 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/01/2012 05:22 PM, Aydan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Actually, going back to my previous point: The amount of /moisture/
>> emitted by a normal human is absurdly small. And yet, put enough of them
>> in a room, and it can get astonishingly moist in there! o_O
>
> I just had a look in Wikipedia:
20 what?
> 1 human sweats about 400ml to 1l per day.
You probably need to take breath moisture into account as well.
Even so, 1l/day is 41ml/hour - which is minute.
> Now you just need the number of people and the size of the room to know how fast
> it saturates.
I would suggest that sweat varies by temperature too. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/01/2012 08:35 PM, andrel wrote:
> I think the rule of thumb is that a person is about 100W.
That sounds like quite a lot...
...until you realise that 100W of heat is actually a very small amount.
It takes 3.6 kW just to boil a small puddle of water inside an enclosed
space (i.e., my kettle), and it takes several minutes to do that.
> but any amount
> of power will heat any room even if only slighly unless:
>
> a) the room is infinite in size
> b) the room was warmer than a person to begin with (i.e. warmer than a
> person that is not cooled by outside temperatures)
You forgot "unless the heat escapes the room faster than the heat source
adds it". I've certainly seen houses so poorly insulated that short of a
lava pit, the rooms are doomed to be at thermal equilibrium with the
outside world.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 23/01/2012 05:22 PM, Aydan wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Actually, going back to my previous point: The amount of /moisture/
> >> emitted by a normal human is absurdly small. And yet, put enough of them
> >> in a room, and it can get astonishingly moist in there! o_O
> >
> > I just had a look in Wikipedia:
>
> 20 what?
centigrade.
> > 1 human sweats about 400ml to 1l per day.
>
> You probably need to take breath moisture into account as well.
>
> Even so, 1l/day is 41ml/hour - which is minute.
with a base humidity of 50%
> > Now you just need the number of people and the size of the room to know how fast
> > it saturates.
>
> I would suggest that sweat varies by temperature too. ;-)
and activity and ...
Regards
Aydan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/23/2012 3:25 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 23-1-2012 11:38, John VanSickle wrote:
>> On 1/15/2012 6:05 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> And also I'm assuming this is not cheap, so management do not want.
>>>>
>>>> Making something truly zero down-time is exceedingly expensive.
>>>
>>> Yeah, reducing down-time isn't usually too bad, but /zero/ down-time
>>> requires going to absurd lengths.
>>
>> When I was stationed at Onizuka AFB, California (the Blue Cube, for
>> those who live or work near the south end of the San Francisco Bay), we
>> had two large SATCOM dishes, called Sun East and Sun West.
>>
>> One chronic problem was that getting downtime for preventive maintenance
>> was as difficult as pulling gold teeth from a chicken. The user
>> community (who was and always will be better connected than the
>> maintenance community) were as stubborn as mules about allowing any
>> downtime for any reason.
>>
>> "Hey, what if we took each dish down, once every six months, and do all
>> of the preventive maintenance specified in the technical orders?"
>>
>> "No, no, we need those dishes up 24/7. Denied."
>>
>> You'll never guess what the result was.
>
> Difficult.
> my first guess would be that after 9-12 months the system failed for
> more than twice the time of the provocative maintenance.
> but...
> you said I couldn't guess. so that is not what happened.
> ergo, the system was reliably working for 10 years until it was replaced
> by a better system with a small overlap in time.
> ...
> No that can not be right, because if that was the case I guessed it, and
> I couldn't.
> ...
> but, but, that would be true of every other guess...
> ...
> ...
> Ah, I got it, I can not *guess* it, therefore I must *know* the answer:
> After 9-12 months the system failed for more than twice the time of the
> provocative maintenance.
While I was stationed there the systems were down around 5% to 10% of
the time.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/23/2012 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:22:44 -0500, Aydan wrote:
>
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Actually, going back to my previous point: The amount of /moisture/
>>> emitted by a normal human is absurdly small. And yet, put enough of
>>> them in a room, and it can get astonishingly moist in there! o_O
>>
>> I just had a look in Wikipedia:
>> 1m³ of air at 20 can carry roughly 30ml of water (as vapour).
>> 1 human sweats about 400ml to 1l per day.
>> Since "normal" room air usualy has about 50% humidity that leaves about
>> 15ml/m² for the sweat. That would mean 1 human can saturate 1 - 2.5 m³
>> of air per hour.
>> Now you just need the number of people and the size of the room to know
>> how fast it saturates.
>
> You'd also need to know the current relative humidity to know how
> saturated it is before you start adding people to the room.
>
> 0% humidity is quite rare - in fact, I don't know that it's possible on
> Earth other than in an artificial environment. I live in a desert
> climate (though not in the desert), and while we do easily hit below 20%
> relative humidity, we don't hit 0. (In fact, it's snowing right now)
>
> Jim
Cave system near here is.. damn close. Was going to be used as a bomb
shelter, by the government, but, frankly, they would have had to store
20 times the water they still have down there to survive it. You can
definitely tell there is next to no water in the air while there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:12:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/23/2012 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:22:44 -0500, Aydan wrote:
>>
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Actually, going back to my previous point: The amount of /moisture/
>>>> emitted by a normal human is absurdly small. And yet, put enough of
>>>> them in a room, and it can get astonishingly moist in there! o_O
>>>
>>> I just had a look in Wikipedia:
>>> 1m³ of air at 20 can carry roughly 30ml of water (as vapour).
>>> 1 human sweats about 400ml to 1l per day.
>>> Since "normal" room air usualy has about 50% humidity that leaves
>>> about 15ml/m² for the sweat. That would mean 1 human can saturate 1 -
>>> 2.5 m³ of air per hour.
>>> Now you just need the number of people and the size of the room to
>>> know how fast it saturates.
>>
>> You'd also need to know the current relative humidity to know how
>> saturated it is before you start adding people to the room.
>>
>> 0% humidity is quite rare - in fact, I don't know that it's possible on
>> Earth other than in an artificial environment. I live in a desert
>> climate (though not in the desert), and while we do easily hit below
>> 20%
>> relative humidity, we don't hit 0. (In fact, it's snowing right now)
>>
>> Jim
> Cave system near here is.. damn close. Was going to be used as a bomb
> shelter, by the government, but, frankly, they would have had to store
> 20 times the water they still have down there to survive it. You can
> definitely tell there is next to no water in the air while there.
Vegas reportedly sees a low-ish average of 11%. As I recall, you're not
far from there (south, I think), about equidistant from Phoenix and Vegas?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2012 3:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:12:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 1/23/2012 5:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:22:44 -0500, Aydan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> Actually, going back to my previous point: The amount of /moisture/
>>>>> emitted by a normal human is absurdly small. And yet, put enough of
>>>>> them in a room, and it can get astonishingly moist in there! o_O
>>>>
>>>> I just had a look in Wikipedia:
>>>> 1m³ of air at 20 can carry roughly 30ml of water (as vapour).
>>>> 1 human sweats about 400ml to 1l per day.
>>>> Since "normal" room air usualy has about 50% humidity that leaves
>>>> about 15ml/m² for the sweat. That would mean 1 human can saturate 1 -
>>>> 2.5 m³ of air per hour.
>>>> Now you just need the number of people and the size of the room to
>>>> know how fast it saturates.
>>>
>>> You'd also need to know the current relative humidity to know how
>>> saturated it is before you start adding people to the room.
>>>
>>> 0% humidity is quite rare - in fact, I don't know that it's possible on
>>> Earth other than in an artificial environment. I live in a desert
>>> climate (though not in the desert), and while we do easily hit below
>>> 20%
>>> relative humidity, we don't hit 0. (In fact, it's snowing right now)
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Cave system near here is.. damn close. Was going to be used as a bomb
>> shelter, by the government, but, frankly, they would have had to store
>> 20 times the water they still have down there to survive it. You can
>> definitely tell there is next to no water in the air while there.
>
> Vegas reportedly sees a low-ish average of 11%. As I recall, you're not
> far from there (south, I think), about equidistant from Phoenix and Vegas?
>
> Jim
Yeah, but this underground system also has "zero" water in it, and the
rock seems to suck up what little comes in from outside, so.. its pretty
damn nasty.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:13:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, but this underground system also has "zero" water in it, and the
> rock seems to suck up what little comes in from outside, so.. its pretty
> damn nasty.
I was a bit surprised that death valley wasn't listed as drier.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, but this underground system also has "zero" water in it, and the
>> rock seems to suck up what little comes in from outside, so.. its pretty
>> damn nasty.
>
> I was a bit surprised that death valley wasn't listed as drier.
Apparently some of the driest places on Earth are the dry valleys of the
South Pole. Sure, /most/ of Antarctica is under miles of solid ice. But
there are a few valleys utterly bare of snow, deep in the interior of
the continent. Apparently they can go /centuries/ without any
precipitation at all.
How dry the *air* is, I couldn't say...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/22/2012 23:23, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Wondering if they are running MS Windows:
It's Linux, with each application on any given box running in its own VM,
which is also Linux. Unless you need Windows or OSX (e.g., testing
javascript code against IE), in which case your code runs on the appropriate
server farm.
> 2. In case of security update, did they all update& reboot at the same
> time ?
No, they do rolling restarts.
> Obviously, they are not using Apple's computers.
Not in the data centers, no.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
