can pool all that into a smart phone app
> but since we don't have smart phones that won't work.
I conceded the (wall mounted) control panels to her so she has a
place to go to "do things" (interact with the automation: change
the temperature in the house, alter the watering criteria for the
yard, check the outdoor temperature/humidity/rainfall, etc.)
The other things will be controlled by speech and/or a *worn* (lapel)
"gesture panel". I figure it is something that "you'll get used to"
over time. Just like it took time to get used to NOT having to get
up to change TV channels; not having to press the clutch to shift;
etc.
[And, a good part of this is to see what is *wrong* with various
user interfaces for this sort of use!]
>> Here, the phone and CATV wiring are a concession to future homeowners.
>> I see no need for any of them in the years to come. But, I don't
>> care to argue that point with a prospective home buyer. "You want
>> a phone jack in every room? Fine. Oh, you want a CATV drop as well?
>> Sure. Welcome BACK to the 20th century."
>
> Well, got to do that. Not everyone wants to live like the Jetsons :-)
Yup. And I have no desire to leave the automation in place for
a future homeowner (not because of its value but, rather, because of
its potential liability!).
E.g., there is no thermostat in the hallway. *But*, there is a wire
*for* one buried in the wall that terminates at the furnace so that
I can install a conventional heating/cooling thermostat when that
time comes!
[DIY stuff]
>> This year, they replaced the gas *mains* in the neighborhood. Again,
>> without digging up the streets. (This was actually REALLY amazing!)
>> When you look at the "solutions" they've employed, it gives you a
>> better understanding of where the cost issues are in these problem
>> domains. Things that you might not have considered, otherwise. Or,
>> may have *mis*diagnosed in your ignorance.
>
> I do this kind of thinking all the time, comes with my job. The EE stuff
> is only to solve a problem from a different world. Aerospace,
> industrial, medical, whatever. Got to wear many hats as a consultant.
Yup. And, if you are like me, you seek out *new* application
domains instead of sitting in a single "comfort spot" year after
year. I.e., "always learning", experiencing new things, etc.
>> Unfortunately, I fabricated all of the (irrigation) valve manifolds
>> out of galvanized. I will have to recreate them in copper when I
>> have some spare time. <frown> Thankfully, they are each small
>> projects (four sets of three valves -- the rest are singletons)
>> so I can tackle them without having to shut down the system for
>> a prolonged period of time.
>
> I did mine with PVC pipe. Much faster and much easier to reconfigure if
> you ever need another tap.
I don't like PVC because you have to cut it and patch it to make
changes. I (mistakenly) thought the 3/4" galvanized would be a lot
more "future safe". (It also allowed me to "float" the valves
*above* the concrete slabs I poured *under* each manifold as the
pipe has a fair bit of weight to it and structural rigidity)
I just didn't realize how piss-poor the galvanized held up with
age! :<
No problem. Some 3/4" 'L' grade pipe and a few hours with a torch
and they'll be replaced. Just annoying not to have foreknowledge of
this information :( I really *hate* having to do things over!
Especially when *I* was teh one who decided how to (wrongly!) do
it in the first place! Too little time to get the things done that
NEED to be done to be wasting time doing things over!
<frown> Ah, well... "perfection" is a goal, not a state! :>
--don
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x7ggdp2ef.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #12731 |
Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes: > So, you would consider putting "smarts" *at* the freezer and > sending *messages* to some "remote" location instead of running > thermocouple leads to that remote location? In networked systems I've generally found it preferable to put as much of the "smarts" as possible into one place, in order to keep the protocols simple. This is especially useful if the different nodes are programmed by separate people or teams, since complex protocols can drastically increase the amount of confusion, meetings, integration problems, etc that you end up dealing with. This would suggest making the thing at the freezer be a dumb computer peripheral controlled by a more complex host at the other end. Running analog signals over long distances has its own problems but if you're ok with the wiring hassles etc., maybe that can simplify things even further.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ksujmv$51l$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #12733 |
On a sunny day (Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:06:00 -0700) it happened Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in <7x7ggdp2ef.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>: >Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes: >> So, you would consider putting "smarts" *at* the freezer and >> sending *messages* to some "remote" location instead of running >> thermocouple leads to that remote location? > >In networked systems I've generally found it preferable to put as much >of the "smarts" as possible into one place, in order to keep the >protocols simple. Would that work? I'd rather have a fridge that when contacted sends me temperature in degrees C, than one that would send me thermocouple voltages. Sometimes a simple webserver will give you all the control you want, example my security cams... And that standardizes the cables to ethernet... or no cables at all (WiFi). World is changing, for 35 $ you have a Raspberry Pi. IF you can program (many languages run on it), and it has great I/O too, then you are done. Run a server, USB peripherals, video, audio, IO ports. It is also less sensitive to disaster if the peripherals are 'intelligent', even if your main PC is 'out' you can just contact the peripheral from anywhere else. And with anywhere I mean anywhere on earth. In the past I designed and wrote a whole lot of little gadgets that use RS232, some 'dumb' some with micros in it, now I can just plug those in a Raspberry and access the wildest things from anywhere. Yes I have a thermocouple interface with RS232 too that works on it. Yes I had it in the fridge here to do some thermal testing. > This is especially useful if the different nodes are >programmed by separate people or teams, since complex protocols can >drastically increase the amount of confusion, meetings, integration >problems, etc that you end up dealing with. This would suggest making >the thing at the freezer be a dumb computer peripheral controlled by a >more complex host at the other end. Disagree, Keep It Simple, for the other end! Sir, you can read temperature from IP PORT. Apache? netcat! TCP, UDP, stream, stream video, record data locally on a Raspberry Pi SDcard, even if your whole network breaks the data is still safe locally. >Running analog signals over long distances has its own problems but if >you're ok with the wiring hassles etc., maybe that can simplify things >even further. Na, cables are expensive, unless there is _no_other_way_ avoid non standard stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xehak4lyp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #12740 |
Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com> writes: > Disagree, Keep It Simple, for the other end! > Sir, you can read temperature from IP PORT. Yes that is fine. When I talk about complexity and smarts, I just mean code that you have to implement yourself, that consumes your development and testing time. If you want to use TCP or TLS or whatever and it's a drop-in module that's simple to use, that doesn't count as complexity in the way I'm referring to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-27 08:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ksvvh0$96i$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12754 |
On a sunny day (Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:21:18 -0700) it happened Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in <7xehak4lyp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>: >Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com> writes: >> Disagree, Keep It Simple, for the other end! >> Sir, you can read temperature from IP PORT. > >Yes that is fine. When I talk about complexity and smarts, I just mean >code that you have to implement yourself, that consumes your development >and testing time. If you want to use TCP or TLS or whatever and it's a >drop-in module that's simple to use, that doesn't count as complexity in >the way I'm referring to. If you say: 'code you write yourself' then it really does not matter if it runs on the remote board, or on a central PC, IN THESE DAYS. In the long ago past (say 5 to 10 years back) small embedded boards did not have the resources to run a full Linux, web server, highly complex programs written in C, signal processing, what not. Now you have all this for 35 $ and on top of that a box, a HDMI interface (if you need a display say screen locally, also old PAL output), and it runs all my C code, or whatever language you like. Ethernet, and WiFi by plugging in a 15 $ adaptor. Basically for _me_ that means I can just put all the code I did write for the computah on the small Raspi board, and then make whatever seems fun as communication method to it: say the fridge can have a webserver that shows temperature, allows you to set that temperature, and maybe has a webcam that shows you in a window what is in there (now you have to switch on that bulb, but wait GPIO can dive some white LEDs). Not much code I do not already have, have not already written for some PC project. I can give some examples, of 'migration' of code to the Raspberry: Thermocouples: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/th_pic/index.html This sends the thermocouple values via RS232 to a PC (eeepc in this case), where the math is done by the the PC. Now you plug it in a Raspberry that runs thpc, and run a webserver on it. Or send an UDP stream, or run netcat as server... Few lines of code, everything compiles without change on that Raspberry. Frequency meter: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/lc_pic/index.html Plug this, via a 5$ USB-RS232 adapter into a Raspberry, and measure frequency (ssh -Y) from anywhere in the world. Was using it that way this week... Scope: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/scope_pic/index.html Plug this, via a 5$ USB-RS232 adapter .. blah blah the same Radiation: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/ Plug this, ..blah blah the same Radio station: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/fm_pic/ Plug this... blah remote controlled radio transmitter, Raspberry will play from SDcard... anywhere in ... Program you FPGA from anywhere: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi/ Program your PIC from anywhere, I used this a lot, but need for PICs will fade with Raspbery Pi so cheap: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi_noppp/ Control and make your own digital TV transmissions, or communicate with Voyager spacecraft if you have to, do not send it back LOL: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi_dvb-s_transmitter/ All of that is via ssh -Y from a 'dumb' PC. All the code was original for PC x86 and now runs on Raspberry ARM. No modifications, except the last case where I had to go deeper into the Pi I/O. I realize the list is much longer, and many projects are not on the site, some never will be. Last one I published code for was in s.e.d Pi signal generator for 130 kHz to 250 MHz, NO extra parts needed. Hey I did 3 projects just in 2 weeks, as coding is so fast on that thing in C. I want to point out that last night I was thinking that for those in EE who CANNOT code, they are like an an-alphabetic, and cannot do anything. Because then you cannot know what should be hardware and what not, even the simplest chip uses I2c bus, so... As to the fridge: I had this fun idea: Get a 35 $ WiFi webcam (I have one from ebay), and a 5 $ inside /outside temp meter (from ebay), hang the sensor in the fridge, the webcam has a webserver and free DNS server connection... Look... And if you want some REAL fun. put those things IN the fridge, no no problem with that bulb that secretly goes out when you close the fridge door, the webcam will switch on its IR LEDS... Power adaptor outside, just a thin wire into the fridge between the door, AND you see you need to go shopping, and who steals that cake... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ksun0e$p5a$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12733 |
Hi Paul,
On 7/26/2013 12:06 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes:
>> So, you would consider putting "smarts" *at* the freezer and
>> sending *messages* to some "remote" location instead of running
>> thermocouple leads to that remote location?
>
> In networked systems I've generally found it preferable to put as much
> of the "smarts" as possible into one place, in order to keep the
> protocols simple. This is especially useful if the different nodes are
> programmed by separate people or teams, since complex protocols can
> drastically increase the amount of confusion, meetings, integration
> problems, etc that you end up dealing with. This would suggest making
> the thing at the freezer be a dumb computer peripheral controlled by a
> more complex host at the other end.
When I first created the irrigation controller, I took exactly
the *opposite* approach: smarts in the controller (SBC) and a
"dumb terminal" as the "remote computer".
I.e., the user interface (software) and application ran in
the SBC and just used the "remote terminal" for the visual
aspect of the user interface. This allowed the remote
computer to be powered down (since you rarely interact with
the irrigation controller!) nearly 100% of the time while
still having the functionality of the irrigation controller
operational. ("OK, there's no display. So what? I already
know what I have to do...") This was trivial and inexpensive:
serial ports are cheap and a character based interface easy
to implement -- even on a SLOW serial port! (think: curses).
The economics of today suggest using ethernet for connectivity
(or wireless, but that's another can of fish). Especially
if you want to do more than push a few characters down the
link (e.g., distributing multimedia; having nodes interact
with each other via RPC; RPC-over-SLIP?? ick! etc.)
But, the price of admission for ethernet usually comes with
a 32bit controller attached. (Are there any SoC's with
ethernet MACs that are smaller than 32b?) Protocol stacks
consume more resources than "serial port drivers" so these
devices tend to be well endowed (FLASH+RAM). So, even small
devices nowadays have more power and resources than, e.g.,
a PC/AT!
Therefore, why not *use* that power for more than just "remote
valve activation"? Why not dispatch some portion of the application
*to* this node in addition to the physical interface to the
field wiring interface? And, since each "remote device" needs
ethernet connectivity, you now have a bunch of devices that can
be slightly oversized for little/no cost and the extra capacity
applied to the application -- instead of just the "remote wiring".
If you have a framework that lets these resources be used AS IF
general purpose resources (i.e., MIPS and BYTES), then you can
run portions of the application wherever you have some surplus
capacity. Instead of running thousands of threads on *a*
processor, run dozens of threads on each of scores of processors!
If you open a many "consumer" devices, you;ll see that this is
how they have tended to partition the many "tasks" that the
product is responsible for performing during operation. E.g.,
a VCR might have four or five MCUs in it. An automobile might
have dozens (one *just* to control the power windows!). It's
easier than having a giant wiring harness come to a single
point for one, BIG computer! And, can enhance reliability as
the functions of each device are more definitely partitioned.
No way the power window controller is going to interfere
with the ignition timing! Even if it *isn't* running on a
processor with support for virtual memory! :>
> Running analog signals over long distances has its own problems but if
> you're ok with the wiring hassles etc., maybe that can simplify things
> even further.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x8v0su5yr.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #12743 |
Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes: >> put as much of the "smarts" as possible into one place... making the >> thing at the freezer be a dumb computer peripheral > When I first created the irrigation controller, I took exactly > the *opposite* approach: smarts in the controller (SBC) and a > "dumb terminal" as the "remote computer". That works too, since it counts as putting the smarts in one place. The idea is there might be 10 units of complexity that you have to code. To the extent that you can control where it goes, I've found it preferable to put (say) 9 units at one end and 1 unit at the other, instead of 5 units at each end, for the reasons I described. Obviously the specific application will dictate some choices so you can't always follow this pattern. > The economics of today suggest using ethernet for connectivity Someone else on this newsgroup suggested using CAN bus for some non-automotive stuff. I don't know anything about it but it sounded interesting. > If you open a many "consumer" devices, That is a niche area with specialized constraints, in my opinion. I'm more concerned with the typical situation (these days) that hardware is plentiful and the constraining resource is development effort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 22:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ksvn0l$tj0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12749 |
Hi Paul, On 7/26/2013 6:50 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes: >>> put as much of the "smarts" as possible into one place... making the >>> thing at the freezer be a dumb computer peripheral >> When I first created the irrigation controller, I took exactly >> the *opposite* approach: smarts in the controller (SBC) and a >> "dumb terminal" as the "remote computer". > > That works too, since it counts as putting the smarts in one place. > > The idea is there might be 10 units of complexity that you have to code. > To the extent that you can control where it goes, I've found it > preferable to put (say) 9 units at one end and 1 unit at the other, > instead of 5 units at each end, for the reasons I described. Obviously > the specific application will dictate some choices so you can't always > follow this pattern. There are innumerable ways of implementing a system like mine. Some day (?), vendors will endow their devices with general purpose "interface ports". So, for example, you can talk to your refrigerator; or washing machine; or thermostat; etc. (this seems inevitable given how easy it is to have a "user interface" available to every user in a home -- whether it is PC's, tablets, smartphones, etc.) In that case, the smarts in each device will be undoubtedly be pared down to whatever the minimum requirements are to satisfy the functionality of the device -- plus some nominal "interface". I.e., this would be akin to me selecting the tiniest MCU that was capable of communicating "remotely" and interfacing it to the *existing* "controller" in each appliance (ad hoc). I chose, instead, to add capabilities to each such "node" with the express purpose of distributing parts of the automation application into them. To avoid having a "big computer" somewhere that had to "do everything" (relegating the satellite nodes to simple "field wiring extensions"). This allows me to downgrade the complexities of that (central) "big computer". To save cost, reduce the need for cooling (noisey fans!), space, etc. It also makes it easier for me to keep subsystems "up" in the event of a power outage and.or a bug/crash in that "big computer". E.g., the big computer can be powered off and the HVAC controller will still maintain the desired internal temperature for the building! Likewise, an intruder breaking a window will still result in the alarm being sounded even if the big computer has crashed. Etc. >> The economics of today suggest using ethernet for connectivity > > Someone else on this newsgroup suggested using CAN bus for some > non-automotive stuff. I don't know anything about it but it sounded > interesting. CAN is essentially a party line "RS232" implementation. I.e., OK if you want to pass infrequent commands and data (like to my original irrigation controller) but pretty inferior if you are trying to push multimedia, or exchange arbitrary data (big data!) between processes operating on individual nodes. E.g., if I query the database for a list of the hundreds of emitters feeding the various plants in the yard, a CAN bus implementation would be "busy" for many seconds. Ethernet for a tiny fraction of a second! >> If you open a many "consumer" devices, > > That is a niche area with specialized constraints, in my opinion. I'm > more concerned with the typical situation (these days) that hardware is > plentiful and the constraining resource is development effort. Hardware isn't *that* plentiful. Consumer devices (which probably represent *90%* of the CPU's sold) are very cost sensitive. If you can do something with 100 bytes of RAM instead of 10KB, you'll find only 100 bytes in that product! (of course, there is also the tendency of engineers to consume all available resources in a product design... :> ) I.e., you are unlikely to find a "thermostat" with a megabyte of FLASH in it and several tens of KB of RAM (which is what *I* have). OTOH, those COTS thermostats won't be capable of talking with a weather station on the roof to determine current conditions. Nor of querying a RDBMS that has *logged* weather conditions (at the behest of said weather station) over the past few days to be able to estimate what those conditions are likely to be "later today". And, all *without* requiring the intervention of some generic PC! --don
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-27 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xwqoc7814.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #12755 |
Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes: > CAN is essentially a party line "RS232" implementation. I.e., > OK if you want to pass infrequent commands and data Yeah, its advantage is supposed to be low cost and good robustness against noise and signal degradation. The way it gets that appears to be relatively low speed. It apparently goes up to 1 megabit (for cable runs up to 40 meters) but the base speed is 10-20 kbit (good for km runs). > E.g., if I query the database for a list of the hundreds of > emitters feeding the various plants in the yard, a CAN bus > implementation would be "busy" for many seconds. I don't see why you'd have to send the result of such a big query over the CAN bus. The idea is to wire the outdoor network with CAN, where sensors would respond to occasional queries or post updates. Indoors (for queries etc.) you'd use wifi or ethernet. > Consumer devices (which probably represent *90%* of the CPU's sold) > are very cost sensitive. If you can do something with 100 bytes of > RAM instead of 10KB, you'll find only 100 bytes in that product! I don't think that's meaningful to what most programmers spend their time doing. McDonalds might sell 90% of the world's hamburgers, all cooked with the same recipe written by one guy, but most of the world's working cooks have done a hamburger recipe at one time or another, using methods much different than McDonalds. Similarly, those tiny embedded cpus (while they ship a lot of them) are programmed by comparatively few people. The total amount of code running on them is relatively small. There are also folks here saying that those 100 byte cpus are being displaced by 32-bitters with at least a few kilobytes. I see that Cortex M0 parts start at 50 cents or so. Not much room left for packaged 8-bit processors below that. The 100 byte cpu may go the way of the 7400 quad nand gate: it will disappear from circuit boards, possibly living on in the guts of ASICs. Programming them becomes the province of hardware designers. Again, a specialized niche. Actually the most common processors may well be GSM SIM cards which have multiple kilobytes (there are billions of them and they are mostly programmed in Java for security).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-27 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kt0v93$356$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12758 |
Hi Paul, On 7/27/2013 12:53 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> E.g., if I query the database for a list of the hundreds of >> emitters feeding the various plants in the yard, a CAN bus >> implementation would be "busy" for many seconds. > > I don't see why you'd have to send the result of such a big query over > the CAN bus. The idea is to wire the outdoor network with CAN, where > sensors would respond to occasional queries or post updates. Indoors > (for queries etc.) you'd use wifi or ethernet. In my case, I wanted *one* mechanism for moving data between nodes. Less code to maintain, less variance in the operation between any given set of nodes, etc. E.g., I can implement a time synchronization protocol over ethernet and *all* nodes benefit from it; I don't also have to implement a similar -- but different -- protocol over CAN to ensure the CAN-based nodes are in sync with the rest of the system. (you would like to avoid writing a 32 bit math library *and* a 40 bit version of the same library!) >> Consumer devices (which probably represent *90%* of the CPU's sold) >> are very cost sensitive. If you can do something with 100 bytes of >> RAM instead of 10KB, you'll find only 100 bytes in that product! > > I don't think that's meaningful to what most programmers spend their > time doing. McDonalds might sell 90% of the world's hamburgers, all > cooked with the same recipe written by one guy, but most of the world's > working cooks have done a hamburger recipe at one time or another, using > methods much different than McDonalds. Similarly, those tiny embedded > cpus (while they ship a lot of them) are programmed by comparatively few > people. The total amount of code running on them is relatively small. Most of the world's "programmers" are probably writing Javascript WEB PAGES! Don't underestimate the number of *different* embedded applications that exist and are created each year. You should be able to find at least 100 such applications among your own possessions! Sitting here, I know my mouse has a bit (tiny) of code in it. As does the keyboard. If either of them were cordless, there'd be a bit more (in terms of count and complexity). The DVD drive has at least one processor in it. As do the BT earpiece and the digital camera sitting on the desk. Ditto for the "spare" disk drive I was preparing to format -- and the "learning remote" (for the TV). The PDA sitting in its charger has one -- with several "apps" on it. As does the laserjet printer crammed under the desk. (and, I haven't ventured from my seat, yet!) The furnace has a processor in it. As does the swamp cooler. As did the "old" thermostat -- and the old "controller" for the swamp cooler. Dishwasher, stove/oven, washing machine, dryer, refrigerator, microwave oven, garage door opener, toaster, toaster oven. No idea how many processors are in the TV. *Each* of the TV's! Or, the little "bookshelf stereo". Or, the tuner, amplifier, CD player, tape deck, etc. And, each of their "remotes". The DVD player and cordless phone (base plus each handset) have processors (and "programs" running on them). As does the electronic clock hanging on the wall. The "base" for the iPod has a processor. As well as each of the iPods. And the Zune. And, the numerous "off brand" media players scattered around the house. I have a collection of older smart phones (that I use as wireless terminals) -- each with resident firmware *plus* "apps". The PSP's and PS2's each have a processor (and each "game" is a resource constrained app). Each LCD monitor has a processor. Each LCD projector (doesn't EVERYONE have a couple of these? :> ). Each external/USB disk drive. The NTSC digitizers. The DTV-IP media pumps. The Phaser, color laser, color inkjet, photoprinter. The duplexed LaserJet. The A/legal-size scanner, the B size scanner and the "film" scanner. The pen plotter. Each of the UPS's. Each tape transport, tape library and external "media drive" (various size MO's and other "off-beat" formats like ORB, etc.). The managed network switch. The firewall appliance. The reading machine (KRM). The four (different) NAS boxes. The one-port terminal server. The SpaceBall, joystick and the NewLooq. The digitizing tablet. The BIOS in each of the dozen or more *different* "computers" and servers, here (i.e., servers often have MCU's that do things like sequence the power to the hot-swap backplane, control fans, etc.). Plus laptops and tablets. And, I haven't touched any of my *automation*, yet! Nor any of the test equipment (freq synth, digitally programmable power supplies, 'scope, logic analyzers, etc.) *Or*, ventured into my "toy boxes" (kit that I am not currently using) -- "gyro mouse", anyone? What about the cars? Or, the stuff my *neighbors* have? Or, the odds and ends at the convenience store up the corner (security cameras, electronic gas pumps, refrigeration controllers, etc.)? Aircraft? Spacecraft? Military weaponry? [Apparently, some of the ancient processors are still employed in "modern" weapons. E.g., 6502 experience is often sought in that industry] Or, the scads of computerized products that are sold at local department stores and electronics stores? Sorry for the lengthy list but you would be amazed if you actually started tabulating how many "different" pieces of software you are surrounded by that aren't designed with the desktop in mind. *And*, that are created with economic pressures on their designs! Shirley you don't think "comparatively few people" programmed all these different devices from different vendors in different industries? How big do you think the *teams* that develop desktop apps are? And they don't have to design any hardware... > There are also folks here saying that those 100 byte cpus are being > displaced by 32-bitters with at least a few kilobytes. I see that > Cortex M0 parts start at 50 cents or so. Not much room left for > packaged 8-bit processors below that. The 100 byte cpu may go the way > of the 7400 quad nand gate: it will disappear from circuit boards, > possibly living on in the guts of ASICs. Programming them becomes the > province of hardware designers. Again, a specialized niche. There will always be mice, toasters, microwave ovens, refrigerators, etc. Why are people still buying/using PICs?? > Actually the most common processors may well be GSM SIM cards which have > multiple kilobytes (there are billions of them and they are mostly > programmed in Java for security).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-26 23:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5h91sF6vf6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12731 |
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 7/26/2013 9:13 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> Don Y wrote:
>
>>>>> The irrigation controller is located in the garage near the
>>>>> garage door as it's easy to get out through the wall to the
>>>>> valves (well, actually, the valves are distributed all around
>>>>> the yard -- front/back/sides -- but this is where I chose to
>>>>> bring them all through the wall since it is close to the
>>>>> rest of the "water" stuff (future flow meter, valve, master
>>>>> irrigation valve, softener, filtration, etc.) -- things that
>>>>> are handled by the "water" controller! (i.e., a home may
>>>>> or may not have an irrigation system -- but *should* have
>>>>> "water"!)
>>>>
>>>> All in the same utility room here. If anything needs fixing everyone
>>>> knows where the stuff is.
>>>
>>> So, you terminate all your phone, irrigation, security (cameras/alarms),
>>> CATV, networking, multimedia, HVAC, etc. stuff in one location? ...
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Then you have a boatload of cable coming *through* your house
> that could have been terminated "where used"?
About 8-10 per category to different locations. All terminated in the
utility room.
> ... E.g., the
> landscape lighting controller is sited just inside the
> garage -- and only because she-who-must-be-obeyed doesn't like
> the transformers visible on the exterior of the house. No need
> to run 4 #12's from the outside wall of the house to someplace
> "deep within".
>
We took out much of the landscape lighting. Deer trampling it, et cetera.
>>> ... Your
>>> freezer is in one location; why locate the controls for it in another?
>>
>> The freezer has only internal controls but it is right next to the
>> utility panel, in the same room. After the first one died and much of
>> the food in it spoiled I thought about running a network high-temp alert
>> but so far haven't gotten around to it.
>
> So, you would consider putting "smarts" *at* the freezer and
> sending *messages* to some "remote" location instead of running
> thermocouple leads to that remote location?
A freezer is so big that some people may not be able to locate it in the
utility room. Or may want it closer to the kitchen.
> ... But, putting local
> smarts at the irrigation controller and sending CONTROL and
> STATUS messages to that same remote location is out of the
> question?
>
Irrigation needs to have a home run as well IMHO.
> I.e., this is how I have done everything, here. Put the smarts
> where it is most convenient to interface them to the field
> wiring; then "talk" to them from "wherever". Including from
> the supermarket!
>
>>> Why run raw video to *a* central location when you can process it *at*
>>> the camera and ship what you need (in whatever format you need it) to
>>> wherever it needs to go (displays, recorders, etc.). ...
>>
>> Because re-routing stuff is a breeze when you have home runs. If you
>> don't then it could mean cracking out the hammer drill, making a mess,
>> dust, work, blisters.
>
> I don't see how that is the case. You have to run a cable from
> a camera to your central location. Perhaps RS170 down a long
> length of coax? How is that any more convenient than processing
> the video *at* the camera and shipping a data stream over CAT5
> to wherever you want it consumed?
>
It is easier to have all the controllers in one place. Sure, you can
have a NTSC-to-IP converter box somewhere but SWMBO won't like it much.
And I like to keep it simple. Cable is simpler and cheaper than local
electronic conversion.
>>> ... Likewise, why
>>> have a dozen or more "heavy" (relatively speaking) wires running to
>>> irrigation valves *through* some portion of the house interior when
>>> you know all the valves will be located *outside*?
>>
>> Because central control is, to me, essential when it comes to such
>> things. Heavy? A normal solenoid doesn't even take 0.25A. I've used
>> doubled-up CAT5 for that because that only came in 1000ft drums.
>
> But you are assuming central control has to be PHYSICALLY centralized.
> You don't run the wires from the pump for your swimming pool into
> that same room, do you? Nor the temperature sensor for it *just*
> so all of the wires are in one central location!
>
No, but I like the control of it centralized. So there is a control wire
going from the pool house to the utility room. Runs only a valve right
now, the rest is "future project when I get around to it".
> Rather, you put the pump and power that it requires where it makes
> sense FOR THE PUMP (you don't want to run pipe all around your property
> just so you can locate the pump somewhere "central"). You make the
> control *of* the pump (and pool temperature) available where *that*
> is convenient. Perhaps out *by* the pool, in a veranda, etc.
>
> Or, in my case, wherever I can send datagrams to my control
> system (i.e., damn near anywhere).
>
>>> Just seems like concentrating too much stuff with no real gain.
>>> (unless you need to work on the phones *and* the irrigation
>>> system at the same time?).
>>
>> Example: Some day you want to control the irrigation from your phone or
>> via your LAN. With a central closet all you have to build is a board.
>> Without that it means the hammer drill, dust, noise, sweat ...
>
> Thats what I am doing *now*. Because the irrigation system can
> talk IP to the rest of the automation system I can command it
> from <wherever>. My armchair in the living room. While sitting
> on The Throne. Or, while driving to the store. I don't care
> that the wires that connect to the solenoid valves are terminated
> in a small box on the wall just inside the garage door; or in a
> central utility closet. As long as I can talk to that box
> over IP, I can command it to do what I want, when/*as* I want.
>
That works, of course. But I like the system simpler, without having to
translate everyhting to IP.
> (E.g., second generation of this will be wireless. Put your
> controllers wherever you can get at power and forget about them.
> No need to string cable through the rafters, etc.)
>
>>> Most of the time (by a wide margin), you're interacting with the
>>> user interface for these things. E.g., changing the criteria
>>> that determines when the hot water heater is required to have
>>> "ample hot water" available. *Not* rewiring the controls *into*
>>> the hot water heater! You're comfortable with your hot water
>>> heater in one location and television in another... so why the
>>> desire to have the "controls" for them in the same place?
>>
>> Say you want to conserve energy. If you really want to push it and lower
>> the water heater temps a lot you may have to ramp it up and back down
>> about once a week. To prevent legionaires disease. Ideally this should
>> happen when hot water is likely not used but, say, one person in the
>> household is on revolving-time shifts at work. The peaker time thus has
>> to be changed a lot. If you have no central control this would be a real
>> pain.
>
> I can do exactly that. But, without "central WIRING"! Send a
> datagram to the water heater telling it to alter its setpoint
> temperature to <X>. Then, some time later, tell it to alter
> it to <Y>. But, why should *I* have to tell it? An *algorithm*
> can tell it these things based on "rules" and observations of
> the hot water usage patterns of the occupants of the building!
>
Algorithms won't know about shift changes and things like that.
> But, this doesn't require the wires and controls all be centrally
> located. Just that they "come together" in some virtual space
> at a point where <whatever> (i.e., me or "an algorithm") can
> access them.
>
You can make in happen in virtual space but it requires boxes here and
there and cost a lot more.
>>>>> Media gets served from a set of processors in a closet
>>>>> off the kitchen (since I need rotating media, there, and
>>>>> places like "in the ceiling" or "in the garage" would not
>>>>> be appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Over here media gets played where the media gear is, from the living
>>>> room. But you don't have to watch the movie there, it gets transmitted
>>>> over coax back to the utility closet and then into the main
>>>> distribution. Of course with an iso amp so things won't pipe out of the
>>>> antenna.
>>>
>>> The RG6 (and "CAT1" -- even though it's really CAT5) here are for
>>> "future owners" who will resort to more conventional media/comms
>>> systems. I.e., I only use three of the RG6 feeds (one from the cable
>>> company, one from rooftop TV antenna, and one from "FM" antenna
>>> hidden up in the ceiling) and *none* of the RG6 "drops". The feeds
>>> run into the closet where the signal is peeled off and rebroadcast
>>> "over IP" (radio programs, TV shows, etc.).
>>>
>>> My goal is to distribute *everything* "over IP". I've done this
>>> for audio, already (though I haven't been able to find an affordable
>>> AM/FM radio "box"). I expect video to be a bit more taxing
>>> (designing a good codec with the same sorts of capabilities as the
>>> audio system). I'm currently in the market for a good dual FXS/FXO
>>> interface (prefering a standalone ATA-style device instead of something
>>> that relies on some obsolescent "board" interface)
>>
>> That is quite futursitic but it sounds expensive to transfer everything
>> to IP.
>
> Think about it: you need some field interface to all these sensors
> and controls/actuators. I.e., a single chip microprocessor. And,
> a way of talking with that MCU to exchange status and command
> messages -- some sort of serial communication protocol (e.g. ethernet).
>
> Instead of putting ALL the I/O's on a single processor and having that
> processor "do everything", put the I/O's on *several* processors
> and distribute the responsibilities among them. Then, let them
> all talk to <something> -- including each other! -- to get
> directions as to *what* they should be doing.
>
> Now, instead of running all that field wiring to a central location,
> all you need to do is run it to a "convenient point". Or, a *set* of
> convenient points!
>
> I.e., terminate the irrigation valves *here*; the landscape lighting
> *there*; the garage door opener somewhere *else*; etc. Then, just
> bring their "communication interfaces" to a "central" point -- even
> if that point varies over time! ("Now I am in the living room
> wanting to control something; oops! I've walked into the kitchen
> and still want to control that thing!")
>
> Given that you can (conceivably) do the communications wirelessly
> (I see lots of downside risk in that approach which is why I haven't
> gone that route, initially), you could put little black boxes all
> over the place and never have to worry about pulling cables "inside".
>
But what do all those little black boxes cost in terms of money and
install effort? We try to keep it simple in our house. Also, I do not
want to rely on one system for all. If your LAN goes down you are
screwed. It could cause plants to die.
> [Early on, I had considered designing the irrigation controller as
> a bunch of "one valve" controllers scattered, physically, around
> the property. So, instead of running cable to their solenoids
> from a controller, I would run power+data to their *controllers*
> which were located adjacent to each individual valve! But, the
> idea of having 16 little PCB's *buried* around the yard just
> felt "wrong"... OTOH, I think when someone comes up with an
> economical, rugged "moisture sensor" suitable for below grade
> use, there will be a market for lots of "smart valves" that sit
> on the water distribution line and service one or two plants
> individually with "local" control! "Made in China"]
>
We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the industry
is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few companies
but those serve higher-end markets.
>>> But, in both cases, the "media" is sourced from the lower 18" of this
>>> "closet". I have a dual OTA DTV receiver (media pump) so I can
>>> source two OTA broadcasts simultaneously (route one to a live
>>> display and the other to a DVR; or both to live displays; or both
>>> to DVRs, etc.). I need to purchase a second one since I think
>>> you need to be able to access 4 "programs" concurrently in a house
>>> of 4 people (sad! but, easy to see two being watched simultaneously
>>> and possibly recording another for later viewing: "Dad, Betsy won't
>>> let me record my TV show cuz she's recording some stupid sitcom
>>> that she's already seen!").
>>>
>>> "Consuming" the media happens wherever you have a suitable "player".
>>> E.g., you can listen to a telephone call on a "network speaker"
>>> or (eventually) route it through whatever you are using to listen
>>> to a television program, etc. Of course, you can record it just
>>> as easily. Want to pull weeds while listening to the TV news?
>>> Just pop a BT earpiece in your ear...
>>
>> You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring closet
>> :-)
>
> No. All you need in that closet is the media server and however
> many pipes it needs to push enough media into your network!
Until the network goes down one day, that is.
> Here, I collocated the main processors (which include those that
> actually serve up the media), network switch/router and UPS in
> that location. But, the rest of the bits of kit (irrigation,
> security, etc.) are scattered around wherever it makes most sense
> for them. E.g., the processors that monitor the video feeds are
> located up in the eaves, adjacent to their individual cameras.
>
> If the doorbell rings, I can "see" who is at the door without
> getting up from my office chair. ...
Our dogs will tell me :-)
> ... Or, from the living room couch.
> Or, meal prep in the kitchen. Just as easily as I can watch
> a movie, etc.
>
> [Note I have't yet designed the video subsystem as there's a fair
> bit of BFM there!]
>
>>> If you mean "user interface", in that case, it's wherever you want
>>> it to be. I.e., I can alter the heat/cooling while I am working on
>>> one of the cars out in the garage (even though the garage currently
>>> has no HVAC capabilities). Or, while pulling weeds in the back yard.
>>> Or, while driving home from the Dentist. I've even got a very long
>>> range *cordless* phone so I can wander the neighborhood and still
>>> be "in touch" with the house (I don't use cell phones).
>>>
>>> That was the whole point of this -- to tie the controls to the
>>> *user* instead of "a spot on a wall" or "a panel in the garage".
>>> And, to then let the definition of "user" evolve (e.g., autonomous
>>> agents).
>>
>> To me the wiring closet is what makes this easy. I have no ambitions to
>> peel off signals and such (well, with minor exceptions) but if I ever
>> needed to then our home-run structure would make this as easy as it gets.
>
> If you can afford the space, great! I would *love* to have a closet
> (or *room*!) to set aside for automation. Stash all the network
> printers in there, the various servers I use for work, etc. Instead
> of being relegated to the lower 18" of this silly closet. But,
> moving *just* to get a "server room" seems a bit presumptuous! :>
>
How many square-feet is your house? Our utility room is maybe 6ft by 8ft
or something like that.
>>>>> Here, garage is a death sentence for all things electronic. Even
>>>>> with our insulated door it still gets pretty warm in there!
>>>>> (before the new door, it would easily hit 140)
>>>>
>>>> Then the electronics isn't designed right. After all, garage door
>>>> openers are full of electronics and they have to live in the nastiest
>>>> area of a garage, under the ceiling. The cars also have to reside in
>>>> the
>>>> garage and nowadays they are chockfull of elecrtronic gizmos, most of
>>>> them highly unnecessary.
>>>
>>> You know industrial grade components cost more than commercial
>>> grade. Why *pay* for something designed to be able to tolerate
>>> the heat (and North Dakota cold!) of the garage when it doesn't
>>> *have* to sit out there? Do you think your PC will fare well in
>>> the garage -- while IN USE?
>>
>> A good one does. Here in the office it was 91F yesterday and the main PC
>> was running heavy duty SPICE simulations.
>
> 90 degrees isn't particularly taxing. It's probably almost that in
> my office (poor ventilation and several servers running at once).
> I think google's "cold aisle" is claimed to be 80F.
>
> But, Ma & Pa Consumer probably would be annoyed if they had to
> replace the "media store" on their multimedia server every year
> because it couldn't handle the 140 degrees in the garage
> ("How do we recover all the stuff we had on the drive before it
> died? We had videos of our 50th wedding anniversary with the
> grandkids...")
>
If the garage is 140F on a regular basis you have a problem. Your cars
won't like that for very long. I'd fix that (ventilation etc.).
>>> You want to be able to down-spec as many components as possible
>>> to keep things affordable (I'm already in the multiple kilobucks
>>> ballpark, here -- for just the electronics!). If you have
>>> to specify multiterabyte solid state disks (to store media!)
>>> rated for industrial temperature extremes instead of off-the-shelf
>>> *commercial* magnetic disks of similar capacity there's a huge
>>> cost penalty. And, longer down-times when you can't just walk
>>> to your local discount store and buy a replacement!
>>
>> I rather buy less in toys and not down-spec.
>
> If you want to be able to control "everything", there is a certain
> "price of admission". :<
>
Or use the home-run structuce, then admission costs only four drums of
cables and some connectors and such.
>>> [OK, so maybe *you* will have to DRIVE! :> ]
>>>
>>> The bits of kit that I locate "in ceilings", etc. are designed
>>> to handle the environments they are in. But, nothing more.
>>> If it ever climbs to 100C inside my ceiling, the $15 board I've
>>> got tucked up there is going to be the *least* of my worries!
>>> ("Don, why is there *steam* coming out of the ceiling?")
>>
>> "Don, why is there a fire engine in our driveway?" :-)
>
> Yeah, I am already imagining what things will be like when
> manufacturers start selling products with these sorts of
> capabilities. And, users start downloading apps of dubious
> quality to *run* their automation...
>
> "Why is my hot water heater set at 190F?"
> "Why is all the meat in the freezer thawed?"
> "Who left the garage door open?"
> "Ack! The roses are sitting in 6 inches of standing water!"
> "How did Bob, next door, manage to see me in the shower?"
>
"... and why does the virus scanner say found Stux-sumpthin'?"
> etc.
>
>>>>> I keep debating running "air" into the store room in the
>>>>> garage and moving the doorway to open into the interior of
>>>>> the house (instead of into the garage). That's a fairly
>>>>> large space that would be a great home for the freezer
>>>>> (currently in the garage!), my larger printers, plotter,
>>>>> etc. But... <shrug>
>>>>
>>>> Freezer in the garage? That is tough on its compressor.
>>>
>>> Yup. But, we don't have much of an option in that regard.
>>> Insulated garage door makes a big difference (and, the fact
>>> that the compressor hugs the floor and not the ceiling).
>>> House is very "open". Translation: not many places to *hide*
>>> things! :<
>>
>> Then you need the super-expensive art deco sub-zero fridge freezer
>> combo :-)
>
> No, the fridge/freezer/WIRING CLOSET combo! Complete with the optional
> shoe storage accessory!! :-/
>
>>> And, I'd *kill* for a basement!
>>
>> Oh, same here. We are on a slope so the one downstairs room is mostly
>
> So, a "walk out 'basement'" (even if it isn't really a basement
> per se)?
>
Yep.
> It's just insane that they *don't* build below grade here (AZ).
> Especially considering the heat in Summer. Cooling load would be
> absolutely non-existent!
>
Builders are either not smart or plain don't care about energy.
> But, I guess you could make the same argument for "up north"
> with respect to "heating load" in winter.
>
> Bottom line: they don't do it because it's cheaper NOT to!
>
>> cool. Into the hillside we have said utility closet and also a small
>> wine storage. But it's nothing compared to the basement we had in
>> Germany.
>
> In New England, Midwest, Colorado, etc. I always had a basement.
> Something you simply took for granted. NOT having one really
> changes how you deal with "storage".
>
> E.g., I would store my archives in the basement, previously.
> Cool, dry, dark... out-of-the-way. Here, they have to hide
> under a bed, etc.
>
Well, it's also a nice trigger not to store so much. People have too
much these days.
>>>>> I have another friend with a small rack in his *bedroom*!
>>>>> Dunno what the appeal of that is supposed to be... <frown>
>>>>
>>>> Strange. It's usually considered uncool to show so much nerdiness. It
>>>> turns off potential girlfriends. Unless he is already married :-)
>>>
>>> <shrug> I think, in his case, he's more interested in the
>>> functionality than the appearance. ...
>>
>> A bachelor, I suppose.
>
> Actually, he is. Though I suspect he would like to change that.
> "At least on the weekends..." ;-)
>
Then he should start getting rid of things like "a small rack in his
bedroom" :-)
>>> Early in my career, I worried almost exclusively about how well
>>> things *worked* without regard for what they looked like (I have
>>> many prototypes fabricated "on a wooden plank" or "in a wooden
>>> enclosure"). I think its only after you get that skill-set
>>> perfected that you turn your attention to other "niceties"
>>> like appearance, user constraints, etc.
>>
>> It's usually after you get married when that transformation happens :-)
>
> I've heard that when you are young(er), you want possessions;
> when older, "experiences".
>
And often just pain relief. Like I right now, horrible toothache. Of
course, per Murphy that set in on a Friday night.
> <shrug>
>
> In my case, I just want "less hassles". I.e., I want products to
> work as advertised (ideally, as *expected*!) and not break down
> regularly (I suspect I can't go more than two weeks without
> having to fix *something*... toilet, car, computer, TV, etc.)
>
Same here.
> Maybe hermits/minimalists have the right idea? :-/
>
In some aspects they do.
>>> Mine stands about 5 ft tall and I've located a workstation atop
>>> it that I use while standing (usually for things like starting a
>>> backup, etc.)
>>
>> Wow! You have this many books that you must catalog them in a 5ft card
>> cabinet? We (or rather my wife) have ordered them by topic/genre and
>> then selected a location for each throughout the house.
>
> No. The card catalog actually holds audio cassettes. :>
> The drawers are *almost* the correct size for 25 cassettes
> per drawer -- with a little slop on the side to make it
> easy to remove them individually.
>
> I've been "on a campaign" to discard books -- despite my fondness
> for them. They just take up too much space! E.g., when I moved
> here, I had 80 "Xerox paper" boxes full of (fiction) paperbacks.
> And that doesn't count reference books, text books, technical
> literature, magazines, etc. I.e., almost two *tons* of paperbacks!
>
> I've since given most of those away -- cherrypicking two boxes worth
> as "must keeps". And, recently turned to the text books and other
> references. Similarly, looking for electronic copies of the many
> technical articles that I have squirreled away and scanning those
> that I can't find on-line.
>
> The idea of an eReader turns my stomach. But, I will concede
> this if it gives me a way to shed a few tons of paper! :-(
>
Same here, but I don't want to pay twice for the books I already own. So
I don't have any e-readers (yet). And I certainly won't buy one with
vendor lock.
[...]
>>>> But one needs a remote, nowadays. Having to get out of a chair to
>>>> changes stations is so 1950's, and one could pull a muscle :-)
>>>
>>> Sure. I just don't restrict the "remote" to something as conventional
>>> and DEDICATED as "The TV Remote" (or DVD or VCR or STEREO or CATV
>>> or...). I.e., where is the HVAC remote? Or, irrigation controller
>>> remote? Or, garage door opener (FOR INHOME USE) remote? Why have
>>> all these numerous little *specialized* boxes when they are all just
>>> *instances* of the same sort of "user interface"! Why have to keep
>>> track of them and maintain them? ("Oh, crap! I left the remote
>>> for the irrigation controller in the dining room...")
>>
>> We only use remotes where it makes sense. TV, radio, VCR/DVD combo,
>> garage door openers. In the winter also for Christmas lights. That's
>> pretty much it. I suppose one can pool all that into a smart phone app
>> but since we don't have smart phones that won't work.
>
> I conceded the (wall mounted) control panels to her so she has a
> place to go to "do things" (interact with the automation: change
> the temperature in the house, alter the watering criteria for the
> yard, check the outdoor temperature/humidity/rainfall, etc.)
>
> The other things will be controlled by speech and/or a *worn* (lapel)
> "gesture panel". I figure it is something that "you'll get used to"
> over time. Just like it took time to get used to NOT having to get
> up to change TV channels; not having to press the clutch to shift;
> etc.
>
I still have to press a clutch. Sometimes the old things are simply better.
[...]
>
>>> This year, they replaced the gas *mains* in the neighborhood. Again,
>>> without digging up the streets. (This was actually REALLY amazing!)
>>> When you look at the "solutions" they've employed, it gives you a
>>> better understanding of where the cost issues are in these problem
>>> domains. Things that you might not have considered, otherwise. Or,
>>> may have *mis*diagnosed in your ignorance.
>>
>> I do this kind of thinking all the time, comes with my job. The EE stuff
>> is only to solve a problem from a different world. Aerospace,
>> industrial, medical, whatever. Got to wear many hats as a consultant.
>
> Yup. And, if you are like me, you seek out *new* application
> domains instead of sitting in a single "comfort spot" year after
> year. I.e., "always learning", experiencing new things, etc.
>
Those are the out-of-the-blue proposals I sometimes write.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-27 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kt1p34$3k9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12756 |
Hi Joerg,
On 7/26/2013 11:52 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> Given that you can (conceivably) do the communications wirelessly
>> (I see lots of downside risk in that approach which is why I haven't
>> gone that route, initially), you could put little black boxes all
>> over the place and never have to worry about pulling cables "inside".
>
> But what do all those little black boxes cost in terms of money and
> install effort?
For me? A lot! But, that's because I can't just go to a store
and *buy* most of them! E.g., if my hot water heater had a network
connection, then I wouldn't need to design and install something
to control it!
Ditto garage door opener, irrigation system, etc.
OTOH, if we could retroactively *credit* ourselves for devices we
wouldn't have purchased (i.e., assuming said system was already
in place), then the cost would be pretty modest.
Installation costs of a "real" system would probably rely on
wireless comms so you'd plug in a wall wart and forget about it.
(I don't want to address the security issues associated with
wireless -- given that I have so many other problems to tackle!)
> We try to keep it simple in our house. Also, I do not
> want to rely on one system for all. If your LAN goes down you are
> screwed. It could cause plants to die.
No! The irrigation controller can operate in the absence of the
network and any "central controller". Ditto with the HVAC
(thermostat), etc. That's the beauty of putting *smarts* at
each node instead of just "field wiring".
Of course, you can't *change* the irrigation criteria if you
can't talk to the controller (over the LAN).
>> [Early on, I had considered designing the irrigation controller as
>> a bunch of "one valve" controllers scattered, physically, around
>> the property. So, instead of running cable to their solenoids
>> from a controller, I would run power+data to their *controllers*
>> which were located adjacent to each individual valve! But, the
>> idea of having 16 little PCB's *buried* around the yard just
>> felt "wrong"... OTOH, I think when someone comes up with an
>> economical, rugged "moisture sensor" suitable for below grade
>> use, there will be a market for lots of "smart valves" that sit
>> on the water distribution line and service one or two plants
>> individually with "local" control! "Made in China"]
>
> We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the industry
> is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few companies
> but those serve higher-end markets.
I think there will be a more in this direction RSN. There are
already firms touting "control your home from your iPhone"
(for only $60/month). When appliance manufacturers start
adopting integrated comms as a "standard feature", this will
get easier.
E.g., you see cars with iPod connections built in...
Currently, any attempt to do something like this requires a
"bolt on" product -- invariably more expensive than an integrated
solution!
>>>> But, in both cases, the "media" is sourced from the lower 18" of this
>>>> "closet". I have a dual OTA DTV receiver (media pump) so I can
>>>> source two OTA broadcasts simultaneously (route one to a live
>>>> display and the other to a DVR; or both to live displays; or both
>>>> to DVRs, etc.). I need to purchase a second one since I think
>>>> you need to be able to access 4 "programs" concurrently in a house
>>>> of 4 people (sad! but, easy to see two being watched simultaneously
>>>> and possibly recording another for later viewing: "Dad, Betsy won't
>>>> let me record my TV show cuz she's recording some stupid sitcom
>>>> that she's already seen!").
>>>>
>>>> "Consuming" the media happens wherever you have a suitable "player".
>>>> E.g., you can listen to a telephone call on a "network speaker"
>>>> or (eventually) route it through whatever you are using to listen
>>>> to a television program, etc. Of course, you can record it just
>>>> as easily. Want to pull weeds while listening to the TV news?
>>>> Just pop a BT earpiece in your ear...
>>>
>>> You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring closet
>>> :-)
>>
>> No. All you need in that closet is the media server and however
>> many pipes it needs to push enough media into your network!
>
> Until the network goes down one day, that is.
What's far more likely to happen is a disk drive crashes and you
lose the media on the drive. The large drives that consumers would
typically purchase (incorrectly!) aren't intended for continuous
use.
>> Here, I collocated the main processors (which include those that
>> actually serve up the media), network switch/router and UPS in
>> that location. But, the rest of the bits of kit (irrigation,
>> security, etc.) are scattered around wherever it makes most sense
>> for them. E.g., the processors that monitor the video feeds are
>> located up in the eaves, adjacent to their individual cameras.
>>
>> If the doorbell rings, I can "see" who is at the door without
>> getting up from my office chair. ...
>
> Our dogs will tell me :-)
I've never heard a dog that could say "Bob" and "Holly"! :>
Or, "the guy from Cox cable"...
>>> To me the wiring closet is what makes this easy. I have no ambitions to
>>> peel off signals and such (well, with minor exceptions) but if I ever
>>> needed to then our home-run structure would make this as easy as it gets.
>>
>> If you can afford the space, great! I would *love* to have a closet
>> (or *room*!) to set aside for automation. Stash all the network
>> printers in there, the various servers I use for work, etc. Instead
>> of being relegated to the lower 18" of this silly closet. But,
>> moving *just* to get a "server room" seems a bit presumptuous! :>
>
> How many square-feet is your house? Our utility room is maybe 6ft by 8ft
> or something like that.
Small. About 2000 sq ft. The real problem is that it is very
"open". No nooks to hide things in (unless we sacrificed a
bedroom). E.g., there is *one* small "coat closet" in the
"public" portion of the house. And that's got our coats,
vacuum cleaner and carpet cleaner hiding in it.
This is why I have given consideration to running HVAC into the
store room (presently part of the garage and, thus, non-living
space). It would be a great location for my servers, printers,
automation system, etc. (But, that means finding a place to
store the pinball machine, E-size plotter, potters wheel, etc.)
>> 90 degrees isn't particularly taxing. It's probably almost that in
>> my office (poor ventilation and several servers running at once).
>> I think google's "cold aisle" is claimed to be 80F.
>>
>> But, Ma & Pa Consumer probably would be annoyed if they had to
>> replace the "media store" on their multimedia server every year
>> because it couldn't handle the 140 degrees in the garage
>> ("How do we recover all the stuff we had on the drive before it
>> died? We had videos of our 50th wedding anniversary with the
>> grandkids...")
>
> If the garage is 140F on a regular basis you have a problem. Your cars
> won't like that for very long. I'd fix that (ventilation etc.).
When it's 110+ outside, it's hard for the garage NOT to creep up!
(We were at or above 100F for the entire month of June and another
10 days into July)
Ours is reasonably cool with the insulated door (it also faces
east so avoids the afternoon sun shining on the door). Most
neighbors leave their garage doors cracked and/or leave the
"side door" that opens into the garage open (behind a security
door) for ventilation.
>> Yeah, I am already imagining what things will be like when
>> manufacturers start selling products with these sorts of
>> capabilities. And, users start downloading apps of dubious
>> quality to *run* their automation...
>>
>> "Why is my hot water heater set at 190F?"
>> "Why is all the meat in the freezer thawed?"
>> "Who left the garage door open?"
>> "Ack! The roses are sitting in 6 inches of standing water!"
>> "How did Bob, next door, manage to see me in the shower?"
>
> "... and why does the virus scanner say found Stux-sumpthin'?"
I've protected against that, here. But, "consumers" wouldn't
be as lucky -- since they would naively "enable updates" and.or
haphazzardly install all sorts of "free" cruft without concern
for *why* it's "free"! :>
>> It's just insane that they *don't* build below grade here (AZ).
>> Especially considering the heat in Summer. Cooling load would be
>> absolutely non-existent!
>
> Builders are either not smart or plain don't care about energy.
They care only about how cheaply they can produce a home and
how quickly they can unload it.
And, most home *purchasers* aren't competent to evaluate the
shortcomings of a home. "Oh, look, Honey! There's a big tree
in the back yard like the house I grew up in!!" <frown>
>> In New England, Midwest, Colorado, etc. I always had a basement.
>> Something you simply took for granted. NOT having one really
>> changes how you deal with "storage".
>>
>> E.g., I would store my archives in the basement, previously.
>> Cool, dry, dark... out-of-the-way. Here, they have to hide
>> under a bed, etc.
>
> Well, it's also a nice trigger not to store so much. People have too
> much these days.
Agreed. I routinely go into a "panic" trying to identify things
to "get rid of". And, still there's too much! I swear the stuff
reproduces when I'm not looking!!
>>>> Early in my career, I worried almost exclusively about how well
>>>> things *worked* without regard for what they looked like (I have
>>>> many prototypes fabricated "on a wooden plank" or "in a wooden
>>>> enclosure"). I think its only after you get that skill-set
>>>> perfected that you turn your attention to other "niceties"
>>>> like appearance, user constraints, etc.
>>>
>>> It's usually after you get married when that transformation happens :-)
>>
>> I've heard that when you are young(er), you want possessions;
>> when older, "experiences".
>
> And often just pain relief. Like I right now, horrible toothache. Of
> course, per Murphy that set in on a Friday night.
Sorry. I went through a similar experience recently. I recall
making the "calculations" as to whether I should seek care or
risk the weekend, etc. (here, dentists don't work on fridays
either! so, it's *three* days to reconsider your decision!)
>> The idea of an eReader turns my stomach. But, I will concede
>> this if it gives me a way to shed a few tons of paper! :-(
>
> Same here, but I don't want to pay twice for the books I already own. So
> I don't have any e-readers (yet). And I certainly won't buy one with
> vendor lock.
Agreed. What happens when your device is "full"? Buy another?
Discard something to make room for a new addition?
I've just gone with PDF and EPUB formats and use a regular PC
(a tablet in this case) to view the documents. Not as pleasant
a reading experience as taking a book out to the back yard.
But, if it lets me discard a whole lot of paper...
Unfortunately, many of the titles just aren't available in
these formats. And, the idea of cutting the binding off
textbooks in order to scan their contents seems *sinful*!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-28 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5kur3FgfjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12785 |
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 7/26/2013 11:52 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>>> Given that you can (conceivably) do the communications wirelessly
>>> (I see lots of downside risk in that approach which is why I haven't
>>> gone that route, initially), you could put little black boxes all
>>> over the place and never have to worry about pulling cables "inside".
>>
>> But what do all those little black boxes cost in terms of money and
>> install effort?
>
> For me? A lot! But, that's because I can't just go to a store
> and *buy* most of them! E.g., if my hot water heater had a network
> connection, then I wouldn't need to design and install something
> to control it!
>
> Ditto garage door opener, irrigation system, etc.
>
Not an option for me. I design electronics for a living all day long. So
on weekends and after hours I really don't want to design more
electronics. If your job is mainly software design or something else
then it's understandable, then this can be fun for your.
That's one of the downsides of turning a hobby into a career, which I
kind of did once I had my master's in EE.
[...]
>> We try to keep it simple in our house. Also, I do not
>> want to rely on one system for all. If your LAN goes down you are
>> screwed. It could cause plants to die.
>
> No! The irrigation controller can operate in the absence of the
> network and any "central controller". Ditto with the HVAC
> (thermostat), etc. That's the beauty of putting *smarts* at
> each node instead of just "field wiring".
>
> Of course, you can't *change* the irrigation criteria if you
> can't talk to the controller (over the LAN).
>
That's what I meant. Ours has a knob you can turn. If a rainy phase is
forecast we set it to 20% or maybe zero. When a scorcher comes along it
needs to go back up. If LAN is the only way to achieve that then either
you must hand-water or plants will die.
>>> [Early on, I had considered designing the irrigation controller as
>>> a bunch of "one valve" controllers scattered, physically, around
>>> the property. So, instead of running cable to their solenoids
>>> from a controller, I would run power+data to their *controllers*
>>> which were located adjacent to each individual valve! But, the
>>> idea of having 16 little PCB's *buried* around the yard just
>>> felt "wrong"... OTOH, I think when someone comes up with an
>>> economical, rugged "moisture sensor" suitable for below grade
>>> use, there will be a market for lots of "smart valves" that sit
>>> on the water distribution line and service one or two plants
>>> individually with "local" control! "Made in China"]
>>
>> We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the industry
>> is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few companies
>> but those serve higher-end markets.
>
> I think there will be a more in this direction RSN. There are
> already firms touting "control your home from your iPhone"
> (for only $60/month). When appliance manufacturers start
> adopting integrated comms as a "standard feature", this will
> get easier.
>
They are touting since decade and nothing came of that.
> E.g., you see cars with iPod connections built in...
>
Yeah, to charge them or play the music. <yawn>
> Currently, any attempt to do something like this requires a
> "bolt on" product -- invariably more expensive than an integrated
> solution!
>
And it will be like that for a long, long time. Unless folks like you or
me start a company nothing is going to change much in that domain. Big
companies obviously cannot get it done.
>>>>> But, in both cases, the "media" is sourced from the lower 18" of this
>>>>> "closet". I have a dual OTA DTV receiver (media pump) so I can
>>>>> source two OTA broadcasts simultaneously (route one to a live
>>>>> display and the other to a DVR; or both to live displays; or both
>>>>> to DVRs, etc.). I need to purchase a second one since I think
>>>>> you need to be able to access 4 "programs" concurrently in a house
>>>>> of 4 people (sad! but, easy to see two being watched simultaneously
>>>>> and possibly recording another for later viewing: "Dad, Betsy won't
>>>>> let me record my TV show cuz she's recording some stupid sitcom
>>>>> that she's already seen!").
>>>>>
>>>>> "Consuming" the media happens wherever you have a suitable "player".
>>>>> E.g., you can listen to a telephone call on a "network speaker"
>>>>> or (eventually) route it through whatever you are using to listen
>>>>> to a television program, etc. Of course, you can record it just
>>>>> as easily. Want to pull weeds while listening to the TV news?
>>>>> Just pop a BT earpiece in your ear...
>>>>
>>>> You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring closet
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> No. All you need in that closet is the media server and however
>>> many pipes it needs to push enough media into your network!
>>
>> Until the network goes down one day, that is.
>
> What's far more likely to happen is a disk drive crashes and you
> lose the media on the drive. The large drives that consumers would
> typically purchase (incorrectly!) aren't intended for continuous
> use.
>
Well, there are no disk drives in our setup :-)
Also, computers and LAN servers for my office run on average 10h/day. So
far only one has croaked in over 10 years. Because of backups that took
only about an hour and $60 to fix.
>>> Here, I collocated the main processors (which include those that
>>> actually serve up the media), network switch/router and UPS in
>>> that location. But, the rest of the bits of kit (irrigation,
>>> security, etc.) are scattered around wherever it makes most sense
>>> for them. E.g., the processors that monitor the video feeds are
>>> located up in the eaves, adjacent to their individual cameras.
>>>
>>> If the doorbell rings, I can "see" who is at the door without
>>> getting up from my office chair. ...
>>
>> Our dogs will tell me :-)
>
> I've never heard a dog that could say "Bob" and "Holly"! :>
> Or, "the guy from Cox cable"...
>
You don't know our Labradors. Their reactions are very different. I
always know whether it's Fedex, a friend, a friend with dogs, or a
suspicious person. That's all we really need to know.
[...]
>>> 90 degrees isn't particularly taxing. It's probably almost that in
>>> my office (poor ventilation and several servers running at once).
>>> I think google's "cold aisle" is claimed to be 80F.
>>>
>>> But, Ma & Pa Consumer probably would be annoyed if they had to
>>> replace the "media store" on their multimedia server every year
>>> because it couldn't handle the 140 degrees in the garage
>>> ("How do we recover all the stuff we had on the drive before it
>>> died? We had videos of our 50th wedding anniversary with the
>>> grandkids...")
>>
>> If the garage is 140F on a regular basis you have a problem. Your cars
>> won't like that for very long. I'd fix that (ventilation etc.).
>
> When it's 110+ outside, it's hard for the garage NOT to creep up!
> (We were at or above 100F for the entire month of June and another
> 10 days into July)
>
Same here but our garage is vented.
> Ours is reasonably cool with the insulated door (it also faces
> east so avoids the afternoon sun shining on the door). Most
> neighbors leave their garage doors cracked and/or leave the
> "side door" that opens into the garage open (behind a security
> door) for ventilation.
>
>>> Yeah, I am already imagining what things will be like when
>>> manufacturers start selling products with these sorts of
>>> capabilities. And, users start downloading apps of dubious
>>> quality to *run* their automation...
>>>
>>> "Why is my hot water heater set at 190F?"
>>> "Why is all the meat in the freezer thawed?"
>>> "Who left the garage door open?"
>>> "Ack! The roses are sitting in 6 inches of standing water!"
>>> "How did Bob, next door, manage to see me in the shower?"
>>
>> "... and why does the virus scanner say found Stux-sumpthin'?"
>
> I've protected against that, here. But, "consumers" wouldn't
> be as lucky -- since they would naively "enable updates" and.or
> haphazzardly install all sorts of "free" cruft without concern
> for *why* it's "free"! :>
>
Yup. But you are only resonably protected if you cut all web access. The
minute you use any kind of OS or "software in a can" you are vulnerable.
>>> It's just insane that they *don't* build below grade here (AZ).
>>> Especially considering the heat in Summer. Cooling load would be
>>> absolutely non-existent!
>>
>> Builders are either not smart or plain don't care about energy.
>
> They care only about how cheaply they can produce a home and
> how quickly they can unload it.
>
> And, most home *purchasers* aren't competent to evaluate the
> shortcomings of a home. "Oh, look, Honey! There's a big tree
> in the back yard like the house I grew up in!!" <frown>
>
Not so much out here. A lot of people resort to building their own
house, with their bare hands. And those tend to be the upscale buyers,
or what would have been upscale buyers.
[...]
>>>>> Early in my career, I worried almost exclusively about how well
>>>>> things *worked* without regard for what they looked like (I have
>>>>> many prototypes fabricated "on a wooden plank" or "in a wooden
>>>>> enclosure"). I think its only after you get that skill-set
>>>>> perfected that you turn your attention to other "niceties"
>>>>> like appearance, user constraints, etc.
>>>>
>>>> It's usually after you get married when that transformation happens :-)
>>>
>>> I've heard that when you are young(er), you want possessions;
>>> when older, "experiences".
>>
>> And often just pain relief. Like I right now, horrible toothache. Of
>> course, per Murphy that set in on a Friday night.
>
> Sorry. I went through a similar experience recently. I recall
> making the "calculations" as to whether I should seek care or
> risk the weekend, etc. (here, dentists don't work on fridays
> either! so, it's *three* days to reconsider your decision!)
>
I decided to pay the hefty weekend/holiday surcharge. Still some pain
but hoping it'll go away. Anesthesia doesn't work well on me, he could
not get me numb enough back there with the legal limit on injections. So
he could not go as deep as hoped or I would have jumped out of the chair
from pain :-(
>>> The idea of an eReader turns my stomach. But, I will concede
>>> this if it gives me a way to shed a few tons of paper! :-(
>>
>> Same here, but I don't want to pay twice for the books I already own. So
>> I don't have any e-readers (yet). And I certainly won't buy one with
>> vendor lock.
>
> Agreed. What happens when your device is "full"? Buy another?
> Discard something to make room for a new addition?
>
> I've just gone with PDF and EPUB formats and use a regular PC
> (a tablet in this case) to view the documents. Not as pleasant
> a reading experience as taking a book out to the back yard.
> But, if it lets me discard a whole lot of paper...
>
> Unfortunately, many of the titles just aren't available in
> these formats. And, the idea of cutting the binding off
> textbooks in order to scan their contents seems *sinful*!
There's also another issue: I think if you scan in a book you
technically must keep the original as proof that you own a copy.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-28 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kt3rje$5ng$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12795 |
Hi Joerg,
On 7/28/2013 9:22 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 7/26/2013 11:52 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>>> Given that you can (conceivably) do the communications wirelessly
>>>> (I see lots of downside risk in that approach which is why I haven't
>>>> gone that route, initially), you could put little black boxes all
>>>> over the place and never have to worry about pulling cables "inside".
>>>
>>> But what do all those little black boxes cost in terms of money and
>>> install effort?
>>
>> For me? A lot! But, that's because I can't just go to a store
>> and *buy* most of them! E.g., if my hot water heater had a network
>> connection, then I wouldn't need to design and install something
>> to control it!
>>
>> Ditto garage door opener, irrigation system, etc.
>
> Not an option for me. I design electronics for a living all day long. So
Ditto.
> on weekends and after hours I really don't want to design more
> electronics. If your job is mainly software design or something else
> then it's understandable, then this can be fun for your.
>
> That's one of the downsides of turning a hobby into a career, which I
> kind of did once I had my master's in EE.
In my case, its *always* been my hobby *and* career! One of the
few people who actually looks forward to "work". And, being
"independent" has allowed me to go looking for projects that I'm
interested in or that advance some aspect of learning that I
need in achieving long term goals.
I'm now in a place where I think I can tackle every aspect
of this project -- which has been a goal for a few decades!
Plan is for this to give me a toy to play with in my retirement!
A chance to do something worthwhile instead of just help
transfer money from party A to party B.
>>> We try to keep it simple in our house. Also, I do not
>>> want to rely on one system for all. If your LAN goes down you are
>>> screwed. It could cause plants to die.
>>
>> No! The irrigation controller can operate in the absence of the
>> network and any "central controller". Ditto with the HVAC
>> (thermostat), etc. That's the beauty of putting *smarts* at
>> each node instead of just "field wiring".
>>
>> Of course, you can't *change* the irrigation criteria if you
>> can't talk to the controller (over the LAN).
>
> That's what I meant. Ours has a knob you can turn. If a rainy phase is
> forecast we set it to 20% or maybe zero. When a scorcher comes along it
> needs to go back up. If LAN is the only way to achieve that then either
> you must hand-water or plants will die.
No, the plants still get watered. They just don't get watered
*optimally*. If you can't design a system that has a high degree
of availability, then you shouldn't be designing such systems! :>
We also still have hoses!
When your hot water heater goes on the fritz, how long before
you get it repaired? Or, your household thermostat? Something
breaks and you *fix* it. If the irrigation controller goes
"offline" (LAN failure, node failure, etc.) then BECAUSE it
is interconnected with the rest of the automation, something
will *know* and be able to report this fact. E.g., besides
"not communicating", I watch to see that V+ is sensed on the
outputs of the hammer drivers when they are off (make sure
there is a load between the collector and V+ -- and, that
V+ is actually present to the board!) and "GND" when the
driver is engaged (to verify the driver and/or cable to the
solenoid hasn't "opened"). Similarly, verify the driver is
not *shorted* (seeing GND when I expect V+).
Can you "turn that knob" when you are out of town? Or,
do you telephone a neighbor and ask them to turn it for you
in your absence? Then, turn it back the next day? (I'm
assuming your controller already is smart enough not to
water if it rained yesterday -- or the day before. Or,
is *likely* to rain TODAY!)
If yours dies, you'll find out by drooping plants! This was a
problem with my original SBC version: it only had a little
LED on the board that I used to convey status (on/off/blink).
(Recall, user interface was via a dumb terminal -- which
most often was NOT "on"). So, if I didn't happen to pass
by the SBC and actively *notice* the state of the LED, I
had no notification that something had gone wrong.
Neighbor had an irrigation valve fail (rupture). His store
bought irrigation system didn't help him work-around that
failure. Nor did it *alert* him of the failure! (and nothing
got watered BY the system while it was broken)
Learn from real-world failures so you can (where practical)
adapt your design to address them in the future! :>
>>>> [Early on, I had considered designing the irrigation controller as
>>>> a bunch of "one valve" controllers scattered, physically, around
>>>> the property. So, instead of running cable to their solenoids
>>>> from a controller, I would run power+data to their *controllers*
>>>> which were located adjacent to each individual valve! But, the
>>>> idea of having 16 little PCB's *buried* around the yard just
>>>> felt "wrong"... OTOH, I think when someone comes up with an
>>>> economical, rugged "moisture sensor" suitable for below grade
>>>> use, there will be a market for lots of "smart valves" that sit
>>>> on the water distribution line and service one or two plants
>>>> individually with "local" control! "Made in China"]
>>>
>>> We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the industry
>>> is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few companies
>>> but those serve higher-end markets.
>>
>> I think there will be a more in this direction RSN. There are
>> already firms touting "control your home from your iPhone"
>> (for only $60/month). When appliance manufacturers start
>> adopting integrated comms as a "standard feature", this will
>> get easier.
>
> They are touting since decade and nothing came of that.
That's because it is inevitable! The problem has been having a
public (consumer base) that is comfortable with this concept.
Willing to pay for it, not afraid of it, etc.
It's actually becoming a reality. How "visible" the progress
is depends on which industries you are associated with and what
sort of "news" you have available.
From:
<http://www.greenlaunches.com/gadgets-and-tech/ces-2011-shows-off-lgs-ecofriendly-networkconnected-household-appliances.php>
Appliances in the future will be a lot smarter and intelligent
than they are today, and it isn’t only the living room appliances
that we’re talking about. Homes in future will use network
connected appliances and gadgets, controlled remotely, with
better functionbility, cutting-edge features and energy
efficiency. And this year’s CES trade show in Las Vegas will
see veils pulled of some of this fresh new technology. Take LG’s
line of Thing “smart” appliances for instance, with Wi-Fi
connectivity, smart meters and programmable functions that
help them diagnose peak hours and adjust energy consumption.
Washers, dryers, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and just about
every household appliance with connectivity to network PCs and
tablets and smart phones too have shown up at CES 2011.
One problem with time-of-use tariffs has been the relative inability
of consumers to adjust their energy loads with any level of
convenience. I.e., little more than "don't turn on the lights
during the day!".
With "smart" appliances, tariffs *beyond* ToU can be developed
to allow "load staggering" and effective "load shedding" -- instead
of the slash-and-burn approach of "load shifting" that current ToU
tariffs require of their customers. The utility can get information
*from* the electric meter. But, getting *inside* the home to
effect any real-time changes in consumption has been expensive.
I.e., only worth instrumenting *huge* loads.
(Who the hell wants to live *without* air conditioning during the
peak hours? OTOH, if a utility can arrange for my compressor
to be off -- delaying when it kicks in by "a few minutes" -- while
my neighbor's is on, then the utility can better shape their load,
defer building a new power plant, etc. E.g., this is how energy
is managed in hotels and other large buildings. EVERYONE has a
refrigerator. Half a million -- or more -- of these in a city
represent a sizeable load if you can move it around "at will")
Then, there is the convenience appeal (which is how I have
thus far described this).
A research paper from another appliance manufacturer:
<http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200007/000020000700A0160223.php>
Trends in development and marketing of these types of products:
<http://www.appliancedesign.com/articles/93408-home-area-networks-which-path-to-take>
... But Lowe’s is educating homeowners, just as Best Buy does,
about connecting all devices and appliances in the home to some
type of management and control platform as well as, to a lesser
degree, each other.
A few minutes with your favorite search engine will turn up more.
Gonna happen. Count on it! :>
Question is whether you'll be strapped into a "subscription service"
or able to manage and control these things "locally". (There is
already a "dumb" service being advertised for $2/day to give you
access to SOME of the kit in your house. How much automation
could $700/year buy you?)
>> E.g., you see cars with iPod connections built in...
>
> Yeah, to charge them or play the music. <yawn>
The point is, products change to embrace changes in technology.
And, when these changes occur, you'll wonder how things could
ever have been any *different* ("It's so *obvious*!")
>> Currently, any attempt to do something like this requires a
>> "bolt on" product -- invariably more expensive than an integrated
>> solution!
>
> And it will be like that for a long, long time. Unless folks like you or
> me start a company nothing is going to change much in that domain. Big
> companies obviously cannot get it done.
But it *is* getting done! REALLY BIG companies (e.g., Samsung)
who can and do have their fingers in lots of different markets
(i.e., not *just* washing machines; or dishwashers; or...)
The idea of an IP TV seemed far fetched *10* years go. Even *5*.
Now, you have to actually worry about what your TV (not just
your "cable box") is telling the world about you!
>>>>> You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring closet
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> No. All you need in that closet is the media server and however
>>>> many pipes it needs to push enough media into your network!
>>>
>>> Until the network goes down one day, that is.
>>
>> What's far more likely to happen is a disk drive crashes and you
>> lose the media on the drive. The large drives that consumers would
>> typically purchase (incorrectly!) aren't intended for continuous
>> use.
>
> Well, there are no disk drives in our setup :-)
Then you have no "stored content" and have to rely on OTA/cable
delivery (and live with whatever choices happen to exist AT THIS
MOMENT -- i.e., even delayed viewing requires a disk!)
> Also, computers and LAN servers for my office run on average 10h/day. So
> far only one has croaked in over 10 years. Because of backups that took
> only about an hour and $60 to fix.
My workstations tend to run 24/7/365. I have yet to lose a
disk in one of them (lost *two* in a laptop and one in a
"consumer" PC -- though that might have been just something
scribbling on the boot record, etc.). I've lost one power
supply but since those are redundant, it was just a flashing
red light telling me to (hot) swap the defective supply out.
>>>> If the doorbell rings, I can "see" who is at the door without
>>>> getting up from my office chair. ...
>>>
>>> Our dogs will tell me :-)
>>
>> I've never heard a dog that could say "Bob" and "Holly"! :>
>> Or, "the guy from Cox cable"...
>
> You don't know our Labradors. Their reactions are very different. I
> always know whether it's Fedex, a friend, a friend with dogs, or a
> suspicious person. That's all we really need to know.
Great! Instead of home automation, folks just need to have
*your* dogs! (What was your food + vet bill last year?
How much automation would that have bought? :> )
Do your dogs telephone you to tell you who's there while you are
out? Or, tell you who dropped by in your absence? :>
>>> If the garage is 140F on a regular basis you have a problem. Your cars
>>> won't like that for very long. I'd fix that (ventilation etc.).
>>
>> When it's 110+ outside, it's hard for the garage NOT to creep up!
>> (We were at or above 100F for the entire month of June and another
>> 10 days into July)
>
> Same here but our garage is vented.
We haven't had to resort to that -- though the neighbors (westward
facing doors) seem to require it. But, then again, their doors
are the original, uninsulated doors that were sold with the
houses ages ago.
>>>> Yeah, I am already imagining what things will be like when
>>>> manufacturers start selling products with these sorts of
>>>> capabilities. And, users start downloading apps of dubious
>>>> quality to *run* their automation...
>>>>
>>>> "Why is my hot water heater set at 190F?"
>>>> "Why is all the meat in the freezer thawed?"
>>>> "Who left the garage door open?"
>>>> "Ack! The roses are sitting in 6 inches of standing water!"
>>>> "How did Bob, next door, manage to see me in the shower?"
>>>
>>> "... and why does the virus scanner say found Stux-sumpthin'?"
>>
>> I've protected against that, here. But, "consumers" wouldn't
>> be as lucky -- since they would naively "enable updates" and.or
>> haphazzardly install all sorts of "free" cruft without concern
>> for *why* it's "free"! :>
>
> Yup. But you are only resonably protected if you cut all web access. The
> minute you use any kind of OS or "software in a can" you are vulnerable.
Exactly. You (I) develop the software with security in mind.
You could know my (static) IP address and still never know
that there was any "accessible" automation hiding at that
address! Because it's a no brainer to expect folks to probe
for the "signature" of just such a system and target it
for attacks.
see <http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/08/technology/security/shodan/>
If you *do* know there is an automation system at this IP address,
all you can do is attempt a [D]DoS attack -- which *might* prevent
me from accessing the system OVER IP during the attack but which
won't interfere with the operation of the system itself! (i.e.,
the plants still get watered, the house still maintains the proper
temperature, etc.)
>>>> It's just insane that they *don't* build below grade here (AZ).
>>>> Especially considering the heat in Summer. Cooling load would be
>>>> absolutely non-existent!
>>>
>>> Builders are either not smart or plain don't care about energy.
>>
>> They care only about how cheaply they can produce a home and
>> how quickly they can unload it.
>>
>> And, most home *purchasers* aren't competent to evaluate the
>> shortcomings of a home. "Oh, look, Honey! There's a big tree
>> in the back yard like the house I grew up in!!" <frown>
>
> Not so much out here. A lot of people resort to building their own
> house, with their bare hands. And those tend to be the upscale buyers,
> or what would have been upscale buyers.
Doesn't mean they can appreciate a home's defects/shortcomings.
Often, they are preoccupied with a view, location, floor plan,
etc. Or, dazzled by "numbers" (R factors, etc.) that a developer
hopes will convey <something>.
"Is the slab reinforced with rebar?"
"Is the attic/roofspace vented?"
"Is the landscape sculpted to keep water away from the foundation?"
>>>> I've heard that when you are young(er), you want possessions;
>>>> when older, "experiences".
>>>
>>> And often just pain relief. Like I right now, horrible toothache. Of
>>> course, per Murphy that set in on a Friday night.
>>
>> Sorry. I went through a similar experience recently. I recall
>> making the "calculations" as to whether I should seek care or
>> risk the weekend, etc. (here, dentists don't work on fridays
>> either! so, it's *three* days to reconsider your decision!)
>
> I decided to pay the hefty weekend/holiday surcharge. Still some pain
> but hoping it'll go away. Anesthesia doesn't work well on me, he could
> not get me numb enough back there with the legal limit on injections. So
> he could not go as deep as hoped or I would have jumped out of the chair
> from pain :-(
I had a wisdom tooth that had to come out recently. Doctor through
up his hands when he got to "the limit" and the tooth was still
sensitive. "I'm going to have to put you under". "Um, why don't
we just *try* and see if I can deal with the remaining pain?"
>> Agreed. What happens when your device is "full"? Buy another?
>> Discard something to make room for a new addition?
>>
>> I've just gone with PDF and EPUB formats and use a regular PC
>> (a tablet in this case) to view the documents. Not as pleasant
>> a reading experience as taking a book out to the back yard.
>> But, if it lets me discard a whole lot of paper...
>>
>> Unfortunately, many of the titles just aren't available in
>> these formats. And, the idea of cutting the binding off
>> textbooks in order to scan their contents seems *sinful*!
>
> There's also another issue: I think if you scan in a book you
> technically must keep the original as proof that you own a copy.
I'm not sure of that. How do I prove that I have the right to
own an eBook copy? "Receipt"?
Lunch. "The Pork Dish". Yum, yum!! :>
--don
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-28 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x61vuza0o.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #12797 |
Don Y <this@isnotme.com> writes: >>> The large drives that consumers would typically purchase >>> (incorrectly!) aren't intended for continuous use. >> Well, there are no disk drives in our setup :-) > Then you have no "stored content" and have to rely on OTA/cable > delivery I don't know Joerg's setup but I didn't read it that way. I have no hard drives in any of my PC's these days (they all have solid state disks). They still have to be backed up but they don't have the mechanical durabiliity issues or other constraints that hard disks have. Write wear isn't really an issue either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-28 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5lg8dF4aa2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12797 |
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 7/28/2013 9:22 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2013 11:52 PM, Joerg wrote:
[...]
>> on weekends and after hours I really don't want to design more
>> electronics. If your job is mainly software design or something else
>> then it's understandable, then this can be fun for your.
>>
>> That's one of the downsides of turning a hobby into a career, which I
>> kind of did once I had my master's in EE.
>
> In my case, its *always* been my hobby *and* career! One of the
> few people who actually looks forward to "work". And, being
> "independent" has allowed me to go looking for projects that I'm
> interested in or that advance some aspect of learning that I
> need in achieving long term goals.
>
I always look forward to work, I love Mondays. It's been like that since
day one of my career. But one has to keep a balance and on weekends I
prefer to do other stuff. Unless a client has a project on a hot schedule.
> I'm now in a place where I think I can tackle every aspect
> of this project -- which has been a goal for a few decades!
> Plan is for this to give me a toy to play with in my retirement!
> A chance to do something worthwhile instead of just help
> transfer money from party A to party B.
>
Well, I've carved out another niche for retirement: lay caregiving. I'll
probably pick ham radio back up but most of the time I'll be in
volunteer situations. One of those things that just happened, I had not
planned for this but found that I really like it.
>>>> We try to keep it simple in our house. Also, I do not
>>>> want to rely on one system for all. If your LAN goes down you are
>>>> screwed. It could cause plants to die.
>>>
>>> No! The irrigation controller can operate in the absence of the
>>> network and any "central controller". Ditto with the HVAC
>>> (thermostat), etc. That's the beauty of putting *smarts* at
>>> each node instead of just "field wiring".
>>>
>>> Of course, you can't *change* the irrigation criteria if you
>>> can't talk to the controller (over the LAN).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> That's what I meant. Ours has a knob you can turn. If a rainy phase is
>> forecast we set it to 20% or maybe zero. When a scorcher comes along it
>> needs to go back up. If LAN is the only way to achieve that then either
>> you must hand-water or plants will die.
>
> No, the plants still get watered. They just don't get watered
> *optimally*. If you can't design a system that has a high degree
> of availability, then you shouldn't be designing such systems! :>
>
So how does your change the water quatity based on need if the LAN is
down? Above you said it can't.
> We also still have hoses!
>
Well, that would not go over too well with my missus. Just because I
wanted to super-automate everything we'd have to stand there in the
glistening sun hand-watering for 2-3h. That is how it was when we bought
the property and then I changed that.
> When your hot water heater goes on the fritz, how long before
> you get it repaired? Or, your household thermostat? ...
If I am on a major business trip maybe 1-2 weeks.
[...]
>
> Learn from real-world failures so you can (where practical)
> adapt your design to address them in the future! :>
>
Well, I subscribe to the philosophy of keeping things simple. I only
network stuff when I have to.
>>>>> [Early on, I had considered designing the irrigation controller as
>>>>> a bunch of "one valve" controllers scattered, physically, around
>>>>> the property. So, instead of running cable to their solenoids
>>>>> from a controller, I would run power+data to their *controllers*
>>>>> which were located adjacent to each individual valve! But, the
>>>>> idea of having 16 little PCB's *buried* around the yard just
>>>>> felt "wrong"... OTOH, I think when someone comes up with an
>>>>> economical, rugged "moisture sensor" suitable for below grade
>>>>> use, there will be a market for lots of "smart valves" that sit
>>>>> on the water distribution line and service one or two plants
>>>>> individually with "local" control! "Made in China"]
>>>>
>>>> We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the industry
>>>> is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few companies
>>>> but those serve higher-end markets.
>>>
>>> I think there will be a more in this direction RSN. There are
>>> already firms touting "control your home from your iPhone"
>>> (for only $60/month). When appliance manufacturers start
>>> adopting integrated comms as a "standard feature", this will
>>> get easier.
>>
>> They are touting since decade and nothing came of that.
>
> That's because it is inevitable! The problem has been having a
> public (consumer base) that is comfortable with this concept.
> Willing to pay for it, not afraid of it, etc.
>
No, the problem is incompetence of marketing departments. Lots of people
want this. When we showed our (less than reliable) X-10 stuff to people
they absolutely wanted it. You and I can make a good quality PLC wall
switch that retails for $19.95, but industry obviously can't.
> It's actually becoming a reality. How "visible" the progress
> is depends on which industries you are associated with and what
> sort of "news" you have available.
>
> From:
>
> <http://www.greenlaunches.com/gadgets-and-tech/ces-2011-shows-off-lgs-ecofriendly-networkconnected-household-appliances.php>
>
>
> Appliances in the future will be a lot smarter and intelligent
> than they are today, ...
and yada, yada, yada. I've heard that for years, if not decades. Then
when you look into it it is either just the high-end isoalted app or
it's totally overpriced.
If it doesn't sell at Lowe's or Home Depot it does not really exist.
[...]
> One problem with time-of-use tariffs has been the relative inability
> of consumers to adjust their energy loads with any level of
> convenience. I.e., little more than "don't turn on the lights
> during the day!".
>
The real reason is that the utilities have screwed up the smart grid.
The user has no feedback what he is currently using, no immediate
feedback about market pricing, nada, zilch.
> With "smart" appliances, tariffs *beyond* ToU can be developed
> to allow "load staggering" and effective "load shedding" -- instead
> of the slash-and-burn approach of "load shifting" that current ToU
> tariffs require of their customers. The utility can get information
> *from* the electric meter. But, getting *inside* the home to
> effect any real-time changes in consumption has been expensive.
> I.e., only worth instrumenting *huge* loads.
>
Only with proper feedback and that's not happening. You cannot have a
functioning regulator when the feedback connection is not in place.
> (Who the hell wants to live *without* air conditioning during the
> peak hours? OTOH, if a utility can arrange for my compressor
> to be off -- delaying when it kicks in by "a few minutes" -- while
> my neighbor's is on, then the utility can better shape their load,
> defer building a new power plant, etc. E.g., this is how energy
> is managed in hotels and other large buildings. EVERYONE has a
> refrigerator. Half a million -- or more -- of these in a city
> represent a sizeable load if you can move it around "at will")
>
All they have here is a crude bang-bang on-off for the compressor. It
increases short-cycling, bad for the compressor. We won't allow that.
> Then, there is the convenience appeal (which is how I have
> thus far described this).
>
> A research paper from another appliance manufacturer:
>
> <http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200007/000020000700A0160223.php>
>
> Trends in development and marketing of these types of products:
>
> <http://www.appliancedesign.com/articles/93408-home-area-networks-which-path-to-take>
>
>
> ... But Lowe’s is educating homeowners, just as Best Buy does,
> about connecting all devices and appliances in the home to some
> type of management and control platform as well as, to a lesser
> degree, each other.
>
Education without reasonably priced product on the shelves means nothing.
> A few minutes with your favorite search engine will turn up more.
>
> Gonna happen. Count on it! :>
>
Again, I only believe it if Lowe's or Home Depot has it.
> Question is whether you'll be strapped into a "subscription service"
> or able to manage and control these things "locally". (There is
> already a "dumb" service being advertised for $2/day to give you
> access to SOME of the kit in your house. How much automation
> could $700/year buy you?)
>
Not gonna happen. That is the wrong approach for HA, unless it is
specialty stuff where feedback to a supplier is required (I've helped
design one of those).
[...]
>>> Currently, any attempt to do something like this requires a
>>> "bolt on" product -- invariably more expensive than an integrated
>>> solution!
>>
>> And it will be like that for a long, long time. Unless folks like you or
>> me start a company nothing is going to change much in that domain. Big
>> companies obviously cannot get it done.
>
> But it *is* getting done! REALLY BIG companies (e.g., Samsung)
> who can and do have their fingers in lots of different markets
> (i.e., not *just* washing machines; or dishwashers; or...)
>
So where is reasonably priced product available, right now?
> The idea of an IP TV seemed far fetched *10* years go. Even *5*.
> Now, you have to actually worry about what your TV (not just
> your "cable box") is telling the world about you!
>
To me that was obvious all along, even 10 years ago. I strongly believe
that the switch to digital TV was a mistake, it was already obsolete to
younger generations before it began. They stream their stuff from the
web and get it from Netflix.
>>>>>> You just brought up a perfect argument for a centralized wiring
>>>>>> closet
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> No. All you need in that closet is the media server and however
>>>>> many pipes it needs to push enough media into your network!
>>>>
>>>> Until the network goes down one day, that is.
>>>
>>> What's far more likely to happen is a disk drive crashes and you
>>> lose the media on the drive. The large drives that consumers would
>>> typically purchase (incorrectly!) aren't intended for continuous
>>> use.
>>
>> Well, there are no disk drives in our setup :-)
>
> Then you have no "stored content" and have to rely on OTA/cable
> delivery (and live with whatever choices happen to exist AT THIS
> MOMENT -- i.e., even delayed viewing requires a disk!)
>
We do have a VCR.
[...]
>>>>> If the doorbell rings, I can "see" who is at the door without
>>>>> getting up from my office chair. ...
>>>>
>>>> Our dogs will tell me :-)
>>>
>>> I've never heard a dog that could say "Bob" and "Holly"! :>
>>> Or, "the guy from Cox cable"...
>>
>> You don't know our Labradors. Their reactions are very different. I
>> always know whether it's Fedex, a friend, a friend with dogs, or a
>> suspicious person. That's all we really need to know.
>
> Great! Instead of home automation, folks just need to have
> *your* dogs! (What was your food + vet bill last year?
> How much automation would that have bought? :> )
>
They are also therapy dogs, visiting Alzheimer's patients and others.
How many such visit per week can a HA system do and how would it cozy up
to people?
> Do your dogs telephone you to tell you who's there while you are
> out? Or, tell you who dropped by in your absence? :>
>
We don't need to know that :-)
[...]
>>>>> I've heard that when you are young(er), you want possessions;
>>>>> when older, "experiences".
>>>>
>>>> And often just pain relief. Like I right now, horrible toothache. Of
>>>> course, per Murphy that set in on a Friday night.
>>>
>>> Sorry. I went through a similar experience recently. I recall
>>> making the "calculations" as to whether I should seek care or
>>> risk the weekend, etc. (here, dentists don't work on fridays
>>> either! so, it's *three* days to reconsider your decision!)
>>
>> I decided to pay the hefty weekend/holiday surcharge. Still some pain
>> but hoping it'll go away. Anesthesia doesn't work well on me, he could
>> not get me numb enough back there with the legal limit on injections. So
>> he could not go as deep as hoped or I would have jumped out of the chair
>> from pain :-(
>
> I had a wisdom tooth that had to come out recently. Doctor through
> up his hands when he got to "the limit" and the tooth was still
> sensitive. "I'm going to have to put you under". "Um, why don't
> we just *try* and see if I can deal with the remaining pain?"
>
Well, seems my pain is coming back :-(
>>> Agreed. What happens when your device is "full"? Buy another?
>>> Discard something to make room for a new addition?
>>>
>>> I've just gone with PDF and EPUB formats and use a regular PC
>>> (a tablet in this case) to view the documents. Not as pleasant
>>> a reading experience as taking a book out to the back yard.
>>> But, if it lets me discard a whole lot of paper...
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, many of the titles just aren't available in
>>> these formats. And, the idea of cutting the binding off
>>> textbooks in order to scan their contents seems *sinful*!
>>
>> There's also another issue: I think if you scan in a book you
>> technically must keep the original as proof that you own a copy.
>
> I'm not sure of that. How do I prove that I have the right to
> own an eBook copy? "Receipt"?
>
I don't know how they work. The one's I have are standards and that's
passcode protected. So rightful ownership is fairly obvious.
> Lunch. "The Pork Dish". Yum, yum!! :>
>
We'll have tri-tip tonight, and bread and sausages. All from the old
Weber barbecue. Not sure if I can eat though, on account of the bad
molar root.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <this@isnotme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-28 16:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kt49s0$b8d$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12800 |
Hi Joerg, On 7/28/2013 2:20 PM, Joerg wrote: >> In my case, its *always* been my hobby *and* career! One of the >> few people who actually looks forward to "work". And, being >> "independent" has allowed me to go looking for projects that I'm >> interested in or that advance some aspect of learning that I >> need in achieving long term goals. > > I always look forward to work, I love Mondays. It's been like that since > day one of my career. But one has to keep a balance and on weekends I > prefer to do other stuff. Unless a client has a project on a hot schedule. I don't watch a calendar. Every day is the same as every other. If I want to work on a car on a weekday, I work on the car. If I want to write software on the weekend, I write software. I long ago gave up on the idea of wearing a wristwatch. Keeping track of the day of the week is virtually impossible given I don't have to "report" to anyone/anyplace. And, with the absence of the *seasons* (hot1, hot2, hot3 and hot4), its hard for me to even keep track of the *year*! <frown> I usually get it right (when writing checks) by March or so! >>>> Of course, you can't *change* the irrigation criteria if you >>>> can't talk to the controller (over the LAN). > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>> That's what I meant. Ours has a knob you can turn. If a rainy phase is >>> forecast we set it to 20% or maybe zero. When a scorcher comes along it >>> needs to go back up. If LAN is the only way to achieve that then either >>> you must hand-water or plants will die. >> >> No, the plants still get watered. They just don't get watered >> *optimally*. If you can't design a system that has a high degree >> of availability, then you shouldn't be designing such systems! :> > > So how does your change the water quatity based on need if the LAN is > down? Above you said it can't. I can't. But, I can still ensure they get watered! I can't adjust the indoor household conditions based on outdoor conditions unless I can talk to the weatherstation. But, that doesn't mean the house will be 95 degrees in Summer or 62 in Winter! How do you deal with your irrigation controller breaking? You *fix* it. How do you *know* it's broken? You have to visually observe the wetness of the soil, droop of the plants, etc. At least if the network goes down, I know in a matter of seconds! (even if I am not home at the time) >> Learn from real-world failures so you can (where practical) >> adapt your design to address them in the future! :> > > Well, I subscribe to the philosophy of keeping things simple. I only > network stuff when I have to. And you have only the capabilities that non-interconnected devices have. If that works for you, great! You may find that folks with disabilities (perhaps yourself, someday) find having to conform to the requirements imposed by some sighted, nondeaf, mobile, agile, young designer poses a bit of a challenge. [I have several friends with partial paralysis from strokes; Parkinson's; ALS; missing limbs; deaf; blind or legally blind; etc. The list gets *longer* as I get older! Ever watch someone with Parkinsonian tremor use a mouse? "Just click on the red box in the upper left corner..." Or, someone in a wheelchair try to navigate to the garage to close the door before retiring? Or someone blind wondering if they've turned off the lights in the house before retiring? Along with ensuring the stovetop is off?] >>>>> We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the industry >>>>> is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few companies >>>>> but those serve higher-end markets. >>>> >>>> I think there will be a more in this direction RSN. There are >>>> already firms touting "control your home from your iPhone" >>>> (for only $60/month). When appliance manufacturers start >>>> adopting integrated comms as a "standard feature", this will >>>> get easier. >>> >>> They are touting since decade and nothing came of that. >> >> That's because it is inevitable! The problem has been having a >> public (consumer base) that is comfortable with this concept. >> Willing to pay for it, not afraid of it, etc. > > No, the problem is incompetence of marketing departments. Lots of people > want this. When we showed our (less than reliable) X-10 stuff to people > they absolutely wanted it. You and I can make a good quality PLC wall > switch that retails for $19.95, but industry obviously can't. Industry wants early adopters to subsidize their entire development. E.g., witness what "structured wiring" costs if purchased in the consumer marketplace (vs. what the same sorts of items *have* cost for Industry). >> It's actually becoming a reality. How "visible" the progress >> is depends on which industries you are associated with and what >> sort of "news" you have available. >> >> From: >> >> <http://www.greenlaunches.com/gadgets-and-tech/ces-2011-shows-off-lgs-ecofriendly-networkconnected-household-appliances.php> >> >> Appliances in the future will be a lot smarter and intelligent >> than they are today, ... > > and yada, yada, yada. I've heard that for years, if not decades. Then > when you look into it it is either just the high-end isoalted app or > it's totally overpriced. > > If it doesn't sell at Lowe's or Home Depot it does not really exist. Note that the article referenced Loew's *and* Home Depot. As I said, "RSN". >> One problem with time-of-use tariffs has been the relative inability >> of consumers to adjust their energy loads with any level of >> convenience. I.e., little more than "don't turn on the lights >> during the day!". > > The real reason is that the utilities have screwed up the smart grid. > The user has no feedback what he is currently using, no immediate > feedback about market pricing, nada, zilch. But there is nothing for the user to *do* with that information! How does he *know* what loads to shed to reap a given level of reward? Does he even know *where* his power is being consumed? Or, when? If he could look at a wall display and see it showing KW/Hr (i.e., "rate"), how could he determine *what* was contributing to that figure? Run around turning things on and off and then run back to see what the display indicates? Do you *know* what's burning power in your home on any given minute of any day? SWMBO complained that the computers were drawing too much power. I left the computers on and swapped out the plasma TV for a conventional one (plasma needed service). When the next month's bill dropped significantly, she wondered how -- given that the computers were still humming along... If you can instrument these loads and give "something" control over them, then you can more readily inspect their costs *and* develop strategies to minimize those costs. E.g., use the swamp cooler instead of the ACbrrr when you expect it to be reasonably dry outside. Let the heat fall off as your "typical bedtime" approaches (instead of casting that in concrete at a particular time in a naive setback thermostat) >> With "smart" appliances, tariffs *beyond* ToU can be developed >> to allow "load staggering" and effective "load shedding" -- instead >> of the slash-and-burn approach of "load shifting" that current ToU >> tariffs require of their customers. The utility can get information >> *from* the electric meter. But, getting *inside* the home to >> effect any real-time changes in consumption has been expensive. >> I.e., only worth instrumenting *huge* loads. > > Only with proper feedback and that's not happening. You cannot have a > functioning regulator when the feedback connection is not in place. Meter technology is old hat. The problem has been getting to the actual *loads* in a "user acceptable" manner. E.g., the CAL-TOU spec is 20+ years old (?). You will encounter smart meters on many businesses and a few homes (e.g., "all electric" homes where they have a different tariff to account for their heating costs, etc.). But, what's the incentive for the utility to deploy these on residences? Unless the consumer is willing to sign up for a ToU tariff, why bother? (e.g., we can avail ourselves of such a tariff but the terms are ludicrous so we'll stick with the conventional tariff) >> (Who the hell wants to live *without* air conditioning during the >> peak hours? OTOH, if a utility can arrange for my compressor >> to be off -- delaying when it kicks in by "a few minutes" -- while >> my neighbor's is on, then the utility can better shape their load, >> defer building a new power plant, etc. E.g., this is how energy >> is managed in hotels and other large buildings. EVERYONE has a >> refrigerator. Half a million -- or more -- of these in a city >> represent a sizeable load if you can move it around "at will") > > All they have here is a crude bang-bang on-off for the compressor. It > increases short-cycling, bad for the compressor. We won't allow that. Exactly. OTOH, if you could talk *to* the thermostat and see what it has done "recently", it could suggest whether now would be a good/great/terrible time to gate it off. (e.g., if the compressor JUST turned off, this is the ideal time for you to shift the load to a neighbor's home). It's conceivable that an interactive automation system could *bid* on conservation. "I'm willing to forego a load of X for a period of Y, *now*" and let the utility accept/reject these bids in real time to better *manage* the load -- with the consent of the consumer! >> Then, there is the convenience appeal (which is how I have >> thus far described this). >> >> A research paper from another appliance manufacturer: >> >> <http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200007/000020000700A0160223.php> >> >> Trends in development and marketing of these types of products: >> >> <http://www.appliancedesign.com/articles/93408-home-area-networks-which-path-to-take> >> >> >> ... But Lowe’s is educating homeowners, just as Best Buy does, >> about connecting all devices and appliances in the home to some >> type of management and control platform as well as, to a lesser >> degree, each other. > > Education without reasonably priced product on the shelves means nothing. How much is a TV worth? When will you decide that 102" diag TV is "priced right"? Prices evolve. As does acceptance and desire for features/capabilities. We've still decided cell phones are "too expensive" based on the level of use that they would see, here. Other folks spend $100+ a month. For a *phone*??? >> Question is whether you'll be strapped into a "subscription service" >> or able to manage and control these things "locally". (There is >> already a "dumb" service being advertised for $2/day to give you >> access to SOME of the kit in your house. How much automation >> could $700/year buy you?) > > Not gonna happen. That is the wrong approach for HA, unless it is > specialty stuff where feedback to a supplier is required (I've helped > design one of those). Already happening. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/26/att-launching-home-security-and-automation-service/2113511/> <http://www.cedmagazine.com/articles/2012/04/home-automation-the-new-frontier-for-service-providers> <http://www.homesecurityhomeautomation.com/> <http://www.in-homeautomation.com/> <http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2013/06/03/time-warner-launches-home-automation-service.html> etc. FWIW, google would love to get into this! Not just see what you go looking for "on-line" but see what you *do* inside your home! New TV's "watch" (literally) their viewers. "Hmmm... I guess that commercial wasn't very effective. Everyone left the room when it aired!" >>>> Currently, any attempt to do something like this requires a >>>> "bolt on" product -- invariably more expensive than an integrated >>>> solution! >>> >>> And it will be like that for a long, long time. Unless folks like you or >>> me start a company nothing is going to change much in that domain. Big >>> companies obviously cannot get it done. >> >> But it *is* getting done! REALLY BIG companies (e.g., Samsung) >> who can and do have their fingers in lots of different markets >> (i.e., not *just* washing machines; or dishwashers; or...) > > So where is reasonably priced product available, right now? Depends on what you consider "reasonable". E.g., I don't consider $3 for a single CAT5 keystone connector "reasonable". But, apparently, there are peole who *do* (because you see them sold at those prices and shelf stock varying over time) We were stunned when we went looking at refrigerators. Many $K for modest ones. And, lots of them with fancy displays, internet connectivity, etc. From: <http://www.gizmag.com/go/1132/> "The LG adverts on telly don't do it justice. The LG Internet Refrigerator has the coolest set of features ever seen in the kitchen. It is a 730 litre, stainless-steel, side by side fridge, with an in-built computer which can be accessed via a 37 centimetre touch-screen LCD monitor mounted on the fridge door. Users can watch TV, listen to MP3 music, take and store digital photos, make a video phone call, use the fridge as a message board or surf the web. It also has VCR and DVD ports, a microphone and speakers. Information about food in the fridge can be stored and a map of the fridge allows the owner to keep an inventory of what foods are in each section and how long they have been there. It's biggest advantage will be its functionality as a food management system. It also has an inbuilt hard drive and modem, so that the appliance can be 'connected' by simply running a phone connection into it. $15,000 is the anticipated RRP when it's released later this year. " $15K for an icebox??? WTF??! But, you can bet someone will buy it! And, just like $10,000 VTR's, they lead the way to the cheaper versions that follow! A stainless steel car??? (DeLorean) >>> You don't know our Labradors. Their reactions are very different. I >>> always know whether it's Fedex, a friend, a friend with dogs, or a >>> suspicious person. That's all we really need to know. >> >> Great! Instead of home automation, folks just need to have >> *your* dogs! (What was your food + vet bill last year? >> How much automation would that have bought? :> ) > > They are also therapy dogs, visiting Alzheimer's patients and others. > How many such visit per week can a HA system do and how would it cozy up > to people? I can always buy a dog! You can't buy an automation system until someone makes one affordable! >> Do your dogs telephone you to tell you who's there while you are >> out? Or, tell you who dropped by in your absence? :> > > We don't need to know that :-) Ah, I want to know if a client stopped by in my absence. Or, if a neighbor who was *going* to stop by did so and I happened to have mistimed a trip to the store (so I don't call and ask him *when* he's going to stop by... only to be greeted with "I was there two hours ago and no one answered the door") >>> I decided to pay the hefty weekend/holiday surcharge. Still some pain >>> but hoping it'll go away. Anesthesia doesn't work well on me, he could >>> not get me numb enough back there with the legal limit on injections. So >>> he could not go as deep as hoped or I would have jumped out of the chair >>> from pain :-( >> >> I had a wisdom tooth that had to come out recently. Doctor through >> up his hands when he got to "the limit" and the tooth was still >> sensitive. "I'm going to have to put you under". "Um, why don't >> we just *try* and see if I can deal with the remaining pain?" > > Well, seems my pain is coming back :-( Sorry. Tooth pain is a special kind of pain! >> Lunch. "The Pork Dish". Yum, yum!! :> > > We'll have tri-tip tonight, and bread and sausages. All from the old > Weber barbecue. Not sure if I can eat though, on account of the bad > molar root. Bummer. Nice big piece of tenderloin for today's meal. She complains, "Lately, the pieces seem to be really large!" He just smiles and says, "Really? I hadn't noticed..." ;-) Good luck with your tooth! --don
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-07-28 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5lrtkF6iqcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12805 |
Don Y wrote: > Hi Joerg, > > On 7/28/2013 2:20 PM, Joerg wrote: > >>> In my case, its *always* been my hobby *and* career! One of the >>> few people who actually looks forward to "work". And, being >>> "independent" has allowed me to go looking for projects that I'm >>> interested in or that advance some aspect of learning that I >>> need in achieving long term goals. >> >> I always look forward to work, I love Mondays. It's been like that since >> day one of my career. But one has to keep a balance and on weekends I >> prefer to do other stuff. Unless a client has a project on a hot >> schedule. > > I don't watch a calendar. Every day is the same as every other. > If I want to work on a car on a weekday, I work on the car. If > I want to write software on the weekend, I write software. I long > ago gave up on the idea of wearing a wristwatch. Keeping track > of the day of the week is virtually impossible given I don't have > to "report" to anyone/anyplace. And, with the absence of the > *seasons* (hot1, hot2, hot3 and hot4), its hard for me to even keep > track of the *year*! <frown> I usually get it right (when writing > checks) by March or so! > Doesn't work well for us. Besides church there is also regular volunteer activity where other people rely on us to be punctual. Then numerous clients who do tend to work Mon-Fri. So I have to as well. And man needs rest once in a while. That is Sunday for us, Saturday is "chores day". >>>>> Of course, you can't *change* the irrigation criteria if you >>>>> can't talk to the controller (over the LAN). >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>>> That's what I meant. Ours has a knob you can turn. If a rainy phase is >>>> forecast we set it to 20% or maybe zero. When a scorcher comes along it >>>> needs to go back up. If LAN is the only way to achieve that then either >>>> you must hand-water or plants will die. >>> >>> No, the plants still get watered. They just don't get watered >>> *optimally*. If you can't design a system that has a high degree >>> of availability, then you shouldn't be designing such systems! :> >> >> So how does your change the water quatity based on need if the LAN is >> down? Above you said it can't. > > I can't. But, I can still ensure they get watered! I can't adjust > the indoor household conditions based on outdoor conditions unless > I can talk to the weatherstation. But, that doesn't mean the house > will be 95 degrees in Summer or 62 in Winter! > > How do you deal with your irrigation controller breaking? You > *fix* it. How do you *know* it's broken? You have to visually > observe the wetness of the soil, droop of the plants, etc. > > At least if the network goes down, I know in a matter of seconds! > (even if I am not home at the time) > The advantage with the simple irrigation controller is that if it croaks while I am gone I can simply tell my wife where to get a new one and she can install it. With a problem somewhere in the LAN that would be a real challenge. >>> Learn from real-world failures so you can (where practical) >>> adapt your design to address them in the future! :> >> >> Well, I subscribe to the philosophy of keeping things simple. I only >> network stuff when I have to. > > And you have only the capabilities that non-interconnected devices > have. If that works for you, great! You may find that folks with > disabilities (perhaps yourself, someday) find having to conform to > the requirements imposed by some sighted, nondeaf, mobile, agile, > young designer poses a bit of a challenge. > > [I have several friends with partial paralysis from strokes; > Parkinson's; ALS; missing limbs; deaf; blind or legally blind; > etc. The list gets *longer* as I get older! Ever watch someone > with Parkinsonian tremor use a mouse? "Just click on the red > box in the upper left corner..." Or, someone in a wheelchair > try to navigate to the garage to close the door before retiring? > Or someone blind wondering if they've turned off the lights > in the house before retiring? Along with ensuring the stovetop > is off?] > That would be the point where I'd really start simplifying my life, getting a smaller house, maybe even consider a 55+ community. But as long as one spouse is ok it may not be an issue, as long as it doesn't cause undue overload stress level in the healthier spouse. >>>>>> We are far, far away from that kind of automation. Most of the >>>>>> industry >>>>>> is plain dumb when it comes to that. Except for a select few >>>>>> companies >>>>>> but those serve higher-end markets. >>>>> >>>>> I think there will be a more in this direction RSN. There are >>>>> already firms touting "control your home from your iPhone" >>>>> (for only $60/month). When appliance manufacturers start >>>>> adopting integrated comms as a "standard feature", this will >>>>> get easier. >>>> >>>> They are touting since decade and nothing came of that. >>> >>> That's because it is inevitable! The problem has been having a >>> public (consumer base) that is comfortable with this concept. >>> Willing to pay for it, not afraid of it, etc. >> >> No, the problem is incompetence of marketing departments. Lots of people >> want this. When we showed our (less than reliable) X-10 stuff to people >> they absolutely wanted it. You and I can make a good quality PLC wall >> switch that retails for $19.95, but industry obviously can't. > > Industry wants early adopters to subsidize their entire development. That will never work. > E.g., witness what "structured wiring" costs if purchased in the > consumer marketplace (vs. what the same sorts of items *have* cost > for Industry). > I never believe in getting out the gate with high prices. That is a major mistake high up in the corporate leader board. >>> It's actually becoming a reality. How "visible" the progress >>> is depends on which industries you are associated with and what >>> sort of "news" you have available. >>> >>> From: >>> >>> <http://www.greenlaunches.com/gadgets-and-tech/ces-2011-shows-off-lgs-ecofriendly-networkconnected-household-appliances.php> >>> >>> >>> Appliances in the future will be a lot smarter and intelligent >>> than they are today, ... >> >> and yada, yada, yada. I've heard that for years, if not decades. Then >> when you look into it it is either just the high-end isoalted app or >> it's totally overpriced. >> >> If it doesn't sell at Lowe's or Home Depot it does not really exist. > > Note that the article referenced Loew's *and* Home Depot. As > I said, "RSN". > Well, it ain't there yet and I won't believe it before it's there. >>> One problem with time-of-use tariffs has been the relative inability >>> of consumers to adjust their energy loads with any level of >>> convenience. I.e., little more than "don't turn on the lights >>> during the day!". >> >> The real reason is that the utilities have screwed up the smart grid. >> The user has no feedback what he is currently using, no immediate >> feedback about market pricing, nada, zilch. > > But there is nothing for the user to *do* with that information! > How does he *know* what loads to shed to reap a given level of reward? > Does he even know *where* his power is being consumed? Or, when? > If he could look at a wall display and see it showing KW/Hr (i.e., > "rate"), how could he determine *what* was contributing to that > figure? Run around turning things on and off and then run back to > see what the display indicates? > This is exactly what home automation is for. Say someone starts loading the dryer. The computer in there senses the door being opened, then responds "Hey, a kWh is 45c right now, sure you want to do this? Yesterday it was down to 16c by 7:30pm". Or it could just suggest to impulse-tumble the load until the prices drop, then step on it and notify you on the display panels. You can hit [YES] or [NO]. It's easy. But it will only work if the utilities or at least the public utilities commissions wisen up, and the HA industry gets into gear. In other words all that has to come together. > Do you *know* what's burning power in your home on any given minute of > any day? ... No, but if the utility had been smart enough not to let the 2.45GHz radio lay fallow I would know. All I see is a big fat nonsensical carrier clogging up a channel needlessly. It's stupid. > ... SWMBO complained that the computers were drawing too much > power. I left the computers on and swapped out the plasma TV for > a conventional one (plasma needed service). When the next month's > bill dropped significantly, she wondered how -- given that the > computers were still humming along... > > If you can instrument these loads and give "something" control > over them, then you can more readily inspect their costs *and* > develop strategies to minimize those costs. E.g., use the swamp > cooler instead of the ACbrrr when you expect it to be reasonably > dry outside. Let the heat fall off as your "typical bedtime" > approaches (instead of casting that in concrete at a particular > time in a naive setback thermostat) > Right. But there are no instruments. >>> With "smart" appliances, tariffs *beyond* ToU can be developed >>> to allow "load staggering" and effective "load shedding" -- instead >>> of the slash-and-burn approach of "load shifting" that current ToU >>> tariffs require of their customers. The utility can get information >>> *from* the electric meter. But, getting *inside* the home to >>> effect any real-time changes in consumption has been expensive. >>> I.e., only worth instrumenting *huge* loads. >> >> Only with proper feedback and that's not happening. You cannot have a >> functioning regulator when the feedback connection is not in place. > > Meter technology is old hat. ... And they still don't have feedback. The technology is in there but the movers and shakers aren't competent enough to open them up. But they collect fat pensions. Pathetic. > ... The problem has been getting to > the actual *loads* in a "user acceptable" manner. E.g., the > CAL-TOU spec is 20+ years old (?). You will encounter smart > meters on many businesses and a few homes (e.g., "all electric" > homes where they have a different tariff to account for their > heating costs, etc.). But, what's the incentive for the utility > to deploy these on residences? Unless the consumer is willing to > sign up for a ToU tariff, why bother? (e.g., we can avail ourselves > of such a tariff but the terms are ludicrous so we'll stick with > the conventional tariff) > Correct, because of ludicrous terms we also have no TOU. Someone needs to wake up first, and that's not happening. >>> (Who the hell wants to live *without* air conditioning during the >>> peak hours? OTOH, if a utility can arrange for my compressor >>> to be off -- delaying when it kicks in by "a few minutes" -- while >>> my neighbor's is on, then the utility can better shape their load, >>> defer building a new power plant, etc. E.g., this is how energy >>> is managed in hotels and other large buildings. EVERYONE has a >>> refrigerator. Half a million -- or more -- of these in a city >>> represent a sizeable load if you can move it around "at will") >> >> All they have here is a crude bang-bang on-off for the compressor. It >> increases short-cycling, bad for the compressor. We won't allow that. > > Exactly. OTOH, if you could talk *to* the thermostat and > see what it has done "recently", it could suggest whether > now would be a good/great/terrible time to gate it off. > (e.g., if the compressor JUST turned off, this is the ideal > time for you to shift the load to a neighbor's home). > > It's conceivable that an interactive automation system could > *bid* on conservation. "I'm willing to forego a load of X > for a period of Y, *now*" and let the utility accept/reject > these bids in real time to better *manage* the load -- with the > consent of the consumer! > Exactly. But don't expect anything like that soon. Because the people who could architect that seem not to be smart enough for that. Just like the people setting incentives for energy conservation aren't. Why is it that if we had installed an A/C that uses 6kW instead of 7kW would have resulted in a fat incentive but installing an evap cooler that dropped it to 0.35kW didn't? >>> Then, there is the convenience appeal (which is how I have >>> thus far described this). >>> >>> A research paper from another appliance manufacturer: >>> >>> <http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200007/000020000700A0160223.php> >>> >>> Trends in development and marketing of these types of products: >>> >>> <http://www.appliancedesign.com/articles/93408-home-area-networks-which-path-to-take> >>> >>> >>> >>> ... But Lowe’s is educating homeowners, just as Best Buy does, >>> about connecting all devices and appliances in the home to some >>> type of management and control platform as well as, to a lesser >>> degree, each other. >> >> Education without reasonably priced product on the shelves means nothing. > > How much is a TV worth? When will you decide that 102" diag > TV is "priced right"? Prices evolve. As does acceptance and > desire for features/capabilities. > Totally different thing. A 102" TV is bought because the neighbor just got a 95" set and that peeved the other guy. Or it's football season. Or whatever. HA, in contrast, is a business proposition just like TOU or solar is. If it doesn't compute then people will not buy. Even I won't. > We've still decided cell phones are "too expensive" based on > the level of use that they would see, here. Other folks spend > $100+ a month. For a *phone*??? > Well, we have ours for emergencies and I do for business. Costs us around $7/phone/mo. Worth it. We don't even use up the roughly 30mins/mo that buys so they keep piling up. >>> Question is whether you'll be strapped into a "subscription service" >>> or able to manage and control these things "locally". (There is >>> already a "dumb" service being advertised for $2/day to give you >>> access to SOME of the kit in your house. How much automation >>> could $700/year buy you?) >> >> Not gonna happen. That is the wrong approach for HA, unless it is >> specialty stuff where feedback to a supplier is required (I've helped >> design one of those). > > Already happening. > > <http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/04/26/att-launching-home-security-and-automation-service/2113511/> > So AT&T wants to become another alarm company? <yawn> > > <http://www.cedmagazine.com/articles/2012/04/home-automation-the-new-frontier-for-service-providers> > Quote "but the base price starts at $39.95 a month plus an installation fee" -> DOA. > > <http://www.homesecurityhomeautomation.com/> > > <http://www.in-homeautomation.com/> > > <http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2013/06/03/time-warner-launches-home-automation-service.html> > Quote "The service requires Time Warner Cable’s Internet service and costs $33.99 a month when bundled with cable TV or phone service. The contract, which includes a security monitoring service, is for 18 months" ... You really believe that will fly? How on earth do they want to catch someone like us who will not subscribe to their cable TV or phone? > > etc. > > FWIW, google would love to get into this! Not just see what > you go looking for "on-line" but see what you *do* inside > your home! > So why don't they? They've got enough money. A few years ago they were on the right track by starting an eneergy monitoring thing. But then ditched it ... > New TV's "watch" (literally) their viewers. "Hmmm... I guess that > commercial wasn't very effective. Everyone left the room when > it aired!" > >>>>> Currently, any attempt to do something like this requires a >>>>> "bolt on" product -- invariably more expensive than an integrated >>>>> solution! >>>> >>>> And it will be like that for a long, long time. Unless folks like >>>> you or >>>> me start a company nothing is going to change much in that domain. Big >>>> companies obviously cannot get it done. >>> >>> But it *is* getting done! REALLY BIG companies (e.g., Samsung) >>> who can and do have their fingers in lots of different markets >>> (i.e., not *just* washing machines; or dishwashers; or...) >> >> So where is reasonably priced product available, right now? > > Depends on what you consider "reasonable". E.g., I don't consider > $3 for a single CAT5 keystone connector "reasonable". But, > apparently, there are peole who *do* (because you see them sold at > those prices and shelf stock varying over time) > A keystone connector won't make home automation happen. That needs a lot more stuff. > We were stunned when we went looking at refrigerators. Many > $K for modest ones. And, lots of them with fancy displays, > internet connectivity, etc. > Nah, they don't cost more than 16 years ago when we bought ours here: http://www.sears.com/kenmore-25.4-cu-ft-side-by-side-refrigerator/p-04650023000P?prdNo=1&blockNo=1&blockType=G1 Just ditch all the glitzy stuff and it'll be around $1k. > From: > <http://www.gizmag.com/go/1132/> > > "The LG adverts on telly don't do it justice. The LG Internet > Refrigerator has the coolest set of features ever seen in the > kitchen. It is a 730 litre, stainless-steel, side by side fridge, > with an in-built computer which can be accessed via a 37 centimetre > touch-screen LCD monitor mounted on the fridge door. Users can watch > TV, listen to MP3 music, take and store digital photos, make a video > phone call, use the fridge as a message board or surf the web. It > also has VCR and DVD ports, a microphone and speakers. Information > about food in the fridge can be stored and a map of the fridge allows > the owner to keep an inventory of what foods are in each section and > how long they have been there. It's biggest advantage will be its > functionality as a food management system. It also has an inbuilt > hard drive and modem, so that the appliance can be 'connected' by > simply running a phone connection into it. $15,000 is the anticipated > RRP when it's released later this year. " > > $15K for an icebox??? WTF??! But, you can bet someone will > buy it! And, just like $10,000 VTR's, they lead the way to the > cheaper versions that follow! > It's just a gizmo, will fizzle. > A stainless steel car??? (DeLorean) > Well, that one did fizzle, didn't it? >>>> You don't know our Labradors. Their reactions are very different. I >>>> always know whether it's Fedex, a friend, a friend with dogs, or a >>>> suspicious person. That's all we really need to know. >>> >>> Great! Instead of home automation, folks just need to have >>> *your* dogs! (What was your food + vet bill last year? >>> How much automation would that have bought? :> ) >> >> They are also therapy dogs, visiting Alzheimer's patients and others. >> How many such visit per week can a HA system do and how would it cozy up >> to people? > > I can always buy a dog! You can't buy an automation system until > someone makes one affordable! > That is what I am saying the whole time. The industry is asleep at the wheel since decades, leaving that market untapped. >>> Do your dogs telephone you to tell you who's there while you are >>> out? Or, tell you who dropped by in your absence? :> >> >> We don't need to know that :-) > > Ah, I want to know if a client stopped by in my absence. > Or, if a neighbor who was *going* to stop by did so and > I happened to have mistimed a trip to the store (so I > don't call and ask him *when* he's going to stop by... > only to be greeted with "I was there two hours ago and > no one answered the door") > Well, clients generally don't come here because most are thousands of miles away. And if a neighbor was here he'll leave a note. [...] >>> Lunch. "The Pork Dish". Yum, yum!! :> >> >> We'll have tri-tip tonight, and bread and sausages. All from the old >> Weber barbecue. Not sure if I can eat though, on account of the bad >> molar root. > > Bummer. Nice big piece of tenderloin for today's meal. > She complains, "Lately, the pieces seem to be really large!" > He just smiles and says, "Really? I hadn't noticed..." > > ;-) > > Good luck with your tooth! > Barbecue is off. We will eat soup tonight, can't chew anything :-( -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web