Data Centers Breathe Easier With Less Oxygen

PC World is reporting that some companies are looking at a new method of fire protection in their server closets, oxygen-deprivation systems.""Wood stops burning when the oxygen content falls to 17 percent and plastic cables between 16 to 17 percent, said Frank Eickhorn, product manager for fire detection at Wagner Alarm and Security Systems GmbH in Hanover, Germany. Wagner makes electric compressors that use a special membrane to remove some of the oxygen from the outside air, a system the company calls OxyReduct. The excess oxygen is exhausted, and the remaining nitrogen-rich air is pumped inside the data center."

Comments

That's pretty hot

[drinkypoo]

...er, so to speak. But it can't hold a candle to the burning excitement of watching pasty-faced geeks burn out, run out of steam, and pass out in a low-oxygen environment.

Re:That's pretty hot

[rucs_hack]

That happened in Alcan Fabrications (banbury) in the late 1970's.

They had a fancy nitrogen based system to put out fires, and it was tripped by accident, almost doing for a few of their technical bods.

Re:That's pretty hot

[kabz]

Did anyone else flashback to the Star Trek movie where Spock dies ...

"I have to shut down the server ..."
"Don't do it Spock!"

Spock trudges over to the big Dell and flips the switch before crawling back to the server room window.

Does the BOFH know about this?

[spun]

Hehe, I can just picture Simon locking someone in one of these and slowly dialing down the oxygen until he gets that raise or perk or whatever he's after.

Re:Does the BOFH know about this?

[elrous0]

What the Hell is BOFH?

Re:Does the BOFH know about this?

[spun]

The Bastard Operator From Hell, Simon Travaglia. A system administrator turned humor columnist who writes stories about what all sysadmins wish we could get away with. You know, murdering our boss with the Halon system, getting end users to stick paperclips into power outlets, that kind of thing. Published semi-regularly at theregister.co.uk.

Mechanical Halon?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Isn't this how halon systems work? It binds with the oxygen to make some other chemical and thus reduces the amount available for combustion?

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't bind to the oxygen so much as just displace it. Halon is heavier than oxygen and just pushes it out of the area. Halon is dangerous though because if there are people in the room when it goes off they won't be able to breath.

This whole idea doesn't seem that great. So what if something shorts out and sits there glowing red and no one notices? You sure as hell notice when something starts burning but something could be slowing frying multiple components before anyone notices because there would be no signs.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[cheater512]

Yeah but Humans need oxygen too you know.

Halon systems eliminate basically all oxygen.
These systems just reduce the amount of oxygen for the same effect.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Yes, but you don't want to be in a room when a Halon system goes off - exit immediately or die of oxygen starvation.

I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

I worked with a fire-suppression engineer who claimed to have personally experienced hundreds of halon discharges with little ill effect (he did seem like he might have had too much of the wacky-weed though). According to him, under normal deployment conditions, a halon system will not remove ALL oxygen, just enough to suppress most fires.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[russ1337]

>>> Yeah but Humans need oxygen too you know.

Of course you're working off the assumption the people in IT are human....

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[ElectricRook]

It's not that they won't be able to breath, they'll breath just fine, except that the oxygen in their air has been displaced by HALON, meaning their air has not enough oxygen to sustain human life. Which is all well and fine because USAF flight crew tell us that losing consciousness due to lack of oxygen is very comfortable. If the HALON gas flows across something very hot (glowing metal perhaps). Then the HALON decays into some nasty chemicals akin to mustard gas. Oop's best to get out and stay out. There are people with SCBA that get paid to handle these situations, and it ain't me.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[cmowire]

IIRC, halon works not by displacing air, but by disrupting the combustion process mid-way so as to prevent it from maintaining combustion temperture.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[beadfulthings]

I think he may have been on the whacky-weed. The drill was always the same--everybody out, last one out the door hits the big red button for the Halon. It was just by the door and was protected under a plastic shield so you couldn't just bump into it by accident. Of course those were data centers constructed as the Earth was still cooling and before the dinosaurs became extinct. We were also entrusted with (or encumbered by) massive tape reels--one per drone--and expected to keep them safe until everybody could assemble and regroup. Just grand carrying one of those down five flights of steps from a computer room that was unaccountably located on the top floor of a building.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[Big Bob the Finder]

Halons work to extinguish fire using several mechanisms. Oxygen displacement- not absorption or binding- is one of them, but if this were the only factor, then dry nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or other inert gas would work just as well.

There are four things required for combustion: oxidizer, fuel, heat, and a chemical reaction that is self-sustaining- the "chain reaction," in which free radicals are formed. Halons work by kicking off chlorine, bromine, or fluorine radicals in the heat of the fire, ending these reactions. Unfortunately, the same properties that make this class of compounds so wonderful for extinguishing fires is also what makes them so good at terminating the production of ozone.

I also seem to recall something in my distant past as a fire instructor that halons as a group have a fairly high specific heat, meaning they carry away more heat from the fire; this is a relatively minor factor when compared to things like water which have high specific heat and very high heat of vaporization. Water is surprisingly good at putting out electrical fires; energized systems can be handled by using distilled water, as was done at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Tennessee in 1975. But it's messy and doesn't fight "three dimensional" fires very well.

Replacements such as FM-200 and Novec 1230 that do not survive long enough to reach the stratosphere have been made and are now available. They are comparable in effectiveness to more traditional halons (Halon 1211 and 1301), and Novec is shipped as a liquid rather than a compressed gas. This makes it safer and less expensive to transport. Being fluorinated molecules (no chlorine, just fluorine) less phosgene is produced during a fire, which is a good thing.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[ElectricRook]

I worked in a USAF sim that had halon under the floors, but no chilled air flow under the floors, and the floor tiles had no vents. One day the fire alarm tech accidentally triggered the halon, and the air pressure under the floor tiles lifted the tiles up and off of their frames. And it blew all the under floor dust up into the room. I think it was $10K to replace the two tanks (1988). The programmer in the room at the time said it sounds more like a bomb than a hiss.

This incident occurred the day after we had a power supply convert itself into a "smoke generator", around midnight at shift change. It filled the sim with smoke. We ran in from the maintenance shop (through the sim was the way out too) the boss pulled the halon dump handle, and nothing happened. That's "Oh Shit" night, followed by a "Oh Shit" day. I think the fire alarm guys had a "Holy Fucking Shit" week.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[trburkholder]

Halon works by giving up chlorine and bromine radicals which bind to and inhibit the free radicals (H, OH and O) involved in the chemical mechanisms of the flame. It doesn't react with molecular oxygen in the air.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[pentalive]

protected under a plastic shield so you couldn't just bump into it by accident

In a place I worked the computer room had a halon system. One day at shift change one of the operators caught a backpack strap on the mushroom button (even under the plastic mollyguard).. tore the button right off.

His first mistake was trying to put the button back.... whooosh!

halon stinks hours later.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[fuego451]

Halon 1211 (Bromochlorodifluoromethane) and Halon 1301 (Bromotrifluoromethane) have been banned in most countries since 1994 (The Montreal Protocol, as stated by the AC below) because they were found to deplete ozone.

As has already been stated, Halon worked as a fire suppressant by displacing oxygen, thus disrupting the fire triangle (fuel, oxygen, heat). Also, in the presence of any remaining flame or smoldering debris, Halon oxidized into other toxic gasses including phosgene which is very, very bad stuff and was used as a chemical weapon during WWI.

Like Carbon Tetrachloride extinguishers before them, Halon extinguishers had too many bad attributes; what we in the fire service would call, "Ethyl-Methyl-Bad-Shit".

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[SatanicPuppy]

I missed the Halon era in the datacenters, but I got caught in a Co2 fire suppression system not too long ago, so I can imagine the situation. With us, it was a faulty sensor that tripped the fire suppression, so everything is normal, then the fire alarm goes off and the fricking Co2 starts roaring out, and everyone starts running like hell...It was a full bore high pressure suppression system, like you'd see on industrial machinery, so the time to get out was pretty low.

Seems like, all things being equal, it'd be a lot safer to have a Co2 suppression system ready than to maintain a constant low-oxygen environment. They have low pressure systems, that fill the room slowly enough to not be a danger to employees (especially slow moving ones which covers a lot of IT personnel).

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[networkBoy]

And that's why there's a pair of SCOTT Air Packs by the door to our lab.
All emergency teams are trained in how to put one on and how much time they have to get in the room, search for people, and get out.
-nB

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely wrong. Halon (1301) does not stop fires by displacing oxygen - it stops them by disrupting the chemical reactions that form combustion (basically it soaks up most of the available free radicals). This allows it to be extremely effective in relatively low concentrations. It also makes it remarkably safe - you still have all the normal oxygen in the air, so it's not likely to do more than make you loopy.

In fact, Halon is safe enough that the standard Navy safety brief for an accidental Halon discharge spends no time on death by asphixiation (because there's basically no risk of that). Instead, they tell you to stop, duck, and cover - because the Halon's coming out really fast, and you want to keep all the stirred up dust out of your eyes and lungs, and cover your head in case a nozzle comes loose and hits you.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[illegalcortex]

Thank god it was only a sim and not the real thing.

Re:Mechanical Halon?

[profplump]

Accused of potentially depleting upper-atmosphere ozone. Found to deplete ozone is a bit strong.

I'm not a big fan of the Montreal Protocol myself. I'm not saying we should pump out CFCs for fun, and you have valid points about their dangers as fire supressants, but the evidence to ban HCFCs was even flimsier than the evidence to ban CFCs, and neither of them have been proven, even 15 years later, to cause any significant amount of the upper-atmosphere ozone depletion of which they were accused. Moreover, the ban on HCFCs has demonstrably lead to increased energy use, and therefore increased greenhouse gas production, because the replacement refrigerants are less efficient.

One could argue that the inconclusive (not bad mind you, just incomplete) science and subsequent political maneuvering that lead to the Montreal Protocol contributed to the need for the Kyoto Protocol. But that kind of thinking just starts flamewars.

Safe to work

[stanmann]

Yes, its safe to enter, but how long, 1 hour, 3 hours 6 hours 8 hours. The article doesn't mention.

Re:Safe to work

[scheme]

Yes, its safe to enter, but how long, 1 hour, 3 hours 6 hours 8 hours. The article doesn't mention.

RTFA, the oxygen content in the air would be the same as living at around 2000-3000m which people certainly do without ill effects.

Re:Safe to work

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA said the oxygen level was equivalent to an altitude of 6000 feet, so i guess not that dangerous.

Re:Safe to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it does say that it's like being at an elevation of 6000 ft, which is a perfectly habitable environment indefinitely. Takes some adjustment, but basically harmless.

But, that must be making some assumption about the actual elevation of the datacenter. If the datacenter really is at 6000 ft. (it would be close to that, for example, in Denver, CO), then what is the effect of the reduced O2 concentration? At what point do you have to pressurize your datacenter to make the reduced O2 concentration safe?

Re:Safe to work

[fredrated]

Except fire burns at 6000 feet, been there many times and cooked dinner with no problem.

Re:Safe to work

[ad0gg]

Not only can it prevent fires but it also help systems administrators train for the olympics.

Re:Safe to work

[nsayer]

Remember Apollo I?

There's a difference between pressure and partial pressure of oxygen. Reduced PP inhibits fire and FEELS TO HUMANS like being at altitude. Fire burns at altitude because the PP of o2 is the same. Humans feel like the PP is reduced because there's just fewer oxygen molecules (along with fewer of everything else).

My wife has COPD. She has an oxygen concentrator (really, it's just a nitrogen separator. It removes a large chunk of the nitrogen from room air and sends the rest of it down a tube to her nose). We have to post warnings in the windows and the like because the increased oxygen saturation near her when she's using her concentrator makes things that aren't usually flammable quite a bit more so - the exact opposite of the concept described in TFA. An ordinary bic lighter can become quite a sight when you aim the output from the concentrator at it (don't try this at home, kids).

Re:Safe to work

[pla]

RTFA, the oxygen content in the air would be the same as living at around 2000-3000m which people certainly do without ill effects.

Of course, those people who live at 2000-3000m use fire for staying warm at night and for cooking. Kinda makes the entire premise seem a tad like... Oh, I dunno, complete and utter BS?


That said, I've often wondered why we don't do/keep almost all dangerously flammable tasks/equipment in near-zero-oxygen environments. Seems like a bit of a no-brainer for situations requiring minimal human presence.

Re:Safe to work

[maxume]

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to my friend pressure.

Now that that is out of the way, it makes perfect sense; what it amounts to is that your lungs do preferential exchange of oxygen, whereas a fire burns whatever it can suck up. The fire needs a certain percentage of oxygen to burn, and you need a certain amount of oxygen to survive.

Re:Safe to work

[maxume]

Your lungs are more particular than a fire.

Re:Safe to work

[SEE]

Your lungs are mostly worried about the partial pressure of oxygen; .16 bars is what you need. Your lungs don't care too much if that's .16 bars of 100% oxygen, or one bar of 16% oxygen, or two bars of 8% oxygen. The level of concentration of oxygen doesn't matter too much, just the pressure of oxygen to drive membrane gas exchange.

Fires, however, do not have gas-exchange membranes like your lungs, making the partial pressure less important, and the concentration more so. 8% oxygen at two bars is less supportive of fires than 100% oxygen at .16 bars.

Re:Safe to work

[Michael Woodhams]

Alan Turing nearly qualified for the Marathon in the 1948 Olympics. One could argue that he was also the world's first sysadmin.

Re:Safe to work

[swillden]

Fire burns at altitude because the PP of o2 is the same.

Huh? ppO2 is *not* the same at high altitudes. At 0.7 atm (~10,000 feet above sea level), pp02 is 0.7*0.21 = .14 as compared to 0.21 at sea level.

And, in fact, fires do not burn as well at high altitude. As someone who does a lot of camping above 10,000 feet I can tell you that fires are much harder to start and require much more air flow than they do at lower elevations. Boy Scouts are taught to use a "log cabin" structure for a campfire at high altitude, rather than the "tepee" structure that works well at low altitudes. The log cabin has large gaps on all four sides and at each level of the structure, to draw in enough oxygen for combustion, but those gaps also diffuse the heat and make it harder to get the sticks hot enough to burn. The tepee concentrates the heat better, but doesn't provide enough airflow at high elevations.

My wife has COPD. She has an oxygen concentrator (really, it's just a nitrogen separator. It removes a large chunk of the nitrogen from room air and sends the rest of it down a tube to her nose).

Yeah, those things can be dangerous. I know someone who opted to put a log on a burning fireplace while wearing an oxygen tube (though hers was from a tank of pure O2, not a COPD) and ended up with 3rd degree burns over a significant part of her body, because in the oxygen-rich air her clothing became extremely flammable. I'm sure you and your wife aren't so foolish, of course.

Re:Safe to work

[Detritus]

RTFA, the oxygen content in the air would be the same as living at around 2000-3000m which people certainly do without ill effects.

Those people are called the survivors. Some, otherwise healthy, people are susceptible to altitude sickness, and others need all the oxygen they can get at sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_sickness

Re:Safe to work

[murple]

We have such a serverroom here. To get admission, you need a health check-up and you are only allowed max. 1 hour.
I don't know the oxygen percentage, but if it is like at 6000ft. it should be safe for much longer (as others already pointed out)

Re:Safe to work

[murple]

I just checked and oxygen is said to be about 14% and a warning is sounded if it drops to 12%.

The benefits of CO2

[Harmonious Botch]

TFA is way too complex. There are much simpler ways to handle the problem. The oxygen levels in many major cities are below 18% already. Just let CO2 levels keep going up, this will push oxygen percentages down a tad more, and we have no more computer fires.

Re:The benefits of CO2

[QuickFox]

Troll? It's a joke for chrissakes! Sheesh!

Not that it's funny, but come on moderators, lame or not, it's still a joke! Lighten up!

Great idea!

[c0l0]

This should also help keep cleaning personnel out of the inner sanctums of the datacenter, and therefore prevent downtimes due to accidentally plugged-out cables and stuff. And even in case it fails to keep them _out_, it might keep them _inside_ for a loooong time. Relativley well-preserved.

I'm such a morbid bastard at times :/

Re:Great idea!

[jabuzz]

Yeah, and I take it you have never been in a real data centre then. There are no servers plugged into sockets for cleaners to pull out. The racks are hard wired into the mains for this among other things. In fact each rack should have two independent mains feeds to each rack, ideally being feed from different substations.

If there is critical hardware plugged into ordinary sockets someone needs to go back and resit Data Centre design 101.

Re:Great idea!

[mr_mischief]

Not all datacenters are wired the same, of course. Some have step-downs to 48v DC, and wires are screwed to terminals on the equipment. Some have 220V or 440v outlets mounted on the rack, and UPS plugged into those, with servers and such actually plugged into the UPSes. These are not wall sockets, but are only different in that they are not on the walls. Of course, anyone who lets a cleaner with no clearance into the data center is an idiot. Cleaning server rooms is what interns are for.

I used to work for an ISP which used the UPS approach. We'd have two separate 3000VA UPSes plugged into two separate circuits, and have the redundant power on each server go into two (or three, if it was a three-PS server) into different UPSes. Servers which duplicated a service for load balancing got their power sources spread out to different source circuits from one another. It was all still three-prong, 115v@60Hz (US) outlets, but within the racks themselves.

The janitor was never in the server room, and the air conditioner maintenance guys/telephone company guys were never in their unaccompanied. That goes a long way towards accountability for cords not being moved.

cheaper alternative?

[brianben]

Geeks come pre-loaded with an oxygen-removal membrane in their lungs... are they cheaper than special pumps?

Re:But...

[Doddman]

Space suits would be an immediate answer

Re:But...

[mustafap]

Scuba gear of course.

Just make sure your buddy system works. It will be great fun communicating with hand signals.

I wonder if I would be allowed to wear flippers and my spear gun?

Oh great!

[zappepcs]

Now mountain climbing, hang gliding, and other low oxygen sports will be important on my resume!!

Re:Oh great!

[hawg2k]

Now we'll have to give hazzard pay to our hands-on teams. :)

Re:Oh great!

[Idbar]

With this and water cooled systems, I think synchronized swimmers will take over ALL IT jobs! It has to be a nice show to watch though!.

Re:Oh great!

[honkycat]

Hazzard pay? Is that what you get paid for running moonshine in the back of your stock car while avoiding Roscoe P. Coltrane and Boss Hogg?

Re:Oh great!

[hawg2k]

Sh!t. I even used spell checker: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hazzard

Didn't get any "Did you mean ..." messages. :) Oh well ... jokes on me!

IT workers first day

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine the new employee first day:
- Here is your cube
- Here is your chair
- Here is your scuba gear ...

Re:IT workers first day

[Anonymous Coward]

Make that an SCBA (like a firefighter wears), the 'U' in Scuba stands for underwater. ;)

Re:IT workers first day

[Trillan]

No, the first day would be devoted into a hazing ritual: mainly, making him pass out in the low oxygen room just for laughs.

Re:IT workers first day

[ijakings]

Its genious!! We can put one in Ballmers office and then when his face explodes in that firey red of rage we can just scoop all the oxygen out until he cools down and stops hurling furniture.

Re:IT workers first day

[BurningFeetMan]

Heh, and the office apprentice could look after the BACO board and keep everyones air times. They could make coffee AND refill the air tanks too! ^_^

Re:IT workers first day

[MindKata]

"Make that an SCBA (like a firefighter wears), the 'U' in Scuba stands for underwater."

Come to think of it, filling the computer room with water isn't such a bad idea. First it stops any fires and you get water cooling for free.

And for security (and a free screen saver at the IT room window!), you could put a few sharks in there ;)

Paging Mr. Travaglia!

[peacefinder]

I just know that The BOFH is going to be getting one of these systems installed soon. Only his system will occasionally reduce the oxygen levels much further than is strictly necessary for fire protection.

Re:But...

[j1m 5n0w]

How could you work in a datacenter with no oxygen[?]

From the article:

At 15 percent oxygen, it's safe for humans to enter. The lower oxygen content of the air is similar to being at an altitude of about 6,000 feet, Eickhorn said. He demonstrated with a lighter inside a sealed atrium Wagner has on display at Cebit. It won't light.

Datacenter / ski resort

[no_pets]

Sorry, not really datacenter related but it's brought up in TFA. So, at 6000 ft oxygen is much lower similar to this new system. So, there are no fires at that height? Is this true? How about off-site datacenters in the mountains (by the ski slopes)?

Re:Datacenter / ski resort

[JDevers]

And ample cooling to boot.

Re:Datacenter / ski resort

[justasecond]

So, there are no fires at that height?

It's certainly not true! I cook tasty lunches on my trusty Coleman camp stove at 11,000 ft. base elevations and the lodge grills work just fine at close to the 13,000 ft. summit elevation of this ski area.

It's a pain-in-the-ass to cook tea, though, 'cause water boils at a pretty tepid temperature at that elevation.

Re:Datacenter / ski resort

[Drawkcab]

Its not exactly the same as being at 6000ft, its just similar from the perspective of how easily a human can breath. Higher altitudes have the same percentage of oxygen in the air, they just have lower air pressure, meaning less of all of its components. The lower altitude air will still be higher pressure, but with less oxygen. In terms of breathing, we just care about the partial pressure of oxygen, but thats not all that matters when it comes to whether something will burn.

Re:Datacenter / ski resort

[Jedi Alec]

someone at google is reading this and going "ooooooh, me likey".

Re:Datacenter / ski resort

[smellsofbikes]

Okay, so you're saying the partial pressure is what makes us breathe, and I agree because it takes pressure to push oxygen across the lung membranes. Then you're saying that fire depends only on the percentage, not on the partial pressure. Why? I would think a molecule's willingness to react would be dependent on the concentration of the oxygen, and have little dependence on nitrogen at all since it doesn't enter into the reactants/products equation. More nitrogen will damp the start of a fire because there is more mass to heat up -- mass that doesn't give you anything back because it isn't involved in the reaction -- but I find it surprising it would actually stop a fire occurring at all, at such a small percentage change. It seems to me that at 20 atm, 5% oxygen would allow something to burn wildly. (In fact, wasn't this a plot point of Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon"?)

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering why this would be the case. I think [reactants]/[products]. I know that at different pressures the thermodynamics will change, but this is the same pressure. The delta energy should be the same, so it seems like we'd see the delta-T be linearly dependent on the amount of nitrogen, since there's more mass per unit heat.

Re:Datacenter / ski resort

[swillden]

kay, so you're saying the partial pressure is what makes us breathe, and I agree because it takes pressure to push oxygen across the lung membranes. Then you're saying that fire depends only on the percentage, not on the partial pressure. Why? I would think a molecule's willingness to react would be dependent on the concentration of the oxygen, and have little dependence on nitrogen at all since it doesn't enter into the reactants/products equation.

This is exactly right.

It's the partial pressure of O2 that determines combustion rate (all else being equal). This is why SCUBA tanks have to be completely free of any dirt and debris, because at 240 atmospheres even the O2 in normal air (21% O2 * 240 atm = ppO2 of 50.4 atm!) creates an environment where everything is extremely flammable.

And, no, the inert gases don't matter at all, except insofar as increasing them lowers the ppO2.

De"bugger"

[cyberbob2351]

This will help to ensure that there are never any bugs resident in the systems.

Why not lock the machines in a vacuum chamber and watercool? Or even full liquid immersion for that matter.

Re:De"bugger"

[drinkypoo]

Why not lock the machines in a vacuum chamber and watercool? Or even full liquid immersion for that matter.

We don't do immersion because it doesn't work over the long term. In the short term, it's fine. Even in a closed system, though, degradation of components leads to the contamination of the coolant, which then must be cleaned.

Cleaning is itself a problem. All filters wear out, and no filters are perfect. The closest things you get are distillation, or reverse osmosis filtering. Distillation requires heat, and to clean that much water, too much heat will be needed. Reverse osmosis filters waste water, so the system won't be closed. In short, full immersion cooling is just a bitch.

Liquid cooling is fairly reasonable, but it has its own problems as well. If you have a centralized pump and centralized cooling for the coolant, then a leak anywhere is a leak in the entire system. If you don't, then you have a jillion pumps and radiators and all kinds of other crap to fail.

So liquid cooling is to be avoided in general, and full-immersion cooling simply isn't feasible.

Re:De"bugger"

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

For less effort, you could just use an inert gas bath. Fill the datacenter with Argon or nitrogen if it's not corrosive in the long term. Does not have to be sealed as well either, just kept at a slightly positive pressure.

Re:De"bugger"

[Loconut1389]

I always thought they should just airlock the data center and leave it with little to no air (pump the least amount of air out to keep fires from starting) and just require breathing apparatus- but insurance and whatnot would never tolerate that in an environment where clients come in- though perhaps for in-house (google, etc) that may be OK.. still, I think it's a law that you have to have training/certification on respirators.

A full space suit approach would be higly expensive, and lots of sharp edges on servers sounds like a bad idea. Plus its hard enough to unscrew things with ungloved hands.

The better way is indeed to just keep it at low enough pressure to prevent fires, but not so low that you couldn't go without a pressure suit (embolism, etc). Is it possible to have air pressure low enough not to cause fires but high enough to only need a respirator?

Re:De"bugger"

[networkBoy]

FWIW you can use a coolant for immersion cooling that is not water.
Water is too corrosive and will pick up metal ions, causing the contamination.
Fluorinert (FC-70, FC-77) or it's replacements (Novec HFE-7100, H Galdon ZT-130/150) work very well in this role.
Downside becomes cost. ZT-130 is sold in 600ml bottles for $150. The system I'm using it in needs about 5 bottles per charge-up (plus ~2 bottles per year top off).
-nB

Re:De"bugger"

[drinkypoo]

Is it possible to have air pressure low enough not to cause fires but high enough to only need a respirator?

Air pressure doesn't prevent fire. It does retard it, but that's largely because of the cold - I don't want to encourage anyone to throw flaming trash out of their windows, but it actually has to be fairly hot and fairly dry to start a fire by throwing a cigarette butt out of your window, because there's just not enough ambient heat.

Percentage of oxygen causes/prevents fire. At a high enough percentage of oxygen, you will burn - and you don't even need a spark.

Re:De"bugger"

[Craig Davison]

You need air for cooling. Air heats up as it passes over the heat sinks/metal components in servers, and carries the heat away. A server in a vacuum would overheat.

Re:De"bugger"

[FishWithAHammer]

Halon gas transmits heat and is fire-retardant.

Breaking news:

[solevita]

Fire needs oxygen. More on this one as it comes in.

Things they dont advertise

[OverlordQ]

Not only does it stop fires, but it gets rid of your stupid employees!

Re:But...

[Reverend528]

How could you work in a datacenter with no oxygen

SSH?

Re:But...

[qbwiz]

Yes, those could be very useful when HAL goes on a rampage and you need to turn him off.

Stopping fires with a 50 litre hydrogen tank???

[Wellerite]

N2telligence showed a fuel cell at Cebit that uses two, 50-liter tanks of hydrogen for fuel.

Hmmmm - I'd rather take the risk of 21% oxygen than having hydrogen tanks sitting there in the server room....

Re:Stopping fires with a 50 litre hydrogen tank???

[Valar]

Yes, because those hydrogen tanks will make an awesome fire, with all that oxygen floating around and all.

Time for carbon monooxide detectors

[G4from128k]

Although I'm sure this is safe for day-to-day operations (for low-altitude data centers) and will prevent a self-sustaining blaze, I'd bet that a smoldering powersupply would convert an unpleasant fraction of the low-oxygen atmosphere into carbon monoxide. Oxygen-staved combustion tends to produce this deadly gas (which kills by binding to hemoglobin better than does oxygen)

Re:Time for carbon monooxide detectors

[Mattsson]

Also, oxygen-starved combustion have a tendency to react almost explosively to a sudden oxygen-feed.
Like, say, someone opening the server-room door.

But one would assume that they would still keep a fire-detection system in place.
If there's a fire-alarm going a low-oxygen server room, it might be wise to stay out and wait for the professionals to arrive.
Too bad regular users usually don't follow this rule when it comes to computer-related problems. =)

Re:Time for carbon monooxide detectors

[mgv]

Also, oxygen-starved combustion have a tendency to react almost explosively to a sudden oxygen-feed.
Like, say, someone opening the server-room door.

That won't cause a sudden oxygen feed. The pressures in the two rooms would be the same, just a different oxygen percentage.

There would be a slow diffusion oxygen in.

Michael

Re:Time for carbon monooxide detectors

[repvik]

Indeed. But it prevents a full-fledged fire which has CO + blazing flames to boot.

Re:Time for carbon monooxide detectors

[Mattsson]

Depends on the temperature in the server-room.
They tend to be either very warm (not enough AC) or rather cold.
Either way, there will be air circulating when the door is opened.
But you are of course right. You'd have to keep the door open for a while before any greater amount of exchange is made.

Re:Time for carbon monooxide detectors

[Maximum Prophet]

When I was young, I had an electric blanket that started to smolder when it got pushed to the bottom of my bed. My parents called the fire department because we couldn't find the source of the smoke initially. When they carried the mattress outside, it immediately burst into flames.

I could imagine the same thing happening to a power supply or server that was hot as it was carried out of the room into fresh air.

It would still smoulder and smoke

[nietsch]

The lower oxigen content just means that fires will not selfsustain. But if you have an external source for energy input, like the short you mentioned, thngs will still get hot and start to smoke. The chances are just a bit better that it does not cause a full-on fire.
You are not supposed to be working all the time in the serverroom anyway, it's much too noisy in there and your 200Watt of heat production would be much better used to warm your office.
In other words: you would have noticed that fire too late anyway if you had to rely on the amount of smoke coming from it.

Re:It would still smoulder and smoke

[falcon5768]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH I wish I could quote this and give it to my boss....

Not only do I work in the server room... we have CUBICLES in the server room with the network admins office RIGHT NEXT TO THE STACK. Needless to say, I cant hear the secretaries phone ring anymore.

Re:It would still smoulder and smoke

[falcon5768]

Im sure there are, but the problem is we are a schoolsystem whos main server room is a converted autoshop in the old industrial arts building. Even if we wanted to move, all we could move to would be the training lab, which is in use by people outside of our district since the board of ed rents it out for the extra school funding it needs.

Re:It would still smoulder and smoke

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I worked in the room for many years. Right near the end, I had a hearing test. It turns out, over 10 years in the room did ZERO damage to my ears. My iPod probably has done more then the server room noise. If your room is that noisy, I would start checking the fans.

Re:It would still smoulder and smoke

[Archangel Michael]

Up until you said "autoshop", I could swear that you worked for the same school system I do. I was seriously trying to figure out which guy you were. Seriously.

I don't know which is scarier, that I was bored enough to read down this far in the thread, or that there is another school system whose server room/boss/cubicle arraignment is nearly identical to the one where I work.

It is nice to know that I'm not alone.

Re:It would still smoulder and smoke

[Gazzonyx]

ROFL - me too... Just a 1U rack, but MAN, those 15K RPM fans are freakin' loud! On the bright side, those 4 Xeon cores, 10K RPM Raptor and RAID 5 configuration produce a beautiful amount of heat on a cold winters day!

"Hey, peter, I'm cold in here... I'm going to start the rsync backup early today!"

Re:It would still smoulder and smoke

[nmg196]

> The lower oxigen content just means that fires will not selfsustain

Your post would have been so much more convincing if you knew how to spell "oxygen" and "self sustain".

Re:But...

[ettlz]

At 15 percent oxygen, it's safe for humans to enter. The lower oxygen content of the air is similar to being at an altitude of about 6,000 feet, Eickhorn said. He demonstrated with a lighter inside a sealed atrium Wagner has on display at Cebit. It won't light.

As I understand it, don't we exhale about 14% oxygen? (Is this how mouth-to-mouth is supposed to work, or does said technique depend on unabsorbed gas being in the lungs shortly after inhalation?)

The Ideal data center would be filled with Helium.

[LWATCDR]

If you didn't care about cost and or keeping people alive in the data center Helium would be the ideal inert gas.
No fires to worry about and it is a great conductor of heat.

Re:But...

[slashbob22]

I wonder if I would be allowed to wear flippers and my spear gun?

I suppose thats in case the Barracuda firewall dives on you?

"Hostage"

[HTH NE1]

"Shut up. We must conserve the air for as long as possible."
"How long have we got?"
"Minutes."
"How many?"
"I'll let you know."

Re:"Hostage"

[monkeydo]

Main Entry: indefinite
Pronunciation: (")in-'def-n&t, -'de-f&-
Function: adjective

: not definite: as a : typically designating an unidentified, generic, or unfamiliar person or thing b : not precise : VAGUE c : having no exact limits

Re:"Hostage"

[HTH NE1]

indefinite
Pronunciation[in-def-uh-nit]
-adjective

1. not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
2. not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.
3. Grammar.
   
   1. indefinite article.
   2. indefinite pronoun.
4. Botany.
   
   1. very numerous or not easily counted, as stamens.
   2. (of an inflorescence) indeterminate.

But criticism noted: it should be more precise. "Indefinite" as used by Lessig refers to the unlimited extension of copyright by finite increments and doesn't work as well in my argument. "Infinite" doesn't feel right and can mean more than duration. "Unlimited" references the "for limited times" part of the law, but again can be read as emphasizing strength of protection rather than duration, but "permanent" or even "eternal" address time. (Alas none of them leave enough room in a slashdot signature for "unconstitutionally".)

I think I'll go with "eternal" for now. Thank you.

Re:"Hostage"

[monkeydo]

It isn't a question of precision, it's a question of accuracy. The statement in your .sig is just wrong. Eternal is still wrong, since it implies the copyright lasts forever, which is directly contradicted by the first part. You're also missing some commas.

Re: "Hostage"

[HTH NE1]

Eternal is still wrong, since it implies the copyright lasts forever, which is directly contradicted by the first part.

Then you are missing my point entirely.

The work is lost to the ages. The only time it was accessible was when it was under copyright. The law prevents anyone from making unauthorized copies during the copyrighted period, and the copyright holder is under no obligation to authorize any copying (fair use is dead when the opportunity to be exercise it is never granted, which is possible even without DRM). No copies exist after the copyright period expires for anyone to use.

Therefore ephemeral works effectively gain eternal copyright as no copies will ever enter the public domain.

Of course, all this explanation won't fit in a 120-character signature.

Re: "Hostage"

[monkeydo]

I'm not missing your point. Your point is wrong. The copyright doesn't become eternal. The copyright simply lasts the lifetime of the work. Of course, that is a tautology when applied to ephemeral works, because ephemeral works will never enter the public domain, since there is nothing left around to copy. If there is, then it wasn't really ephemeral. It appears that wht you object to is DRMs capacity to allow a creator to convert a work in a fixed medium into an ephemeral work. Of course none of this is news. There are plenty of creative works that cannot (or it would be impractical) to copy even after they enter the public domain.

Ephermeral works do not enjoy eternal copyright. In fact, ephemeral works do not enjoy copyright protection [i]at all[/i].

Perfectly safe.

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Just your memory doesn't function as well, so you better make all the passwords really simple.

Not limited to low-oxygen...

[sczimme]

But it can't hold a candle to the burning excitement of watching pasty-faced geeks burn out, run out of steam, and pass out in a low-oxygen environment.

Watch an out-o'-shape pasty-tubby try to ride a bicycle some time: with all his belabored breathing, one would think he was climbing Everest instead of pedaling on level ground.

I, of course, am in perfect shape, with nary an ounce of extraneous tissue to be seen...

*looks around furtively*
*runs away*
*collapses after 30 yards*

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[drinkypoo]

Well, I admit I resemble the fatass remark myself, although not to TOO horrible a degree since I'm fuckentall. But I also have asthma which makes it difficult to exercise. I can usually hike, so long as I don't want to do any talking at the same time (I'm too busy wheezing.) I mostly just need to get a good set of free weights, because that's easier to start and stop and isn't quite so aerobic. And go back on the Atkins diet, which I'm doing after my birthday at the end of the month.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[sczimme]

No worries! I probably would collapse after 30 yards. :-) I ruptured my Achilles tendon *mumble* years ago and have been on a rigorous schedule of sitting ever since. Come springtime I'll be the wobbling wide-load on the bicycle!

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[dave562]

If you're serious about coming up with a good diet, check out "Healing with Whole Foods" by Paul Pitchford. The Atkins diet is a load of crap.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Atkins simply works for those that have issues with carbohydrates.

The whole foods diet you recommend will kill most diabetics - far too many simple starches and sugars. My dad was getting worse on things like that until he dropped the American Diabetes diet, dropped the Whole Foods diet, kept walking and doing pushups and crunches, and then did Atkins exactly by the numbers. Lost 60 pounds, got his HDL LDL and Triglycerides all into normal range and even reversed the insulin sensitivity problems he was having (probably more a result of the loss of fat than the diet). Its not just the anectdotal either, the latest studies I recall hearing about put the 1 year weight loss for Atkins above all the other "name" diets. Pops is now on South Beach, which is like Atkins but has more fruit and veggies, and is completely off Lipitor, Metformin and Lisinopril.

I dont disagree that processed oods are proably bad - I avoid them too. But Atkins worked and saved my dad's life - so its not "a load of crap".

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[dave562]

I don't need to buy credibility. The book that I recommended has all of the information that anyone out there needs to make an informed choice about how to eat well. The author even recognizes the role that meat plays in a complete diet. The Atkins diet is a load of crap because the body needs carbohydrates.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[drinkypoo]

The Atkins diet is a load of crap because the body needs carbohydrates.

The body does not need carbohydrates. Your body can run fine on ketones. In fact, the brain operates more efficiently on ketones than on glucose.

People have been living on this diet for a lot longer than it's been sold as a weight loss plan. People with certain types of seizures which cannot occur unless brain glucose is over a certain level live on it all their lives as a means of controlling seizures.

In addition, and this is one of the essential arguments in favor of the Atkins diet, this is more or less the diet that several peoples evolved to eat. Not everyone, of course; it depends largely on the domesticable cereals which were present where those peoples lived.

Finally, the Atkins diet does not completely contraindicate carbohydrates. You are expected to keep your intake low during the induction phase, but after you have lost weight you can if you like add in carbs until you begin to gain weight, then dial them back a bit and hold them there. For some people this is hundreds of grams a day, for some people only a couple of dozen. But the simple fact is that the Atkins diet does not prohibit all carbohydrates and your ignorance in this area is substantially telling.

Would you like to state your next objection so I can debunk it as well? I may not get to it today, but I can go on like this for weeks.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[treeves]

Your body can run fine on ketones.

That's why I'm on the All-Acetone Diet (tm). MMMmmmm! MEK smoothies!

Just kidding.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[mfrank]

Atkins works great if you have low "metabolic resistance", where your metabolism shifts to burning fat and protein when your blood glucose levels fall below a certain level. I lost 35 pounds in 6 weeks doing it (10 pounds in the first week alone, not counting the two days it took for my glucose levels to drop to mostly nothing). If you don't have low metabolic resistance, it's going to be painful and it's not going to work.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[nwbvt]

"Your body and brain do not need carbohydrates. In fact your brain actually runs more efficiently on ketones than on glucose."

Yes, I know its possible to live without carbohydrates. That doesn't mean its healthy. Virtually every real medical study shows carbohydrates are good for your brain.

"You also cannot cite any source for information saying that he was obese at the time of his fall; his family claims that fluid built up in his body during his coma. As we do not have access to his full medical records, this will be difficult to prove. If you can come up with a source that can positively confirm Dr. Atkins' weight at the time of his accident, then you will have something here. But you don't."

His company released a statement putting his weight at 196 pounds. Assume a height of 5'11 (I believe they also said he was nearly 6 feet tall), and that gives you a BMI of 27.3. That qualifies him as overweight.

"But muscle burns fat while you're just sitting around, because it requires more energy just for upkeep."

Not much. If you really want to loose weight, you need aerobic exercise (and in fact most aerobic exercise also build muscles, so you get that benefit anyways).

"If it were that simple, then everyone would do it. "

Most people I know with asthma are not overweight. Maybe they are all anorexic, but I suspect they have ways to work out despite their problem.

"If you actually have an objection to make about Atkins that is based in fact, I'm interested. But so far I haven't seen one not debunked by modern medical science."

If by "modern medical science" you mean fad nutritionists who sell low carb foods, then you may be right. But if you mean real doctors, there are plenty of studies showing the dangers of eliminating carbohydrates for weight loss. Talk to your medical provider for more details.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[budgenator]

The Atkins diet is dangerous, in fact if people could actually accomplish its goals, there would have been more fatalities; ketosis is nothing to screw around with.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[heinousjay]

Maybe you could recognize that not every body is the same, and just because you hold an opinion dearly, that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[GregPK]

One warning. Ketoacidosis. Diabetics should not try the atkins diet.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[GregPK]

Ketosis is fine. However Ketoacidosis which effects diabetics who go on the atkins diet can kill people.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[balloonhead]

Is ketoacidosis with Atkins a theoretical or actual problem in diabetics? I don't see why it would cause ketoacidosis - it's more a result of insufficient insulin than excess ketones.

What happens is:
1. not enough circulating insulin
2. cells won't take up glucose from blood without insulin
3. this results in high blood sugar but low intracellular glucose
4. cells turn to alternate sources of energy (mainly lipolysis -> free fatty acids -> keto acids I think) as they don't have enough intracellular glucose to do their business.

Your body can make glucose from a few sources, and doesn't need much carbohydrate to do it. I suppose if there's a big lack of carbohydrate then that could cause problems, but shouldn't be any worse in a diabetic compared to non-diabetic.

(I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm just curious as I don't see how it would necessarily cause ketoacidosis)

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[budgenator]

Well basically what Atkins tries is to push the metabolic pathways into an ineffeicant do-or-die mode by carbohydrate starvation. This pathway burns calories like they are going out of style resulting in dramatic unhealthy weight-loss, but generates ketone which are toxic. Certain organ like the brain, heart, liver and kidneys can be damaged. When we are faced with starvation going into ketosis in an attempt to allow the organism to live a little longer and maybe cheating death is OK and an exceptable trade, but its a steep price to pay for cosmetic reasons.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[balloonhead]

No, I understand that - but are diabetics actually affected more? As long as they take their insulin, they should b affeted just the same as a non-diabetic.

I'm not saying it's not unhealthy, just that I'm not convinced that diabetics will be worse of than non-diabetics.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[drinkypoo]

That is absolutely correct. Ketosis, of course, should not be compared to ketoacidosis; the latter is what the former does to some people with impaired systems. I actually wrote a fairly long article on the Atkins diet for Everything2 because the writeups under that node were largely incorrect. I got inspired to write it by a NYT article entitled What if it's all Been a Big Fat Lie? by Gary Taubes. (Especially read that last link if you are still a doubter, although it does not appear the entire article is there.)

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[compro01]

As long as they take their insulin, they should b affeted just the same as a non-diabetic.

aside from the fact that is nigh-impossible to keep things pefectly balanced, especially with type-1. injected insulin can't fully replicate the effect of natural insulin.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[Arthur Dent]

You seem to be confused between Ketosis and Ketoacidosis. They are not the same. One's a disease, the other's not. And while there, also read up on the Ketogenic diet

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[LunaticTippy]

For best health, I only use 100% organic solvents.

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[balloonhead]

They don't need to be perfectly balanced - only adequately balanced. Well controlled diabetics (which takes a lot of effort on their part) do exist.

This only applies to type 1 diabetics anyway. Type 2 is a whole different disease, with different complications (type 2 don't get ketoacidosis).

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[budgenator]

Well a diabetic, especially a type 1, can have so little insulin in their system that almost no glucose can get into their cells; sometimes they have so much that they run out of glocose. A woman that lived with us for a while was type 1 and when she got hypoglycemic she would get bizzare, once she just turned off. When EMS got to the house her blood sugar had dropped to 25. It wasn't unusual for her blood-sugars to hit extremes that would have put me in the hospital, yet leave her looking normal.
So the answer is that a diabetic hits the extremes that a normal person on Adkins would not, but if drinking a little poison doesn't kill you, does that mean it's safe?

Re:Not limited to low-oxygen...

[balloonhead]

were you replying to me or the other guy?

Re:But...

[fredrated]

Been to 6000 feet and cooked many meals there on a camp stove. At 11,000 feet as well. Fire burns at that altitude just fine.

Poisonous exhaust

[youthoftoday]

We had a similar issue when with the proliferation of large power-stations: water was pumped into cooling towers and then dumped in rivers. The cooling process de-oxygenated the water and this obviously meant the 'poisoning' of rivers (fish unable to breathe etc). We have a similar situation here. Only this time, the facility actually holds on to the oxygen. Why not mix it with the exhaust air (I'm sure it's not completely recirculated?) and avoid the potential for a similar situation. I know TFA says it's beathable, but it's worth considering the option nonetheless. Not all animals are humans. Remember what scale datacentres operate on, and which direection they're going in (they're not getting smaller). Has the potential not to be a significant issue...

Re:Poisonous exhaust

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... water was pumped into cooling towers and then dumped in rivers. The cooling process de-oxygenated the water and this obviously meant the 'poisoning' of rivers (fish unable to breathe etc).

Why not run the water through a fountain or something like the aerator on a faucet to re-oxygenate it on its way back to the stream? (Or bubble compressed air through it, or just deliver it as a waterfall?)

Re:Poisonous exhaust

[youthoftoday]

Yes I'm sure they solved the problem, probably with an aerator as you suggest. I was really speculating about the analogous impact the datacentres would have.

Re:Poisonous exhaust

[maxume]

There is about 11 billion pounds of air in a cubic mile(1.2 Kg per cubic meter, at STP). Air is close enough to being 79% Nitrogen and 21% oxygen, by volume. Oxygen is denser than nitrogen, so it is a larger percentage by mass; using 21% as a lower bound for the percentage of mass of oxygen in a cubic mile of air means that there are at least 2 billion pounds of oxygen in that cubic mile. Do data centers operate on that kind of a scale?

two points

[jeffeb3]

1) I wonder what effect that will have long term on the components. Specifically, will it reduce the oxidation on the metallic parts? Hmmm...

2) What about having to wait twenty minutes or something to get the oxygen levels high enough for the techs to fix a major crash. I guess the idea might be that the computers take care of their own major disasters.

Re:two points

[dbIII]

If it's a place that already has confined space policies it won't be much of a problem. If it's in the usual office building with usual office workers you'll need training (as in one day or less) and very strict restrictions to stop unauthorised idiots or even unsupervised children from wandering in and dying. I've worked in one place where a couple of guys sat down for lunch in an area with a bit of carbon monoxide, dozed off and never woke up - you have to take these things seriously which the usual office worker will not do.

As for corrosion - dry air slows that down a lot anyway - consider the famous big cast iron pillar in the middle of a desert that hasn't rusted significantly over a couple of millenia.

What fun

[Experiment 626]

Not only are server rooms windowless, freakishly cold, and with uncomfortable chairs, but now they asphyxiate you too.

Re:What fun

[stefanlasiewski]

Chairs? You have a CHAIR? You have SPACE in your server room for a chair? You lucky dog.

Heck, I count myself lucky if I can sit on a stepstool, and twist my body 45-degrees to reach keyboard tray propped on the server 18 inches above my shoulders

I don't want oxygen, but I do want one of your fancy, schmancy chairs. I bet it even has a back!

Yay!

[Machina Fortuno]

Alright, at 15% oxygen it is comparable to 6,000 ft. above sea level. Safe? Yes! If you have ever been skiing/hiking/anything active in higher altitudes (I know this might be asking a lot of some Slashdotters) you know that it is quite safe. You just have to pace yourself. So... think of working in one of these server rooms like Denver maybe. That said, it would make a good excuse for Scuba Gear Tuesdays.

This way the IT guys get there own personal Oxygen Bar to put the "exhausted" oxygen to good use!

Re:Yay!

[fredrated]

Yep been there, cooked plenty of food on campfires there also, so anyone that thinks fire doesn't burn at 6000 feet is plenty confused.

Re:Yay!

[Easy2RememberNick]

Physical exertion? Explain this concept.

Boss in a Gingham dress

[Dogtanian]

Just imagine the new employee first day I can see this whole process being abused by somewhat amoral bosses:-

Boss (on telephone to sysadmin in data centre): "I'm sorry Dave, but your recent conduct just hasn't been acceptable. I've decided to invoke the disciplinary procedure, and having discussed this with Mr. Flibble we've decided that this warrants 2 hours of W.O.O."
Sysadmin: "What's W.O.O.?"
Boss: "With ... out ... oxygen. No oxygen for 2 hours. That'll teach you to be a git."

Re:Boss in a Gingham dress

[dotgain]

Hmm, maybe you got a dubbed U.S. version, I distinctly remember the line being: "That'll teach you to be breadbaskets"

Re:Boss in a Gingham dress

[Dogtanian]

Hmm, maybe you got a dubbed U.S. version, I distinctly remember the line being: "That'll teach you to be breadbaskets" Nah, "breadbaskets" (which I took to mean Rimmer was accusing *them* of being mad after they humoured him) didn't fit so well in this context, because the conversation wasn't a straight lift.

Re:But...

[jandrese]

That's because your fuel doesn't need higher concentrations of oxygen to ignite. With other materials that is not necessarily the case.

Still, I've been out of breath plenty in datacenters after pulling long lengths of (heavy) SCSI cables. I can't imagine trying to do that in an O2 Poor environment.

Easy solution

[tsstahl]

Redesignate the open floor space as the management conference room. The oxygen will be sucked out in no time.

Add Lighter Fluid

[Greyfox]

People cook out up in Estes Park at 9-13K all the time. Maybe dude needs to refill his lighter...

Re:Add Lighter Fluid

[cmowire]

Partial pressure of oxygen determines combustability.

Amount of oxygen determines breathability.... which is how you can breathe astonishingly low pressures of pure oxygen in a space capsule.... till it catches on fire and makes a tasty dish of seared astronaut....

Re:Add Lighter Fluid

[Gospodin]

Except that ppO2 = amount of oxygen (i.e. a ppO2 of 3psi is the same amount of O2 whether there's also a ppN2 of 12psi - roughly the composition of air at sea level - or it's pure O2). What you're thinking is that relative oxygen content determines combustability.

Re:Add Lighter Fluid

[cmowire]

Oops. I stand corrected.

Re:But...

[jtev]

No, we exhale about 19% oxygen normaly. The bigger problem with rebreathing your own air is the buildup of CO2. That's why the astronauts on Apollo 13 were more worried about their scrubbers than their oxygen supply.

Re:Heh

[ray-auch]

> Third; how much would a brain damaged BOFH cost you?

Dunno, are you assuming a brain damaged beyond the capability to enact revenge (which is pretty low-level wiring in the BOFH brain), or not ?

Use CO2 - Could even be environmentally friendly

[asciimonster]

I guess removing the oxygen from air is a very energy inefficient method. I've got an environmentally better solution:

Why, in stead of nitrogen enriched air, use carbondioxyde (CO2) gas? CO2 is not flammable and doesn't attack the hardware and reduces fire hazard just like nitorgen gas (N2).

Get a server plant a power station (preferably running on natural gas) and a house. Power plant feeds energy to server plant and house. Power plant feeds produced CO2 to server plant. Coolant is first fed to servers and then to power plant. Afterwards used to heat house. There simply is no added energy required.

Get a greenhouse, feed it with CO2 from power plant to make food for the house and presto!

____
Some of my entries might have been filed under "B" for bad ideas, I have no idea why.

Great

[GreggBz]

Great, now I have to wear a wireless bluetooth headset AND an oxygen mask when I'm on a tech support in the Data Center.
The guys in HR already call me "space man."

That's absolutely incorrect

[JayBat]

Max halon after a discharge is a few percent. I've walked around in a computer room during and after a halon discharge when a test went bad (expensive for the contractor that screwed up the test).

Halon works by actually disrupting the combustion reaction.

How much power does it use?

[Ignis Flatus]

many many moons ago, i worked briefly at an oxygen concentrator manufacturing company. which is basically what this unit sounds like, an oxygen concentrator that sort of works in reverse, you keep the exhaust and throw away the product. these devices work by forcing compressed air through a molecular sieve - nitrogen adheres to the sieve and O2 passes straight through. but then you've got to get the nitrogen back out of the sieve, which requires decompressing the filter medium. all that energy you used to filter the air is then lost and you must start again. so through a series of compressions and decompressions, you can extract some pretty high purity O2 (about 95% was typical then), in a convenient home unit, but with the drawback of not being very energy efficient.

Re:How much power does it use?

[Jeff1946]

This is done on ships carrying oil. They use the engine exhaust which is low in oxygen to purge the oil tanks. They can't do this with gasoline because crud in the exhaust contaminates the gasoline so they use reduced oxygen air to blanket the gasoline. The oxygen is reduced by passing pressurized air through a bundle of membranes tubes that oxygen diffuses through more readily than nitrogen.

Re:But...

[segfaultcoredump]

Ok, I live at 6,500 ft. Last time I checked, we still had fire stations because things still burned.

Even at the higher elivations (14,000) things still burn.

Re:I call bullshit

[drinkypoo]

I saw this comment and saw that someone else had already explained this to someone else that had asked the same stupid question. But since you were modded up to +5 I guess I'll deal with this instance. The air in the data center at sea level with 14% oxygen has approximately the same amount of oxygen per cubic foot as the rarefied air at ~6,000 feet. Why? Because the air is denser. Note that TFA never claims that it is the same percentage of oxygen, only the same amount. These words mean entirely different things.

If you are a native english speaker, shame on you! You have no command whatsoever of your native language.

If you are not a native english speaker, I highly suggest that you return to your studies, because this language is stupid and you need more help with it. Don't feel bad - it happens to people of all countries who are trying to speak it. Including those who grew up speaking it.

Optimal

[phorm]

This might be safe for humans, but is it optimal for normal functioning. With a lower oxygen content, won't your lungs need to labor more to recover oxygen, and/or wouldn't your work ability be impaired somewhat (sleepiness etc) but the oxygen-poor air? This would be especially true if physical labour was required, for example lifting heavy servers on/off racks.

Re:Optimal

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This might be safe for humans, but is it optimal for normal functioning. With a lower oxygen content, won't your lungs need to labor more to recover oxygen, and/or wouldn't your work ability be impaired somewhat (sleepiness etc) but the oxygen-poor air?

Yes, initially. But if you do it long-term then, like someone who moves to a high altitude, you'll build up more hemoglobin and be just fine.

Takes a few weeks. (Red cell turnover is about a month so figure somewhere between the full month and a couple weeks.)

But somebody who moves to high altitude is there 24/7. I don't know whether you'd build up the full amount of extra red cells only being there during working hours.

Re:I call bullshit

[stratjakt]

No, at 6000 feet there is still the same percentage of oxygen in the air, but at a lower pressure. This removes oxygen from the air. For a same volume of space it would have as much oxygen as a similar volume at 6000 feet.

Something will burn with the lower concentration of oxygen, but would be much less likely to ignite into open flame. It'd smolder slowly, and give you much more time to react to it.

It's a confusing analogy to explain a simple technical concept, because tech writers assume everybody is beneath their intelligence. Like putting too much air in a balloon.

Re:But...

[allthingscode]

Now we can ask for that remote control (VR?) robot to do this work for us. There's always a solution that requires more hardware.

Re:Use CO2 - Could even be environmentally friendl

[Ignis Flatus]

yeah, but CO2 is actually poisonous to breathe in any quantity for very long. space stations and shuttles have CO2 scrubbers for a reason.

Re:But...

[pavon]

That's because your fuel doesn't need higher concentrations of oxygen to ignite. With other materials that is not necessarily the case.

That is definately not the correct explaination, as wood and plastic cables burn just fine at 6000 feet. I grew up at 7000+ feet, and had just as much fun with magnifying glass as any other kid.

AFAIK, the percentage of oxygen is no different at altitude than at sea level, it is just the pressure of atmosphere is lower. So if I had to wager a guess, I would say that combustion is dependant on concentration of O2 per mass, and respiration is dependant on concentration of O2 per volume, which is why a smaller percentage of O2 has a greater effect on combustion then on respiration.

Re:But...

[Trailwalker]

Lighters work very nicely at 6000 feet. Go to the summit of Mt. Washington or Mount Mitchell, and you will see smokers lighting up with a variety of lighters. Westerners with higher mountains will also notice lighters work at altitudes much higher than six thousand feet.

Re:Maybe I am stupid but . . .

[TommydCat]

I imagine that the oxygen-deprived environment at 6,000ft would be just like the oxygen-deprived environment at sea level if you're inside...

Re:But...

[Reverend528]

Now we can ask for that remote control (VR?) robot to do this work for us.

We'd better buy 2, so we have a backup robot to repair the main one if it breaks down.

This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[Chyeburashka]

A few decades ago I served on a submarine. The oxygen generator stopped working for a while, and for operational reasons we couldn't snorkel for fresh air. The percentage of oxygen dropped below the point where combustion is supported, so the smokers were out of luck. People's lungs respond to the partial pressure of oxygen in air, not the absolute percentage, so the crew including myself were fine, since we were only at about the equivalent of 10,000 feet (US units). I always wondered wouldn't it be safer from a fire prevention standpoint to always operate like that.

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[networkBoy]

"I always wondered wouldn't it be safer from a fire prevention standpoint to always operate like that."

Because your body would fatigue faster.
In a wartime environment that could be an issue.
-nB

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[jonwil]

More to the point, why are they even allowing smoking in the closed environment of a submarine in the first place?

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[swillden]

The percentage of oxygen dropped below the point where combustion is supported, so the smokers were out of luck. People's lungs respond to the partial pressure of oxygen in air, not the absolute percentage, so the crew including myself were fine, since we were only at about the equivalent of 10,000 feet (US units).

It's not that fire doesn't depend on ppO2, it's just that it has a higher minimum than healthy people do, at least for many combustibles -- including tobacco, apparently.

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[DerekLyons]

A few decades ago I served on a submarine. The oxygen generator stopped working for a while, and for operational reasons we couldn't snorkel for fresh air. The percentage of oxygen dropped below the point where combustion is supported, so the smokers were out of luck. People's lungs respond to the partial pressure of oxygen in air, not the absolute percentage, so the crew including myself were fine, since we were only at about the equivalent of 10,000 feet (US units).

You might want to turn your dolphins in then son, or at least let us know who graped off your Atmosphere Control siggie. Fires burn just fine at 10K feet.
 
 

I always wondered wouldn't it be safer from a fire prevention standpoint to always operate like that.

Because reducing the concentration of Oxygen in the atmosphere to a level low enough to have a significant effect on a fire means lowering them to a level that requires serious acclimatization for the people breathing said air - which means a crew seriously impaired for the days it requires to acclimitize. (According to this page that could take up to a month.)

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[Tablizer]

A few decades ago I worked on a submarine. The oxygen generator stopped working for a while, and uhhhh, look at the pretty light on the wall. Do you see it too, Mommy?

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[Chyeburashka]

Fires burn just fine at 10K feet.

Sorry, but that fact is not relevant here. See many other postings regarding that in this story. Having a partial pressure of oxygen "equivalent to 10,000 feet" but with a "normal" atmospheric pressure, translates to an oxygen percentage of about 15%. The total atmospheric pressure at 10K ft. is 10.1 psi. Normal air at that altitude is still 21%, so things burn normally as you irrelevantly pointed out. Big whoop. Some people (especially young Navy kids) can function quite well at 10K ft. equivalent for quite a long time. (150 kPa O2 vs 210 kPa O2 partial pressure). Others will suffer the effects in the article you linked to. YMMV. But cigarettes won't stay lit in 15% O2 unless you're dragging really, really hard. Believe me, it works. Not that you would want to go through this experience for long though. Headaches were common, and the tobacco junkies quite unbearable. The A-gangers got the O2 generator working after a few miserable days. Go put yourself on the dink list, skimmer!

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[bill_mcgonigle]

People's lungs respond to the partial pressure of oxygen in air, not the absolute percentage, so the crew including myself were fine

Poetically, you probably had better oxygen uptake than the smokers.

Re:This was great for non-smokers on a submarine.

[Just Some Guy]

More to the point, why are they even allowing smoking in the closed environment of a submarine in the first place?

No kidding! Can you imagine the kind of power it'd take to drive the air scrubbers for something like that? You'd have to plug them directly into a nuclear powerplant or something.

The reasons they'd allow smoking in that environment are that 1) in the scheme of things, the extra cleaning capacity needed to get the smoke out of the air is trivial, and 2) submarines are not exactly conducive to sanity, and the last thing you want to do before locking a smoker in a tiny underwater can for several months straight is to take away his calming influence. Actually, #2 is a far more important consideration than you might initially think.

Re:I call bullshit

[Otter]

Note that TFA never claims that it is the same percentage of oxygen, only the same amount.

Gee whiz, Professor Le Chatelier -- maybe it's obvious to you that the limiting factor for combustion is relative oxygen, not absolute oxygen. But it wasn't obvious to me from first principles that reducing oxygen by percentage would work differently than removing it by reducing pressure, especially when the article uses exactly the opposite reasoning to explain why the air is safe to breathe.

It isn't just the oxygen partial pressure.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

People cook out up in Estes Park at 9-13K all the time. Maybe dude needs to refill his lighter...

It isn't just the partial pressure of oxygen that's important for fire. It's also the partial pressure of nitrogen. Nitrogen cools the reaction without contributing to it.

So having the partial pressure of oxygen appropriate to 6,000 feet while having even greater than sea-level partial pressure of nitrogen could well keep a fire from burning (at least in some fuels) and make it much harder than usual to get one started even in things (like magnesium) that would be happy to burn in this atmosphere (or even in pure nitrogen).

Meanwhile the human body is mostly interested in the partial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Walking into the data center would be like suddenly going from local altitude to 6,000 feet (minus the ear-pops and potential for a case of pressure-related issues). You'd run a little less "brightly" than usual. Live in such conditions 24/7 for a month or so and you'll build up additional hemoglobin in your blood until (like people who live at altitude) you're just fine. (I don't know if you'll get back to "full power" living in them 8/5, though.)

Re:It isn't just the oxygen partial pressure.

[binarybum]

huh, maybe this could lead to a paradigm shift away from the chubby sys admin. Athletes might be excited to try this job since the best way to train is to sleep (or in this case work) in low O2 and to train in normal O2. Lance Armstrong uses a room with low ppO2 for just this reason. I wonder if his hard drives last longer than mine?

Re:It isn't just the oxygen partial pressure.

[marcosdumay]

"Live in such conditions 24/7 for a month or so and you'll build up additional hemoglobin in your blood until (like people who live at altitude) you're just fine. (I don't know if you'll get back to "full power" living in them 8/5, though.)"

I don't know either, but I can tell you that you'll get a bit more than full power when you get out of that room :).

Re:It isn't just the oxygen partial pressure.

[dargaud]

If I may add something about the altitude, running in an O2 reduced environment would be much better. As someone who's run a bunch of servers at high altitude (3300m, 11000ft), I can say it's not a good idea. The lower pressure also means that you get less heat exchange, and a result of that is overheating components. In one year of operation we lost half our hard drives and fans while about 25% of our mobos and graphic cards failed. Strangely I don't recall any failed processors.

Re:But...

[bendodge]

It think it's the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen that matters, not the pressure.

And...

[HalfOfOne]

We could computer control that with a special AI-enabled environmental system called The Red Queen. Awesome...

But what about the hampsters?

[SimonInOz]

How will they run around their little wheels without oxygen? Windows will stop working, Unix will grind to a halt ... has anybody really, really thought this through?

They really wouldn't need

[Tsagadai]

...lower amounts of oxygen to stop server fires if it wasn't for dell laptops.

Re:But...

[Afrosheen]

Yeah I'm not really sure what it means when they say the air is thinner at altitude, but you can't argue with all of the Olympians and other pro athletes that train in the mountains to build up extra red blood cells. Perhaps, like you said, it's less dense. There's plenty of it but due to the lower pressure, it's not as accessible for the lungs.

Re:But...

[excelblue]

You'll get used to it after working for a bit in such an environment. As long as you stay in the datacenter for about 8hr/day, you should be able to adjust without a problem.

i used to live up high in the mountains in a place where the oxygen level is about 7000ft. Once you get used to it, it feels no different than at sea level. Of course, your first few days may really suck.

Quiet Power

[Doc Ruby]

I can't wait to watch this low-ox tech make the inevitable leap from professional datacenters to homes. Not mine: the neighbors with the yappy little dog. Makes the perfect Christmas gift!

Re:I call bullshit

[inviolet]

Does this mean that things don't burn above 6,000 altitude? I guess that I just imagined having camp fires above 8,000 feet in the Rockies. I saw the remains of a wooden building at over 14,000 feet that had burned to the ground. Something doesn't smell right with this article.

At 6,000 feet or wherever, the oxygen concentration is still ~20%, albeit at lower pressure. This new product doesn't reduce the air pressure, it reduces the oxygen concentration. The effect on a human is approximately equivalent to being at 6,000 feet, but not exactly. In any event, it'll be a minor difference to you but a major difference to a fire.

Think of it in reverse: you can breathe oxygen at 100% concentration and not feel a whole lot different, whereas wood and plastic burn like gunpowder at that concentration.

Re:But...

[jbourj]

But a lighter will light at 6,000 feet (say, near Aspen). Something is wrong here...

They won't pass out- they'll die.

[purduephotog]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is _n17_v47/ai_17374449

Among other things, a Kodak safety lecture discussed an employee that modified his Bullard Hood hose connection. He accidently hooked it up to a Nitrogen line. Three breaths later, he was unconscious, and he was dead before anyone could resuscitate him.

They'd better make damn sure NO ONE can defeat the safeties to get into that room. You'll never know what hits you.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[drinkypoo]

They'd better make damn sure NO ONE can defeat the safeties to get into that room. You'll never know what hits you.

You're dumb. They're not talking about eliminating the oxygen, just decreasing it to 15% from 20%. This leaves the same mass of oxygen per cubic foot (or whatever) of space as you would have at about 6,000 feet.

Nitrogen is not dangerous. It is in fact inert as far as your body is concerned. The majority of the air you're breathing now is nitrogen.

Now, breathing pure nitrogen and not getting any oxygen, that's dangerous. But even the FA will tell you that nitrogen is the major component of air. If you actually had any knowledge of physiology (and I have damned little myself) or even read the article you cited, you would have known this.

First, you should have read TFA. Then, when you chose to cite an article to support your point, you should have read THAT FA. Since you did neither, you are obviously a bozo.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[purduephotog]

Thanks, but like I said... I did read the article. The only moron here is yourself for your rapid, nonsense spouted response.

Nitrogen pools. We have several cryo tanks at work that regularly deplete thru displacement the oxygen content of their storage facility. They have to have a fan running 24x7 to sweep fresh air over and above the tanks to prevent anyone from getting injured.

I was simply pointing to those that might not have the experience the problems of a pure nitrogen environment, which wasn't discussed (since you read the article, right?- Funny how they left off the non-fatal aspects of oxygen deprivation).

Thanks for playing. Go sit in the corner until you can be constructive again.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

From TFA:

At 15 percent oxygen, it's safe for humans to enter. The lower oxygen content of the air is similar to being at an altitude of about 6,000 feet, Eickhorn said. He demonstrated with a lighter inside a sealed atrium Wagner has on display at Cebit. It won't light.

They are not talking about oxygen free rooms. Yes, as your article says, breathing pure nitrogen will kill you as humans don't run on nitrogen. But that does not mean a high nitrogen content would be dangerous. Otherwise you would die as soon as you breathed a breath of Earth's air which is, by a long measure, mostly nitrogen. So your article really has nothing to do with this subject. Its sort of like giving a story of how 900 degree temperatures inside a cremation furnace affect the human body and using that as an argument on why people shouldn't be allowed in houses with the heat turned on.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[purduephotog]

*sigh*

I *realize* they aren't talking about O2 free rooms. Perhaps I should have picked a better article closer to nitrogen asphyxiation then one advocating it's use for the death penalty. My bad.

I was *trying* to point out that you don't want to get too carried away by 'inerting' areas because there are consequences- while you may become sleepy and tired from CO poisoning, or disoriented, hot, and suffocating from CO2 poisoning, people will not experience warning symptoms with N2 poisoning- they'll simply keel over. That's it- zip, nada- I'm all for fire-safing server rooms (GO HALON!). No motive to discredit this technology- and no interest IN discrediting it. Just simple information that your average person might not have known about...

And you'll get into trouble with the N2/O2 becomes about 95%- there's not enough O2 partial pressure (Depending on your lung capacity and general health) without the addition of helium- that N2 has to dissolve somewhere, too...

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[jbengt]

By my math, 6,000 feet elevation has about 80% of the air density of sea level, and the same 3.7 to 1 ratio of N2 to O2 as sea level.
A 15% oxygen environment has about 71% to 72% of the O2 that sea level air naturally has, equivalent oxygen per unit volume to over 9,000 ft above sea level. Also, it would have a ratio of 5.6 parts N2 to 1 part O2, I think this ratio could be important, which is why scuba gear often has helium in place of some or all the nitrogen.

I've worked on large data centers located at 4,200 feet above sea level. So would this be the equivalent to 13,000 ft abve sea level there? (13,000 feet has given me altitude sickness in the past)

So I don't believe this would be quite as safe as they say.

And another point I haven't seen mentioned yet: I've seen gaseous fire suppresion systems (FM200, Halon) fail inspection because the space was too leaky to hold the charge for several minutes. I think it would be VERY DIFFICULT to ensure the continuous integrity of the room's envelope in order to keep oxygen from diffusing in - remember we're typically dealing with the lowest bidders.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

"I was *trying* to point out that you don't want to get too carried away by 'inerting' areas because there are consequences- while you may become sleepy and tired from CO poisoning, or disoriented, hot, and suffocating from CO2 poisoning, people will not experience warning symptoms with N2 poisoning- they'll simply keel over."

You will only get the "simply keel over" effect if oxygen levels are 0 (or close to it), like if you suck on a hose spouting pure nitrogen. The same thing will happen if you start breathing pure CO2. If you are in an environment where your body cannot get the oxygen it needs, you will simply die. If on the other hand you get a more gradual fall in oxygen levels (which would be the most common failure scenario here, as well as in most everyday situations where CO2 levels rise), you will feel side effects first. And anyways, as long as you have reasonable safety precautions, its still not going to rise to the level of "They'd better make damn sure NO ONE can defeat the safeties to get into that room", like you said in your first post. I mean if you are going to keep people out of any enclosure where there may be a drop in oxygen levels, you would also have to keep them out of houses and apartments that are heated with natural gas (which may result in a methane leak).

"Just simple information that your average person might not have known about..."

I'm pretty sure the average person knows you need oxygen to breathe.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[Technician]

At 15 percent oxygen, it's safe for humans to enter.

Are we paraniod.. When we do enclosed space work, we are not permitted in any space under 18%.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[John Frink]

Since we're talking about how much oxygen is in a room I think I should point out that the standard atmosphere is around 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and 1% other.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[Cyberax]

Nope, you won't feel a thing until it's too late.

Humans can't detect low blood levels of O2 (receptors in brain can detect only _high_ levels of CO2). And the brain is the first organ to be knocked off by oxygen deprivation (that's why you won't feel any side effects).

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[The_Wilschon]

Three breaths, huh? He must be a really slow breather. I could hold my breath for longer than it would take any normal person to take three breaths, with absolutely no danger of passing out, much less dying. N2 is inert. It is not poison. The worst it will do is displace oxygen, giving about the same effect as holding your breath. Since your brain can survive for I believe about 7 minutes without oxygen (although anything over what, 2 minutes I think, tends to cause some brain damage), you'd have to remain in a very low oxygen or oxygen free environment for that long before you'd have really serious problems.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[balloonhead]

Humans can detect both. Main drive is from CO2 levels, but low oxygen will work too.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[brunes69]

p>i>They'd better make damn sure NO ONE can defeat the safeties to get into that room. You'll never know what hits you.Hogwash. People can always defeat safeties. You can't protect everyone from their own stupidity.p>The guy you mentioned is a prime candidate for the Darwin awards IMO. Evolution in action in my book.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[DaFallus]

I'm pretty sure the average person knows you need oxygen to breathe.

At least you would hope so. Although, if the average idiot didn't know they needed oxygen to breathe I think we'd all have felt a great disturbance as all of congress dropped dead.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[Cyberax]

No, breathing center in the brain detects only high CO2 levels. There are secondary effects of low O2 level, but you won't have enough time to feel them. Besides, these effects are subconscious - you usually don't notice them.

To quote http://www.csb.gov/safety_publications/docs/SB-Nit rogen-6-11-03.pdf :
"Breathing an oxygen deficient atmosphere can have serious and immediate effects, including unconsciousness after only one or two breaths."

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[Viol8]

You're thinking of nitrogen narcosis and it only happens at high pressure such as when scuba diving. It DOES NOT happen at normal atmospheric pressure.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[Amazing Proton Boy]

At 15 percent oxygen, it's safe for humans to enter. The lower oxygen content of the air is similar to being at an altitude of about 6,000 feet, Eickhorn said. He demonstrated with a lighter inside a sealed atrium Wagner has on display at Cebit. It won't light.

This makes no sense. I camp in the Sierra Mountains at about 7,700 feet. Lighters work just fine, as do campfires, propane stoves, lanterns etc...

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[petermgreen]

I'm pretty sure the average person knows you need oxygen to breathe.
trouble is we have no senses that can directly detect oxygen shortage in the air, so like carbon monoxide poisening its a silent killer.

our bodies work on the assumption that oxygen and C02 levels are related and detect the overabundance of C02 rather than the lack of oxygen.

btw for this reason its dangerous to hyperventilate while swimming, you may think you are building up oxygen to go under but in fact all you are doing is removing C02 and hence your bodies built in warning that it is time to surface.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

Well we are talking about two different scenarios here. When you are at a high altitude, the air has the same percentage of oxygen as in a normal environment, its just thinner. But in a room like this, the air is just as dense, it just contains less oxygen relative to nitrogen. IANAC (chemist), but I would think the two scenarios would affect human breathing and open flames differently. It would make sense for the open flame to be more sensitive to the oxygen concentration, with your lungs more sensitive to the thinner air. In the context of the statement, its pretty clear they were talking about the effects on your body being similar to being at an altitude of 6,000 feet, not the flame.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

From your paper:

As the oxygen concentration falls below 16 percent, the brain sends commands to the breathing control center, causing the victim to breathe faster and deeper. As the oxygen level continues to decrease, full recovery is less certain. An atmosphere of only 4 to 6 percent oxygen causes the victim to fall into a coma in less than 40 seconds.

Again, the effects you mention only happen when you get down to the single digits. Those are simply not the levels we are talking about. At 15-16%, not only will you be able to live, but your brain will detect it and will change your breathing to compensate. If they go further down the side effects will get worse (your paper even has a nifty chart showing these side effects on page 3), though you still have some time before immediate unconsciousness occurs. Although I'm not even sure that would be a possible scenario here as these devices just filter out oxygen, they do not actively pump the room full of nitrogen. There will be a limit to how low the oxygen levels can physically get.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

Well you certainly would hope your employer (or whoever sets up the rules) allows something of a buffer space between what you are allowed to enter and the very minimum amount needed to survive. And besides, you will start to feel other side effects (such as problems thinking clearly) above the fatal levels, so they probably want to guard against them as well.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

Yes, if you have a medical condition, situations that are normally safe can become deadly. Hell even a roller coaster can be deadly to someone with a heart problem. That doesn't mean we need to "make damn sure NO ONE can defeat the safeties to (get on that ride)". I never said its impossible to die in one of these, just that it doesn't rise to the level the previous poster said. The fact that employees were given access to the room (barring any preexisting medical problems) in your workplace illustrates that.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[nwbvt]

First of all, you can buy a machine that will detect oxygen levels for you, so its really a moot point.
Second, while your higher level senses may not be able to give you a digital readout of O2 levels, your brain will detect that its running low on oxygen and increase your heart/breathing rates accordingly (just as it does when you are at a high altitude).
Third, all these devices work by removing oxygen from the air. They do not simply pump it full of nitrogen. As the percentage of oxygen goes down, nitrogen goes up, along with other gases (including CO2).
Fourth, CO is different from nitrogen in that it is actually toxic. It will replace the oxygen in your blood cells since it binds better than oxygen. Whereas nitrogen is perfectly fine to breath, the danger is simply low O2 levels.
Fifth, even with CO poisoning, there are side effects. Headaches, dizziness, nausea, etc., you will basically feel like you have the flu. You will not simply be walking around feeling normal and suddenly 'drop dead', unless the levels are extremely high.

Now if you will excuse me, I've been having a headache, feeling dizzy, and had a slight sense of nausea all day. So I'm going to go outside, even though I'm 99% sure its from reading up on all these symptoms (plus its nice out).

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[balloonhead]

The CO2 driven respiratory drive is the main one, but there is also a hypoxic drive from peripheral chemoreceptors. If the O2 levels get low enough, then this will take over. In most normal circumstances it is the CO2 receptors that are used. In the setting of low oxygen, the O2 receptors will stimulate breathing.

I see from the other replier that your paper actually backs me on this, not you. Thanks - it'll save me having to find some links to back me up.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[Cyberax]

IIRC, brain only measures elevated blood acidity resulting from dissociation of H2CO3 acid (BTW, that's also how commercial CO2 detectors work). Hypoxia also eventually causes raise in blood acidity because of lactic acid which is produced in anaerobic metabolism, but it's too late for the brain if the oxygen levels are too low.

I doubt that reduction of oxygen to 15% will help you much, you'll need something about 10% (argon fire suppression system in my datacenter lowers O2 level to 10%, for example). This is OK for firefighting system (after all, it's used only during emergencies) but it's dangerously close to lethal levels for normal everyday work.

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[purduephotog]

Thank you. At least someone understood my points...

Re:They won't pass out- they'll die.

[balloonhead]

Brain is central chemoreceptors. There are also peripheral chemoreceptors which are sensitive to O2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_chemorecep tor for a very basic stub summary

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/35 9 for a slightly more in depth analysis of O2 as a breathing stimulus.

Now, at 12 000 feet pO2 is only about 60 mm Hg. This is less than half the distance to the top of Mount Everest. The highest human habitation occurs at about 20,000 feet where the pO2 is in the low 50s. I don't expect non-acclimatised people to go for a jog up there but we're not going to need close to that low levels here. References here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MoniqueAnthony .shtml.

At sea level, 21% O2 gives pO2 of 21/100 x 760=159 mm Hg
This gives 18% O2 -> 18/100 x 760 = 136 mm Hg; 15% O2 gives 114 mm Hg; 10% O2 gives 76 mm Hg.

Lactic acidosis will occur with inadequate tissue oxygenation, but minute ventilation would be increased by peripheral chemoreceptor stimulation.

A summary of the physiology can be found at http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/eshuphysio/program/sect ion4/4ch7/s4ch7_27.htm (you may have to read a few pages).

So, to sum up: the low oxygen levels would be detected and the body would adjust ventilation accordingly. Levels of )2 lower than 10% are certainly compatible with life.

I would have preferred if everyone would have just taken my word for it originally rather than argue, but I suppose this is slashdot...

Re:I call bullshit

[Secrity]

"you can breathe oxygen at 100% concentration and not feel a whole lot different, whereas wood and plastic burn like gunpowder at that concentration."

I used to work on B52's that had liquid oxygen (LOX) systems and LOX was available from servicing carts. A few drops of LOX dripped into a cigarette pack caused the cigarettes to burn quite quickly.

NIOSH?

[LamboAlpha]

The current minimum level for a oxygen deficient atmosphere is 19.5% at sea level. I wonder if they will be handing out SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) to the employees. I would also be a little worried about "decreased mental effectiveness, visual acuity, and muscular coordination" in a data center (which occurs at 16% oxygen at sea level (even higher at higher altitudes)). But then again, "Sorry Boss, I think the lack of oxygen is getting to me," does sound like a good excuse.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-100/chapter5.ht ml

I guess they have never heard of a "nitrogen package", but most likely is not good choice for their needs.

But then again, I do NOT work for a safety department.

Re:Use CO2 - Could even be environmentally friendl

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Why, in stead of nitrogen enriched air, use carbondioxyde (CO2) gas? CO2 is not flammable and doesn't attack the hardware and reduces fire hazard just like nitorgen gas (N2).

Because then you WOULD kill people who walked in.

The breathing reflex is regulated by the amount of CO2 in the blood of a particular artery. They'd hyperventilate and pass out.

Time to buy that chemical warfare suit.

[sjwest]

That should freak the newbies and normal office staff.

Boss as HAL 9000

[Anonymous Coward]

Dave: Open the data centre door Hal
Hal: I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.

Re:Boss as HAL 9000

[Dogtanian]

'Course, the irony is that any similarity to 2001's HAL ("I'm sorry Dave") was purely coincidental; half the dialogue was actually stolen from Red Dwarf, and the rest was twisted to fit; "Dave" was meant to be Lister, and it was just meant to sound like some generic boss :-)

Re:Boss as HAL 9000

[mike2R]

No, you're taking a dictionary definition of the word irony that involves the word "incongruity," and assuming incongruity in this context simply means disparity. This usage note may help you understand, and may prevent you from insulting people who actually do understand the concept of irony:

Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

Re:Boss as HAL 9000

[zippthorne]

She played fast and loose with the definition of irony, which constitutes abuse of a word in anyone's book who would care about such things. The fact that she later admitted it and tried to cover by claiming that the real irony was that all of the examples were devoid of actual irony. Which by that definition is ironic itself since some of the examples fit the definition of irony to varying degrees of strictness.

Her whole style of music was ironic in that sense. A style I'm going to dub (not very creatively), Alternapop. Since it was called "alternative" at the time despite being quite obviously mainstream.

Re:Boss as HAL 9000

[eneville]

'Course, the irony is that any similarity to 2001's HAL ("I'm sorry Dave") was purely coincidental; half the dialogue was actually stolen from Red Dwarf, and the rest was twisted to fit; "Dave" was meant to be Lister, and it was just meant to sound like some generic boss :-) i remember mr flibble! that was like > 10 years ago!

Re:The Ideal data center would be filled with Heli

[geekboybt]

And your data center will float, too!

Excellent, until somone opens the cabinet door....

[CFD339]

Imagine your glowing red hot but not quite burning cable inside a low oxygen cabinet. The equipment isn't working well, some some poor tech is sent to fix it. Said tech opens the cabinet, introducing a lovely fresh mix of 21% oxygen into the cabinet, at which point the superheated pyrolized gasses mix with the oxidizer and you get what we in the fire department like to call...FLASHOVER....it's very bad for the complexion.

Re:Maybe I am stupid but . . .

[pjt33]

People in the Andes are probably burning wood even higher than that.

Indeed. I've spent a couple of months at 3000m in the Andes burning wood and gas for heating and cooking.

People vs fires

[Jeff1946]

People depend on the partial pressure of oxygen, fires the percentage. Thus on US submarines we let the sailors breathe down the oxygen to about 19% before turning on the oxygen generator to keep it at this level. Generating oxygen for people by water electroysis is energy intensive and requires about 500W per person. Now back to fires. As other smart readers of /. have pointed out fires burn at high altitude. In this case the percentage of oxygen is the same (20.9%) as at sea level but the partial pressure of oxygen is reduced which affects people to some degree depending on the person and work load. For the system described in the article one would need to use caution if it was used at high altitudes to make sure that people were not in an environment too low in oxygen. In the "good old days" most sailors on submarines smoked and could tell when the oxygen level was down because they couldn't light or smoke their cigarettes. Another aside: the Apollo moon capsule was maintained at about 3 psi of pure oxygen in space. They used lower pressure so the walls of the lunar lander could be very thin, I believe about 0.02 inches thick. The astronauts worried about accidently kicking a hole in the wall. This way the partial pressure of oxygen was the same as on the ground. The original design had the system on the ground at 100% oxygen for simplicity, with of course tragic results...it was modified to begin with normal air then change to 100% oxygen at lower pressure after launch. It was assumed that fires wouldn't burn in space because there is no convection due to zero g. This is flawed because fans are used to circulate the air. Fire in an environment where you are trapped is always a great concern.

Hm, I don't know ...

[ScrewMaster]

Will this be a successful product? Hard to say. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Re:But...

[akeyes]

Now we can ask for that remote control (VR?) robot to do this work for us.

We'd better buy 2, so we have a backup robot to repair the main one if it breaks down.

Better buy 3, in case number 2 goes down when repairing number 1.

Re:I call bullshit

[drinkypoo]

Gee whiz, Professor Le Chatelier -- maybe it's obvious to you that the limiting factor for combustion is relative oxygen, not absolute oxygen. But it wasn't obvious to me from first principles that reducing oxygen by percentage would work differently than removing it by reducing pressure, especially when the article uses exactly the opposite reasoning to explain why the air is safe to breathe.

Where in TFA does it use the opposite reasoning to explain why the air is safe to breathe?

Actually, there IS a negative repercussion to this, although it will be very minor and is probably less of a concern that regional variances; the amount of air is what matters when it comes to breathing, but the percentage of CO2 in the air is significant, even to tenths of percentage points. As the CO2 levels rise above optimum, it has all kinds of results on mammals. For example, not only does it cause hyperventilation (CO2 is the signal to breathe) but it also causes tension, nervousness, nausea, etc etc. But it's a very small delta as we're only removing about 5% of the oxygen from the air.

Re:I call bullshit

[Khaed]

I'm fairly sure 100% oxygen concentration would be very bad for you. Aren't there issues with rebreathers having too high a percent of oxygen?

Or am I misunderstanding why that's a problem?

Re:I call bullshit

[inviolet]

I'm fairly sure 100% oxygen concentration would be very bad for you. Aren't there issues with rebreathers having too high a percent of oxygen?

It'll damage your eyes. But you can breathe it just fine.

OSHA safety standards

[SamShazaam]

In the US, OSHA safety standards require supplemental oxygen if the oxygen percentage drops below 17.5%. Defying this standard risks a worker lawsuit and some very nasty regulatory fines. Testing with gas monitoring equipment will be required to prove the oxygen level if it is ordinarily below the requirement. At some point, some one must do some work on the equipment. A human at rest may be able to survive quite well at lower oxygen levels but a person doing work may need to consume a higher amount.

Re:But...

[StikyPad]

No, we exhale about 19% oxygen normaly. The bigger problem with rebreathing your own air is the buildup of CO2.

You're correct, but 19% O2 is still right on lower limit of breathable air for most people. Alarms typically start going off in industrial air quality monitoring systems at 19.5%.

Inergen

[greyspacealien]

Inergen is an inert gas fire suppression system that does exactly the same thing with a much smaller environmental footprint. The gas is generated with similar equipment, and then stored in bottles (similar to Halon et. al.) and then when a fire is detected, the room is flooded with said gas. The installed system is also much less expensive than the equipment.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inergen

Offtopic but cool cooling thing

[dbIII]

I've seen some 40+ year old cooling "towers" made mostly of wood that cascaded the water a lot and would put relatively large amounts of oxygen back in - they were for little 120 MW units. I'm not sure how well the more modern salt shaker type ones do because it all happens on the inside and I really don't want to go in there (Legionella and most likely a lot of more mundane airbourne biological nasties in the mist).

Re:Use CO2 - Could even be environmentally friendl

[afterhoursdjs.org]

Wasn't Halon the normal gas for this type of stragey? I remember sniffing around old cell sites and seeing the "DANGER - HALON GAS" sings everywhere.

Re:But...

[Tim C]

This is absolutely basic stuff - the higher you go up in the atmosphere, the less air there is, the less air there is above you and hence the lower the pressure. What they mean when they say "the air is thinner at altitude" is that there is less of it the higher you go; if you go high enough, you will not be able to breathe enough oxygen and you will die. That's what causes altitude sickness - there's less air around, and so less oxygen, and so you get less of it (as you can only breathe in so much air with each breath), and so you're starved of oxygen, causing light-headedness, nausea, headaches, etc.

There's plenty of it but due to the lower pressure, it's not as accessible for the lungs.

No, there's less of it - still lots (you're not going to suffer explosive decompression!), but if you go high enough, not enough to breathe properly.

Not passing out the whole point of this

[wsanders]

Unlike halon and CO2, which displace the ambient air with something toxic (or at least unbreatheable) until there is not enough oxygen for combustion, this approach allegedly allows you to stay alive in teh reduced atmosphere, at least if the smoke doesn't kill you first.

It doesn't sound particularly fast, to suck the oxygen out rather than displace it with a big load of something like halon or CO2. I still don't see how this is different from just flooding the room with pure Nitrogen.

Re:Not passing out the whole point of this

[Anonymous Coward]

The main difference is that the data centre runs in this reduced oxygen enviroment _all the time_ - it's proactive measure, not a reactive one.

So, yes, you'd want to still maintain your fire suppression system, but hopefully with a reduced oxygen enviroment, if there is a spark, the fire cannot even catch alight and there's no need for the big expensive fire-suppression system to go off.

Re:Not passing out the whole point of this

[budgenator]

Halon isn't toxic, it actually mostly inert until the heat of a fire causes it to decompose; but this system in the article is a steady state system, it doesn't put out the fire, it doesn't let the fire start. The air in the data center isn't brought down to 15%, it's kept there permanently.

Re:Not passing out the whole point of this

[honkycat]

Also, it is significantly better to have as much oxygen as possible while preventing fire -- flooding the center with pure nitrogen would be deadly unless you stopped while there was still enough O2 to breathe. According to the warning signs on the doors of the labs where I work, two breaths of pure nitrogen will knock you unconscious without any warning at all. Death will follow quickly...

Re:Not passing out the whole point of this

[drinkypoo]

It doesn't sound particularly fast, to suck the oxygen out rather than displace it with a big load of something like halon or CO2. I still don't see how this is different from just flooding the room with pure Nitrogen.

I don't think you understand either the root of my joke OR this technology. The idea is to run the room at 15% oxygen all the time. And my point is that the reduced oxygen could cause someone already huffing and puffing because the elevator was out and they had to climb the stairs, or they're hauling stacks of server from one end of the facility to the other by hand, to keel over.

Or, you know, we all know someone who gets winded just standing up...

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please try and imagine the normal sysadmin type in a scuba suit. I am not sure the suit can stretch that far.

Re:I disagree with article

[fred fleenblat]

Okay, I drew the equivalence betweeen breathability and flammability myself. There is perhaps a positive (and monotonic) correlation but it appears that they are claiming it is non-linear since the decrease in O2 is balanced by an increase in N2, something that does not happen at altitude (they stay in roughly the same proportion).

Wood

[proxy318]

Wood stops burning when the oxygen content falls to 17 percent

Ah, that's perfect for all those wooden servers we've got in the back.

Huh?

[wsanders]

I have been a system administrator for 20 years and I have never seen a rack of equipmetn hard wired into the mains.

At least in the US, NEMA twist-lock connectors are used for everything over 15A.

Re:Huh?

[bobbozzo]

In the US, there are also non-locking 20amp plugs, which ARE used in many server rooms.
e.g.
http://www.yung-li.com.tw/EN/products/heavyduty_ne ma.htm

Wow - he's climbed Everest 10 times -

[wsanders]

- put him to work in the datacenter!

Somehow I can see that being a bit of a letdown for your average intensely motivated high-altitude mountaineer: "I have climbed the highest peaks on Earth - and WTF? I'm a BOFH stuck in the server room? Get me out of here!"

bad idea

[LOTHAR, of the Hill]

Removing oxygen will have a serious impact on the specific heat of air. Datacenters will have to requalify all componenct to work at the "lighter" O2 concentration. Many components will require larger heatsinks are fans.

Re:Use CO2 - Could even be environmentally friendl

[dbIII]

It's a lot easier to get CO2 by just taking some dry air, cool it down, and scrape out the CO2 ice. At different pressures you can have it as a liquid, which makes things easier again.

That said, if you get higher CO2 concentrations in one spot than another you have problems - I've become dizzy making dry ice in a room with reasonably good ventilation by simply being too close to the gas bottle.

Cheaper.....

[IHC Navistar]

Here is a cheaper way: Lock your manager in the server room. No need for any special compressors.

Re:Cheaper.....

[LibertarianWackJob]

Not only would that reduce the O2 in the room but a true PHB would not even suffer any ill or even perceivable effects.

Re:Cheaper.....

[Shadyman]

I'm not sure about that. We all know managers produce a lot of hot air.

Re:Cheaper.....

[IHC Navistar]

It would also be alot more entertaining.

Donald Duck IT Support

[scherrey]

They're replacing the O2 with Nitrogen? Wouldn't people in the room just start getting a buzz when it kicked in and not leave therefore suffocating? I think it would be far more entertaining to use Helium instead. That way everyone would know that something's up when their voice goes up 4 octaves in pitch!

Yes

[hotdiggitydawg]

Or near enough to it at any rate...

Re:The Ideal data center would be filled with Heli

[DeathElk]

Problem is, the sysadmins would have trouble getting their argument for new hardware across when they all sound like chipmunks!

Re:The Ideal data center would be filled with Heli

[adrianmonk]

Neon would also be quite nice. It's a noble gas too, so it would prevent fires, and just think of the satisfaction you'd get from replacing your blinkelights with blinkengas. Imagine an entire server room that glows a brilliant red.

So how is this better than FM-200?

[Kymermosst]

How is this system better than an FM-200 system?

Our FM-200 system:

• Has a known price (TFA says the vendor of this new system is reluctant to quote a price).
• Doesn't have to run constantly.
• Is already known to work.
• Doesn't require you to work like you instantly rose 6000 feet in elevation.
• Doesn't lose effectiveness if we open the big doors for a while to bring in new equipment - after we shut the doors we are fully protected, we don't have to wait for oxygen concentration to go down before a fire can be stopped.

Re:But...

[Vexorian]

But then if the data-server won't even boot, you don't need the room to be oxygen free...

It would increase physical security - mantraps

[funwithBSD]

Hard to break into a datacenter with a barometric chamber as a man-trap... nothing like a case of the bends to slow someone down

Yes, I know... no chance of the bends. But it was the first thing that came to mind, having to cycle through a barometric chamber to get to the raised floor.

Re:But...

[swillden]

It think it's the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen that matters, not the pressure.

Nope, it's the percentage of oxygen and the pressure. Multiplying pressure by percentage for each gas gives you the "partial pressure" of that gas, and it's the gradient of partial pressures that determines rate of absorption. Well, to be precise, gas in your tissues (lung tissues, blood, etc.) has "tension", not pressure, so it's the difference between the partial pressure of the gas in what you breathe and the partial tension of the same gas in your tissues that determines absorption rate.

To live, you need a ppO2 within a certain range. IIRC, between about 0.05 (5% at 1 atm, or 10% at 0.5 atm, etc.) and 2.4 (pure O2 at 2.4 atm, or 50% at 4.8 atm, etc.). Below that range, oxygen doesn't diffuse into your tissues fast enough to supply their needs, above that range the oxygen begins to damage the tissues, in an effect known as oxygen toxicity.

SCUBA divers who go to great depths take bottles with very low percentages of oxygen, low enough that the gas would be marginal for survival at the surface. They do it because at, say, 20 atm (600 feet), normal air has a ppO2 of about 4.2, far, far above the safe level. A 3% O2 mix at 20 atm, however has a comfortable ppO2 of 0.6. Since the deep mixes aren't breathable in shallow water, such divers either carry multiple bottles of different gas mixtures (don't mix 'em up!) or else have pre-positioned staged for appropriate depths.

Going the other direction, pilots, astronauts and mountain climbers spend time in environments with very low pressures, low enough that the ppO2 is not survivable (or at least is not conducive to strenuous activity). So they breathe high concentrations of O2, usually from bottles of pure O2.

Cardiovascular efficiency also plays a major role here. Good cardiovascular health means both increased lung surface tissue for absorption and higher-volume blood flow for delivery of absorbed gases to the tissues which in turn absorb them from the blood (mostly according to the partial tension gradient with a tissue-specific absorption coefficient). So, people with good cardiovascular health can survive lower ppO2 levels.

Nitrogen has no effect on any of this, except as a gas to fill up the non-oxygen part of the mix, and, for divers a gas that will be absorbed under high pressures and released from tissues as pressures decrease. "The bends" is just nitrogen coming out of solution too fast and forming bubbles which block blood vessels.

CO2, on the other hand, is poisonous. I don't recall what the levels are, but above a certain ppCO2, you pass out and then die. CO2 must be removed from your breathing gas. This isn't an issue for open circuit SCUBA divers, whose exhalations float off to the surface, but it's important for rebreather divers and, obviously, for astronauts and others in sealed environments.

Bringing this back to the topic at hand, 17% O2 shouldn't be a problem for anyone of normal cardiovascular health unless the data center is located on a high mountain peak. Someone who has some lung injury or deficient circulation wouldn't want to work in such a data center, but most such people routinely use a nasal flow of pure O2 anyway so, again, it shouldn't be a problem.

Re:I call bullshit

[man_ls]

So if a fire starts, then it's like a balloon, and then something bad happens?

Re:But...

[adrianmonk]

How could you work in a datacenter with no oxygen

SSH?

Ah, that'll be another way to tell the difference between Unix admins and the Windows admins: the Windows admins will be the ones who carry their oxygen tanks with them all the time, and the Unix guys will be the ones who have to go dig it out of the bottom drawer of their desk.

Re:The first customer will be...

[Technician]

...er, so to speak. But it can't hold a candle to the burning excitement of watching pasty-faced geeks burn out, run out of steam, and pass out in a low-oxygen environment.

The first customer will be "The Pirate Bay". The next raid will be interesting.

Really about B.O.

[Tablizer]

What they're really trying to do is avoid the B.O. of the linux admins, but don't want to tell them directly, so made up this fire prevention story.

For a demonstration...

[professorfalcon]

To see how future IT workers will have to reboot servers, please consult the training video in Season 5 of 24. The part where they're locked down in CTU and have to access the data center.

Re:But...

[FlyingGuy]

Co2 ( carbon dioxide ) is not a poison, it simply does not support life. It is heavier then O2 and displaces it.

Now I know that sounds really bad, and it is, but it is not a toxin.

Co ( carbon monoxide ) on the other hand IS a toxin. It will kill you in the presence of O2 ( oxygene ) at standard sea level pressures and saturations. Its a tricky bit of chemistry what, carbon with 2 oxygen molecules not a toxin, take one of the molecules of oxygen away and its deadly poison.

Re:This is news?

[alienmole]

Sorry, Slashdot is only news for nerds without reading comprehension disabilities.

She's made of wood, burn the witch!

[alienmole]

No-one said that fire doesn't burn at 6000 feet. They said it doesn't burn in this oxygen-reduced environment, because the percentage of oxygen is too low. They also said that the environment was similar, for humans, to being at altitudes of 6000 feet. That's not because the percentage of oxygen is lower at that altitude, it's because overall atmospheric pressure is lower, which (apparently) gives a similar effect for humans as being in a reduced-oxygen environment at higher pressure.

Shifting the burden of proof

[Rix]

Atkin's diet need not be debunked to be criticized. The burden of proof is on it's proponents to show that it is effective.

I'll just dismiss it with a valid appeal to authority; Health Canada has banned any reference to it as positive on food labelling.

Re:Shifting the burden of proof

[10Ghz]

"Atkin's diet need not be debunked to be criticized. The burden of proof is on it's proponents to show that it is effective"

You mean something like this?

Holy whipets, batman!

[Khyber]

Let's reduce the oxygen, pump up the nitrogen, and suddenly every geek that walks into the server room busts out in a giggling shitfit as all the fans and the nitrogen-induced wah-wahs kick in! I'm sure that'll make every IT job so much better! We'll all be half-numb, and laughing our asses off because we'll be so oxygen-deprived!

Re:But...

[orzetto]

Both you and the parent post are right, in a way.

it's the difference between the partial pressure of the gas in what you breathe and the partial tension of the same gas in your tissues that determines absorption rate.

Nitrogen does nothing, but it is in the way. Oxygen has to diffuse through nitrogen to get to a place where it is consumed, and diffusion is a relatively slow process (yes, I am a chemical engineer, and I did run Stefan-Maxwell simulations).

Say you have a total pressure of 20 kPa, 100% oxygen. If oxygen is consumed at point X by a reaction (I will drop the issue of products diffusing out), all other oxygen around will rush to the spot unhindered (pressure is fast: actually the limit would be the speed of sound). If you have dry air atmosphere, you have 20 kPa oxygen and 80 kPa nitrogen. If oxygen is consumed at point X, nitrogen will accumulate there since air as a whole, not oxygen only, are dragged to point X, and only oxygen is disappearing.

So, yes, what counts for reaction rate is the partial pressure of oxygen, but in many cases (and fires are one of these) diffusion limits how fast oxygen can get to the reaction, so you cannot just pretend you do not have an inert gas in the way.

above that range the oxygen begins to damage the tissues, in an effect known as oxygen toxicity.

In fact it is even worse than that, at 100 kPa oxygen (~one atmosphere of pure oxygen) flesh burns "vigorously", as my buddy's professor in combustion used to say. That's why you are not allowed any sort of lighter or match in a hyperbaric chamber, as people inside would burn as gasoline.

Please read a physiology textbook.

[Ihlosi]

Three breaths, huh? He must be a really slow breather.

Not really. It takes about 20 seconds for blood from the lungs to reach the brain. If the blood is desaturated, you'll pretty much pass out instantly when this happens.

N2 is inert. It is not poison. The worst it will do is displace oxygen, giving about the same effect as holding your breath.

No. No. No. It's absofrigginlutely not the same. If you hold your breath, the blood can still take up oxygen from the air in your lungs, and the partial pressure of oxygen in the air in your lungs drops very slowly.

If, on the other hand, the gas in your lungs contains no oxygen (i.e. the partial pressure of oxygen is zero), then the blood will actually release oxygen instead of taking it up while travelling through the lungs, effectively becoming desaturated.

Roughly twenty seconds after you start breathing a gas mixture without oxygen, desaturated blood will reach your brain and it's lights out. Period.

Re:Please read a physiology textbook.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

20 seconds to unconsciousness, stop breathing or to death or to needing medical help to survive?

How long could a person be breathing 100% N2 before simply removing them from that environment into a normal atmosphere still ends with them dead?

Re:Please read a physiology textbook.

[Ihlosi]

20 seconds to unconsciousness, stop breathing or to death or to needing medical help to survive?

20 seconds to unconsciousness, after that it's 3-5 minutes to irreversible brain damage. After seven minutes, you're dead or definitely don't want to be resuscitated anymore, unless you enjoy an existence with the mental capacities of a garden vegetable.

Baloney.

[Ihlosi]

Co2 ( carbon dioxide ) is not a poison, it simply does not support life. It is heavier then O2 and displaces it.

The level of CO2 in the blood must be kept inside upper and lower limits for the acid/base buffer to work correctly. Too much CO2 in the bloodstream will make your blood too acidic and definitely cause toxic side effects. Whoever you're echoing in the above line, he either has absolutely no clue about physiology or is a liar.

If you breathe a gas mixture with about 10%-15% CO2 at atmospheric pressure (you can pick the remaining 85%-90% as you like, it won't make a difference), you'll die.

Co ( carbon monoxide ) on the other hand IS a toxin.

It's toxic in much smaller concentrations than CO2.

Re:Baloney.

[FlyingGuy]

Some people! Sheesh. Read up!

CO Toxicity

CO2 Polution and Toxicity

Re:But...

[swillden]

So, yes, what counts for reaction rate is the partial pressure of oxygen, but in many cases (and fires are one of these) diffusion limits how fast oxygen can get to the reaction, so you cannot just pretend you do not have an inert gas in the way.

Interesting. Surely even in the case of fire that is a second-order effect though, right? Especially since heat tends to lift the oxygen-depleted air near the fire upwards, drawing fresh air in.

In the case of the human body, the inert gas is negligible. What happens is that the inert gas is absorbed into the tissues right along with the O2. The O2 is consumed, of course, so that ptO2 stays lower than ptN2, increasing the O2 gradient and slightly increasing the O2 absorption rate, but the effect is small and AFAIK doesn't affect the rate at which the inert gases go into solution.

Other health effects

[Phanatic1a]

I'm curious about other health effects. If this is the oxygen equivalent of a 6,000-ft altitude, that's high enough to cause altitude sickness in susceptible individuals on the low side of the bell curve. That can lead to pulmonary edema, cerebral edema, and some other nasty symptoms. And the "rate of ascent" is going to be instantaneous, as you open a door and step into your new environment.

Even if those are related to the lower pressure of altitude, and not just the lower pp of O2, there are other effects of high altitude environment that are a result of the lower O2 levels. Your red cell count will increase, along with your erythropoetin levels. This can actually thicken the blood, and while not dangerous to the trained atheletes who engage in high-altitude training, might be dangerous to the sorts of folks who work in a data center.

Re:Other health effects

[Ihlosi]

If this is the oxygen equivalent of a 6,000-ft altitude, that's high enough to cause altitude sickness in susceptible individuals on the low side of the bell curve.

It won't be as severe as really being at 6,000 ft. Altitude sickness is mostly caused by respiratory alkalosis, i.e. the loss of too much CO2 from the bloodstream due to hyperventilation, which will start to affect the acid/base balance. Since the partial pressure of CO2 in the server room will not be as low as it would be at 6,000 ft, loss of CO2 occurs more slowly.

And the "rate of ascent" is going to be instantaneous, as you open a door and step into your new environment.

Altitude sickness isn't something that "just hits you". You get plenty of warning from early symptoms, enough to just leave the server room.

Your red cell count will increase, along with your erythropoetin levels.

Only if you're frequently lugging heavy servers around (exercise) and/or spend complete days in the server room.

Re:Other health effects

[Viol8]

"hat can lead to pulmonary edema, cerebral edema, and some other nasty symptoms"

Those are caused by low atmospheric pressure , not low O2 levels. The pressure in this system will be the same as outside.

Re:Other health effects

[nwbvt]

No, it may not be a good idea to work all day inside this place. But its hardly the "walk in and instantly die" scenario the other guy was talking about.

Re:But...

[TheWizardOfCheese]

Nitrogen has no effect on any of this, except as a gas to fill up the non-oxygen part of the mix, and, for divers a gas that will be absorbed under high pressures and released from tissues as pressures decrease.

Oops. You forgot a big one: nitrogen narcosis. Like oxygen, nitrogen has toxic effects at high partial pressures. Those divers you mentioned who use reduced oxygen concentrations also use helium as the inert filler.

Did you even read that?

[Rix]

Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford and the lead author on the study, also cautioned that the long-term safety of low-carb, high-protein diets is still in question.

"We don't know what a high-protein diet would do over 10 years," he said. "It could impair kidney function or leach calcium out of the bones. But we didn't look at that."

Re:Did you even read that?

[drinkypoo]

But it's not fucking true, because people have been using this diet (or a form of it) for years to prevent seizures, some forms of which depend on glucose in the brain to occur. You simply can't use them as the basis for a "study" because you have to do a controlled, blind study for anyone to take you seriously.

It's known that a high-protein diet slightly raises the risk of osteoporosis in women. Sorry, no cite right now, but the point is that you need to take supplements and such. It's important to realize that we didn't evolve to live very long; some people in some idyllic parts of the world have enjoyed long lifespans because there was nothing in particular around to kill them (such as several tribes of Native Americans, who simply did not have enough domesticable animals to release many diseases into their population until whitey came and did it) but in general the world is done with you once you're past breeding age.

In fact the Atkins diet explicitly states that you need to not only take vitamin supplements, but in some occasions oil supplements, although you can get the oils you need by eating avocado and macadamia (sp?) nuts. You also need to drink more than the usual amount of water, to keep your kidneys flushed - and it also helps with the breath problem, which usually goes away within the first two weeks anyway. It is dangerous to allow ketones to build up in your system, so you keep yourself well-hydrated and thus flushed.

Let me share with you a snip of a PBS interview of Gary Taubes, author of the controversial NYT article What if it's all Been a Big Fat Lie?

[...]The idea was, when you follow immigrants from one country to another, they tend to adopt the heart disease rates and cancer rates of the country they've moved to, so that suggests that it's not genetic, it's environmental. And then the question is: What is the environmental factor?

In the '50s, '60s, and '70s, there were a school of British researchers who said it's sugar, flour, white rice, what we now call "easily digestible carbohydrates" or "high glycemic-index carbohydrates." The diet doctors pushing low-carbohydrate diets, like Atkins and Taller and people like this, were sort of disciples of these British researchers. They read some of their writing, ad the idea was, primitive peoples, when they adopt Western diets, [they] adopt Western diseases as well: diabetes, heart disease, obesity, the foremost ones; some cancers -- colon cancer and breast cancer.

These British researchers pushed this theory and it kind of got run over by the dietary fad, cholesterol, heart disease dogma. [Other] researchers said: Well, if sugar and refined carbohydrates don't raise cholesterol, then they can't cause heart disease. Or if we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every country that has a high sugar consumption has high heart disease, then that means the theory's not true.

There were two different standards at work. In the heart disease dogma, every piece of positive evidence supported the hypotheses and moved it forward, and every piece of negative evidence, contradictory evidence, was ignored. In the refined carbohydrates theory, every piece of negative evidence was proof that the theory was wrong, and every piece of positive evidence was ignored. So you had two entirely different standards. One of them moves forward to become the theory we're living by today, this idea that if we cut back on fat, we'll be healthier. And the other sort of gets squelched.

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/d iet/interviews/taubes.html)

Anyway, make your own decision, don't just believe what the medical establishment has been trying to tell you for years. Remember when they said salt was the worst thing on the planet? Then they retracted that, basically said it was hard to eat too much salt a

Re:Did you even read that?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

. They read some of their writing, ad the idea was, primitive peoples, when they adopt Western diets, [they] adopt Western diseases as well: diabetes, heart disease, obesity, the foremost ones; some cancers -- colon cancer and breast cancer.

Of course they get more degenerative diseases. Since the other changes that came with Westernization meant their former number one killers of diarrhea, starvation, and malaria didn't kill them when they were young, they lived to get diseases of the old.

Not much heart disease or cancer if you die when you're 20, or 5, or an infant, and not much obesity when there's no food to eat.

Re:Did you even read that?

[10Ghz]

You asked for proof that show that Atkins' diet if "effective". I linked to a study that shows that it's in fact the most effective diet for losing weight. Then you shift the argument from effectivenenss to "it MIGHT be dangerous". Instead of asking someone to prove that it's NOT dangerous (proving a negative can be very, very hard), how about you proving to us that it IS in fact dangerous? Go on, do it. Instead of telling someone to prove a negative, why don't you prove a positive? No, "we don't know" is not good enough. Besides, the diet was introduced in the seventies, if it were really that dangerous, then surely they would be visible by now?

Why is it so hard to admit that Atkins can be very good at losing weight? Because it's not what Weight Watchers have been telling us? Because it's "wrong" to eat well, and still lose weight?

Doesn't prevent chemical breakdown

[rdmiller3]

Fire is a side-effect of chemical breakdown due to heat. Materials get hot, their materials begin to break down, resulting in solids, liquids and/or gasses. If the gasses can readily combine with the atmosphere to produce even more heat, you can get a self-propagating chain reaction; fire.

Even without the fire, those original materials would still break down due to heat. Frequently, this beginning stage causes enough odor that the problem is discovered before the equipment fails completely, or before a fire starts. Putting the equipment into an environment that excludes the use of the human nose may not be a good idea.

Re:But...

[Viol8]

"but 19% O2 is still right on lower limit of breathable air for most people"

Rubbish.

Re:But...

[Viol8]

"To live, you need a ppO2 within a certain range. IIRC, between about 0.05 (5% at 1 atm, or 10% at 0.5 atm, etc.) and 2.4 (pure O2 at 2.4 atm, or 50% at 4.8 atm, etc.)."

So reading this right , this means the lowest pressure any human could survive in would be 0.05 Atm with 100% O2 (other pressure related issues notwithstanding). So that means no one will be walking out on the surface of Mars (0.006 Atm) anytime soon even with a pure O2 supply shoved right up their noses. Oh well...

Re:But...

[Ihlosi]

Alarms typically start going off in industrial air quality monitoring systems at 19.5%.

That's most likely because these systems are installed in areas where a sudden, sharp drop of oxygen concentration is expected in case of accident (for example near the pressurized nitrogen tanks in nuclear power plants that store the energy used for emergency shutdown). In these cases, you want the alarm to go off as soon as possible since it'll be only seconds before bad things happen. It has nothing to do with the oxygen level needed for humans.

Re:But...

[zstlaw]

Don't shush me. I am busy asphyxiating.

Uh

[jav1231]

OxyReduct...brilliant. Someone stay up all second to come with that name?

Re:But...

[swillden]

Nitrogen has no effect on any of this, except as a gas to fill up the non-oxygen part of the mix, and, for divers a gas that will be absorbed under high pressures and released from tissues as pressures decrease.

Oops. You forgot a big one: nitrogen narcosis. Like oxygen, nitrogen has toxic effects at high partial pressures. Those divers you mentioned who use reduced oxygen concentrations also use helium as the inert filler.

Yeah, although I don't generally think of narcosis as toxic. Dangerous, certainly, but because it impairs your judgment and can cause you to pass out. You're certainly right that technical divers use trimix -- helium, nitrogen and oxygen -- to reduce not only nitrogen ongassing but narcosis as well. Helium has another desirable property as well, it's very light which means it doesn't "thicken up" the way nitrogen does when pressures increase. At practical depths modern regulators make that mostly a non-issue, but not entirely.

Re:But...

[swillden]

So reading this right , this means the lowest pressure any human could survive in would be 0.05 Atm with 100% O2 (other pressure related issues notwithstanding). So that means no one will be walking out on the surface of Mars (0.006 Atm) anytime soon even with a pure O2 supply shoved right up their noses.

I'm not positive about the numbers, but you're definitely right that atmospheric pressure on Mars is too low to sustain life, even in a 100% O2 bubble. That's why every article you read on ideas for terraforming Mars begin with trying to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to increase the pressure. If you can get the pressure up high enough, then people can live without pressure suits, even if they have to carry their own breathing gases. CO2 is a good choice because it's plentiful (big ice caps of the stuff) and dense, so it takes less of it to increase the pressure.

Re:I disagree with article

[AikonMGB]

Allow me to respond to your concerns in turn:

1. I don't consider myself an expert in the field, but I have completed several combustion dynamics classes in University. The flow of fuel is only important if you want a stationary flame; a fire in a server room has an expanding flame front. If you put yourself in the reference point of the flame front, the "flow" rate of fresh air is equivalent to the velocity of the front. Other popular elements in combustion are adiabatic flame temperature (which I don't recall for Oxygen off the top of my head), the fuel/air ratio (which is what is being reduced here), and the nature of the fuel (mixed vs. unmixed).

2. The were using the 6000ft metric as an indicator of the ability for humans to breath the atmosphere in the server room; as many have stated before, fire works differently than our lungs; our lungs depend on the partial pressure of O2 in the air, while fires do not.

3. This wasn't really a new point, just a continuation of #2.

4. I don't run a server room, but I would think it would be more desirable to prevent a fire from occuring than to allow it to start and then prevent it from propagating.

5. With the reduced Oxygen content of the air, this "flashing over" is precisely what the designers want to prevent; if there's no enough fuel then the fire will flameout before it reaches anything else flammable. As for a geek opening the server room door, if you're paying $X to pump the Oxygen out of your server room, don't you think there might be a basic airlock at the door?

6. There most certainly WILL be added construction costs, and it will be up to the individual clients to decide whether the added protection this system affords is worth the added capital required to make it work. This is a standard business decision and is irrelevant; if the need is sufficient, then the funds are available.

7. Yes, this system does require added power input, and again it will be up to the individual client to determine whether that requirement is too large for their particular needs. You are also correct about the O2 exhaust having to be managed carefully for safety reasons, however I don't see this as a major obstacle; we have plenty of ways to deal with and dispose of excess gasses of ANY kind.

There's a *much* more effective diet...

[Rix]

By your standards, anorexia is a far more effective diet. It's a given that safety is a factor, as there are lots of easy but unsafe ways to quickly lose weight. Bulimics eat well and still lose weight.

Medical science doesn't work the way you want it to. It's assumed that things are dangerous until proven otherwise, most especially when the previous consensus is that they are, such as high fat/protein diets.

Proving a negative is not at all hard. It's proving a universal negative that's difficult. It's pretty easy to conclusively prove there are no unicorns in my trash bin.

Your article implies that there have been no long term studies on the Atkins diet. If that's the case, and it's been around since the 70's, it sounds like it's proponents have deliberately decided not to perform them.

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[10Ghz]

"By your standards, anorexia is a far more effective diet."

Anorexia is not "diet", it's starvation. And go on, prove that it's dangerous. There's nothing inherintly dangerous in the diet. It's the same food we eat every day. And now you are comparing Atkins' to anorexia? Um, OK. You REALLY seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to Atkins. Why?

"It's pretty easy to conclusively prove there are no unicorns in my trash bin."

OK, prove it. By looking in to the bin? They are just hiding really well, so you just can't see them.

"If that's the case, and it's been around since the 70's, it sounds like it's proponents have deliberately decided not to perform them."

Why haven't it's detractors performed them? Surely they would just LOVE to show to the world what a crummy diet Atkins is? And why wouldn't the proponents want to test the long-term effects of the diet? Do you think that they WANT people to suffer? That they might have thought that the diet might be dangerous, but they would prefer to hide that fact from others?

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[Rix]

OK, prove it. By looking in to the bin? They are just hiding really well, so you just can't see them. You're shifting the definition of "unicorn". A horse with a horn cannot hide in any way in a trash bin. I'm not going to explain this further, if you don't believe me, go take an intro to informal logic course.

Why haven't it's detractors performed them? Surely they would just LOVE to show to the world what a crummy diet Atkins is? And why wouldn't the proponents want to test the long-term effects of the diet? Do you think that they WANT people to suffer? That they might have thought that the diet might be dangerous, but they would prefer to hide that fact from others? Because that's not how medical science works. If you want to sell your snake oil as healthy, it's up to you to prove it has the effects you claim without any detractions. I'm not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets any more than historians want to spend time debunking moon landing or holocaust deniers.

Further, it would be incredibly unethical to perform a study on something you suspect to be dangerous when there are better solutions available.

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[10Ghz]

"You're shifting the definition of "unicorn"."

Nope. They are just really small unicorns.

"Because that's not how medical science works. If you want to sell your snake oil as healthy, it's up to you to prove it has the effects you claim without any detractions."

We already have people on Atkins diet. Have had them for years. But studying the health-effects on the diet on them is "not how medical science works"? Then what are we supposed to do then? If it's wrong to study whether Atkins is dangerous or not, then there's not much to be done, is there? That way people could keep on claiming that it might be dangerous. And if someone tried to actually study the issue, we would get complaints saying "That's not how medical science works".

"I'm not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets any more than historians want to spend time debunking moon landing or holocaust deniers."

First you compared Atkins to anorexia, and now you are comparing it to Holocaust-deniers? Is it just me, or are you starting to lose it? And if you are "not interested in spending my time debunking crackpot diets", why are you taking part in this discussion then?

And what makes it a "crackpot diet"? It obviously works. As to health-concerns... The best you came up with is "it MIGHT be dangerous". Hardly a damning evidence I was looking for. As to evidence to the contrary:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15625548/

I have now linked to one study that showed that Atkins IS effective method of losing weight. I also linked to a study that disputes the claim that it's dangerous. What next?

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[Rix]

"You're shifting the definition of "unicorn"."

Nope. They are just really small unicorns. Re read the above until you see why you're wrong. I've led you to water, it's up to you now. If you need further help, I suggest a basic philosophy of science course.

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[10Ghz]

Ah, very clever! That way you don't have to make any comments to my other points (like the other study I linked to)! Bravo sir! Of course, that could also mean that you are basically running out of arguments, if your only argument at this point is "what is unicorn and what is not".

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[Rix]

MSNBC is not a reputable scientific journal. You did not read or understand that study, you relied on a lay abstract prepared by a non specialist. It doesn't claim what you think it does, in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to your point.

What I've run out of is patience for an uneducated buffoon who shows no interest in improving himself.

Re:There's a *much* more effective diet...

[10Ghz]

"MSNBC is not a reputable scientific journal"

They just talked about a study, MSNBC is not the place where the study in question was released. If you want to to go the source, maybe you should contact the researchers at Harvard?

"It doesn't claim what you think it does, in fact it is almost diametrically opposed to your point."

OK, so what does it claim then? did YOU read the study? Because I have real difficulties deciphering what "Long-term study eases concerns about risk of Atkins, other low-carb diets" could mean. According to you, it means that Atkins is dangerous. And if I happened to think that it means that dangers of Atkins are overblown, I'm an "uneducated buffoon"? Is this the bizarro-world?

"What I've run out of is patience for an uneducated buffoon who shows no interest in improving himself."

And what I have run out of is patience for your arrogance and condecending attitude. Being a arrogant asshole with superiority-complex does not get you very far in life.

And a plus...

[deadkevin]

Your voice would sound so cool when you came out! Deadkevin

Re:But...

[StikyPad]

Nice guess. Actually it's because it's an OSHA regulation that any atmosphere with 19.5% is considered an Immediate Danger to Life or Health (IDLH). Of course, I haven't done my own studies, but if you'd like to do some testing, your above sibling posters seem like they'd have no problem volunteering. Let me know how it goes.

Re:Use CO2 - Could even be environmentally friendl

[dbIII]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about how there are very easy ways to get CO2 - the stuff you are replying to was from somebody else and I think it's a pretty silly idea putting extra CO2 in an area which people may enter too.

I am not your mommy

[Rix]

I've given you several pushes in the right direction to educate yourself, and you've scoffed at them. I'm not going to force feed you, if you don't want to educate yourself, so be it. I appear arrogant to you because we are not peers, and I don't particularly care about you. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through basic understanding.

Again, take a basic class on the philosophy of science, or ask a librarian to help you find literature suited to your level of understanding. Be warned that you'll have to be humble and show initiative in either case, as librarians are educated people who won't listen to your blathering, and will expect you to do your own reading.

Re:I am not your mommy

[10Ghz]

I've given you several pushes in the right direction to educate yourself, and you've scoffed at them.

That's very generous of you. No, really. I think it's really great that you took the time to climb down from your ivory tower and did your best to educate us moronic mortals.

I appear arrogant to you because we are not peers

Awww, isn't that a shame? I would still like to thank you for allowing me to bask in the light that is your gigantic intellect. In fact, I think it gave me a nice tan!

Again, take a basic class on the philosophy of science, or ask a librarian to help you find literature suited to your level of understanding.

I believe that the "my level of understanding" is where they keep the comics. Thanks for the tip, oh wise one! I bet I will be the topic of discussion at your next Mensa-meeting, right? Hell, you could use me as a subject of your bi-monthly debate on "why are other people such a morons, whereas we are so smart?".

Maybe you really are right: maybe we are not peers. Maybe you are significantly BELOW me? After all, since you have no idea who I am, how could you know for sure? At the very least I can take comfort in the fact that I'm not a gigantic ass, unlike you. Cheerio, chap!

Re:I am not your mommy

[Rix]

I can know for sure based on your responses here. Raw intelligence can be difficult to determine, but level of education isn't. That you're unable to distinguish between the two is telling. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, everyone starts out that way. Wilfully rebuking knowledge is another thing. As is flinging your own feces.

Re:I am not your mommy

[10Ghz]

Still talking, eh? And you STILL have that aura of superiority-complex surrounding you. You REALLY are an ass, right?

"Raw intelligence can be difficult to determine, but level of education isn't"

So what is my "level of education" then? Go on, it should be obvious, right?

Re:I am not your mommy

[Rix]

You have a 10th grade reading comprehension. Anything more than that, you haven't absorbed. Secondary schools won't fail anyone who attends any more, so you most likely graduated from one. Beyond that, anything you have you purchased, and it was a waste of your time and money.

Re:I am not your mommy

[10Ghz]

That's the best you can do? Well, rest assured that you are quite wrong. Besides, your answer was so broad that it's next to useless. And with your utter failure at guessing my level of education (so much for "it's very easy to determine level of education". HAH!), I think it's safe to end this discussion. Besides, you probably have some important stuff to do, as opposed to trying to spread your knowledge and skills to an "uneducated buffoon", right?

Re:I am not your mommy

[Rix]

You don't know what reading comprehension level is, do you?

You've made it quite clear that you don't wish to absorb knowledge. At this point, I'm making fun of you, and have been for some time. If you look carefully, I imagine you'll find this a common theme in your life.

Re:I am not your mommy

[10Ghz]

"You don't know what reading comprehension level is, do you?"

I do. And I asked you to guess my level of education (which should be easy, according to you). You provided me with a non-answer. I asked you a simple question, and you failed to provide me with a decent answer. You are all talk, and no action. Words is all you have, and when it comes time for action, you fail. Miserably. What a sad, pathetic man you are.

"At this point, I'm making fun of you, and have been for some time."

Good for you. That just goes to prove that you really are an ass. An ass with a gigantic superiority-complex. Good luck on your chosen path.

"If you look carefully, I imagine you'll find this a common theme in your life."

Nope. But, as I said before, I think we are through here. Go pester someone else, buddy.

But we're not, are we?

[Rix]

As you're still responding, trying to sooth your bruised ego. If you don't see yourself being frequently mocked, you either avoid intelligent people, or it just goes over your head.

I don't have a superiority complex. There are many people more intelligent and educated than me. You're just not one of them. That's ok. The world needs ditch diggers too. Just don't pretend you're anything more until you're willing to earn it.

Re:But...

[jtev]

Yeah, because when the percentage of oxygen drops that low from it's usual 20-22% that means that the carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide has increased by a similar amount. Nitrogen is not a toxic gas that will make you gasp and your blood fail to work propery. It's not really the lack of oxygen that causes hypoxia, it's the lack of binding to hemoglobin.