Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93752 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Martin Davies-Roundhill <enduphere.xyz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-15 14:52 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-24 10:31 +0100 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 93 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Martin Davies-Roundhill <enduphere.xyz@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:52 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 07:57 -0700
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:33 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:40 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-15 17:01 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Beej Jorgensen <beej@beej.us> - 2026-10-15 17:29 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:27 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-15 18:47 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-15 19:40 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-15 23:35 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:47 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 23:17 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 02:53 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:46 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 07:58 -0700
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:59 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 18:46 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 19:41 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 22:40 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 23:11 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:06 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:46 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 12:24 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:31 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 18:46 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:35 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 19:43 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:34 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 22:47 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 02:40 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 12:33 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:04 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 13:40 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 11:56 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 13:59 +0200
Programming Books (was Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?) John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0200
Re: Programming Books (was Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 18:26 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:45 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:56 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:38 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:19 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:09 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 18:21 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:34 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-23 22:44 +0000
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-24 03:18 -0400
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 13:44 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 13:09 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 14:45 +0200
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 14:02 +0100
[OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:23 +0200
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 01:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 11:33 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 11:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:07 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 09:08 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 13:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 23:03 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-27 00:44 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-26 09:05 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:47 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-27 06:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-27 14:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-27 18:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-28 13:05 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 10:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-28 18:06 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-28 17:57 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 22:21 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-29 02:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:48 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Gas inspections Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-27 06:19 -0700
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-27 10:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-28 06:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 10:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-28 18:10 +0100
Re: [OT] Gas inspections c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-28 22:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Gas inspections "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-29 21:49 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-24 11:52 -0700
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-24 11:40 -0700
Re: Personal agents on Linux: what should stay under the user's control? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-24 10:31 +0100
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 21:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <esncrmxsro.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94765 |
On 2026-10-29 03:21, c186282 wrote: > On 10/28/26 13:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-10-28 15:07, c186282 wrote: >>> On 10/28/26 08:05, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> I have just 10A of electricity (actually trips on 15A), so my >>>>>> cooking range has two induction rings and two butane rings. I am >>>>>> careful not to use two big electrical appliances at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> Whoa ... 10A x 220V for the whole house? Here we have 15A x 110V >>>>> for each outlet! >>>> >>>> 230 volts. Old contract, typical is 20A. >>> >>> Wow ! >>> >>> As said, USA, 15-20 amps PER OUTLET GROUP. 200 Amp >>> (220-240v/120v) almost universal for homes. >> >> What a waste. > > Not at all ! > > Assume two water heaters AND a 3-4 ton A/C > unit and a couple of 'major appliances'. > IF they're all on at the same time that > WILL suck a LOT of power. You just have to program the use of major appliances. My A/C unit just draws 1.2 KW at top power, usually runs at 300Watts, so not a problem. Nominally cools a big room, but in my house it cools 3. So a proper system for a flat doesn't need more than 2 or 3 KW, peak. Then I will not put at the same time either the washing machine, the drier, or the dish washer. Each of them takes a maximum of 2 KW peak. A smart home would talk to each appliance and tell them when they can or can not draw the maximum power in order to reduce the house instant power. >>> If you're gonna have electricity, HAVE SOME ELECTRICITY, >>> not just a feeble little spark. >> >> >> Easy: they charge us for the size of the electricity pipe. You want a >> 200Amps pipe for the entire house? More? Sure, you just pay a monthly >> fee. Number of A times number of days times constant fee. > > Fee ??? > > Are you still on post-WW2 rationing ? Nope. Give it a name that feels appropriate for something that is in the invoice, charging an amount that doesn't depend on your instant amperage. It depends on the number of days of the month, the number of Amps you tell the company that you will need as an absolute maximum, and a multiplying factor that tells you the euros that costs for each month. It is just the way it is. It allows the companies to calculate the maximum peak power of the country. > >> The result is that we size the Amps to the minimum we actually really >> need. > > USA, the theory is to be GENEROUS by default. > >> I have an old contract, inherited from my father. The paper said 10A, >> but he could use significantly more, so he never cared to increase the >> number. > > Don't see how you can LIVE on that ... Very easily, actually. > >> Later the company came and installed a limiter. > > Ah ... 'socialist fascism' .......... LOL. All parties, left and right, agree on this system. It is not political. > >> That did not work well, so they installed electronic meters with >> internal limitation. Fortunately for me, the actual limitation is set >> to 15A. I have some 2KW appliances, I just have to be careful of what >> I power up at the same time. > > I don't. Almost impossible to overload a 200a feed. > A/C plus both water heaters plus standard stove > plus top burners plus the microwave .... > > Lights, in these LED days, don't use that much > power - but it used to be lots of 100w bulbs. We had many 40 Watts lamps, and parents were telling kids to switch off the light when exiting the room. Thus, the study room would just have a 40W table lamp, and the ceiling lamp would be off. > >> Yes, I wanted to increase the number, but for that the company demands >> an installation certificate. I baulk, because it is not cheap for this >> old house. Too many problems in this house, so I'm moving to a new flat. > > Wow - it's just BAD BAD BAD wherever you are !!! Still 1929. Not at all. All of Europe demands a certificate to supply electricity to any house. It is the modern way. > > Consider totally replacing the govt. > >>>>>> I intend to move to a flat within a year, when they end building >>>>>> it and everything is papered and stamped over. All electric. Might >>>>>> electrify my car too. >>>>>> >>>>>> My current house is too old, needs a good renovation which I'm not >>>>>> keen on doing. Bedrooms are upstairs, and it is not guaranteed >>>>>> that I will be able to climb the stairs as I grow older. So, move. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, those stairs are guaranteed to become a problem at some point. >>>>> So in the apartment building, you also want to be on the ground floor! >>>> >>>> No, there are lifts. Spain is one of the countries with more >>>> elevators per capita, so my flat is on the 2nd level (3rd for USA). :-) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You will probably have to upgrade the electric before you can sell >>>>> the old house. >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, we can leave all the upgrading to the next owner. He has a lot >>>> to do, like change the flooring, change the water pipes (in and >>>> out), change the electricity ducting, maybe change some of the >>>> structure beams, certainly repair cracks, do something about >>>> humidity, maybe redo the roof... The house is sold as is, very >>>> possibly to tear it down completely - except that the front is >>>> "protected" and has to be kept intact, or reconstructed with the >>>> same appearance. >>> >>> Heh ... does sound cheaper to raze the building and >>> start all over :-) >> >> >> That's what I would do, having the money and a family; but consider >> that building a house with concrete is more expensive than with wood. >> A hurricane doesn't blast my house. The roof can go, but not the half >> a meter thick stone walls. > > In my will, I *do* rec razing the old house. It's > too low to the ground now anyway, uninsurable > since all the surrounding places put houses up on > little hills and the county won't fix the drainage > culverts. > >> And remember, the new house has to look from outside identical to the >> old one. Inside can be all different, but the external appearance of >> the entire neighbourhood has to keep. > > WHY does it have to look identical ??? Because it is a "protected neighbourhood". Designed by some architect of renown long ago. This is what happens in a city with history. This city is three millennia old. If your house is not "protected", but just "normal", you can do anything you want. Oh, wait, you need a permission from the city for any construction work, of course. > > I can replace mine with something out of the > Frank Lloyd Wright or Buckminster Fuller > catalog if I want. At least one geodesic > dome near me and some people build from > 2-5 metal cargo containers. In Texas you > can go even more wild - build a mini > medieval castle right next to a boring > square apartment complex if you want. > > Had an idea of a kind of rectangle, but with > the entire front curved out and made of bronzed > storm-rated windows ... > > Sounds like you're micro-managed to the EXTREME > and PUT UP WITH IT. > > What's next, mandate "traditional" dung and > straw huts ??? > > Another good reason for the USA revolution. > > COMPLETELY new govt ... think about it, quick. Ha, ha. :-D -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 23:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <11c0lj2$3qofm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94783 |
On 29/10/2026 20:45, Carlos E.R. wrote: > It allows the companies to calculate the maximum peak power of the country. So they know how many gas power stations they will need to restart the grid. Railways looking a bit shaky too. I don't think people are very happy -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 06:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <11bq8ca$1hkr0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94699 |
On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: > [...] > UK ... the power grid wasn't built to supply > all energy needs. Somebody actually worked the > numbers just before the big plan to force all > onto electric - program DROPPED suddenly. It'd > take more money than the UK has to upgrade the > power grid now. USA, everything built for 200 > amp service since WW2. Fact check: My house was built in 1951 and has only 100 amp service. I have considered upgrading to 200 amp, but I decided against ripping out and replacing the breaker box. Too much structural rework in an area that is hard to access. Would have to remove the A/C compressor to get to it. > Have a butane mini-cooker though, runs on > cans, so I can still cook some things in > case of a long outage. More and more people > buy large automatic generator sets now, for > big-$$$, but forget that in case of a big > storm nobody can get there to fill the tank. Those "Generac" sets work pretty well. I have a 14kW one; mine runs on the piped-in "natural" (methane) gas, so a major earthquake would take it down. My brother-in-law in Ohio has one that runs off a huge propane tank, but in my dense neighborhood there's no legal space for an outdoor propane container that has to be 5 feet from any building and 6 feet from any lot line and 20 feet from the street, except in the middle of the open space in the back yard. > Oh well, no panaceas ... just 'best compromise'. > Guess I could move next door to a nuke plant, > but then GUESS what'd happen :-) -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-27 10:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <6kudnapOp5WWLH33nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94718 |
On 10/27/26 09:19, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: >> [...] >> UK ... the power grid wasn't built to supply >> all energy needs. Somebody actually worked the >> numbers just before the big plan to force all >> onto electric - program DROPPED suddenly. It'd >> take more money than the UK has to upgrade the >> power grid now. USA, everything built for 200 >> amp service since WW2. > > Fact check: My house was built in 1951 and has only 100 amp service. You got cheated ! Built by some cheap-ass ! > I have considered upgrading to 200 amp, but I decided against ripping > out and replacing the breaker box. Too much structural rework in an area > that is hard to access. Would have to remove the A/C compressor to get > to it. It is a problem ... and a huge amount of expensive work. All the little tubes, sometimes the wires inside them. A new main panel is a nightmare. Hmm ... TWO 100 amp panels ??? >> Have a butane mini-cooker though, runs on >> cans, so I can still cook some things in >> case of a long outage. More and more people >> buy large automatic generator sets now, for >> big-$$$, but forget that in case of a big >> storm nobody can get there to fill the tank. > > Those "Generac" sets work pretty well. I have a 14kW one; > mine runs on the piped-in "natural" (methane) gas, so a major earthquake > would take it down. My brother-in-law in Ohio has one that runs off a > huge propane tank, but in my dense neighborhood there's no legal space > for an outdoor propane container that has to be 5 feet from any building > and 6 feet from any lot line and 20 feet from the street, except in the > middle of the open space in the back yard. Generac seems the most popular and they seem to hold up well. 14kw sounds a bit light, but that depends on the vital services you need. If you want to start a 4-ton AC unit 14kw isn't gonna cut it. However if you manage uses - run a water heater for a bit, turn that off, then use a microwave or toaster oven, a few lights, then you can get by with even 6-8kw. Not as much piped-in gas anywhere near me. Most people have them bury a propane tank somewhere near the generator. Diesel generators are reliable BUT diesel goes bad eventually so you'd have to arrange to have the tank pumped every year or so. >> Oh well, no panaceas ... just 'best compromise'. >> Guess I could move next door to a nuke plant, >> but then GUESS what'd happen :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 06:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <11bstgk$2f040$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94722 |
On 10/27/2026 07:11, c186282 wrote: > On 10/27/26 09:19, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: >>> [...] >>> UK ... the power grid wasn't built to supply >>> all energy needs. Somebody actually worked the >>> numbers just before the big plan to force all >>> onto electric - program DROPPED suddenly. It'd >>> take more money than the UK has to upgrade the >>> power grid now. USA, everything built for 200 >>> amp service since WW2. >> >> Fact check: My house was built in 1951 and has only 100 amp service. > > > You got cheated ! Built by some cheap-ass ! Oh, it was deliberately designed cheap. The target customer group was WWII veterans. Sold at $20K, mortgage payment was $200/month. >> I have considered upgrading to 200 amp, but I decided against ripping >> out and replacing the breaker box. Too much structural rework in an >> area that is hard to access. Would have to remove the A/C compressor >> to get to it. > > It is a problem ... and a huge amount of expensive > work. All the little tubes, sometimes the wires > inside them. A new main panel is a nightmare. At this year's mold remediation rebuild, we replaced all the in-wall wiring. It was all knob and tube. Had to, because we were blowing insulation into the exterior walls, which had had none up to that point. That also allowed for some more logical restructuring of breaker groups. > Hmm ... TWO 100 amp panels ??? > >>> Have a butane mini-cooker though, runs on >>> cans, so I can still cook some things in >>> case of a long outage. More and more people >>> buy large automatic generator sets now, for >>> big-$$$, but forget that in case of a big >>> storm nobody can get there to fill the tank. >> >> Those "Generac" sets work pretty well. I have a 14kW one; >> mine runs on the piped-in "natural" (methane) gas, so a major >> earthquake would take it down. My brother-in-law in Ohio has one that >> runs off a huge propane tank, but in my dense neighborhood there's no >> legal space for an outdoor propane container that has to be 5 feet >> from any building and 6 feet from any lot line and 20 feet from the >> street, except in the middle of the open space in the back yard. > > Generac seems the most popular and they seem to > hold up well. 14kw sounds a bit light, but that > depends on the vital services you need. If you > want to start a 4-ton AC unit 14kw isn't gonna > cut it. However if you manage uses - run a water > heater for a bit, turn that off, then use a > microwave or toaster oven, a few lights, then you > can get by with even 6-8kw. The 14kW is a pretty good match for the 100A utility service. Our cookstove and heating system are gas. So 14kW allows the A/C to run without having to schedule any limited concurrency. > Not as much piped-in gas anywhere near me. Most > people have them bury a propane tank somewhere > near the generator. Diesel generators are reliable > BUT diesel goes bad eventually so you'd have to > arrange to have the tank pumped every year or so. > > >>> Oh well, no panaceas ... just 'best compromise'. >>> Guess I could move next door to a nuke plant, >>> but then GUESS what'd happen :-) -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 10:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <KD6dnfqOy-4Rmn_3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94737 |
On 10/28/26 09:32, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 10/27/2026 07:11, c186282 wrote: >> On 10/27/26 09:19, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> UK ... the power grid wasn't built to supply >>>> all energy needs. Somebody actually worked the >>>> numbers just before the big plan to force all >>>> onto electric - program DROPPED suddenly. It'd >>>> take more money than the UK has to upgrade the >>>> power grid now. USA, everything built for 200 >>>> amp service since WW2. >>> >>> Fact check: My house was built in 1951 and has only 100 amp service. >> >> >> You got cheated ! Built by some cheap-ass ! > > Oh, it was deliberately designed cheap. The target customer group was > WWII veterans. Sold at $20K, mortgage payment was $200/month. Ah ... "GI Bill" housing. They WERE slapped up quick and cheap and usually identical. >>> I have considered upgrading to 200 amp, but I decided against ripping >>> out and replacing the breaker box. Too much structural rework in an >>> area that is hard to access. Would have to remove the A/C compressor >>> to get to it. >> >> It is a problem ... and a huge amount of expensive >> work. All the little tubes, sometimes the wires >> inside them. A new main panel is a nightmare. > > At this year's mold remediation rebuild, we replaced all the in-wall > wiring. It was all knob and tube. Had to, because we were blowing > insulation into the exterior walls, which had had none up to that point. My old house is all heavy concrete and real wood and no access. No taking it apart to run new wires. Also, these days, you usually see cheap "Romex" wires run everywhere. Almost all of mine are in metal conduit. > That also allowed for some more logical restructuring of breaker groups. >> Hmm ... TWO 100 amp panels ??? >> >>>> Have a butane mini-cooker though, runs on >>>> cans, so I can still cook some things in >>>> case of a long outage. More and more people >>>> buy large automatic generator sets now, for >>>> big-$$$, but forget that in case of a big >>>> storm nobody can get there to fill the tank. >>> >>> Those "Generac" sets work pretty well. I have a 14kW one; >>> mine runs on the piped-in "natural" (methane) gas, so a major >>> earthquake would take it down. My brother-in-law in Ohio has one that >>> runs off a huge propane tank, but in my dense neighborhood there's no >>> legal space for an outdoor propane container that has to be 5 feet >>> from any building and 6 feet from any lot line and 20 feet from the >>> street, except in the middle of the open space in the back yard. >> >> Generac seems the most popular and they seem to >> hold up well. 14kw sounds a bit light, but that >> depends on the vital services you need. If you >> want to start a 4-ton AC unit 14kw isn't gonna >> cut it. However if you manage uses - run a water >> heater for a bit, turn that off, then use a >> microwave or toaster oven, a few lights, then you >> can get by with even 6-8kw. > > The 14kW is a pretty good match for the 100A utility service. Fair match. I'd have to buy 25kw minimum. Note if you have central A/C you have to figure in the startup SURGE requirement. That can easily be double the running power, if only for a couple of seconds. Fail to meet that need and you'll pop yer generator breaker and/or burn up your A/C compressor. Only gennie I have now is 3.5kw - it CAN run on gasoline or propane however. Have a couple of DEAD ones too - they really truly seem designed to make it impossible to drain all the old gasoline. That gasoline gums-up everything even if you put 'stabilizer' in. > Our cookstove and heating system are gas. So 14kW allows the A/C to run > without having to schedule any limited concurrency. Um, how BIG an A/C ? Glorified window unit ? >> Not as much piped-in gas anywhere near me. Most >> people have them bury a propane tank somewhere >> near the generator. Diesel generators are reliable >> BUT diesel goes bad eventually so you'd have to >> arrange to have the tank pumped every year or so. >> >> >>>> Oh well, no panaceas ... just 'best compromise'. >>>> Guess I could move next door to a nuke plant, >>>> but then GUESS what'd happen :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 18:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <ktm9rmxsp9.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94740 |
On 2026-10-28 15:32, c186282 wrote: > On 10/28/26 09:32, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 10/27/2026 07:11, c186282 wrote: >>> On 10/27/26 09:19, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: >> The 14kW is a pretty good match for the 100A utility service. > > Fair match. I'd have to buy 25kw minimum. > > Note if you have central A/C you have to > figure in the startup SURGE requirement. > That can easily be double the running power, > if only for a couple of seconds. > > Fail to meet that need and you'll pop yer > generator breaker and/or burn up your A/C > compressor. An AC with inverter can solve that problem with a slow controlled startup. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <dcycnQvcFJ-hLX_3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94747 |
On 10/28/26 13:10, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-10-28 15:32, c186282 wrote: >> On 10/28/26 09:32, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 10/27/2026 07:11, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 10/27/26 09:19, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>>> On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: > > >>> The 14kW is a pretty good match for the 100A utility service. >> >> Fair match. I'd have to buy 25kw minimum. >> >> Note if you have central A/C you have to >> figure in the startup SURGE requirement. >> That can easily be double the running power, >> if only for a couple of seconds. >> >> Fail to meet that need and you'll pop yer >> generator breaker and/or burn up your A/C >> compressor. > > An AC with inverter can solve that problem with a slow controlled startup. Ummmm ... not always. Sometimes the motors DO need a good "kick" to get 'em going. Anything attached to some kind of 'compressor' - a moderate/large resistance load - tends to be a bad case. I am familiar with electronic 'soft starters' and they're good for many apps - but not ALL. Built many 3-ph control panels for 20-80 HP pump units. A lot of 'inertia'/'stick' (which includes the impeller being covered in mud). "Soft start" won't work well. Just assume a 300% start-up load.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 21:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Gas inspections |
| Message-ID | <p3ocrmxsro.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #94766 |
On 2026-10-29 03:32, c186282 wrote: > On 10/28/26 13:10, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-10-28 15:32, c186282 wrote: >>> On 10/28/26 09:32, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> On 10/27/2026 07:11, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 10/27/26 09:19, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>>>> On 10/26/2026 06:05, c186282 wrote: >> >> >>>> The 14kW is a pretty good match for the 100A utility service. >>> >>> Fair match. I'd have to buy 25kw minimum. >>> >>> Note if you have central A/C you have to >>> figure in the startup SURGE requirement. >>> That can easily be double the running power, >>> if only for a couple of seconds. >>> >>> Fail to meet that need and you'll pop yer >>> generator breaker and/or burn up your A/C >>> compressor. >> >> An AC with inverter can solve that problem with a slow controlled >> startup. > > Ummmm ... not always. Sometimes the motors DO > need a good "kick" to get 'em going. Anything > attached to some kind of 'compressor' - a > moderate/large resistance load - tends to > be a bad case. Then put a bypass valve on the compressor. > > I am familiar with electronic 'soft starters' > and they're good for many apps - but not ALL. > > Built many 3-ph control panels for 20-80 HP > pump units. A lot of 'inertia'/'stick' > (which includes the impeller being covered > in mud). "Soft start" won't work well. Just > assume a 300% start-up load. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11biupv$2vp9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94637 |
On 10/24/2026 00:18, c186282 wrote: > ELECTRIC is VERY reliable (USA) - gas shit, > well, weekly news about huge explosions or > fires. Not here in California. Wildfires - or even the threat of wildfires - can and will shut down transmission lines, and car accidents can knock out utility poles. Thunderstorms - and short-circuits caused by traffic accidents knocking out poles - cause transformers to explode. And many of the poles here in town are very old and are getting replaced, one at a time (requiring multiple 12-hour shut-offs in local neighborhoods). -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 10:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bhu49$2ipmp$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94629 |
On 23/10/2026 21:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-10-23, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > >> The one item left that isn't yet dependent upon electric supply is gas >> (methane/propane) tank hot water heaters. Those still seem to be built >> as a mechanical thermostat driving a mechanical fuel valve to turn the >> burner on and off. Of course, to make hot water they do need a fuel >> supply, and if that fuel is piped in from a distribution system instead >> of a tank, there's a dependency on the distribution system working. > > True - but in my experience electrical failures happen far more > frequently than gas failures. > dont have gas. electriciry hv runs through trees. always on the fritz > BTW gas stoves (at least basic cooktops) also run without electricity > (although you might have to dig up some matches if you depend on a > mains-driven spark to light it). This is quite handy during power > failures, since it means you can still heat something to eat - and > even get a bit of room heating on cold days. > > Too bad the Powers that Be are trying to eliminate gas appliances. > I guess we need to save all that gas for LNG sales overseas. > nobody plans ahead. profit today:fuck tomorrow -- The New Left are the people they warned you about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11biu2h$2vg55$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94629 |
On 10/23/2026 13:28, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-10-23, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > >> The one item left that isn't yet dependent upon electric supply is gas >> (methane/propane) tank hot water heaters. Those still seem to be built >> as a mechanical thermostat driving a mechanical fuel valve to turn the >> burner on and off. Of course, to make hot water they do need a fuel >> supply, and if that fuel is piped in from a distribution system instead >> of a tank, there's a dependency on the distribution system working. > > True - but in my experience electrical failures happen far more > frequently than gas failures. > > BTW gas stoves (at least basic cooktops) also run without electricity > (although you might have to dig up some matches if you depend on a > mains-driven spark to light it). This is quite handy during power > failures, since it means you can still heat something to eat - and > even get a bit of room heating on cold days. > > Too bad the Powers that Be are trying to eliminate gas appliances. > I guess we need to save all that gas for LNG sales overseas. Doesn't Natural Gas[TM] i.e. municipal methane piped in to reidences - require electric pumps somewhere in the distribution network? At my house a have 14kW NaturalGas-powered generator for when the power drops out. If the failure is due to an earthquake, I expect that the gas will also be shut off. At which point I will be looking for propane tanks, and the conversion kit to change the motor from methane to propane (a different pressure regulator ?) I cannot do that ahead of time, because I do not have a code-compliant way to maintain or store the propane tanks. Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-24 10:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bhtu1$2ipmp$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94627 |
On 23/10/2026 20:34, Rich wrote: > But let something (could even be a weather event) interfear freudian slip? -- The New Left are the people they warned you about.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web