Verizon FiOS and an Apple Airport Extreme Network Working Together

[Editor's Note: This blog post is one of our most popular and it has prompted many excellent questions from interested readers. Please take the time to read through the comments at the end of this posting as the additional information may be very useful in your own efforts.]


Patience does have its rewards. After waiting years for Verizon's FiOS ("Fiber Optic Service") to become available in our area, we have recently been able to finally rid ourselves of various combinations of DSL ("Digital Subscriber Line"), cable, and satellite television services. Our FiOS service has been installed for several weeks; long enough for me to declare it a far superior television and Internet service than anything we have used in the past.


Internet speeds have been amazingly fast and rock-solid, especially when compared to the time-of-day variability we experienced with cable. We subscribe to Verizon's 25/15 Internet service, which is supposed to provide approximately 25 Mbps download and 15 Mbps upload speeds. According to the results from Speedtest.net, our actual speeds over the past few months have been closer to 25.94 Mbps download and 14.16 Mbps upload. That's close enough to advertised for me, and incredibly faster than what was supposed to be provided by the Comcast Blast service previously installed (16 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload advertised speeds... but rarely, if ever, achieved).

The FiOS 25/15 service includes the use of an Actiontec MI424WR wireless broadband router. The use of this router is not optional. This device is the fiber modem (actually, coax cable from the fiber interface outside of the house to the modem inside of the house) and it is required to manage the distribution of the FiOS television signal to the set-top boxes at your location. The router has four (4) Ethernet outputs as well as Wi-Fi capability. However, the wireless function of the router is not needed if you prefer to use another device to provide a Wi-Fi access point.

We use an Apple Airport Extreme base station in our home to provide wireless Internet access for notebook computers and other devices (i.e. Nintendo Wii, iPod Touch, iPhone and AppleTV). The Apple wireless network is extended throughout the house and is also used for wireless access to physically distributed printers via a WDS ("Wireless Distribution System") configuration using a pair of Apple Airport Express devices.

With no desire to give-up the Apple wireless network, we chose to ignore the wireless capability of the FiOS router. That can be done simply enough by just connecting the Ethernet input of the Airport Extreme to one of the MI424WR's Ethernet outputs. That by itself will have you up and running as soon as the FiOS service has been activated, although it does not address the potential wireless interference between the Airport Extreme and the MI424WR or the assignment of your network's IP ("Internet Protocol") addresses to the 192.168.1.xxx range used by the MI424WR by default.

We found that deactivating the MI424WR's wireless capability and reassigning the network IP addresses to Apple's familiar 10.0.1.xxx range was easy enough, but admittedly a bit confusing if you are not familiar with changing router attributes. With the following instructions, anyone should be able to complete this task in just a few minutes time. It's as simple as 1-2-3.

---

1) Log-in to the MI424WR router as the administrator.

Using a computer that is connected to the local network, direct your web browser to the MI424WR's default administrator log-on screen at http://192.168.1.1

The default User Name is admin and the Password is typically either password or password1 (depending upon the Verizon technician that set-up the device).

This will bring you to the overview screen. Don't be overwhelmed by all of the information that is displayed. You do not need to be concerned with it to make the following changes.

---

2) Deactivate the MI424WR's Wi-Fi radio.

Click on the Wireless Settings icon in the banner menu, then click on Basic Security Settings from the vertical menu on the left-hand side of the page. This will display the Basic Security Settings dialog.

In the first section of the Basic Security Settings dialog, you have the choice of turning the wireless radio on or off. Click on the Off button and scroll to the bottom of the page and select Apply.

This will disable the wireless access point and prevent the MI424WR's Wi-Fi radio from interfering with the Apple Airport Extreme's signal.

---

3) Change the network's IP addresses to the 10.0.1.xxx range.

Click on the My Network icon in the banner menu, then click on Network Connections from the vertical menu on the left-hand side of the page. This will display the Network Connections dialog.

Click the active hyperlink for Network (Home/Office) at the top of the table in the Network Connections dialog. This will display the Network (Home/Office) Properties dialog. Click on the Settings button at the bottom on this dialog. This will display a more detailed Network (Home/Office) dialog.

Change the IP Address of the router to your choice (e.g. 10.0.1.1), and change the Start IP Address and End IP Address to your choices (e.g. 10.0.1.2 and 10.0.1.254 respectively). Do not change any other entries in this dialog. Scroll to the bottom of the page and select Apply.

Click on Logout from the vertical menu on the left-hand side of the page to exit the router administration session.

If you ever need to access the router's administrator application again, you will need to use the router address you assigned in the steps above (e.g. http://10.0.1.1).

After you have finished making these changes and logged-out of the administrator session, you will need to reboot all of the devices connected to your Apple wireless network and to the MI424WR, including the set-top boxes. This step is required to make certain that the correct IP addresses are assigned to each of the devices.

---

That's it! After following these steps, your Verizon FiOS service will work flawlessly with your Apple wireless network; there will be no wireless interference from the MI424WR Wi-Fi access point and your network IP addresses will be reassigned to the familiar 10.0.1.xxx range.

My Ford Escape Hybrid Brake Repair Experience - The Brakes Broke the Bank!

[Editor's Note: An update to this blog post is available Here.]

I have owned my 2005 Ford Escape Hybrid since the autumn of 2004. It was one of the first few Escape Hybrids that were made available in the Washington DC metropolitan area and I was very excited to take delivery. As a long-distance commuter from Northern Virginia into the District of Columbia, owning a hybrid electric vehicle ("HEV") provides certain advantages to those of us who travel on Interstate Highway 95 / 395 each day. You see, the Virginia General Assembly approved a limited exemption for HEVs to use the high occupancy vehicle ("HOV") lanes as a single-driver for the morning and evening commutes. That perk saves me hundreds of commuting hours a year, and the fuel economy savings are an added bonus.


Except for the extremely uncomfortable seats, I have really enjoyed owning this vehicle. The Escape Hybrid has been virtually trouble free after more than 100,000 miles. Seriously. Other than regular oil changes, a set of tires, a battery, and a couple of sets of windshield wipers, there have been no major maintenance costs. That is until now...


A job change during the last year has allowed me to work from home on most days, so the first 100,000 miles were all in the initial four years that I have owned the Escape. It may come as no surprise that not long after breaking through the warranty threshold (3 years or 36,000 miles) I experienced an unusual problem with the brakes. In what seemed to be a very random circumstance, the yellow ABS and the red brake warning lamp lit and the alarm sounded. The brakes reverted to fail safe mode requiring a "pedal to the floor" effort to slow the vehicle to a safe stop at the side of the road. Not exactly comforting. Interestingly, after shutting-off the vehicle and restarting, the brakes returned to normal operation.


A talk with the Ford service manger revealed nothing. The problem did not happen again and the dealer was not aware of a brake problem. I wrote it off to gremlins and continued to drive safely for the next few months. However, once in a great while after that, the problem would reoccur; yellow ABS light, red brake warning light, audible alarm and brake pedal to the floor. The Ford dealer claimed no knowledge of a problem and it could not be reproduced.


After about 80,000 miles and several episodes of brake failure under various, but different conditions, I took it upon myself to do some research. I found Technical Service Bulletin, TSB 05-8-5 (August 5, 2005) (NHTSA ID #10017553) that discussed the problem. That upset me since the Ford service manager was apparently oblivious to a problem that was identified just a few months after I had purchased the Escape. A summary of TSB 05-8-5 states:


ABS AND BRAKE WARNING LAMP ON WITH DTC C1526 - DTC C1524 MAY ALSO BE PRESENT VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO 2/11/2005


ISSUE: Some 2005 Escape Hybrid vehicles built prior to 2/11/2005, may exhibit the yellow ABS and the red brake warning lamps illuminating after the engine is started, and an increase in brake pedal effort. Diagnostic trouble code (DTC) C1526 (Brake Pedal Travel Sensor) will be present in the ABS module, C1524 (Brake Pedal Travel Sensor Calibration Incomplete) may also be present.


ACTION: Install a revised master cylinder. Refer to Workshop Manual Section 206-06.


PART NUMBER PART NAME: 5M6Z-2140-B Master Cylinder


I kept this information in-hand and when I took the Escape to my own mechanic for its 100,000 mile maintenance service, we discussed the problem. Here's where the fun started...

My mechanic and I decided to follow the TSB advice and replace the master cylinder with the revised part. It seems that this is no ordinary master cylinder. The Escape Hybrids use an electro-hydraulic brake ("EHB") system. Because of the regenerative braking action of the HEV, the EHB system does not have a traditional master cylinder with a mechanical vacuum brake booster. The special master cylinder comes with a special price tag: $1,292.31 from Ford and a couple of hundred dollars to my mechanic to install.


With great hope that my brake problem was resolved, I drove the Escape home only to have the problem occur again several hours later. I immediately took the vehicle back to my mechanic and after reviewing the trouble codes, we discovered that installing the new master cylinder had now revealed what the real problem apparently was; the brake system's hydraulic control unit ("HCU").

If you own an Escape Hybrid, you have probably heard the HCU in action. Whenever you unlock or open the door, or switch-on the ignition key, the HCU module tests the brakes by pressurizing the hydraulic system. Four minutes after the key is switched off, the HCU discharges the pressurized fluid back into the master cylinder reservoir. Listen for the hum of the hydraulic pump if you have never noticed before.

With the HEV's regenerative braking system, the HCU controls braking by using the electric motor as a generator to recharge the batteries; the traditional friction brakes actually provide very little of the stopping. Once stopped, the HCU allows the traditional brakes to simply keep the vehicle from rolling. As you might suspect, the HCU is an integral component of the electro-hydraulic brake system and works in conjunction with the master cylinder to provide the regenerative braking and antilock braking system ("ABS") action.


The HCU is an important component of the braking system, so it carries a premium price tag. My cost from Ford? $4,587.17. Ouch! To make matters worse, bleeding the brake system of air after replacing the HCU requires special training and equipment. That's another $494.59 from Ford on top of a few hundred dollars to my mechanic for his time to install the new HCU.


There is no obvious way that I could have damaged the HCU with my very normal driving habits (i.e. no history of towing, long downhill braking, hard braking or urgent stops). The vehicle has never been involved in an accident that may have affected the device, and the HCU is not a component that should be susceptible to wear to the point of early failure. I believe that the Escape Hybrid's regenerative braking system, master cylinder and HCU are defective by design (hence the TSB) and the fault lies with Ford Motor Company. I consider this brake failure very serious and remain surprised that it is a problem that Ford had never bothered to notify me about. They certainly had no problem sending me loads of marketing material to buy a new car.


My attempts to get Ford's attention on this matter have fallen on uncaring eyes and ears. To summarize my correspondance from Ford... Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is not concerned (i.e. nobody has gotten killed by these defective brakes) there is no need for a recall. Therefore, Ford has no responsibility to pay for or deal with my problem. Well, thank you very much! I do not understand how Ford can claim no responsibility for this very serious and significantly dangerous issue with the vehicle's brakes.


Unfortunately, this blog post may not offer much help to the reader other than to warn you of the problem that you may be facing with your Ford Escape or Mercury Mariner Hybrid, and to possibly prepare you for the extreme sticker shock of the repair bill. Maybe YOU will have more luck getting Ford to pay your repair cost. In my case, the cost to repair the brakes was unfortunately necessary. I need the vehicle for transportation to work, it was not safe to drive without the repair, it had no value being broken, and I did not have the conscience to sell the vehicle with this very dangerous problem.


This experience has certainly soured my opinion of the Ford Motor Company. Although I have enjoyed owning several different Ford vehicles, their failure to proactively address this safety issue is rather appalling. I will not buy another Ford product after they have abandoned me with this ~$7,000 bill to repair a problem that is solely related to their poor design.


[Editor's Note: For a very good technical explanation of how the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner Hybrid regenerative braking systems work, please visit Brake & Front End's article on Ford Hybrid Braking by Glen Beanard.]


[Editor's Note: If you have had a similar issue with your Ford Escape or Mercury Mariner Hybrid, be certain to file a complaint with the NHTSA at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/]


[Postscript (February 8, 2010): I received a nice phone call from a young woman with Ford Customer Relationships. It seems as though they had read this blog and wanted to speak with me. I'm really not certain why, because in the end, they really offered me nothing more than an apology.


It seems that it's Ford's expectation that the local dealer's service manager should have told me about the TSB when I had the vehicle in their shop for other work (He didn't.). It was also explained to me that I should have received a notice in the mail about the TSB (Not sure about you, but I have never received a notice about a TSB from any vehicle manufacturer. Marketing material, yes. Recalls, yes. TSBs, no; and certainly not from Ford for this particular brake problem.).


The Ford representative also suggested that had I come to them earlier (i.e. When the vehicle had fewer miles and before I had the dangerous condition repaired myself), they may have offered me some type of financial assistance to complete the repair. However, since I didn't, I am out the total repair costs myself. Frankly, I find this statement very difficult to believe. And why couldn't they offset some of the cost now? I have all of the receipts to prove that the repair has been completed using the recommended parts purchased directly from Ford.


The young woman from Ford Customer Relationships was very pleasant and I know that she was simply doing her job. I am grateful that she phoned me, but nothing has changed. Ford still has a very dangerous situation with this brake system failure. A failure that is by all indications a design flaw. A failure that the NHTSA has yet to take any meaningful action on. A failure that Ford has really not taken any responsibility to make right with their customers. In the end, I am still out ~$7,000 to address Ford's design problem, just to make my Escape Hybrid safe to drive.


As I explained to the young woman; I have owned Ford vehicles for many years, starting with a 1975 Thunderbird. They have all been fine, serviceable vehicles. Based on my experience with this Ford Escape Hybrid, it will be my last Ford vehicle.


If you have a Ford Escape or Mercury Mariner Hybrid, please should visit your dealer or local mechanic to see if this TSB applies to you; before you experience the fear of having your brakes resort to fail safe mode in a busy traffic situation.]


[Editor's Note: Although the problem may be unrelated, it's good to see Toyota make the right move regarding the similarly dangerous brake problem with its Prius Hybrid vehicle. From CNN: Toyota to Recall Prius Hybrid.]


[Editor's Note: I received an anonymous comment suggesting that I am crazy for expecting Ford to make good on an out-of-warranty repair. To that comment, I reply that I am certainly not crazy. This brake failure is not due to a wear-and-tear drive train component. We're not talking about a wheel bearing or exhaust pipe. This is about the critical failure of the regenerative brake system; a failure acknowledged by Ford mere months after the vehicle was manufactured (Reference TSB 05-8-5). A component failure that is not due to driver-induced damage or wear, but a design flaw. If my use of the vehicle were the cause of the braking system failure, I would accept the responsibility to pay for the repair. However, in this case, the manufacturer is clearly liable and should be responsible for making certain that the vehicle is safe to operate.


This same anonymous soul followed-up with another comment accusing me of posting this blog as a cheap attempt to coerce Ford to pay for my repair. That is not the reason that I published this information. I am much more concerned about the safety of the other Ford Escape / Mercury Mariner Hybrid owners who may not be aware of the dangerous hazard that may exist with their vehicle. I hope that this blog post will encourage them to have their vehicle checked before they experience the brake failure that has affected me and the many others I have heard from.]

---

DellNet Hijack of my Computer... Resolved!

I recently purchased a Dell Inspiron Zino HD as a gift for my in-laws. Dell fulfilled the order quickly and my initial impressions of the AMD powered brick computer are very positive. It's quite a performer with a host of features all for a very modest price. I would recommend it for anyone with normal email, web browsing, word processing requirements. It's a robust PC in a small, convenient package.

My in-laws are relatively good at using computers, but set-up and configuration can pose confusing options for some people who are not entirely comfortable with information technology, so I took the time to get everything in order before presenting them with the gift. As expected, the Windows 7 Home Premium set-up went along smoothly and in a short time all of their desired software was installed and everything seemed to be in order.

The last thing I wanted to set-up was the default tabs on their web browser. My mother in-law uses Yahoo! Mail, and my father in-law uses MSN Mail, so I thought it would be nice to make my.yahoo.com and my.msn.com the default tabs when Internet Explorer ("IE") was opened. After making the changes under Internet Options, my.yahoo.com displayed as expected, but what was the deal with my.msn.com? Whenever I entered my.msn.com into the address field, the URL ("Universal Record Locator") would automatically change to dellnet.my.msn.com. What the heck is DellNet?

DellNet was Dell Corporation's Internet Service Provider ("ISP") business. It was introduced in 1999 as a stand-alone ISP option. In 2000, they announced a partnership with the Microsoft Network ("MSN") to provide a customized version of MSN Explorer that included Internet access. It's not entirely clear if DellNet still exists as a service provided by Dell. The service seems to have been absorbed by MSN sometime in the early 2000s. But that is not what this story is about.

The issue here was 1) I did not install or initiate service with DellNet on this brand new installation of Windows 7, and 2) I did not want my attempts to use MSN to be hijacked by Dell. I was very disappointed that Dell would do this. It is nothing less than adware or spyware activity. Even when simply entering msn.com into the address field, Dell changed the URL to dell.msn.com. If I wanted to navigate to dell.msn.com, I would have entered it into the address field!

So here's where the fun began. How could I fix this behavior to eliminate the DellNet intrusion? Changing the default pages via IE8's Internet Options had no effect and there were no rogue entries in the HOSTS file. I scoured the Internet looking for a solution. It seems as though there are a lot of bad user and tech support experiences with trying to uninstall the DellNet / MSN service from users' computers. I tried using some of their proposed solutions, such as removing the default registry entries for MSN6 and IE's home page and search service, but those efforts alone had no impact either.

Using Trend Micro's HijackThis seemed like an extreme measure, after all, this was a brand new computer; how could it be infected with adware or spyware already? However, I proceeded to install HijackThis and used it to identify a few additional registry entries that mentioned MSN that I had not found in my previous effort. Still no change... any attempt I made to browse to MSN.com changed the address to include Dell or DellNet. How frustrating!

Then it dawned on me. On my first use of IE8 with the new Dell Zino, the browser had automatically navigated to dell.msn.com. This was likely because of a factory-set registry entry. Now I had since removed the registry entry, but the browser continued to use the same hijacked URL. Did the dell.msn.com web site install a cookie to redirect the address?

To view the IE8 browser cookies, you use the Internet Options selection from the Tools menu. Then the General tab, Browsing History section, and Settings button. Once you are in the Temporary Internet Files and History Settings dialog, choose the View Files option. A File Explorer window will open where you can view all of the images, scripts and cookies saved by IE8.

I found two cookies had already been installed for MSN.com, and I deleted them both. After a re-boot to make certain I was starting fresh, the problem was resolved. Visiting msn.com or my.msn.com did not revert the URL to dell.msn.com or dellnet.my.msn.com!

Why did this happen in the first place? What is Dell thinking? It's one thing to direct me to the manufacturer's web site on the initial load of the web browser, but hijacking the browser to constantly redirect the URL to their co-branded site is simply adware; it's wrong and not welcome by me.

It's important to note that this issue is only with IE and does not impact access to MSN.com when using other browsers (i.e. Google Chrome, Firefox, or Safari tested to be okay). However, that does not make it a less serious matter.

So what is the solution to removing the dellnet.my.msn.com hijack? Based on my experience, I believe that it has multiple steps:

1. Remove all instances of the default browser homepage in the Windows registry with very careful use of HijackThis or manual editing with RegEdit (the Windows registry editor).
2. Delete all Internet Explorer cookies associated with MSN.com for all users.
3. Add dell.msn.com and dellnet.my.msn.com to the Internet Explorer blocked sites under Privacy Settings to keep the cookies from being reinstalled should you happen to attempt to browse (or be redirected by a link) to one of those sites in the future.

If your computer has been hijacked by Dell, I hope that this information helps you access MSN.com without being redirected to Dell's adware version of the MSN web site.

GE Hybrid Water Heater - Does the Heat Pump Design Really Save Money?

[Editor's Note - Please consider reading all of the visitor comments at  the end of this blog as well. They help provide some interesting insight, both pro and con.]


The old water heater decided to start leaking a few days ago. That was a sure sign that a more serious failure was pending, so we started shopping for a replacement. We live in an all-electric house that happens to be set in an all-electric neighborhood. There's no natural gas service in the area, and none close enough to justify the expense of having service extended to our home. Propane is an option, but the local distributors set their prices driven by visions of insane profits (in an unregulated market) and sadly are known to be less than customer focused. That left us looking for a new electric water heater.

The failing water heater was installed when the house was constructed a little more than ten years ago. In a typical minimize-construction-costs move, the contractor had installed what must have been the cheapest model available. It was a very basic, 50 gallon economy model, so it did well by lasting ten years. If the original Energy Star EnergyGuide label were updated to reflect the latest national average electricity cost of $0.1065 per kilowatt hour (re: http://www.ftc.gov/appliances), the annual expected operating cost would be about $534. Probably not the worst performer out there, but better models were certainly available.

Our first look for a replacement was at water heaters that use tankless technology. A recently popular choice for many homeowners. This certainly looked like a good idea for a home with natural gas service. However, the electric tankless model has such a high instantaneous demand for energy, that the costs to provide adequate electric service to the unit can be prohibitively expensive. Annual energy consumption data from the manufacturers also demonstrated that annual cost savings for the electric model would only be about $20. The break-even point would be much too long.

Then we learned of the newly introduced "hybrid" water heater from General Electric. Their Model GEH50DNSRSA. GE claims that this new, heat pump water heater design could save consumers $320 per year by using 62 percent less energy than an equivalently sized conventional electric model. We were intrigued.

Upon closer review, the GE Hybrid Water Heater appears to be a high-efficiency electric water heater with a head unit that pre-heats the incoming water using an air-to-water heat exchanger. The heat exchanger relies on the energy content of the ambient air, drawing heat out of the surrounding area. On the surface, this seems like a great idea; use the free heat in the house to pre-heat the water!

The basic concept is sound. Assuming that the incoming water temperature is somewhere between 45 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit (the actual water temperature depends upon your geographic location and water source), warming the water to approximately 65 degrees using the heat from the surrounding air means that you only consume electricity to heat the water 55 degrees instead of 75 degrees (the heat-rise needed to heat the water to 120 degrees). It was fairly obvious to see how GE could claim that this new design could save you 62 percent over a standard electric water heater. In fact their EnergyGuide label boasts that the unit's annual expected operating costs are a mere $198, about 40 percent of the cost to operate a comparably sized conventional electric water heater. That's pretty amazing, and made the engineer in me think about this a little harder.

Now I'm not going to suggest that GE is lying to consumers. The hybrid water heater probably does use 62 percent less electricity than a conventional electric water heater when you compare the energy consumed by the devices alone. However, therein lies the problem. My recollection from thermodynamics class may be a bit cloudy, but I seem to recall that there is no such thing as free energy. The heat that the hybrid model derives from the ambient air is not free. If the heat exchanger used some sort of ground loop or outdoor air source I would be better convinced that there are radical energy savings, but this model is simply going to spew cool air into the room where it is located as part of the heat-exchange process. In most installations, this will require the building's HVAC (heating, ventilating, air conditioning) system to work harder, resulting in more energy consumption. My very conservative guess is that about half of the 62 percent savings will be eaten-up by the need to produce more heat to keep the living area comfortable. The actual energy consumption could really be quite worse, but we will give GE the benefit of the doubt.

With this in mind, if the hybrid water heater was going to really save money, it would have to be available for purchase at a very reasonable price. The GE web site publishes the suggested retail price of the hybrid water heater at $1,699 and notes that availability may be limited. They were right. Our calls to local General Electric appliance dealers, plumbing supply dealers and plumbing services left us with only one purchase option within a 500 mile radius of a very large metropolitan area. The sole dealer who had them available for purchase told us that the new models were selling very quickly and that we better move fast if we wanted one. Their price was $1,800, an additional $100 than the manufacturer's suggested retail price... with installation an extra $300 minimum. Ouch! We found that a comparably-sized, high-efficiency, premium model from Whirlpool, Model 188414, could be purchased for only $438; only 24 percent of the GE dealer's price for the hybrid model.

Even though the Whirpool model is labeled as high efficiency, it doesn't match the published efficiency rating of the GE hybrid. The EnergyGuide for the Whirpool water heater suggests that the unit's annual expected operating costs will be $492. The GE dealer was quick to point out that there were also tax benefits to installing the hybrid model; a 30 percent energy efficiency federal tax rebate on the unit's cost and another 30 percent on the cost of installation. Obviously, between the tax breaks and the lower operating cost, the GE water heater must be the better deal... or is it? Let's do some math.

The all-in cost of the GE Hybrid Water Heater is $2,190 (water heater, 5 percent state tax and $300 installation). After the federal tax rebate ($567 on the water heater and $90 on the installation) the total cost is $1,533.

The all-in cost of the Whirlpool conventional water heater is $760 (water heater, 5 percent state tax and $300 installation).

Using the latest national average electricity cost of $0.1065 per kilowatt hour, the annual expected operating cost of the hybrid model is $198, and $492 for the conventional model; but if you factor-in the presumed extra HVAC operating cost, the hybrid really costs about $345 per year to operate.

Using these values, it would take eight (8) years before the hybrid model begins to save the homeowner any money. EIGHT YEARS. If you have to borrow money (i.e. use a credit card) to purchase the expensive hybrid model or if my conservative estimate of the house's total energy consumption is worse, the break-even point will be even longer.

So, is General Electric being deceitful? Well, I would kindly describe it as creative marketing. By isolating the operating cost to the unit itself, the hybrid model can be truthfully touted as less expensive. However, the savvy homeowner would be wise to carefully consider the impact of the hybrid model on the home's indoor temperature, and thus, the actual operating cost. Eight years, or more, is an awfully long time to wait before any savings occur. It was too long for us; we installed the high-efficiency conventional model and are very pleased.

---

[Editor's Note: Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding the possible advantage of the heat exchanger cooling an area for installations located in warmer climates. I won't disagree that this could be a benefit. However, in my location, and for that of many other installations, the cooling effect will result in more energy use. My concern remains with GE's simplistic report of "point-of-use" energy consumption versus "whole house" or "full-fuel cycle" energy consumption. It's just downright misleading.]

[Editor's Note: Thank you to Keith Burkhardt, the Marketing Manager for GE’s Hybrid Water Heater for leaving some comments on my post. I found them interesting, but they do not change my mind. Just because GE relies upon the Department of Energy and Federal Trade Commission standard for publishing appliance efficiencies does not make them "right". The fact is, the Energy Star yellow labels are deceitful as they are for the appliance alone and do not take into account the full-fuel cycle impact, nor do they take into account the whole-house energy impact of the appliance. This matter is currently being debated within the energy industry as the comparison is made between appliances fueled by electricity versus natural gas (i.e. Natural gas is far more efficient when you factor-in the losses associated with generating and distributing electricity). I stand by my comments that in the instance of my installation of a water heater in the Mid-Atlantic United States, the GE Hybrid Water Heater would not provide the energy savings that are exclaimed by General Electric.]

Pick and Pan: Dyson and Hertz

Like many consumers, there are certain products and services that I have used and absolutely love, and then there are those that I really dislike. Sometimes my experience with these products and services are so great, good or bad, that I feel compelled to tell the whole world. Welcome to my first selections to Pick and Pan.

Pick: Dyson Air Blade

Have you had the chance to use one of these new types of hand dryers? Now this is what a forced warm air hand dryer is all about! I've seen a few of these installed in select airports and interstate highway rest areas. They may be in other public locations as well.

Their use is brainless; no buttons, levers or switches to operate. You simply insert your freshly washed, wet hands into a wide slot at the top of the dryer. A "blade" of forced warm air automatically begins to blow, simultaneously striking both sides of your hand at the wrist. A vacuum at the bottom of the slot turns on at the same time.

As you slowly withdrawal your hands from the slot, the blade of warm air literally scrapes your hands of any surface water, while the vacuum at the bottom keeps the slot nice and tidy.

Super efficient. No mess. Low noise. Very fast. Cool, modern looking design. If I could purchase one of these appliances for a more reasonable cost (currently about $1,200 retail) I would have them throughout my home.

The high price is probably why you don't see more of these hand dryers installed in public locations, but I would expect that to change over time. The Air Blade just works so darn good, uses less energy (i.e. no HOT air) and leaves no mess. That should prove to be more economical over time.

Pan: Hertz Car Rental

I've used Hertz exclusively for my business travel ground transportation needs for many years. I've also been a "Hertz Club Gold" member for years, and enjoy the nice perks that come with that status. As much as I value the Hertz customer experience, they do get it wrong once in a while. In this case the failure was so bad that they earned this well-deserved "pan".

On a recent trip to through Boston Logan International Airport, I had reason to rent a car from Hertz. I used their friendly and simple on line reservation system to hold a mid-sized car for my needs to comfortably transport one other business associate about town. According to the Hertz web site, a mid-sized car generally has 2 to 4 doors, seats 4 to 5 passengers, and has luggage capacity of up to 3 suitcases. They suggest that the Mazda 6 fits this description. I would agree and looked forward to driving a car much like the Mazda 6.

Imagine my surprised when I walked to my waiting car to find it was a Toyota Yaris. Now, I'm not hating on the Yaris vehicle or the Toyota brand. I happen to think that Toyota manufactures a fine product. However, in this case I reserved a mid-sized car for a reason, and I do not consider the Yaris mid-sized. It's not clear how Hertz could think that either.

Unfortunately, the Hertz staff on-site didn't seem capable of doing anything to assist me. The experience was not bad enough to sour me on Hertz forever, but if it happens again, it could be enough to have me looking to switch loyalties to another car rental company who knows what a mid-sized car is.

Watch for more Pick and Pan selections coming soon...