http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a year - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
* Doorbell always uses electricity! - 16 messages, 12 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
* Obama gets it! Oil is FINITE, regardless of current price. - 4 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b131e99a30a9010?hl=en
* anyone make a wifi finder with internet telephone capabilities? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81d9c571716583a4?hl=en
* shooping url - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/981d9456b9d5502d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you want your tax money to pay a forklift operator $103,000.00 a
year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ddfc45ecb2d7616d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 6:49 pm
From: Wilma6116@gmail.com
On Nov 19, 6:34 pm, BE-VA <blackwater-evangal...@testland.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:23:55 -0800 (PST), Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> In <96c903fc-9181-4782-a256-6a80cc40e...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, on
> >> 11/18/2008
> >> at 01:32 PM, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >> >On Nov 18, 1:29 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> >> You people need to do some homework. The so-called $73 ph, is not cash.
> >> >> it includes benefits and retirement costs.
> >> >Which is STILL too much money for an unskilled laborer that does nothing
> >> >more than hold a tool.
>
> >> Do your homework. Its not unskilled labor anymore.
>
> >Your job consists of holding a tool that does all the work for you.
> >That by itself is the definition of unskilled. If you don't like it,
> >tough.
>
> While I agree with you with regards to pay for work done I don't agree
> with your premise -- by your premise a military pilot flying a 25
> million dollar aircraft is unskilled labor since all he does is sit in
> the cockpit and pull levers and push buttons.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What has happened to America? We are fighting over whether or not some
worker is making too much at around $100,000 a year. This not right,
everyone who works should make enough to afford a home and to send
their children to college and to plan for retirement.
OTOH, we have the CEO for Ford making in excess of $25 million a year,
or $500,000 a week or $100,00 a day. The CEO who helped bring to ruin
his company makes more in one day than the worker who safely installs
life saving brakes on cars at a rate of about 60 an hour. Life is not
fair, but I thought my Pledge of Aligience said this country stood for
justice for all.
So, not only does the the CEO make more than 250 times more than some
'overpaid' worker, he flies to Washington DC in a private plane that
brings the flight cost for the CE to more than $40,000 round trip. He
could have flown coach for less than $300 or splurged and gone first
class for around $1000. Instead he needs to go private jet to meet
with elected millionaires and plead that Ford needs money.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:33 pm
From: tmclone@searchmachine.com
On Nov 19, 9:34 pm, BE-VA <blackwater-evangal...@testland.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:23:55 -0800 (PST), Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 5:22 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> In <96c903fc-9181-4782-a256-6a80cc40e...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, on
> >> 11/18/2008
> >> at 01:32 PM, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >> >On Nov 18, 1:29 pm, TruthTel...@nospam.net wrote:
> >> >> You people need to do some homework. The so-called $73 ph, is not cash.
> >> >> it includes benefits and retirement costs.
> >> >Which is STILL too much money for an unskilled laborer that does nothing
> >> >more than hold a tool.
>
> >> Do your homework. Its not unskilled labor anymore.
>
> >Your job consists of holding a tool that does all the work for you.
> >That by itself is the definition of unskilled. If you don't like it,
> >tough.
>
> While I agree with you with regards to pay for work done I don't agree
> with your premise -- by your premise a military pilot flying a 25
> million dollar aircraft is unskilled labor since all he does is sit in
> the cockpit and pull levers and push buttons.- Hide quoted text -
>
No, it's all about how long it takes to become competent at the job.
There
are a LOT of jobs where the tool does most of the work and the human
just
has to hold it in the right place. There was a 60 Minutes in the mid
90s
about one of the Utica Club breweries that was closing. The people who
did nothing but fill the container of bottlecaps for the machine which
automatically capped the bottles were making $15.00/hour. This is back
in the 90s. They were called "operators" although they operated
nothing, and even they admitted that they had learned the job in under
2 hours. More than $30k, 12-15 years ago, and you learned the job in 2
hours? Yes, of course, they were unionized. Ridiculous salaries seemed
to be what put the place out of business.
I submit that if you can learn your job in less than a week, without
prior
education or experience, then the job is unskilled.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Doorbell always uses electricity!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3198294a289e9e57?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 6:51 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:44:47 -0800 (PST), Mikepier
<mikepier@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 9:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
>> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
>> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
>> etc.
>>
>> These things add up...
>>
>> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the doorbell
>> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>>
>> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
>> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
>> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
>> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
>> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
>> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
>> transformer.
>
>Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
>electricity.
>Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
>pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
Geeze, I replaced the transformer powered doorbell in my house 10
years ago with a 15 buck wireless chimer. Couple screws and it's
done. Replaced the AAA batteries once in all that time.
--Vic
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 6:57 pm
From: "PrettyReplica.com"
...
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:02 pm
From: jdc@mail.fiawol.org (J. Cochran)
In article <6ojvt2F41153U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
>this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
>plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
>switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
>button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
>button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
>transformer.
Congratulations. You've just made a potentially lethal accident waiting to
happen. And somehow I suspect your insurance won't pay if someone dies.
I would STRONGLY suggest you do one of 2 things.
1. Rewire that doorbell to it's original configuration.
or
2. Put a GFCI into the circuit
Either way I think would be safe. Option 1 of course would be cheaper, but
if you insist on saving the few pennies worth of electricity, then option
2 would work. And it would be a rather interesting experiment to see how
often the GFCI trips.
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:10 pm
From: The Daring Dufas
Bill wrote:
> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
> etc.
>
> These things add up...
>
> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the doorbell
> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>
> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
> transformer.
>
>
I had a friend some years ago who ran the communications
division of the local power company. This was back when
they had HF radios for communications and the techs actually
had to know something about electronics. They would get
electronic interference complaints which were often traced
to doorbell transformers. It was a very common problem and
one that many people don't even think of today.
TDD
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:44 pm
From: Red Green
Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bb0e589f-e18f-4c9c-bba7-deb5660b2507@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 19, 6:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always
>> using electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does
>> this like TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks,
>> plug-in phones, etc.
>>
>> These things add up...
>>
>> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the
>> doorb
> ell
>> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>>
>> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga.
>> romex f
> rom
>> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank
>> wall plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V
>> momentary push switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the
>> transformer when th
> e
>> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to
>> the o
> ld
>> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from
>> the transformer.
>
> My first thought when reading this was "ok...so we'd save a few
> pennies a month". But I investigated and found a rather interesting
> read related to your theory where the author actually tested the
> doorbell transformer using a Kill-A-Watt:
>
> http://www.newenglandbreeze.com/nl/TEM20080901.html
>
> Luckily my doorbell isn't lighted, so it's probably not worth my time
> and effort to change.
Great... I'll eat the three bucks a year and take the beating for being
an environmental criminal.
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:44 pm
From: "HeyBub"
Vic Smith wrote:
>>
>> Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
>> electricity.
>> Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
>> pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
>
> Geeze, I replaced the transformer powered doorbell in my house 10
> years ago with a 15 buck wireless chimer. Couple screws and it's
> done. Replaced the AAA batteries once in all that time.
>
$15 at 25c/year means you'll recover your costs in 60 years. But the
batteries cost, oh, $1.00 every ten years, so that's another six bucks which
will take another 12 years to recover. But 12 years means one more set of
batteries, which requires another four years. Let's see, now (mumble,
mumble, carry-the-three), ah, yes.
Your wireless solution will save you money after a mere 73 years of service.
This does not count lost opportunity costs of the original $15.
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:45 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
With the cost of the parts, romex, etc. The break even date is probably some
where in the year 2029. You know, third year of the Gonzalez administration.
He took over from the Castro administration.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Red Green" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9B5BDC3B71049RedGreen@216.168.3.70...
It's probably stamped right on it but I never looked. Any idea how many
watts it's uses in it's standby state?
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:46 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"
With any luck, he'll also remember the computer, the hair dryer, the pump
in the fish tank, and all the other big power drains.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Mikepier" <mikepier@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b0fd2785-bffc-4bd9-b53e-f1a1c6beb158@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
electricity.
Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
You probably spent more in the material than if you let the Xfmr stay
on for 20 years.
Now how are you going to deal with the TV, fridge, phone, alarm clock,
microwave. Wait don't forget VCR/DVD player, cable box, heating
system, computer, sprinkler timer,
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:48 pm
From: "retired54"
"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bb0e589f-e18f-4c9c-bba7-deb5660b2507@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 6:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
> etc.
>
> These things add up...
>
> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the
> doorbell
> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>
> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex
> from
> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the
> old
> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
> transformer.
My first thought when reading this was "ok...so we'd save a few
pennies a month". But I investigated and found a rather interesting
read related to your theory where the author actually tested the
doorbell transformer using a Kill-A-Watt:
http://www.newenglandbreeze.com/nl/TEM20080901.html
Luckily my doorbell isn't lighted, so it's probably not worth my time
and effort to change.
=============================================
$3.15/year. Pretty good deal.
Olddog
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:51 pm
From: Red Green
Mikepier <mikepier@optonline.net> wrote in
news:b0fd2785-bffc-4bd9-b53e-f1a1c6beb158@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 19, 9:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always
>> using electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does
>> this like TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks,
>> plug-in phones, etc.
>>
>> These things add up...
>>
>> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the
>> doorb
> ell
>> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>>
>> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga.
>> romex f
> rom
>> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank
>> wall plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V
>> momentary push switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the
>> transformer when th
> e
>> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to
>> the o
> ld
>> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from
>> the transformer.
>
> Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
> electricity.
> Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
> pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
> You probably spent more in the material than if you let the Xfmr stay
> on for 20 years.
> Now how are you going to deal with the TV, fridge, phone, alarm clock,
> microwave. Wait don't forget VCR/DVD player, cable box, heating
> system, computer, sprinkler timer,
Gotta dig back in my 60's damaged memory synapses but the AC wires in the
walls generate an electromagnetic field. Metal that passes through these
fields gets induced voltage. So, if you have any metal in what you wear
or carry in your pocket you're sucking "some" level of power. Maybe can
save another .04 a year by instituting a buck naked policy indoors. Huh?
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:54 pm
From: "Leroy"
Seerialmom wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
>> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
>> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
>> etc.
>>
>> These things add up...
>>
>> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the
>> doorbell button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time
>> now.
>>
>> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex
>> from this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
>> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
>> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
>> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
>> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
>> transformer.
>
> My first thought when reading this was "ok...so we'd save a few
> pennies a month". But I investigated and found a rather interesting
> read related to your theory where the author actually tested the
> doorbell transformer using a Kill-A-Watt:
>
> http://www.newenglandbreeze.com/nl/TEM20080901.html
>
> Luckily my doorbell isn't lighted, so it's probably not worth my time
> and effort to change.
yeah, the article stated 3 lousy watts for a *lighted* doorbell. I doubt
that an unlighted doorbell switch even draws a watt. It's a transformer
but it has *no* load on it at all except for the brief moment it's pushed.
Much ado about Nothing.
One watt for a year would be about a dollar a year. The payback
on all the OP's effort will take a Long time. <g>
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:59 pm
From: E Z Peaces
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:44:47 -0800 (PST), Mikepier
> <mikepier@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 9:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
>>> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
>>> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> These things add up...
>>>
>>> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the doorbell
>>> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>>>
>>> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
>>> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
>>> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
>>> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
>>> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
>>> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
>>> transformer.
>> Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
>> electricity.
>> Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
>> pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
>
> Geeze, I replaced the transformer powered doorbell in my house 10
> years ago with a 15 buck wireless chimer. Couple screws and it's
> done. Replaced the AAA batteries once in all that time.
>
> --Vic
Doorbells once used carbon-zinc batteries. Their shelf life wasn't
good. That explains the change to transformers.
I've tried battery-powered wireless door chimes. I used AA alkalines,
which have a much longer shelf life than conventional carbon-zinc. The
problem was the current draw of the receivers. A set of batteries would
last only a few months, and a lot of visitors might leave frustrated
before I realized my chime was out of service.
How about a wired chime using a lithium battery? The battery could
outlast a transformer and be cheaper to replace.
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:01 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:44:40 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>Vic Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
>>> electricity.
>>> Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
>>> pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
>>
>> Geeze, I replaced the transformer powered doorbell in my house 10
>> years ago with a 15 buck wireless chimer. Couple screws and it's
>> done. Replaced the AAA batteries once in all that time.
>>
>
>$15 at 25c/year means you'll recover your costs in 60 years. But the
>batteries cost, oh, $1.00 every ten years, so that's another six bucks which
>will take another 12 years to recover. But 12 years means one more set of
>batteries, which requires another four years. Let's see, now (mumble,
>mumble, carry-the-three), ah, yes.
>
>Your wireless solution will save you money after a mere 73 years of service.
>This does not count lost opportunity costs of the original $15.
>
But my chimes sound better. Aren't esthetics worth anything?
Do the math.
--Vic
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:02 pm
From: AZ Nomad
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:02:44 -0500 (EST), J. Cochran <jdc@mail.fiawol.org> wrote:
>In article <6ojvt2F41153U1@mid.individual.net>,
>Bill <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
>>this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
>>plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
>>switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
>>button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
>>button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
>>transformer.
>Congratulations. You've just made a potentially lethal accident waiting to
>happen. And somehow I suspect your insurance won't pay if someone dies.
>I would STRONGLY suggest you do one of 2 things.
> 1. Rewire that doorbell to it's original configuration.
>or
> 2. Put a GFCI into the circuit
A gfci won't deal with the issue of low voltage wiring carrying 110. It is a
fire waiting to happen, especially if there is any possibility of rodents.
It is unfunckingbelievable what people will do to trim off a ten cent/year
cost.
That's right. Maybe ten cents in an entire year.
maybe.
The cost of the pushbutton guarantees that the change will never ever pay
for itself.
And that isn't counting the insane fire hazzard.
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:16 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:59:19 -0500, E Z Peaces <cash@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>Vic Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:44:47 -0800 (PST), Mikepier
>> <mikepier@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 9:21 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
>>>> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
>>>> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> These things add up...
>>>>
>>>> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the doorbell
>>>> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>>>>
>>>> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
>>>> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
>>>> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
>>>> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
>>>> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
>>>> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
>>>> transformer.
>>> Congratulations, you've just saved yourself 25 cents a year in
>>> electricity.
>>> Not to mention it might not be safe if someone is standing on wet
>>> pavement and they gey shocked by 120V.
>>
>> Geeze, I replaced the transformer powered doorbell in my house 10
>> years ago with a 15 buck wireless chimer. Couple screws and it's
>> done. Replaced the AAA batteries once in all that time.
>>
>> --Vic
>
>Doorbells once used carbon-zinc batteries. Their shelf life wasn't
>good. That explains the change to transformers.
>
>I've tried battery-powered wireless door chimes. I used AA alkalines,
>which have a much longer shelf life than conventional carbon-zinc. The
>problem was the current draw of the receivers. A set of batteries would
>last only a few months, and a lot of visitors might leave frustrated
>before I realized my chime was out of service.
>
>How about a wired chime using a lithium battery? The battery could
>outlast a transformer and be cheaper to replace.
Haven't had that problem like that. Just checked to see if it worked,
since I don't get a lot of visitors. It works.
The receiver uses 2 C's, so I was wrong on that. The pushbutton is
unlighted. You can hear the chimes from outside, so you know it's
working. But there's a knocker on the door too, just in case.
Ending my part in doorbells and knockers discussion. That's all I
know. Carry on.
--Vic
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:34 pm
From: max
In article <6ojvt2F41153U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Bill" <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wired doorbells have a transformer which is always on and always using
> electricity. This is yet one more thing in the house which does this like
> TV, microwave, remote control things, things with clocks, plug-in phones,
> etc.
>
> These things add up...
>
> I replaced/rewired my switch so the transformer is only on when the doorbell
> button is pressed! Thus the transformer is off most of the time now.
>
> I installed a regular electrical box at my front door, ran 14 ga. romex from
> this box to the doorbell transformer, then got a nice brass blank wall
> plate, drilled a hole in this plate, then installed a 120V momentary push
> switch in the plate. Then wired this to switch on the transformer when the
> button is pressed. Then connected the two wires which were going to the old
> button so the doorbell would ring as soon as it receives power from the
> transformer.
i have a door knocker. My old house had a hand-cranked
through-the-door doorbell.
No annoying ground currents to kill the Jehovah's Witnesses.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama gets it! Oil is FINITE, regardless of current price.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5b131e99a30a9010?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 6:52 pm
From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com
On Nov 19, 7:31 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
> >>>> Minutes interview:
> >>>> [quote]
> >>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
> >>>> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
> >>>> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
> >>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
> >>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
> >> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
>
> > That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
> > you actually are.
>
> Your mind is closed.
My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in
> oil prices.
Absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
under $60," which is a blatant lie.
Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
that is a lie.
I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then
> the subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
why does O'bama agree?
> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
> $100,000.
Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
> >> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
> >> was made:
>
> <snip>
> >> Kroft: Why?
>
> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
> >> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
> >> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
> >> down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
> >> know filling up our SUVs again.
>
> This is absolutely accurate.
Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
tank is full before doing so.
> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the
> >> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
> >> it.
>
> >> [end quote]
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>
> Nothing Bush says means anything.
I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say
it was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said
it. And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
> Was it the ownership society?
> Was that we would get binLaden?
> Was it that the economy is strong?
> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>
> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
> government.
In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
won't try anything underhanded like that.
I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
then. Do you?
> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he is
> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
back for Hillary's gain?
> > I understand where you are coming from.
> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>
> Jeff
I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
misguided opinions as lies.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 7:22 pm
From: Ken Lay
In article <xaKdndIXlcNyMrnUnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
You misunderestimate our Great Leader. He's smarter than Dan Quayle.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:13 pm
From: Jeff
hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:31 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a 60
>>>>>> Minutes interview:
>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there were a
>>>>>> lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held on energy
>>>>>> independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>>>>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
>>>>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>>>> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you actually are.
>>> That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
>>> you actually are.
>> Your mind is closed.
>
> My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
>
>> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in
>> oil prices.
>
> Absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
> under $60," which is a blatant lie.
Boy, you are reading a lot into that line. Did it *not* occur to you
that "you have" did not refer to Obama but rather in a more general
collective sense? Are you right wingers that suspicious?
>
> Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
I guess not because you keep bringing that up.
You really need some conversational English skills. Or loosen up a bit.
>
> You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
> that is a lie.
>
> I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
You reject a straw man argument that lives only in your mind.
>
>> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then
>> the subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>
> Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and
> why does O'bama agree?
>
>> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
>> $100,000.
>
> Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
> subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
>
>>>> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such implication
>>>> was made:
>> <snip>
>>>> Kroft: Why?
>>>> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
>>>> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
>>>> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back
>>>> down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start, you
>>>> know filling up our SUVs again.
>> This is absolutely accurate.
>
> Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
> credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
> tank is full before doing so.
Take a look at the resale value of a large SUV. For that matter look at
their sales figures, Ford SUV sales are off 54%. Now consider what
happened after the Arab Oil Embargo. Fuel Efficiency and lower
consumption reigned for a while. By the time of Reagan it was all in the
past.
>
>>>> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the
>>>> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break
>>>> it.
>>>> [end quote]
>>>> Jeff
>>> You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
>>> When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>
> I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say
> it was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
>> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>
> He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said
> it. And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
Actually he said it last, long after it was obvious to everyone else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_War_(21st_century)
Care to try again?
>
>> Was it the ownership society?
>> Was that we would get binLaden?
>> Was it that the economy is strong?
>> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>
>> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
>> government.
>
> In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
> won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
> then. Do you?
Now, I find it amusing that you have to go back 30 years to Carter.
But let me say a few words about what Carter was able to do that Bush
has failed completely at.
He brought peace between the nations of the Middle East. Specifically
Israel and Egypt had fought a long series of wars every 6 years or so.
Today Egypt and Israel remain at peace.
Back then a large portion (1/3 +) of electric power was generated
from petroleum, Carter changed that.
I don't believe Bush has anything positive in his legacy to match.
Even Nixon has some positives in his record.
>> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he is
>> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the
> back for Hillary's gain?
Stop falling for every conspiracy theory you hear of. They are not
all Clinton people but they are all people that have deep experience in
government and specifically in the fields they are nominated for. Where
else would you mine for experienced Democrats but in the Clinton WH?
Most of the experienced people W had came from his Dads staff and many
of those came out of Ford. Of course the neocons W took on were called
"the crazies" back then by the rest of the WH staff.
Most of government has been rudderless for the last year. The top
levels of many many departments are empty. The business of government,
vastly more bloated under W, has virtually ground to a halt. What Obama
has chosen is people with a track record to get the government working
again. What you don't realize is *that* his most important short term
goal, and he will be very pragmatic (not a word I can associate with
Republicans) in achieving that.
Jeff
>
>>> I understand where you are coming from.
>
>> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
> your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
> misguided opinions as lies.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 8:36 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:52:18 -0800, hot-ham-and-cheese wrote:
> On Nov 19, 7:31 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Nov 19, 12:48 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 17, 11:40 am, Enough Already <enough_alre...@lycos.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> It was inspiring to hear President-elect Obama say this during a
>> >>>> 60 Minutes interview:
>> >>>> [quote]
>> >>>> (CBS) Kroft: When the price of oil was at $147 a barrel, there
>> >>>> were a lot of spirited and profitable discussions that were held
>> >>>> on energy independence. Now you've got the price of oil under $60.
>> >>>> Mr. Obama: Right.
>> >>> Uh, wrong. O'bama didn't get the price under $60 per barrel.
>> >> Such answers make the right seem more brain dead than you
>> >> actually are.
>>
>> > That you accept blatant lies makes you seem exactly as brain dead as
>> > you actually are.
>>
>> Your mind is closed.
>
> My mind is open. I read. I comprehend. I comment.
>
>> Of course Obama had nothing to do with the fall in oil prices.
>
> Absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
> Yet Kroft, talking to O'bama says, "Now you've got the price of oil
> under $60," which is a blatant lie.
And you and I an others also have the price of oil under $60. There is
no implication that we _caused_ it. But we HAVE it.
> Then O'bama replies, "Right," another blatant lie.
You are an idiot.
> You tell me I'm brain dead after you've accepted two blatant lies, so
> that is a lie.
>
> I reject Kroft's lie. I reject O'bama's lie, and I reject your lie.
Sounds like a religious problem.
>> Bush is both the reason for the extraordinary rise and then the
>> subsequent collapse of oil. The first was conscious, the second an
>> unintended consequence of Bush economics.
>
> Why does Kroft think that O'bama has the price of oil under $60, and why
> does O'bama agree?
You are an idiot.
>> No small matter that Obama won the vote of those making more than
>> $100,000.
>
> Are you now changing the subject? Squirrelly Curmudgeon classifies a
> subject change as a lie by diversion, but I don't.
Obama won the vote of just about all segments.
>> >> If you read what you snipped then you'll see that no such
>> >> implication
>> >> was made:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> Kroft: Why?
>>
>> >> Mr. Obama: Well, because this has been our pattern. We go from shock
>> >> to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up,
>> >> everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go
>> >> back down and suddenly we act like it's not important, and we start,
>> >> you know filling up our SUVs again.
>>
>> This is absolutely accurate.
>
> Actually, I was always able to fill up my truck except that my debit/
> credit card shuts off at $75.00. It still shuts off at $75.00, but my
> tank is full before doing so.
My debit card shuts off at $500. But I usually pay cash for the gas.
And the need for alternative fuels is more important that the soaring and
plunging price of gasoline.
>> >> And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It's part of the
>> >> addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to
>> >> break it.
>>
>> >> [end quote]
>>
>> >> Jeff
>>
>> > You mean when Bush said we were addicted to oil it meant nothing.
>> > When O'bama says we are addicted to oil it means something.
>>
>> Nothing Bush says means anything.
>
> I'll chalk that up as your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it
> was a lie, but I won't try anything underhanded like that.
George Bush can tell 2 contradictory lies in the same breath and believe
both of them.
>> Name one thing W said that was more than just words being spoken.
>
> He said the war on terror would be a long war. He repeatedly said it.
> And it was so long that everyone forgot he said it.
Good point. It would be long because Bush and the Republicans need it to
be long.
>> Was it the ownership society?
>> Was that we would get binLaden?
>> Was it that the economy is strong?
>> Was it, heckuva job Brownie.
>>
>> Never has a president of any party been such a poor steward of the
>> government.
>
> In your opinion. Squirrelly Curmudgeon would say it was a lie, but I
> won't try anything underhanded like that.
>
> I recall the hyper-inflation of Jimmy Carter and the lack of jobs back
> then. Do you?
I remember those days and I did very well, thank you. Wages were
actually rising and people bought homes and 5 years later the payments
were a very small part of their living expenses. But the Republicans
managed to convince all persons that inflation was THE problem.
>> If you look at the picks that Obama has made you will see that he
>> is
>> going for competence, a nice change from W's Texas buds.
>
> He's picked Bill's buds. Do you think they will stab O'bama in the back
> for Hillary's gain?
No.
>> > I understand where you are coming from.
>
>> You understand nothing beyond your preconceived notions.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I understand you for the most part. Had I been Squirrelly Curmudgeon,
> your lie tally would be five, but I can't honestly categorize your
> misguided opinions as lies.
I don't categorize yours as lies either. Where does that leave you.
Other news groups have their problems we have you at $60.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: anyone make a wifi finder with internet telephone capabilities?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81d9c571716583a4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 6:55 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Nov 19, 10:59 am, OhioGuy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone makes some sort of pocket pc that is wifi
> enabled, and has enough 'horsepower' to run Yahoo Messenger?
>
> I'd like something like that that would work with a plain vanilla
> headset, and let me do voice calls over the Internet whenever the thing
> finds an open wifi hotspot.
>
> Obviously, I can buy a laptop for $400 that will do this, but I was
> hoping that by now there would be something smaller with the same
> capabilities, and hopefully cheaper. ($200 or less)
>
> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>
> Thanks!
Not for $200 but closer to $299-359 you can buy one of those nifty new
micro PC's. I picked up one at Target recently. The Asus EeePC runs
Ubuntu Linux but I'm also seriously considering one of the Acer
Aspires (same size but runs Windows XP and has more ram/HD space for
$50 more). Both have about a 8.5? screen I think.
http://eeepc.asus.com/global/products.html?n=0
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/08/04/acer-aspire-one/1
==============================================================================
TOPIC: shooping url
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/981d9456b9d5502d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 19 2008 6:59 pm
From: "PrettyReplica.com"
like this
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment