sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 15 11:11PM Thank you Jeff Liebermann for being a technical wiz-kid genius! http://i.imgur.com/obYQsU9.jpg   I just want to shout out to Jeff Liebermann for suggesting the Costco cable modem (Motorola/Arris SB6141) for about $85 out the door, and again thanks go to Jeff for suggesting I ask for a discount on the Comcast $50 "installation fee".   I hooked it up with a $1 CATV cable from Goodwill and then called Comcast who first wanted to charge me $50 for installation, and then $15 when I argued for free and then the guy used a "promo code" to get me down to $6 for their "installation" fee.   I couldn't get him any lower than $6, so I took that.   In ten minutes it was working fine. They did everything over the wires.   They charge about $45 monthly (I don't know what the taxes will be though) for 45Mbps down and 5Mbps up.   They try to talk you into 100Mbps down and 10 Mbps up for $50 but we tested it at 90Mbps out the modem RJ45 to a laptop and about 60Mbps using the 2.5GHz WiFi out of the router attached to the modem using speedtest.comcast.net as our test web site (and Firefox 39.0.3).   The only router Costco had was too expensive though (at $130 + about $13 tax for the Netgear Nighthawk AC1750). So, at Frys, I bought a $75 TP- Link Archer C5 (do you think that was a good tradeoff?) for roughly about half the price. http://i.imgur.com/obYQsU9.jpg   With Jeff's suggested Arris/Motorola cable modem from Costco, the $85 out the door will pay for itself in a few months:   1. Saved $45 minus $6 = $39 on installation fees (but I had to supply a CATV coax cable so let's call that a $30 savings to make the math easy). 2. Saved $10 each month on modem rental fees 3. I get a GREAT modem (fast!).   So, in the first month, I saved about half the modem cost alone, at about $40; and in the next four or five months, the modem is paid for. Then, each month, the modem, in effect, saves me another $10 every month.   You can't beat that equation! Thanks Jeff for being so smart! Santa Cruz is lucky to have you!   I bought the following, but will return the Costco router I think: http://i.imgur.com/obYQsU9.jpg   TP-Link Archer C5 router ($75 at Fryes) Netgear Nighthawk AC1750 router ($130 at Costco) Motorola/Arris SB6141 cable modem ($75 at Costco)   Only question left is whether the Costco router is worth it for just two kids sharing an Internet connection away at school.

Phil Hobbs <hobbs@electrooptical.net>: Aug 15 09:09PM -0400 On 8/15/2015 7:11 PM, ceg wrote: > Motorola/Arris SB6141 cable modem ($75 at Costco)   > Only question left is whether the Costco router is worth it for just two > kids sharing an Internet connection away at school.   One good option for a router is to get a used Netgear WNDR3700 from eBay for $20 and install OpenWRT on it. You get a decently secure router with a lot of stooch for very cheap. I have a couple like that, and I'm very happy with them.   Cheers   Phil Hobbs   -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics   160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510   hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 15 09:47PM -0400 On 8/15/2015 7:11 PM, ceg wrote:     > Only question left is whether the Costco router is worth it for just two > kids sharing an Internet connection away at school.   Sure, half the dorm will be downloading the latest movies and porn clips.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 15 07:57PM -0700 On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:11:31 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >Thank you Jeff Liebermann for being a technical wiz-kid genius!   Y'er welcome. However, I'm no longer a kid and certainly have never been a genius. Please keep your superlatives reasonable and knock off the nymshifting.   >cable modem (Motorola/Arris SB6141) for about $85 out the door, and again >thanks go to Jeff for suggesting I ask for a discount on the Comcast $50 >"installation fee".   I certainly suggested buying the SB6141 at Costco, but I don't believe it was me that suggested negotiating the installation fee. At the time, Comcast considered the fee as mandatory. However, subsequent threats of litigation based upon charging for services that were not rendered has magically made the fee negotiable. The problem was that anyone that physically picked up their equipment at the local Comcast store would not be charged an installation fee since it was a "self install". However, Comcast didn't have a check box for those that purchased their own equipment, and therefore billed everyone possible for non-service. I ran into this problem with one new customer, so I suggested a rather ridiculous alternative. They ordered service along with the rental of a gateway device, which they picked up at the store as a self install. They then purchased an SB6141 at Costco and activated it. Once working, they returned the unopened gateway device for credit. The customer is rather old, so I walked him through the entire ridiculous ceremony, which included informing everyone within range of what was happening and why.   >In ten minutes it was working fine. They did everything over the wires.   Impressive. Much depends on who you get on the phone. I've heard of hour long ordeals and have experienced 20 minute activation acrimony.   >They charge about $45 monthly (I don't know what the taxes will be >though) for 45Mbps down and 5Mbps up.   I've always found it odd that Comcast is unable to provide an accurate estimate. Perhaps they're afraid of sticker shock?   >tested it at 90Mbps out the modem RJ45 to a laptop and about 60Mbps using >the 2.5GHz WiFi out of the router attached to the modem using >speedtest.comcast.net as our test web site (and Firefox 39.0.3).   I've seen 179/12 Mbits/sec in Felton. One customer that had the old 12/1 Mbits/sec service now has more than double at 88/6: <http://results.speedtest.comcast.net/result/999633544.png> What happened is that on Tues Aug 11, Comcast magically doubled the speed of residential internet service. <http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/business/20150810/comcast-unveils-faster-internet-for-santa-cruz> I'll spare you my conspiracy theories, but will add an anecdote. The speed did NOT increase for business class Comcast customers. So, I walked over to the Comcast store and asked if they could find out the status and plans, if any. I was blessed with several useless phone numbers, that connected me to people that didn't know, didn't care, and didn't bother to obtain the information. Welcome to the legendary Comcast customer service.   >tax for the Netgear Nighthawk AC1750). So, at Frys, I bought a $75 TP- >Link Archer C5 (do you think that was a good tradeoff?) for roughly about >half the price. http://i.imgur.com/obYQsU9.jpg   TP-Link routers are amazingly good products hidden inside amazingly weird packages. I have a few in service that have had no problems (after I updated the firmware). With the cable speeds that you're getting, you should be running 802.11ac something to get something near full speed. However, the reason the TP-Links is probably cheaper is that it only does AC1200 (2x2) while the Netgear does AC1750 (3x3). Whether you actually get the rated speeds depends heavily on your client radios and RF environment. If it's with a tablet or smartphone, forget it. <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32651-ac1200-router-roundup-part-1> Wireless performance is allegedly about 7 to 10 times your Comcast performance, so you'll probably do ok. <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/ac1200_roundup/ac1200_router_roundup_benchmark_summary.jpg> Make sure you got hardware version v2.0, not v1.20.   >Only question left is whether the Costco router is worth it for just two >kids sharing an Internet connection away at school.   Probably not. The extra wirless speed is if your kids are copying or moving massive files via wireless. Hopefully, that's not happening. Another is reduced latency if they are doing gaming. If you monitor the wireless mode (with a sniffer), you'll find that in the presence of even the slightest amount of interference, the router will switch down to 802.11g speeds or about 25 Mbits/sec throughput maximum. The higher speeds do have their use (such as using less air time) but usually require an ideal RF environment in order to be used full time.   It might be fun to lock the wireless mode and speeds to 802.11ac. Let's see if it can be done: <http://www.tp-link.com/resources/simulator/C5_v2_simulator/Index.htm> Yep. On 2.4GHz, you can select 802.11n mode only. On 5GHz, you can select 802.11ac only. Try AC only, copy something across the network via wireless, and see what manner of range you can get.   -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 05:29AM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:57:19 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Make sure you got hardware version v2.0, not v1.20.   Nymshifting is part and parcel with privacy. Sorry. I hate it just as much as I hate locking my bicycle up and removing the seat, lights, and mirrors every time I park it. But, in today's world, we're forced to do it.   Sorry about that. You're amazingly "open" with who you are, but I can't be that open. Too much at stake.   You know who I am anyway - since I have emailed you in the past.   Anyway, thanks for the advice on the Archer C5 hardware version. The router is up at the college but I have the box.   The serial-number sticker on the box says it's version 2.0 so I got must have gotten lucky on the hardware version at Frys.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 05:33AM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:57:19 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > I certainly suggested buying the SB6141 at Costco, but I don't believe > it was me that suggested negotiating the installation fee. At the time, > Comcast considered the fee as mandatory.   The SB6141 modem is great, as it's fast, and it will pay for itself in less than a year, what with Comcast dropping the installation fee to six bucks and also dropping the ten-dollar monthly rental fee.   However, as I recall, the speeds went from 90Mbps down to about 60Mbps down simply by switching from a modem-to-laptop wired connection to a modem-to-router-to-lapop-wireless connection.   That's a huge drop in speed (measured at speedtest.comcast.net).   Is that normal to lose 30 Mbps just by switching from wired directly to wireless?   NOTE: I just realized while writing this that we never checked the wired speed directly out of the router, which I'll ask the kids to do for me.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 05:35AM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:57:19 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Probably not. The extra wirless speed is if your kids are copying or > moving massive files via wireless. Hopefully, that's not happening.   These are good kids. They're not like I am. :)   The worst they do is *ask* me to get them a movie or two!   (jk)

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 16 01:57AM -0400 On 8/16/2015 1:35 AM, ceg wrote: > They're not like I am. :)   > The worst they do is *ask* me to get them a movie or two!   > (jk)   Sure, your kids are special and won't do anything while away at school.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 15 11:10PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:33:58 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >The SB6141 modem is great, as it's fast, and it will pay for itself in >less than a year, what with Comcast dropping the installation fee to six >bucks and also dropping the ten-dollar monthly rental fee.   Yep. The math is simple enough. If you're going to remain a Comcast customer for more than 9 months, you might as well buy your own modem.   The only gotcha is if you decide to subscribe to the Comcast phone service. In the past, it was possible to buy an Arris TM722G telephony modem, which was on the Comcast approved list. No more. Now, you're stuck with buying a TM862G/CT which is the very device I was trying to avoid: <http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=421> There are a few on eBay, but be careful. Many were previous on rental and cannot be activated.     >That's a huge drop in speed (measured at speedtest.comcast.net).   >Is that normal to lose 30 Mbps just by switching from wired directly to >wireless?   Probably. I say probably because I don't have any idea what the kids have for equipment other than the router. I also don't know if they're connecting on 2.4 or 5Ghz.   60 Mbits/sec throughput suggests that they're doing 64-QAM if they're on a 20 MHz channel. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac#Theoretical> The problem is that the router should be capable of shoveling data at a much greater rate. For example, the performance graphs show much higher than 60 Mbits/sec wireless speed on 5Ghz: <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/ac1200_roundup/ac1200_router_roundup_5_throughput_vs_attenuation.jpg> but much slower on 2.4GHz: <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/stories/wireless/ac1200_roundup/ac1200_router_roundup_24_throughput_vs_attenuation.jpg> My guess is that 60 Mbits/sec is on the low side of reasonable for 2.4GHz in the presence of interference from other routers in the dorm.   >NOTE: I just realized while writing this that we never checked the wired >speed directly out of the router, which I'll ask the kids to do for me.   I also had a short list of tests using Iperf and Jperf for them to try.   Incidentally, my fabulous DSL downloads at 1.2 Mbits/sec and you're complaining about losing 30 Mbits/sec. I'm jealous and you'll get no sympathy from me.     -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:14AM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:10:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Probably. I say probably because I don't have any idea what the kids > have for equipment other than the router. I also don't know if > they're connecting on 2.4 or 5Ghz.   It was a cheap Costco $500 Win8 laptop that apparently only seems to have 2.4GHz (I didn't see the 5GHz AP show up).   All we did was go to speedtest.comcast.net

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:15AM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:10:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > My guess is that 60 Mbits/sec is on the low side of reasonable for > 2.4GHz in the presence of interference from other routers in the dorm.   I must admit, I had never seen so many access points in one place. The screen was *filled* with access points!

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:17AM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:10:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > Incidentally, my fabulous DSL downloads at 1.2 Mbits/sec and you're > complaining about losing 30 Mbits/sec. I'm jealous and you'll get no > sympathy from me.   Likewise, the kids, at school, on cable, are doing much better than I am, on WISP, at home, pointing at an antenna miles away in the mountains.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:18AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:57:36 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:   > Sure, your kids are special and won't do anything while away at school.   I think they watch "Desperate Housewives" on the net. At least I saw that as one of the web sites they visited.

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 16 09:08AM -0400 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:18:00 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >> Sure, your kids are special and won't do anything while away at school.   >I think they watch "Desperate Housewives" on the net. At least I saw that >as one of the web sites they visited.   One of the nice features that browsers have now is a privacy viewing setting that does not save any tracks.   But none of that matters since your kids are so well behaved. Not like the kids and grandkids I have.

devnull <devnull@void.nul>: Aug 16 03:01PM +0100 On 08/16/2015 06:33 AM, ceg wrote: > Is that normal to lose 30 Mbps just by switching from wired directly to > wireless?   In my situation, yes. And it was easier for me to install some network jacks than to deal with wifi's idiosyncrasies.

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:10AM The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?   The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not.   Hence, the paradox.   Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.   Where are all the accidents?   They don't seem to exist. At least not in the United States. Not by the federal government's own accident figures.   1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html   2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009 http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf   3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm   If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths, but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.   Such is the cellphone paradox.

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 15 11:23PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg   >Where are all the accidents?   <http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html> <http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html>   <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html> "1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving."   etc... -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Mike Duffy <see_website@signature.block>: Aug 16 02:24AM -0400 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg wrote:   > ... cellphone ... accidents don't seem to exist   Probably 'cause cars are safer, people don't drive drunk as much, etc.   If you identify accidents caused soly by cellphone use, I'm sure the statistics would show none before cell phones were invented.   -- http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 12:37PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:   > Good grief, you make a claim, then disprove it yourself.   I'm providing a balanced view since the paradox exists. One would *assume* accidents would go up; but they're going down. That's the paradox.   > This is from the first link you provided. Click on your link and there > is a listing for "distracted driving": > http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1109.pdf   Unfortunately, as much as you and I would love reliable statistics on "distracted driving", they do not exist.   You have to read *how* those statistics were generated, and, if/when you do, you will discount them instantly. The current method of generating those statistics makes that particular set nearly worthless.   Yet, total accidents (not injuries, not fatalities - but accidents) are easy to compile. Trivially easy.   Accidents must be going up if distracted driving is really causing accidents.   But, accidents in the USA are steadily going down all the while the cellphone ownership is going up.   Hence, the paradox.   > distracted driving, 450,000 accidents involving injury, etc. > So, obviously distracted driving is causing accidents and cell phones > are included as part of that category.   We are talking "accidents", not fatalities nor injuries. Accidents are NOT going up. Cellphone ownership is going up.   If what you and I believe is true, then if cellphone ownership is going up, then cellphone usage while driving is *probably* going up, yet, if distracted driving causes accidents (which we believe it does), WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS?   Hence the paradox.   > show us the conflicting data. And I'm sure it wouldn't take much > googling to find studies and a lot of evidence that cell phone usage is > a major source of distracted driving and accidents.   The data is clear. During the entire time cellphone ownership has been going up in the USA, accidents have been going down.   You and I know of all the studies comparing driving while texting to drunk driving - yet - we can't find a single *reliable* set of statistics that shows anything other than total accidents going steadily *down* in the USA.   That's why it's the cellphone paradox. Where are the accidents?

"Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@windstream.net>: Aug 16 07:50AM -0500 > They don't seem to exist. > At least not in the United States. > Not by the federal government's own accident figures.   Some snipped.   So how is cell phone ownership determined? How many are laying in drawers or in landfills? Heck, I have three working models. I've probably thrown away three or four. No one can rightfully accuse me of being tech savvy. I buy used ones and use them until they quit working. -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 01:59PM On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:   > <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/ cell-phone-statistics.html> > "1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by > texting and driving."   Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a very data-based person.   Here's the paradox.   1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents. 2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA. 3. But, accidents have not.   That's the paradox.   A. We can *assume* that driving while using cellphones has gone up. B. We can also *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous. C. Unfortunately, distracted driving statistics are atrociously inaccurate.   Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are *extremely reliable*.   So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox. a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA, b. All the while *accidents* have been going down.   Hence, the paradox. Where are all the accidents?

"Mark Zacharias" <mark_zacharias@labolgcbs.net>: Aug 16 07:56AM -0500 "Cursitor Doom" <curd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:mqnpcq$9cq$2@dont-email.me...   > I want to get down to 3 *max* eventually, not counting the 2 rather > exotic analogue storage scopes I have which I want to be buried with. No > way am I selling those!   My most-used 'scope is a Tektronix 2246 4-channel.   Channels 1 and 2 are semi-permanently devoted to power amp measurements and the 8-ohm loads stay there. I will often use channels 3 and 4, since the vertical sensitivity is limited to .1v or .5v switchable, to monitor the amp input.   For troubleshooting at the circuit level I generally use a Tek 465 on the same bench.     Mark Z.

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Aug 16 01:16PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:56:53 -0500, Mark Zacharias wrote:   > For troubleshooting at the circuit level I generally use a Tek 465 on > the same bench.   I like the old Tek scopes, too. I have the 465 and a 475, one of which will have to go. Logic says keep the 475, but one channel has gone low- gain for some reason. If I can fix it I'll sell the 465 as it has a lower bandwidth. My favourite vintage Tek scope of all is my 466 analogue storage which is in need of some serious troubleshooting. I'm going to be dealing with getting that up and running early next year if all goes well.

John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Aug 15 02:11PM -0700 On 08/14/2015 6:30 PM, micky wrote:   > This is the item. Before you buy it, there's a newer version now. > http://www.amazon.com/FAVI-FE01-BL-Wireless-Keyboard-Touchpad/dp/B003UE52ME/ref=sr_1_4?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1439598701&sr=1-4&keywords=wifi+keyboards   > Thanks.   A wireless keyboard uses Bluetooth to communicate with the computer. This takes energy and drains the battery eventually.   What the keyboard does is it goes into a low power mode where the Bluetooth transceiver is shut down, and the keyboard likely only scans for presses once a second or so. So now you are down to the microamp power load and batteries can provide that for along time, compared to milliamps of draw when busy with Bluetooth and keystrokes.   Cordless phones do have low power mode, but they still have to 'listen' for the RF signal to wake them up, and a receiver does draw more power than simply sleeping.   Cell phones low power mode still transmits and receives RF so the various features are kept up to date - location, chat with local cell towers to keep the device able to receive, etc.   John :-#)#   -- (Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9 (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Aug 15 08:07PM -0400 In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:11:57 -0700, John >> http://www.amazon.com/FAVI-FE01-BL-Wireless-Keyboard-Touchpad/dp/B003UE52ME/ref=sr_1_4?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1439598701&sr=1-4&keywords=wifi+keyboards   >> Thanks.   >A wireless keyboard uses Bluetooth   Many don't. Some use non-bluetooth RF (and some use IR but I wasn't talking about those) but I apreciate the rest of your post.   >milliamps of draw when busy with Bluetooth and keystrokes.   >Cordless phones do have low power mode, but they still have to 'listen' >for the RF signal   They don't have to, if the user is able to hear the "bell" on the base station or any other sounder he's installed.   >to wake them up, and a receiver does draw more power >than simply sleeping.   >Cell phones low power mode still transmits and receives RF so the   Cell phones rarely if ever have extensions and certainly don't have base stations whose bells you can hear. But even they can be turned off so they neither transmit nor receive. That's what I would like in a cordless phone and a keyboard.   Here is one wireless keyboard that does have an off-switch. http://www.hhgregg.com/logitech-wireless-touch-keyboard-k400/item/920003070?cid=PLA-10168124-213748&mr:referralID=346426f5-425e-11e5-9549-005056947d48 "12-month battery life - You can go a full year doing the things you love without battery hassles. An on/off switch helps you save power when you're not using the keyboard" The logitech website says the same thing. They made this for when people watch tv and they know that's only a small part of the time. http://www.logitech.com/en-us/product/wireless-touch-keyboard-k400r The brief pdf file says "Power Off and power On the keyboard."   Don't they mean all the way off?   (BTW, this is a lot bigger than the one I asked about, but its rows of keys are offset like standard keyboards, and it will be a lot easier to type on. Actually there are a lot of full size ones and only a few little ones. Like all of them so far, it only claims a 10 meter range, so I'd have to put some sort of USB extension to make the USB receiver close enough to the keyboard.)

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.