On 20/02/2023 04:30, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>     Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>     even need a transmission.
>>>>>
>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>
>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>
>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>
>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>
>>
>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>
>   That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
>   in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
>   Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
>   it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
>   systems too.
>
>   Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
>   even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
>   skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>
>   In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
>   computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
>   '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
>   side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
>   to replace.
Not really. I watch a lot of car repair videos, as I am interested, and
in so many cases it is not a question of 'replace a module' . In many
cases it can be 'replace a sensor' but in a lot it is a question of
finding corrosion in plugs and sockets, critter damage, or melted or
rubbed through insulation in wiring looms, as well as occasionally new
parts that are simply out of spec.

>
>   BATTERIES are the bane of electrics alas ... they need to
>   be a LOT better and I do *not* see anything on the near
>   horizon. Oh sure, lots of 'exciting research' reports -
>   but the prototypes are maybe a square millimeter and
>   they NEVER scale up to real, affordable, production.

Nope. BEVS are about as effective as steam powered aeroplanes.They can
be made to work, but there are real limitations on energy to weight of
batteries as well as the availability of the only viable material - lithium.

But fear not, there is enough for the politburo in their Zil lanes. Us
plebs will take the one bus a day to the one train a day station, an
catch our social diseases in the crowds on the platform, waiting for the
wind to pick up or the sun to come out, so we can get to where we want
to go.

Socialism as Churchill said, is the equal imposition of poverty and
misery on all. Except the politburo, who are so important they must have
no restrictions.

--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

On 2023-02-20 08:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>>
>>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>
>> That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
>> in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
>> Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
>> it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
>> systems too.
>>
>> Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
>> even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
>> skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>>
>> In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
>> computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
>> '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
>> side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
>> to replace.
>
> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.

Well, an EV has no gears, no clutch. No transmission turbine. No oil
pump. No water cooling (maybe the batteries need that?). No belts. No
camshaft or chain. Possibly no differential transmission, or no
transmission at all. Possibly four wheel drive with no transmission.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 20/02/2023 07:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>>
>>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>
>> That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
>> in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
>> Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
>> it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
>> systems too.
>>
>> Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
>> even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
>> skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>>
>> In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
>> computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
>> '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
>> side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
>> to replace.
>
> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>
I dont accept that.
The only times I have been stranded or nearly stranded in the last 20
years have been fuel pump issues.
Others less meticulous over maintenance find that flat batteries are the
largest source of unreliability and that ain't gonna change with BEVs!

> The thing is that I'd quite like electric cars to be simple overall
> because then both the electronics and the mechanics would be within
> the grasp of a backyard mechanic again. In practice they make it
> all too complicated, and even figuring out how to replace a module
> without the main computer spitting out rude error messages might be
> beyond someone without the manufacturer's documentation at hand.
> That's after you shell out a fortune for the replacement module and
> wait a couple of months for it to travel across the globe.
>
Honey, you are in dreamland.
A backyard mechanic never manufactured his own parts, and that aint done
except in the third world. And no one is going to replace a massive
surface mounted 120 pin dedicated chip with a suitcase full of
transistors that you can individually replace.

What you backyards mechanic nneeds these days is a code reader and an
oscilloscope, a multimeter and a voltage probe. And the ability to
replace broken parts after they have been identified. If that broken
part is a box with a 100pin connector and a heatsink its no different
from a worn distributor or carburettor.

>> BATTERIES are the bane of electrics alas ... they need to
>> be a LOT better and I do *not* see anything on the near
>> horizon. Oh sure, lots of 'exciting research' reports -
>> but the prototypes are maybe a square millimeter and
>> they NEVER scale up to real, affordable, production.
>
> Yep, I agree on that.
>

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 2023-02-20 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 01:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:

....

>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>
>
> Yes, but that is in fact what has happened with IC too, less mechanicals
> more computer.
>
> Apart from variable valve timing and turbochargers, motors have LOST
> complexity.
>
> Gone are
> Contact breakers, with mechanical and vacuum advance
> Distributors
> Carburettors.

Now need a high pressure pump and injectors, with absolutely clean fuel.

>
> Everything is now sensored and computer controlled.

Sensors break, and are very expensive to replace. The right sensor
failure and you are dead in the road, needing a tow.

Happened to me. I didn't need a tow, but there was an alarm, and after
replacing the obvious, the mechanic had to drive my car for a while with
a laptop on the other seat, logging the data on the engine computer,
till he found the intermittent sensor glitch that triggered a permanent
alarm.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 20/02/2023 04:18, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/19/23 7:04 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-19 05:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>>>
>>>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>>>
>>>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>>>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
>>>> place including a home server.
>>>
>>>    A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>>>    SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>>>    portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>>>    LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>>>    control.
>>
>>
>> Samba has no knowledge of Linux permissions and attributes. NFS does.
>
>
>   Ummmm ... SAMBA makes/manages it's OWN permissions and
>   attributes by and large. I've never had a big prob in 25
>   years. I think it's "better" for a biz environment where
>   you have lots of Winders boxes and a few -ix servers,
>   esp in terms of visibility and finer-grained permissions.
>   If it's a HOME system, well, who cares, but I have outside
>   IT auditors who want to know who has access to every little
>   share and their view/read/rw abilities and why and how others
>   are excluded.

I don't disagree that if you have a load of dumb winders users and want
to give them limited access to a shared resource with well defined
locking on files that winders understands, well yes, SAMBA was what I
used for that.

My point was that in terms of building a resilient single user Linux
only system, NFS is way more useful.

--
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On 20/02/2023 10:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-20 08:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start
>>>>>> or run
>>>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>>
>>>    That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
>>>    in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
>>>    Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
>>>    it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
>>>    systems too.
>>>
>>>    Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
>>>    even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
>>>    skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>>>
>>>    In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
>>>    computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
>>>    '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
>>>    side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
>>>    to replace.
>>
>> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
>> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
>> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
>> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
>> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
>> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>
> Well, an EV has no gears, no clutch. No transmission turbine. No oil
> pump. No water cooling (maybe the batteries need that?). No belts. No
> camshaft or chain. Possibly no differential transmission, or no
> transmission at all. Possibly four wheel drive with no transmission.
>
So? Complexity does not equal unreliability if the individual components
have a high MTBF and preventative maintenance is carried out.
The problem is that the major component of an electric car - the battery
- is likely to fail after 50-100,000 miles.
One huge critical not very reliable component.
I've been running battery power electric model aircraft for two decades
now, on and off.
THE single most unreliable item has been the flight batteries,m which
you generally bin after a year or two as they lose capacity and develop
high internal resistance.

The second most prevalent failure in the early days was the bronze
bushings and carbon brushes on the cheap DC motors we totally abused.
Today they have gone and we have ball bearing equipped brushless motor
driven by a $10 Chinese made controller, that is simply fit and forget.
If you are conservative about your ratings that is.

Electronics are remarkably reliable. Most stuff that worked once carries
on working. The exception being some capacitors, and the
electromechanical items like potentiometers.

Semiconductors do age, and high temperatures accelerate that process so
blown power stuff happens in the end if you run then too hot, but for
the vast majority of low power stuff the MTBF will be several times the
expected lifetime of the car.

I'd say the weakest point in a battery car is the battery itself,
followed by the cooling fans. Then the power transistors which will be
physically large and replaceable by a fairly unskilled technician, If
they are not in a simple replaceable block.

And of course the aircon system, which will be just as bloody useless as
it is on any IC car, and the remote keyfob, which will disintegrate
leaving you totally stranded unless you can get a recode at a dealership :-)

And the multitude of electrical connectors to the sensors around the
motors and backs which will be exactly as unreliable as they are on an
IC car.,

The mechanics may be simpler and not wear out, but the electrics will be
even MORE complicated. Regenerative braking is one such item. Torque
control on slippery surfaces is another. If you have a motor per wheel.

But all is in vain until the battery problem is solved. And Physical
Chemistry shows that a theoretically perfect lithium battery made out of
only lithium is needed to match range with fuel engines. At the moment
we are perhaps at 15% of that, and in practice will never exceed maybe 30%.

Remember half the fuel in an IC engine is simply not carried in the
vehicle, it is sucked out of the air.

Only Lithium air batteries can match that, and they don't even work
properly in the lab, and are pretty alarming beasts to consider having
under your backside in a crash.

BEVs constructed around electrochemical batteries will never be as
ubiquitous as fuel cars.
BUT to return to the point, the mechanical simplicity of an electric car
will almost certainly not result in improved reliability, since
unexpected mechanical failure on a well maintained modern car is fairly
rare.

What you will see is a virtually zero service charge, consisting
probably of air and cabin filters to the various fans, all the usual
aircon crap, and brakes and tyres only.

And then 5 years in, a replacement battery costing one third of the cost
of a new car, or more.

The electric motor is like the crankshaft of an IC engine. The battery
represents all the rest. And it can does and will wear out rapidly.

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 20/02/2023 10:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-20 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 20/02/2023 01:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but that is in fact what has happened with IC too, less
>> mechanicals more computer.
>>
>> Apart from variable valve timing and turbochargers, motors have LOST
>> complexity.
>>
>> Gone are
>> Contact breakers, with mechanical and vacuum advance
>> Distributors
>> Carburettors.
>
> Now need a high pressure pump and injectors, with absolutely clean fuel.
>
>>
>> Everything is now sensored and computer controlled.
>
> Sensors break, and are very expensive to replace.

Er no. After a huge amount of head scratching, I fixed a water
temperature sensor for about $7.
Sensors are very simple beasts indeed by and large
The most expensive sensor I could think of for my car is the mass
airflow sensor, at $90 or thereabouts.

The right sensor
> failure and you are dead in the road, needing a tow.
>
Yes, a failed crank sensor is a "crank, no start". That's akin to having
the points close up on a car.
But a failed oxygen sensor or temperature sensor or knock sensor wont
net you a car that wont start, just one with a christmas tree of colored
lights on the dash.

> Happened to me. I didn't need a tow, but there was an alarm, and after
> replacing the obvious, the mechanic had to drive my car for a while with
> a laptop on the other seat, logging the data on the engine computer,
> till he found the intermittent sensor glitch that triggered a permanent
> alarm.
>
>
Yes, but the sensor was not expensive was it? Just the diagnostics and
replacement labour.

I bought a Bluetooth equipped dongle that connects to my cars
diagnostic port and allows a cheap app on the smartphone to look for
fault codes and running data. Less than $50

This stuff only appears complicated because while you understand valves
and cam shafts, distributors and carbs, you don't understand oxygen
sensors fuel trims and valve solenoids and EGR valves.

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

On 2023-02-20 11:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 07:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.

>> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
>> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
>> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
>> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
>> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
>> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>>
> I dont accept that.
> The only times I have been stranded or nearly stranded in the last 20
> years have been fuel pump issues.
> Others less meticulous over maintenance find that flat batteries are the
> largest source of unreliability and that ain't gonna change with BEVs!

I was stranded once because the cable in the ruptor had peeled the
insulation and touched ground:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_breaker

I needed a crane, out in nowhere.

Another time I was almost stranded because dust inside the carburator
clogged the iddle gasoline "fountain" (chicler in Spanish). Turned out I
had to preventively clean it every 10000 km.

Another time, when I replaced the ruptor with DIY electronics, the
electronics burned 50 Km out. I took out the electronics and connected
back the ruptor.

All that in a Renault super five.

In an Opel Corsa, once the fuel connection from the pump got loose just
100 Km out of the periodic maintenance. Needed a crane.

Another time, same car, the electric steering assistance broke down.
Needed a crane.

Ah, my late father's car (a Peugeot 205) had a faulty ignition coil, and
once or twice I had to call a crane; only that the mechanic was able to
start it. Took 20 years to find the fault, from the first time I
complained that the engine had lost power.

His previous car, an Austin 1300, had a knack for stalling in the middle
of puddles. Funny a car designed in the rainy Britain to have such a
problem. It also broke a teeth of the inertia dish, which has teeth to
be engaged by the starter. Also had a clogged radiator. And every 20000
km, the rubber constant-velocity joint would degrade and finally break.
First on left wheel, then the other, so one failure every 10000 Km.

Linux was not to be blamed ever :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-02-20 12:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 10:44, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-20 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2023 01:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but that is in fact what has happened with IC too, less
>>> mechanicals more computer.
>>>
>>> Apart from variable valve timing and turbochargers, motors have LOST
>>> complexity.
>>>
>>> Gone are
>>> Contact breakers, with mechanical and vacuum advance
>>> Distributors
>>> Carburettors.
>>
>> Now need a high pressure pump and injectors, with absolutely clean fuel.
>>
>>>
>>> Everything is now sensored and computer controlled.
>>
>> Sensors break, and are very expensive to replace.
>
> Er no. After a huge amount of head scratching, I fixed a water
> temperature sensor for about $7.
> Sensors are very simple beasts indeed by and large
> The most expensive sensor I could think of for my car is the mass
> airflow sensor, at $90 or thereabouts.
>
>  The right sensor
>> failure and you are dead in the road, needing a tow.
>>
> Yes, a failed crank sensor is a "crank, no start". That's akin to having
> the points close up on a car.
> But a failed oxygen sensor or temperature sensor or knock sensor wont
> net you a car that wont start, just one with a christmas tree of colored
> lights on the dash.
>
>> Happened to me. I didn't need a tow, but there was an alarm, and after
>> replacing the obvious, the mechanic had to drive my car for a while
>> with a laptop on the other seat, logging the data on the engine
>> computer, till he found the intermittent sensor glitch that triggered
>> a permanent alarm.
>>
>>
> Yes, but the sensor was not expensive was it? Just the diagnostics and
> replacement labour.

Well, a hundred euros or two is not cheap.

>
> I bought a Bluetooth equipped  dongle that connects to my cars
> diagnostic port and allows a cheap app on the smartphone to look for
> fault codes and running data. Less than $50
>
> This stuff only appears complicated because while you understand valves
> and cam shafts, distributors  and carbs, you don't understand oxygen
> sensors fuel trims and valve solenoids and EGR valves.
>

I take my cars to the garage.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 10.02.2023 21.41, pH wrote:
> On 2023-02-09, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-09 11:28, db wrote:
>>> When I want to operate on a USB, it has a long unwieldy
>>> name. How do I give it a short name? I have forgotten
>>> how to do it. Alias? Or what?
>>
>> USB what? A keyboard? A mouse? A scanner? A printer? A modem?
>>
>
> "e2label" might do what you want.
>
> use e2label or tune2fs -L to give big long parition names a new, easier
> name.
> NAME
> e2label - Change the label on an ext2/ext3/ext4 filesystem
>
>
>
> So don't know if it will work on USB sticks/names.
>
> pH in Aptos

This was solved for me by the suggestion to use a symbolic link.
I should have remembered that.
--
Dieter Britz

On 2023-02-20, 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:

> As for "the house burning down" - and yes I do take
> such disasters into consideration - this is where
> 'cloud' space for backups comes in. Plain old
> DropBox will work, esp one of the for-$$$ levels.
> Commercial DBox even has 'undo' levels that go
> back for about a year. There are a few others where
> you can sFTP instead of having that dedicated local
> folder as with DBox. ALWAYS pre-encrypt before
> putting anything on The Cloud !!!

Fortunately, I have access to offsite locations where I can
store backups I make to external hard drives. No worries
about encryption, faster backups, and at least as reliable.
(The Cloud is not perfect; a friend lost a lot of valuable
photographs to a malfunction in a server somewhere.) Plus,
there's less chance of a ransomware attack (I don't trust
cloud providers either).

Don't get me wrong, the Cloud is great for distribution.
I just won't use it for storage.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | People have become
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | too dependent on
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | the Internet.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | It Clouds their thinking.

On 20/02/2023 18:03, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> the Cloud is great for distribution.
> I just won't use it for storage.

Not THE cloud, but MY cloud is fine.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 07:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
>> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
>> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
>> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
>> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
>> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>>
> I dont accept that.
> The only times I have been stranded or nearly stranded in the last 20
> years have been fuel pump issues.
> Others less meticulous over maintenance find that flat batteries are the
> largest source of unreliability and that ain't gonna change with BEVs!

I see your point, but in theory you don't need to do so much work
on preventative maintenance like an IC vehicle requires in order to
be reliable. The more reliable, the less maintenance required, so
the less maintenance required, the more reliable.

>> The thing is that I'd quite like electric cars to be simple overall
>> because then both the electronics and the mechanics would be within
>> the grasp of a backyard mechanic again. In practice they make it
>> all too complicated, and even figuring out how to replace a module
>> without the main computer spitting out rude error messages might be
>> beyond someone without the manufacturer's documentation at hand.
>> That's after you shell out a fortune for the replacement module and
>> wait a couple of months for it to travel across the globe.
>>
> Honey,

That's alarming.

> you are in dreamland.
> A backyard mechanic never manufactured his own parts, and that aint done
> except in the third world. And no one is going to replace a massive
> surface mounted 120 pin dedicated chip with a suitcase full of
> transistors that you can individually replace.

Yeah I know, but it's a nice dream so I take offence at people
saying electric cars are simpler without qualification, because
that implies that my dream has come true when it damn sure hasn't!

> What you backyards mechanic nneeds these days is a code reader and an
> oscilloscope, a multimeter and a voltage probe.

IF there's enough public documentation for your car model to be
able to make practical use of the codes that your reader is
spitting out.

> And the ability to
> replace broken parts after they have been identified. If that broken
> part is a box with a 100pin connector and a heatsink its no different
> from a worn distributor or carburettor.

Except the lack of availability from 3rd party parts manufacturers,
and corresponding implications with price and wait time.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2/20/23 5:46 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 04:18, 25B.E866 wrote:
>> On 2/19/23 7:04 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 05:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>>>>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over
>>>>> the place including a home server.
>>>>
>>>>    A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>>>>    SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>>>>    portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>>>>    LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>>>>    control.
>>>
>>>
>>> Samba has no knowledge of Linux permissions and attributes. NFS does.
>>
>>
>>    Ummmm ... SAMBA makes/manages it's OWN permissions and
>>    attributes by and large. I've never had a big prob in 25
>>    years. I think it's "better" for a biz environment where
>>    you have lots of Winders boxes and a few -ix servers,
>>    esp in terms of visibility and finer-grained permissions.
>>    If it's a HOME system, well, who cares, but I have outside
>>    IT auditors who want to know who has access to every little
>>    share and their view/read/rw abilities and why and how others
>>    are excluded.
>
> I don't disagree that if you have a load of dumb winders users and want
> to give them limited access to a shared resource with well defined
> locking on files that winders understands, well yes, SAMBA was what I
> used for that.

I have a bunch of dumb winders users .....

And the auditors are really keen on making sure nobody
sees anything they shouldn't.

While it CAN be done with pure SAMBA pretty decently I've
had to use proper NAS systems at this point to handle the
multitude of finer details AND just to manage the whole
mess conveniently. Everybody keeps wanting MORE little
secret hidey-holes for their "special" files too and I've
just stopped even arguing with them ......

Real World, Real Humans ... sucks sometimes .........

Maybe the AI Overlords won't be so bad ...... :-)

> My point was that in terms of building a resilient single user Linux
> only system, NFS is way more useful.

As said, for a single-user/"home" setup then NFS is
perfectly good and, within its sphere, "easier" and
thus perhaps "better".

On 2/20/23 2:21 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 18:03, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>   the Cloud is great for distribution.
>> I just won't use it for storage.
>
> Not THE cloud, but MY cloud is fine.

THE Cloud is just fine for storage - BUT - always
always ALWAYS pre-encrypt anything you're gonna
put up there. Forget their promises of "security"
and "privacy" and "We encrypt it for you !".

It's easy to leverage/script/pgm CL openSSL on
-ix or Winders. Drastically quicker than PGP/GPG
too, esp for lotsa small files. Compose yer CL
and "System()" it in whatever lang you use.

Looks like :

openssl aes-256-cbc -in "MyFile.txt" -out "MyFile.txt.enc" -pass
pass:"ThePW"

and it's advised to put all filenames/PWs in quotes. Also
note that it doesn't LIKE all possible filenames, esp
with Winders odd characters in them that have no -ix
validity, so you may wanna encrypt to a safe tempfile
name, encrypt it, then move the tempfile to the dest and
finally re-name it ... works reliably that way. If
you wanna pre-zip then pre-zip to a /tmp/TFile.zip and
THEN encrypt THAT (encrypted files don't zip since they
are essentially "binary white noise" afterwards).

The Winders CL is ALMOST the same.

Anyway, that's the basic pattern. There are other params you
can add in there to achieve some "special effects".

AES-128-CBC and AES-192-CBC are still very secure and run
a little bit faster. Camellia-256-cbc is pretty good too.

"openssl help" will list all ciphers included in YOUR version
of the utility - but I'd advise sticking to AES or Camellia.
Experiment - for YOUR files one or another variant will be
faster and you'll have to decide on the speed/security level.
Only "-cbc" symmetrical algos work to simply encrypt plain-jane
files ... there are other options for public/private keys that
probably not what you want for just storing stuff to The Cloud
since there's only YOU, not some active client involved.

It's also possible to "echo" files INTO openssl but that's
really only for ascii text files.

If you wanna preserve basic file attributes Python3 has
some library routines for xfering those to the final
destination file. Not ALL though - Winders "security"
metadata is just STUPID complicated. NEVER even got their
recommended 'C' utils to do it properly. For backups
intended for emergency restoration you can usually skip
the more nuanced metadata.

On 2/20/23 5:28 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-20 03:28, 25B.E866 wrote:
>> On 2/18/23 6:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-18 06:56, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/23 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>
>
>>>>    And if you're gonna make RAID arrays ... the OpenSUSE YAST
>>>>    GUI makes it super super super EASY and clear. The CL utils
>>>>    and config-file edits are a NIGHTMARE by comparison. A couple
>>>>    of years ago I had to do it The Hard Way on Centos. NEVER
>>>>    AGAIN BABY !!! Took a half a fuckin' DAY to get everything
>>>>    in order and underway ! Steps, more steps and MORE fuckin'
>>>>    steps asking obscure questions and needing obscure
>>>>    syntax and nums ...............
>>>
>>> Well, openSUSE is removing functionality from YaST. Recently they
>>> removed the sound module. Next are the DNS, DHCP, and web server
>>> modules.
>>
>>
>>    And someone was complaining when I started trashing OpenSUSE :-)
>
> I only complain when the trashing is incorrect.
>
>>
>>    I'd say it reached its zenith about two years ago. Downhill
>>    from there. More and more and more bits MIA ...
>>
>>    I used to rec it pretty heavily, called it a "Cadillac distro".
>>
>>    No more.
>>
>>    So sad.
>>
>>    Not sure if it's because of the RH/IBM thing or whether the
>>    maintainers just got lazy.
>
> Enterprise decisions.

Translation - "The Pointy-Haired Bosses" :-)

DUMP 'em ... just keep the good hacks !

Frankly, an "open" OS really shouldn't have any
pointy-haired bosses, just the tekkies who know
how it works. COMMERCIAL SUSE ... that's a whole
different animal.

What do we need now - a branch of OpenSUSE run
by The Capable ??? There WAS a nice-ish system
called "Scientific Linux" - but it went the
whole RHEL route including the GNOME desktop
with giant icons and almost impenetrable routes
to common apps. In short it became Centos - and
Centos is now hostage to IBM/RH. "Sure - run
your enterprise on beta code -or- for a fistfull
of $$$ ........."

Which is why I stick to vanilla Deb for biz servers
and such these days. No BS. If Deb goes corrupt
there's still Arch and Slack.

On 2/20/23 1:03 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-02-20, 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>
>> As for "the house burning down" - and yes I do take
>> such disasters into consideration - this is where
>> 'cloud' space for backups comes in. Plain old
>> DropBox will work, esp one of the for-$$$ levels.
>> Commercial DBox even has 'undo' levels that go
>> back for about a year. There are a few others where
>> you can sFTP instead of having that dedicated local
>> folder as with DBox. ALWAYS pre-encrypt before
>> putting anything on The Cloud !!!
>
> Fortunately, I have access to offsite locations where I can
> store backups I make to external hard drives. No worries
> about encryption, faster backups, and at least as reliable.
> (The Cloud is not perfect; a friend lost a lot of valuable
> photographs to a malfunction in a server somewhere.) Plus,
> there's less chance of a ransomware attack (I don't trust
> cloud providers either).
>
> Don't get me wrong, the Cloud is great for distribution.
> I just won't use it for storage.

The Cloud HAS ITS PLACE. Never, ever, rely on it to store
one-of-a-kind data. It should be a SECONDARY backup, with
local boxes as the primaries.

And NEVER trust their promises of "security"/"privacy" ...
ENCRYPT before you Cloud ! There was some old cloud
provider that got all upset over my encrypted data -
WHICH MEANT THEY WERE TRYING TO *PIRATE* THE INFO AND
COULDN'T ! No more money for them .....

On 20/02/2023 20:02, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2023 07:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
>>> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
>>> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
>>> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
>>> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
>>> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>>>
>> I dont accept that.
>> The only times I have been stranded or nearly stranded in the last 20
>> years have been fuel pump issues.
>> Others less meticulous over maintenance find that flat batteries are the
>> largest source of unreliability and that ain't gonna change with BEVs!
>
> I see your point, but in theory you don't need to do so much work
> on preventative maintenance like an IC vehicle requires in order to
> be reliable. The more reliable, the less maintenance required, so
> the less maintenance required, the more reliable.
>
>>> The thing is that I'd quite like electric cars to be simple overall
>>> because then both the electronics and the mechanics would be within
>>> the grasp of a backyard mechanic again. In practice they make it
>>> all too complicated, and even figuring out how to replace a module
>>> without the main computer spitting out rude error messages might be
>>> beyond someone without the manufacturer's documentation at hand.
>>> That's after you shell out a fortune for the replacement module and
>>> wait a couple of months for it to travel across the globe.
>>>
>> Honey,
>
> That's alarming.
>
>> you are in dreamland.
>> A backyard mechanic never manufactured his own parts, and that aint done
>> except in the third world. And no one is going to replace a massive
>> surface mounted 120 pin dedicated chip with a suitcase full of
>> transistors that you can individually replace.
>
> Yeah I know, but it's a nice dream so I take offence at people
> saying electric cars are simpler without qualification, because
> that implies that my dream has come true when it damn sure hasn't!
>
>> What you backyards mechanic nneeds these days is a code reader and an
>> oscilloscope, a multimeter and a voltage probe.
>
> IF there's enough public documentation for your car model to be
> able to make practical use of the codes that your reader is
> spitting out.
>
It is fairly public domain. Obviously those people who sign up to paid
for databases that are scrupulously maintained and offer a '7 out of 10
techs who had this code fixed it by replacing the flux capacitor' sort
of thing are well better placed, but its remarkable how much even the
public domain stuff will usually give you some indication of what is
wrong. 'Stick switch on second turbocharger' was a pretty clear code,
fixed by replacing a nasty carboned up solenoid wastegate thingummy.

>> And the ability to
>> replace broken parts after they have been identified. If that broken
>> part is a box with a 100pin connector and a heatsink its no different
>> from a worn distributor or carburettor.
>
> Except the lack of availability from 3rd party parts manufacturers,
> and corresponding implications with price and wait time.
>
In Europe at least there has been legislation to open up specifications
to third party suppliers so that the spares business doesn't become a
customer gouging dealership monopoly.

And remember, the car manufacturers don't actually manufacture cars:
they assemble them from components supplied by specialist manufacturers.
There are only around 6 manufacturers of gearboxes, engines, injection
systems etc etc. And even they don't manufacture everything.

After market parts *work* , mostly. An oxygen sensor is an oxygen sensor
and probably is sourced by the manufacturer from more than one supplier,
who are free to supply the after market as well.

The real problem has been the older generation of techs who simply don't
understand the electronic basis, who simply fire the 'parts cannon' at
huge expense and still fail to fix the car.

And the increasingly stripped down designs that were never designed to
be taken apart: viz one videos I watched was a condensed timeline of
completely removing a truck dashboard passenger seat and carpet on order
to replace an evaporator in the aircon, which had a (non replaceable)
$0. 20c temperature sensor that had gone bad. 15 hours of labour plus a
totally good evaporator because the designers had not deigned to make
the sensor either accessible or replaceable.

Ford of course.

That isn't going to change with electric cars.

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 21/02/2023 05:27, 25B.E866 wrote:
> The Cloud HAS ITS PLACE. Never, ever, rely on it to store
>   one-of-a-kind data. It should be a SECONDARY backup, with
>   local boxes as the primaries.
>
>   And NEVER trust their promises of "security"/"privacy" ...
>   ENCRYPT before you Cloud !

Absolutely. The point being that those of us who have run sorta cloud
services - like a mail server for example, and know that with root perms
they can peak into everyone's mailboxes, and sell what they find to
their wife's cousin in Kolkotta...
Every time I give my email address to new online shopping site I get a
barrage of spam until my systems learn to silently junk it.

On the internet, there is really no such thing as privacy by default.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 2023-02-21 06:21, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/20/23 5:28 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-20 03:28, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>> On 2/18/23 6:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-18 06:56, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/23 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>    And if you're gonna make RAID arrays ... the OpenSUSE YAST
>>>>>    GUI makes it super super super EASY and clear. The CL utils
>>>>>    and config-file edits are a NIGHTMARE by comparison. A couple
>>>>>    of years ago I had to do it The Hard Way on Centos. NEVER
>>>>>    AGAIN BABY !!! Took a half a fuckin' DAY to get everything
>>>>>    in order and underway ! Steps, more steps and MORE fuckin'
>>>>>    steps asking obscure questions and needing obscure
>>>>>    syntax and nums ...............
>>>>
>>>> Well, openSUSE is removing functionality from YaST. Recently they
>>>> removed the sound module. Next are the DNS, DHCP, and web server
>>>> modules.
>>>
>>>
>>>    And someone was complaining when I started trashing OpenSUSE :-)
>>
>> I only complain when the trashing is incorrect.
>>
>>>
>>>    I'd say it reached its zenith about two years ago. Downhill
>>>    from there. More and more and more bits MIA ...
>>>
>>>    I used to rec it pretty heavily, called it a "Cadillac distro".
>>>
>>>    No more.
>>>
>>>    So sad.
>>>
>>>    Not sure if it's because of the RH/IBM thing or whether the
>>>    maintainers just got lazy.
>>
>> Enterprise decisions.
>
>
>   Translation - "The Pointy-Haired Bosses"  :-)
>
>   DUMP 'em ... just keep the good hacks !
>
>   Frankly, an "open" OS really shouldn't have any
>   pointy-haired bosses, just the tekkies who know
>   how it works. COMMERCIAL SUSE ... that's a whole
>   different animal.

I'm talking of the commercial SUSE.

Maybe there is some crucial information about SUSE - openSUSE
relationship you don't understand.

SUSE (the enterprise) makes two Linux releases: desktop and server
(SLES/SLED)

openSUSE (community) makes two Linux releases: Tumbleweed (aka Factory),
a rolling release that runs the newest versions with automated testing.

Leap, the stable release, takes the entire core from the enterprise or
commercial version, unchanged. The rpms are physically the same, not
rebuilt. On a previous iteration they shared source. The packages that
SLES doesn't have but openSUSE wants, are built by the community, like
KDE/Plasma.

This has consequences. The core package versions in Leap are "ancient".

Now, SUSE (enterprise) decided that after release 5, (15.5) they are
changing the model entirely to ALP. Their decision.

So openSUSE has to decide what to do. Tumbleweed continues, but Leap
disappears or becomes Alp based. Details basically unknown and undecided.

The people that do the decision are only the people that do the
packaging, as volunteers. No bosses here at all. Not even the wide
community has a say.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 20:02, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> And the ability to
>>> replace broken parts after they have been identified. If that broken
>>> part is a box with a 100pin connector and a heatsink its no different
>>> from a worn distributor or carburettor.
>>
>> Except the lack of availability from 3rd party parts manufacturers,
>> and corresponding implications with price and wait time.
>>
> In Europe at least there has been legislation to open up specifications
> to third party suppliers so that the spares business doesn't become a
> customer gouging dealership monopoly.
>
> And remember, the car manufacturers don't actually manufacture cars:
> they assemble them from components supplied by specialist manufacturers.
> There are only around 6 manufacturers of gearboxes, engines, injection
> systems etc etc. And even they don't manufacture everything.
>
> After market parts *work* , mostly. An oxygen sensor is an oxygen sensor
> and probably is sourced by the manufacturer from more than one supplier,
> who are free to supply the after market as well.

All agreed, but you're talking about the parts in IC cars. What I
was responding to is where you claimed that electronic modules in
electric cars, things like battery charger, inverter, main
computer, are the same to deal with as something like a worn
distributor or carburettor. They're not, because these modules
are only sold by the car company. I'd be surprised if Europe was
demanding that they open up specs for _that_ side of things, and
it must be quite a new thing if they are.

This is the same as with electronic modules in IC cars, but
electric cars just have more electronics (and higher power stuff,
which is more likely to go wrong in general), so it's more
significant for repairing them, and it all goes back to the fact
that electric cars are more complicated and therefore most of their
critical parts can't be reverse-engineered easily by 3rd party
parts manufacturers, like an oxygen sensor or distributor cap can.

I've heard many such stories about dead electronic modules in IC
vehicles. The latest one was someone I know who had a motor
controller computer fail, with a replacement module costing around
$1000, and last time I heard it had been well over a month waiting
for the new part to arrive at the mechanic's. What model car? No,
this is actually for an off-road quad bike (a common model too)!

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2/21/23 6:16 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/02/2023 05:27, 25B.E866 wrote:
>> The Cloud HAS ITS PLACE. Never, ever, rely on it to store
>>    one-of-a-kind data. It should be a SECONDARY backup, with
>>    local boxes as the primaries.
>>
>>    And NEVER trust their promises of "security"/"privacy" ...
>>    ENCRYPT before you Cloud !
>
> Absolutely. The point being that those of us who have run sorta cloud
> services - like a mail server for example, and know that with root perms
> they can peak into everyone's mailboxes, and sell what they find to
> their wife's  cousin in Kolkotta...

They WILL have backdoor keys to their own encryption
as well.

> Every time I give my email address to  new online shopping site I get a
> barrage of spam until my systems learn to silently junk it.
>
> On the internet, there is really no such thing as privacy by default.

No, you have to WORK at it a bit. There are also ways
to kinda *confuse* or *misdirect* would-be spammers.

But, hate to admit it, my co firewall now has over
500 entries. The mail server alone has nearly 300
rules. Have to keep at 'em EVERY DAY just to keep
the spammers and would-be log-inners down to a
bearable level. IT used to be about creating - but
now I feel more like a condom .....

On 21/02/2023 21:43, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2023 20:02, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> And the ability to
>>>> replace broken parts after they have been identified. If that broken
>>>> part is a box with a 100pin connector and a heatsink its no different
>>>> from a worn distributor or carburettor.
>>>
>>> Except the lack of availability from 3rd party parts manufacturers,
>>> and corresponding implications with price and wait time.
>>>
>> In Europe at least there has been legislation to open up specifications
>> to third party suppliers so that the spares business doesn't become a
>> customer gouging dealership monopoly.
>>
>> And remember, the car manufacturers don't actually manufacture cars:
>> they assemble them from components supplied by specialist manufacturers.
>> There are only around 6 manufacturers of gearboxes, engines, injection
>> systems etc etc. And even they don't manufacture everything.
>>
>> After market parts *work* , mostly. An oxygen sensor is an oxygen sensor
>> and probably is sourced by the manufacturer from more than one supplier,
>> who are free to supply the after market as well.
>
> All agreed, but you're talking about the parts in IC cars. What I
> was responding to is where you claimed that electronic modules in
> electric cars, things like battery charger, inverter, main
> computer, are the same to deal with as something like a worn
> distributor or carburettor. They're not, because these modules
> are only sold by the car company. I'd be surprised if Europe was
> demanding that they open up specs for _that_ side of things, and
> it must be quite a new thing if they are.
>
Oh. Sorry. I see where you are coming from.
Well some of what I said still stands., These will NOT be the parts that
fail. Low poweer electronics sensibly made doesn't fail. Ever.
What files are mechanical and electromemachniacl components, like
switches knobs and connectors, sensors and wiring looms, and power
electronics where you get rapid ageing of components run very hot

Anyway bound to be tons of this stuff in a scrapyard of BEVs whose
batteries have failed, and been scrapped because they are beyond
economic repair :-)

BEV+AGE=BER

> This is the same as with electronic modules in IC cars, but
> electric cars just have more electronics (and higher power stuff,
> which is more likely to go wrong in general), so it's more
> significant for repairing them, and it all goes back to the fact
> that electric cars are more complicated and therefore most of their
> critical parts can't be reverse-engineered easily by 3rd party
> parts manufacturers, like an oxygen sensor or distributor cap can.
>
But they are NOT more complicated. Just DIFFERENT. Swapping out a power
switching unit will be no different to changing a differential. And I
can assure you that they will be reverse engineered if there is a demand
for them. Or available reconditioned as P/ex units

I think BEVs are a passing fad, like climate change, but not fir the
reasons you give.

> I've heard many such stories about dead electronic modules in IC
> vehicles. The latest one was someone I know who had a motor
> controller computer fail, with a replacement module costing around
> $1000, and last time I heard it had been well over a month waiting
> for the new part to arrive at the mechanic's. What model car? No,
> this is actually for an off-road quad bike (a common model too)!
>
Try a scrappie.
I bet it wasn't the computer, but a wiring fault

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 2023-02-20 12:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 10:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-20 08:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start
>>>>>>> or run
>>>>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>>>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>>>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>>>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>>>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>>>
>>>>    That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
>>>>    in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
>>>>    Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
>>>>    it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
>>>>    systems too.
>>>>
>>>>    Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
>>>>    even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
>>>>    skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>>>>
>>>>    In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
>>>>    computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
>>>>    '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
>>>>    side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
>>>>    to replace.
>>>
>>> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
>>> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
>>> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
>>> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
>>> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
>>> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>>
>> Well, an EV has no gears, no clutch. No transmission turbine. No oil
>> pump. No water cooling (maybe the batteries need that?). No belts. No
>> camshaft or chain. Possibly no differential transmission, or no
>> transmission at all. Possibly four wheel drive with no transmission.
>>
> So? Complexity does not equal unreliability if the individual components
> have a high MTBF and preventative maintenance is carried out.
> The problem is that the major component of an electric car - the battery
> - is likely to fail after 50-100,000 miles.
> One huge critical not very reliable component.

I would not say not reliable. I would say not durable.

> I've been running battery power electric model aircraft for two decades
> now, on and off.
> THE single most unreliable item has been the flight batteries,m which
> you generally bin after a year or two as they lose capacity and develop
> high internal resistance.

You are stressing them.

> The second most prevalent failure in the early days was the bronze
> bushings and carbon brushes on the cheap DC motors we totally abused.
> Today they have gone and we have ball bearing equipped brushless motor
> driven by a $10 Chinese made controller, that is simply fit and forget.
> If you are conservative about your ratings that is.
>
> Electronics are remarkably reliable. Most stuff that worked once carries
> on working. The exception being some capacitors, and the
> electromechanical items like potentiometers.
>
> Semiconductors do age, and high temperatures accelerate that process so
> blown power stuff happens in the end if you run then too hot, but for
> the vast majority of low power stuff the MTBF will be several times the
> expected lifetime of the car.
>
> I'd say the weakest point in a battery car is the battery itself,
> followed by the cooling fans. Then the power transistors which will be
> physically large and replaceable by a fairly unskilled technician, If
> they are not in a simple replaceable block.
>
> And of course the aircon system, which will be just as bloody useless as
> it is on any IC car, and the remote keyfob, which will disintegrate
> leaving you totally stranded unless you can get a recode at a dealership
> :-)

Neither have failed me for many years.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 23/02/2023 11:01, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-20 12:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 20/02/2023 10:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-20 08:01, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start
>>>>>>>> or run
>>>>>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>>>>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>>>>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>>>>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>>>>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>>    That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
>>>>>    in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
>>>>>    Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
>>>>>    it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
>>>>>    systems too.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
>>>>>    even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
>>>>>    skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>>>>>
>>>>>    In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
>>>>>    computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
>>>>>    '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
>>>>>    side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
>>>>>    to replace.
>>>>
>>>> Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
>>>> less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
>>>> etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
>>>> complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
>>>> _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
>>>> design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.
>>>
>>> Well, an EV has no gears, no clutch. No transmission turbine. No oil
>>> pump. No water cooling (maybe the batteries need that?). No belts. No
>>> camshaft or chain. Possibly no differential transmission, or no
>>> transmission at all. Possibly four wheel drive with no transmission.
>>>
>> So? Complexity does not equal unreliability if the individual
>> components have a high MTBF and preventative maintenance is carried out.
>> The problem is that the major component of an electric car - the
>> battery - is likely to fail after 50-100,000 miles.
>> One huge critical not very reliable component.
>
> I would not say not reliable. I would say not durable.
>
>> I've been running battery power electric model aircraft for two
>> decades now, on and off.
>> THE single most unreliable item has been the flight batteries,m which
>> you generally bin after a year or two as they lose capacity and
>> develop high internal resistance.
>
> You are stressing them.
Not particularly.
They just get a lot of charge discharge cycles.

>
>> The second most prevalent failure in the early days was the bronze
>> bushings and carbon brushes on the cheap DC motors we totally abused.
>> Today they have gone and we have ball bearing equipped brushless motor
>> driven by a $10 Chinese made controller, that is simply fit and
>> forget. If you are conservative about your ratings that is.
>>
>> Electronics are remarkably reliable. Most stuff that worked once
>> carries on working. The exception being some capacitors, and the
>> electromechanical items like potentiometers.
>>
>> Semiconductors do age, and high temperatures accelerate that process
>> so blown power stuff happens in the end if you run then too hot, but
>> for the vast majority of low power stuff the MTBF will be several
>> times the expected lifetime of the car.
>>
>> I'd say the weakest point in a battery car is the battery itself,
>> followed by the cooling fans. Then the power transistors which will be
>> physically large and replaceable by a fairly unskilled technician, If
>> they are not in a simple replaceable block.
>>
>> And of course the aircon system, which will be just as bloody useless
>> as it is on any IC car, and the remote keyfob, which will disintegrate
>> leaving you totally stranded unless you can get a recode at a
>> dealership :-)
>
> Neither have failed me for many years.

Lucky you. I have not had a car with aircon and over 70,000 on the clock
that has NOT had a corroded condenser.

And aircon pump failures are very common.

As for keyfobs, there is a company making a living out of fixing them.
Switch contact and battery contacts make a sinclair keyboard look like a
cherry.

What I haven't had for ages, is an engine total failure.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."