Re: Z-Wave RF range

[Joerg <notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

>>If it is required to install a reasonable
>>spread of other modules acting as
>>repeaters then the manufacturers
>>need to tell that to potential customers
>>in clear words...
>
>
> Actually, they do.  That is very prominent in all of the literature I've read  on Z-Wave.  It isn't considered a weak point but a
> feature.
>

A feature? Ahem, well, ok.

>
>>I hope they don't bury that in the fine
>>print since that would lead to lots of
>>"It don't work" returns.
>
>
> Not at all.  In promoting the mesh RF network concept, Z-Wave manufacturers make a point of explaining this.  When you think about
> it this is actually to their advantage.  It encourages people to buy more devices.
>

But it closes your sales funnel towards most people who don't want so
much automation right now. Like us ;-)

>
>>>I didn't get the impression you were
>>>being unfair. It's Dave Houston's
>>>deliberate misrepresentations with
>>>which I took issue...
>
>
>>Ouch. There is another guy at the s.e.d.
>>newsgroup who had to nail his fully
>>occupied Cessna down on a freeway.
>
>
> That's OK as long as there are no wires running across the highway.  The problem is wires are invisible until you get real close.
>

AFAIR he had a hard time stopping before hitting a bridge pillar and
dinged the left wing a bit.

>
>>On the AA flight we got a real VIP
>>reception. All the fire engines and ambulances Frankfurt could muster
>>seemed to be there. And they cleared the whole FRA airspace for us. Imagine
>>that, it's a hub like Chicago.
>
>
> I heard a story (don't know if it's true or not) about Frankfurt, Germany's ATC being really rude.  As the story has it, sometime in
> the late 40's a US pilot landed his 4-prop airliner, crossed the hold short line and stopped to check the airport chart (the
> taxiways were something of a maze at the time).
>
> An angry ground controller barked, "American Boeing ######!  Vat are you do-ink"?
>
> Pilot: "Ah, sir, I've stopped my airplane."
>
> ATC: "Vhy haff you shtopped your airplane zair"?
>
> Pilot: "Ah, sir, I'm checking the chart to see how to get top the ramp."
>
> ATC: "Haff you neffer been to Frankfurt before???"
>
> Pilot: "Ah, yes sir.  We came by several times in '42 but we didn;t stop."
>

:-)

Usually they are friendly I heard. The Air Force base is right next to
FRA. Or at least used to be.


>
>>Our roofer offered that as well. After the
>>down payment, of course, because it
>>would have cost more. I looked at it and
>>decided to go with the usual 30 pound
>>felt double-layered. Not just because of
>>price...
>
>
> The price is the same here no matter which material you choose.  The major cost is the tile.  The new surface is less flammable (I
> think it's fiberglass and something else) than tar and felt.  AFAIK, the latter is pretty noxious stuff when it burns but that
> didn't enter into the choice of material for me.  The new stuff supposedly lasts longer.  At $40,000 for a replacement job, I want
> this stuff to outlast me.  :^)
>
>
>>Someone from Sweden told me that
>>builders over there are going back to felt. Don't remenber the reason, maybe
>>rot or mold underneath because it doesn't
>>breathe and moisture can condensate
>>on the underside (that touches the wood).
>
>
> I'd be a little skeptical of that information if I were you.  The biggest problem is moisture from precipitation coming through --
> not moisture accumulating underneath.  In fact, if the attic moisture barrier above the ceiling is properly installed there really
> shouldn't be a condensation issue for the wood beneath the roof.
>

Well, all I've seen is some test reports by universities and the gvt
over there. But it's been a while. IIRC the gist was that they often
concluded that the new stuff isn't better than the old, and sometimes
it's supposedly worse.

Moisture getting in was never a problem on our previous roof. Wood shake
and double-felted. Even after 35 years the felt looked quite pristine. I
was very surprised when the tore it up. The main reason why we did the
roof was fire danger and the fact that insurance would become harder to
obtain after some stupid kid started a fire a few miles from us and it
got a bit out of control for a while. And yeah, it cost us almost $30k
but now we have a metal roof that looks like the old shake roof. Nice.
There are some WWII buildings in England that have been done the same
way and without any modern plastics stuff. The roofs are still fine 60
years later.

>
>>There was a discussion to change
>>that but that could take north of 200 years :-)
>
>
> Heck, by then they will have destroyed the place anyway.
>
>
>>>His movies are mostly just silly.  He's
>>>so wooden it becomes a sort of
>>>comedy.
>>
>>
>>We just don't like movies with violence
>>in there. Ok, I confess, I do like Westerns.
>
>
> The problem with westerns is that victims always get right up again.  It teaches children that there are no real consequences of
> violence.  One amazing thing in this country is that the FCC gets its panties in a knot over a 2-second flash of an aging rock
> star's bosom but no one even bats an eye over all movies like Matrix and Jurassic Park is considered children's fare.  Go figure.
>

Not in the really good ones. My all time favorite is "Once Upon a Time
in the West". Enio Moricone's music alone is worth it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com