Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #12828
| From | Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design, comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Cutting panels |
| Date | 2013-07-29 11:15 -0700 |
| Organization | Consultant |
| Message-ID | <b5npqaFjahiU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <kt3rje$5ng$1@speranza.aioe.org> <b5lg8dF4aa2U1@mid.individual.net> <kt49s0$b8d$1@speranza.aioe.org> <b5lrtkF6iqcU1@mid.individual.net> <kt4kio$1fl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Don Y wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On 7/28/2013 5:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> Don Y wrote:
>
[...]
>>> 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.
>
> What would she do if the hot water heater developed a leak?
> I.e., you *fix* things that you rely on in a timely manner.
>
She would have a new one installed. With a homebrew LAN that is kind of
impossible.
> Note I can always pull the wires off *my* irrigation controller
> and attach them to a storebought unit! There's nothing special about
> the irrigation valves...
>
In our case you just buy the same controller and transfer them over
verbatim. Easy. You can even have a pre-programmed unit sitting on the
shelf as a spare.
>>> 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.
>
> Unfortunately, many folks don't have a choice. Or, don't want to
> give up their independence -- "yet". Our ALS friend lives by herself.
> Despite the fact that she can no longer *speak*. We have friends
> where one spouse is disabled -- and the other barely *able* (i.e.,
> old). Try telling them "you should move into..." and its like
> talking to a brick wall!
>
> [I wonder what I will be like when/if that time comes?]
>
We never know. But it is beneficial to prepare oneself. Because of our
volunteer activities we know most of the places in our area. It's good
to mentally prepare. Of course that's no guarantee, I know people who in
their younger years were perfectly willing to go into assisted living
some day and then when the time really came fought it tooth and nail.
> If, instead, they can avail themselves of appliances and other
> living means that allow them to continue to live the lifestyle
> they *choose*... <shrug>
>
> E.g., when our ALS friend is in bed, she's there until the caregiver
> gets her up in the morning! If someone comes to the front door,
> she can't (physically) let them in. If she left the TV on in the
> living room, it's going to *stay* on all night. If she worries
> that she *might* not have turned off the stove, she won't know
> until someone checks it in the morning (unless the house catches
> fire before then!)
>
> None of these things are difficult to provide. They just *haven't*
> been.
>
That's the problem. And will be for a long time to come.
> If appealing to the toy desire of normal users lets quantities
> increase so they become affordable for the folks who *need*
> them (instead of just WANTING them)...
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Happens all the time! Early adopters always pay through the nose!
> I'm hoping that circumventing the need for "big players" will let
> "tinkerers" create a workable system -- even if a big player comes
> in after the fact and tries to hijack the idea. (who cares as long
> as the devices are available!)
>
It only tends to happen for gizmos in a "must have" category. HA isn't
cool enough, therefore it has to be reasonably price to even create a
market.
>>>>> 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].
>
> Its easier than that! You do the things that automation can't
> (i.e. load the washer). Let the automation decide when to actually
> *wash* the clothes. Let it notify you when you are needed to
> move the clothes into the dryer, etc.
>
But there is nothing available at Home Depot or Lowe's to make that
happen. Consequently it's not happening.
> Of course, there are countless "rules" as to what it should do
> and when. E.g., growing up, the hot water heater was undersized
> (oil fired). So, you didn't take a shower when someone was
> doing laundry!
>
> With automation, you can turn that on its head to favor the user
> over the "appliance" -- *stop* the laundry cycle when someone
> wants to use the shower (or, just delay when you would start the
> cycle if you know folks will be taking showers, soon)
>
Well, yeah, those things we tend to figure out the old-fashioned way by
turning stuff on and off. For example, we set the sprinklers to come on
and be through before we take our morning showers.
>> 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.
>
> You can save energy and gain convenience with automation. So,
> use that as the "draw" and hope that others (utilities, regulators,
> etc.) get on the bandwagon after-the-fact.
>
Not going to work. There is no consumer payback without intelligent TOU
tariffs. So consumers won't buy.
> The problem has been that automation involves too many DIFFERENT
> aspects of a home (we have not talked about businesses!). So,
> its unlikely that manufacturer A will have its hands in LOTS of
> these areas in order to pitch a unified, consistent framework
> for "devices".
>
> I.e., the solution has to come from outside those industries.
> Put something in place. *Hope* people embrace it ("Hey, it
> exists, its free, and its better than nothing!") and then
> hope vendors follow.
>
It requires the utilities or regulators to get it. And they don't, yet.
>>> ... 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.
>
> See some of my URLs. ...
That's mostly alarm systems. Not very useful for real HA.
> ... What's sorely missing is the smarts (algorithms)
> to tie things together. "Control your home from your smartphone!"
> "OK, besides being 1970 technology, what does that *do* for me that
> I can't do WITHOUT the smartphone??" (i.e., why can't *you* decide
> when to lower the thermostat?)
>
First there needs to be the hardware, the devices that actually control
stuff. They ain't there.
>>> ... 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.
>
> They want it all. They forget that *I* have to gain something
> before I am willing to GIVE something!
>
> E.g., we have looked into PV solar (too expensive given our ages).
> Going that route, you "sell back" surplus electricity (at a reduced
> price!) to the utility. ...
And therein lies the problem. Why is it that when we strain ourselves to
be good and feed 8kW back at times of super-high need that the spot
market guys get 30-40c/kWh and we get 4c? That's wrong, and is the
reason why we have no solar at all. Now it's too late, on account of a
new metal roof with a batten system.
> ... Heck, why have *any* surplus? Charge
> batteries when you have power to spare. Use the batteries to
> power *some* of your load in the off hours (instead of buying back
> the electricity that you just sold the utility a few hours ago
> AT A HIGHER PRICE -- "distribution costs")
>
Super expensive, not going to be economical. Friends had that in Mexico
and only because there was no electricity. You don't want to know what a
fully burdended kWh cost them.
>>> 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.
>
> I don't see it that way. For businesses, there is a value decision
> involved. For consumers, I still think there is a lot of "toy"
> factor. "Have you seen the Jones' house? It practically wipes
> your ass for you!"
>
For you and me, maybe (less so for me, I want value in it). But the vast
majority will not buy unless there is some payback.
>>> 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.
>
> My other half has one "for emergencies". $100/year (I believe there
> are cheaper alternatives but she needed something that had widespread
> coverage as she was making annual drives up through some of the
> lesser populated/developed portions of the state, into Utah, etc.
> so that restricted her choices)
>
> She has *once* used it for an emergency. The other times have been
> "I'm at Trader Joe's. Do you want anything?"
>
> <shrug> At $100, it's a bargain for piece of mind... (also pays
> for itself when she *is* on those extended trips and would have to
> resort to a payphone or motel phone to call home)
>
When you get up there in age I'd consider getting one for yourself as
well. All it takes is going on a jog and suddenly you feel the ticker
skipping some beats.
>>>>> 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>
>
> EVERYONE wants to be in the services business! I suspect we will
> see "subsidized appliances" in the future -- once they figure out
> how to get those appliances to snitch on your usage patterns!
> Then, sell that information to vendors who can pitch items to
> you *in* your home!
>
> (Like: "Free phone with 2 year contract...")
>
Smart phones have the coolness factor. "Mine has a screen 0.500" bigger
than yours" or "Mine can do LTE". HA (mostly) doesn't have this
coolness, it needs to create value on its own merits.
>>> <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.
>
> But it isn't! Folks are willing to pay for security monitoring
> services (surveillance), "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up",
> etc. It's a wonder anyone has disposable income given all the
> vendors trying to nickel and dime them to death! :<
>
They only do that if they really have no other choice. Or if the kids
force them to and/or pay the bills for it. We are talking home
automation though.
> (Most "services" are articifial. Why do I need to pay someone
> $2/day so I can control SOME of my appliances from my iPhone?
> Why can't my phone contact my home directly -- instead of
> going THROUGH your "service")
>
Exactly. I don't want to be tied to someone's service for this. Because
you know how it goes:
"We have some wonderful news! We have added these valuable features ...
yada, yada, yada ..."
None of which you really need, or let alone asked for. In the fine print
it says "Best of all, you get all this for a low new price of
$2.79/day". Seriously, I had exactly such an attempt by my web hoster
recently. I put an immediate stopperoo on that but I bet 90+ percent of
customers didn't and now wonder why their bill shot up.
>>> <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?
>
> The same sort of people who already spend $160/month! Companies
> don't care about you or me. There are plenty of other folks eager
> to throw money at them!
>
I doubt they would spend an additional $34/mo for that. For umpteen
additional sports channels, sure. For HA? Nope.
>>> 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 ...
>
> They've embraced Arduino in the hope that folks will design
> Arduino based gizmos... that they can eventually talk to.
That's nerd stuff, will never reach the masses.
> Google wants to *live* in your pants (pocket)!
>
Not in mine. I don't even use them as a search engine.
>>>> 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.
>
> Sure. My point was there are folks who are willing to pay that
> price for a flimsy little connector. What are they willing to
> pay for the rest of the enchilada?
>
Not much. They will prefer to spend that money on a fun park trip,
dinner, movies, a humongous gas barbecue they use exactly once, or some
other cool stuff they can brag about in front of their friends.
>>> Good luck with your tooth!
>>
>> Barbecue is off. We will eat soup tonight, can't chew anything :-(
>
> Bummer. Shit Happens.
>
Yeah, pain all day, dentist on vacation for a week. But my wife made an
excellent Zucchini soup. Someties us guys forget how much work that is,
a lot more than if I had barbecued the meat, sausages, bread and jalapenos.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web