I've seen raised floor AC done right. Each rack was sealed, had a vent in the bottom and a vent into the ceiling. The AC pushed cold air into the subfloor, which was then sucked into the racks, with hot air rising into the ceiling. Where the AC pulled the hot air to be cooled again.
Also, 99% of UPS units don't convert AC to DC unless it's charging the batteries. Normally this would only be a trickle charge. If the UPS is providing power, you're in a critical situation anyways, I wouldn't worry about the fact that a UPS isn't particularly efficient, as you're probably spending 99% of your time not on UPS.
As for switching to telephone industry standard 48V power, you'd be converting it again to whatever the equipment wants, much of it 12V or less. 120VAC->12VDC is more efficient than 120VAC->48VDC->12VDC. In addition you run into the problem that 120VAC over 12gauge cable wastes less than half of the power that the same wattage of 48VDC would waste over the same diameter cable. So you'd have to use heavier gauge cable - payback isn't quick for that by any means.
You might be able to get away with it on a rack level, powering all the blades on 48V via rails to a couple of redundant power supplies somewhere in the rack. Either top or bottom, depending upon cooling and other requirements, though the middle might be an interesting choice, as it'd allow you to have half the wattage running over the rails on average(you'd have two runs instead of one).
You want to save power? I'd switch to feeding the racks/power supplies with 240V lines. Half the line resistance for the wattage.
Remember, the wing is holding the plane up during flight. That's why they were bending the wing up. So there are indeed forces, by design, on the wing. These forces depend upon the speed and weight of the plane, and can have local variences due to weather and movement.
A plane exceeds the 'level flight' loads quite frequently; for example, when taking off and gaining attitude. The nastiest load on the wings would be pulling up from a steep dive, which planes such as these aren't really designed to do. It also allows for a safety factor against minor wing damage; fatigue, wear&tear on the plane's wings which weakens it over time.
The FAA had them take it to 150% for a reason; the company itself to it to 154% for 'further research', to include possibly producing a model with a greater weight load. By a quick calc, that extra 4% would allow a plane design 2.6% heavier to be acceptable, could translate into quite an increase in payload capacity, depending on how much weight is taken up by reinforcement.
If the drug's targeted enough that it only kills infected cells, I don't see it killing many people from that alone. Still, HIV infects white blood cells. Killing off all the infected cells could seriously compromise an immune system even worse than AIDS.
You'd probably have to stick them in an isolated ward and on all sorts of antibiotics and such to try to prevent opportunistic diseases.
Even if it only 'kills' half the cells infected, it'd probably do wonders for the average virus load of somebody infected. Get enough of them and you should be able to avoid progressions into AIDS.
And I'm suprised that they didn't have more protective enclosures. Those wings did a fair amount of exploding on their own.
Still, get everybody behind protective equipment or build an additional containment structure. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a destructive test. The engineers for the 777 pretty much knew when and where and how the breaking would take place. These engineers act as though they don't know. That alone makes me want to find out.
If they can say that the wings can withstand a 9G+ pullup from a dive in a fully loaded plane, bonus.
If it has been determined that 150% is "safe enough" then designing it for 300% is expensive and heavy.
However, this is a new material. The test might of had more relevance with metal wings, with strength being a factor to build to. With carbon fiber, it might be that they're building to a necessary stiffness instead due to an increase in flexibility, because the strength will automatically be there. Not that strength isn't important, but if wings 'just strong enough' are too flexible, then it's no longer the determining trait.
The problem is that carbon fibre is relatively new at this use. The engineers don't fully know its capabilities. In order to design it to the minimum safety margins the "break" test could be really informative. Unless they do, they don't know if it will actually withstand 155% or 500%.
Bingo. That's why I was suggesting that if they're truly afraid, just test it up to the 200-300% range, before there's a good chance it'll break. But I agree, they'd probably be better off going all the way. That way they'd KNOW.
By the way, you might want to either not click the post anonymously button or get an account for posts like this.
Like an earlier poster, I think that you misunderstood me.
I wasn't talking about BUILDING the wing to 2-300% over the needed strength instead of the FAA's 150%. I was talking about [i]testing[/i] the wing to that level. Now, I figure that the reason it's supposably so strong and flexible that the wingtips might be able to touch before breaking is that carbon fiber's more flexible than aluminum, so they're not so much building to that level for strength, but for the necessary stiffness at load.
For the 777 test, they went to 154%, where the wings broke, releasing quite a bit of energy. They did this partially for information about possibly building a heavier plane using the wings later. Wouldn't it be pretty much the same for the 787? Just because they're hesitant about trying to truly break them doesn't mean that they can't go truly above and beyond, but pick a point before the expected break.
Considering that they're wondering if they could get the wings to touch, something tells me that the wings are probably capable of withstanding a whole lot more stress than the 777's 154%.
I don't think that Boeing would be making the change if the benefits of the carbon fiber didn't outweigh traditional materials by quite a bit.
The question is do you test up to that 150% - which is all you need to do to certify the airplane - or do you test until the wing breaks? What, exactly, do you learn from an engineering standpoint by testing beyond the 150% limit? That you've over-engineered the plane? There's nothing really to be gained from testing so far beyond the structural loads that any aircraft will ever encounter - even an extra 50% is, by definition, already 50% more of a load that the wing will ever have to withstand.
Up until you get something that exceeds their theoretical load limit - either they misguessed or something else happened. There's a reason for the 150% requirement.
Personally, I'd test it up to 2-300%, just so they can slap it up as a 'safety' feature; Wings that are stronger than ever before. Twice as strong as FAA requirements!
Yes, but from my reading, it's likely that the carbon fiber wing will still be intact after suffering forces that would have reduced the metal wing to a twisted, useless mess.
So, while some failure modes might be worse than traditional aluminum wings, it's also likely to be better in others.
Then it becomes a matter of risk assessment and minimization. A good example would be seatbelts - there is the occasional accident where you'd be better off without the belt, but in the vast majority of accidents you're far better off with it on.
I think that you've hit upon the whole point of the laws - supposably 'rich' investers have the resources available to be able to make an informed decision, and not have to risk their life savings to invest in startups, which are risky pretty much by nature.
Your average middle class and lower person doesn't have this ability. Many get taken each year in fake charity scams, nigerian emails, etc...
The bible isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I'm considering stuff. While familiar with this piece, it hadn't come to mind when I proposed this.
I'm sorry, but this makes god out to be a d*ck. Yes, I know they were wicked and all that, but it sounds like they had themselves together. Not to mention that it also has a scary number of parallels to today.
And he mentioned a material other than steel for it's production. Steel is used for a lot of stuff today because it's cheap, well known, traditional, and 'good enough'.
Because the required accelerations are so high that everything has to be specially hardened to survive it, and we have no hardened alternatives for many materials?
Venture Capitalists invest in a team, first and foremost. The inability of this 'team' to take advantage of this incredible wonderful opportunity to 'Pitch' to the entire Slashdot community guarantees their inability to raise investment capital, at least not from professional investors.
They're already in trouble for violating investment laws. Do you want them in *more* trouble?
There's rules in place that basically say that venture capitalists can't seek money from people who don't have or make a *lot* of money(I've heard that it's a million in net worth or $100k annual income). While normally venture capitalists would probably seek the said rich people anyways(easier to get a few big investors than lots of small ones), if they were able to get $1 per slashdotter ID it'd be around $2 million for them.
The problem is one of seperating the risky ventures from the outright frauds like water powered cars, magnet-powered motors(ie need no electricity), etc...
From what I've seen, one of the first priorities once you get the first ribbon set up is to set up a second. That way if something does happen, you still have another ribbon.
That and you'd still be able to max cargo transfer for two ribbons at prices that net you more money than the prices you can get for the cargo capacity of one ribbon. (IE 1X$800/kg < 2X$600/kg)
It would increase expense and complicate matters by making the earthside platform immobile(and unable to dodge), but I believe that we could build a 15km tower today if it turned out to be necessary.
Some quick research shows that the tallest tower today is 629 meters tall. There was once one that was 646.
So we'd have to build a tower 24 times as tall as the existing one, which was built in 1963 in 30 days for $500,000(3.3 million in 2007 dollars).
Figure the top section costs the 3.3 million, and each section below that increases in cost by 10%, we end up with a total cost of ~$300 million.
On the other hand, you might want to build something more multipurpose, such as the taipei_101, a 500+meter, 101 story office/retail building. That cost $1.7 billion to build.
I'd imagine that a large cone/volcano type shape might be best, very wide at the bottom, gradually narrowing to a spire, with the cable exiting it at the top.
Are you talking about the current problems with many families tending to abort/kill female babies?
From what I've heard the women are transitioning to the city, if anything, faster than the men.
The way they're currently going, I can see it taking about three generations(very, very rough estimate). Many of the factories going up, especially for internal use, are at least a generation behind 'modern' facilities. We're talking 1970s and 80s stuff here. In another decade hopefully they'll be building 90s to 'modern' stuff, but I'm not going to hold my breath. It'll be a while before they start seeing rises in labor costs to justify it.
a guy was telling us he wouldn't bath, sleep or eat, to play games.
And today he's considered a risk to himself and others for that, whereas he's probably still less stinky than a cowboy a few days into a cattle drive...
China's the largest population country in the world. India is number two. They're pretty much neck to neck in industrializing. When wages increase for them because there's no longer a glut of farmkids emigrating to the cities there will be very little to replace them.
Where would we go? Africa? South/Central America? The middle-east? Even if you add them together they don't have the population of either China or India.
Once China and India are industrialized they'll start looking to export production as well, and there really won't be anywhere left.
That's when we'll see wages jumping off again in the USA.
I'd argue that even as our technology made things faster and easier we simply responded, in many cases, to increasing standards.
It used to be that clothes were worn for multiple days in a row, baths were annual events.
Today many people shudder at the thought of wearing the same outer clothing two days without washing, while living in air conditioned buildings and still using anti-persperants.
With large game, you'd gain enough food from one animal taken to last quite a while. It takes a while to eat 80 pounds of deer, for example. You wouldn't want to eat only deer, it's neither interesting or healthy, so some time taken searching for edible wild plants such as raspberries and various tubers would be a good idea as well.
clearly the solution here is to increase the mass of mars... Hm... How about we return Pluto to planetary status by simply ramming any planetoids larger than it into Mars? That way it'll be the 9th largest known non-solar, non-moon mass in the solar system again...
t seems that it is entirely natural, if unfortunate, for human beings to be "addicted" to things like gambling and so on.
It's considered a disorder because it interferes with the person's ability to have a normal productive life. Loosing your life savings, house, going into debt to gamble is not considered a 'good' income, and while not gambling they'll even tell you that. They just can't stay away from the one-armed bandit(or other game of choice).
It would appear counter-intuitive to label things as disorders if they are very very common, albeit damaging.
I think that the diagnosises of ADHD in over half of some public school populations is out of line, especially when the 'answer' is drugs. On the other hand I think that serious gambling 'addicts' are about as common as serious alcohol addicts. Alcohol addicts are estimated at around 3.8% of the population(by one googled source). Work filters any searches with 'gambling', so sorry(maybe somebody else can come up with a rate?).
Still, most people require medical care at some point in their life. Being able to diagnose it as a 'disorder' or an 'illness' enables healthcare treatment of the condition, which, if successful, results in a happier, healthier, more productive individual. Preferably before the house is lost and the individual ends up in the street as a bum, of course.
by being good at the same game that other managers play
At that point it's not so much gambling as a 'get ahead in life by schmoozing with the bosses' strategy. In that case, you'd likely actually want to avoid being too good...
That'd be like saying somebody has a gambling addiction with golf because of membership/green fees at the local course.
It's still a stimulous craving disorder; but you're much less likely to financially ruin your family(well, as long as you can still hold your job).
I have no problem with creating or adjusting a disorder to cover somebody who obsessivly plays WoW or other game, I just think that it should be more generic, as I don't think that it's an issue isolated to video games.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen raised floor AC done right. Each rack was sealed, had a vent in the bottom and a vent into the ceiling. The AC pushed cold air into the subfloor, which was then sucked into the racks, with hot air rising into the ceiling. Where the AC pulled the hot air to be cooled again.
Also, 99% of UPS units don't convert AC to DC unless it's charging the batteries. Normally this would only be a trickle charge. If the UPS is providing power, you're in a critical situation anyways, I wouldn't worry about the fact that a UPS isn't particularly efficient, as you're probably spending 99% of your time not on UPS.
As for switching to telephone industry standard 48V power, you'd be converting it again to whatever the equipment wants, much of it 12V or less. 120VAC->12VDC is more efficient than 120VAC->48VDC->12VDC. In addition you run into the problem that 120VAC over 12gauge cable wastes less than half of the power that the same wattage of 48VDC would waste over the same diameter cable. So you'd have to use heavier gauge cable - payback isn't quick for that by any means.
You might be able to get away with it on a rack level, powering all the blades on 48V via rails to a couple of redundant power supplies somewhere in the rack. Either top or bottom, depending upon cooling and other requirements, though the middle might be an interesting choice, as it'd allow you to have half the wattage running over the rails on average(you'd have two runs instead of one).
You want to save power? I'd switch to feeding the racks/power supplies with 240V lines. Half the line resistance for the wattage.
Remember, the wing is holding the plane up during flight. That's why they were bending the wing up. So there are indeed forces, by design, on the wing. These forces depend upon the speed and weight of the plane, and can have local variences due to weather and movement.
A plane exceeds the 'level flight' loads quite frequently; for example, when taking off and gaining attitude. The nastiest load on the wings would be pulling up from a steep dive, which planes such as these aren't really designed to do. It also allows for a safety factor against minor wing damage; fatigue, wear&tear on the plane's wings which weakens it over time.
The FAA had them take it to 150% for a reason; the company itself to it to 154% for 'further research', to include possibly producing a model with a greater weight load. By a quick calc, that extra 4% would allow a plane design 2.6% heavier to be acceptable, could translate into quite an increase in payload capacity, depending on how much weight is taken up by reinforcement.
If the drug's targeted enough that it only kills infected cells, I don't see it killing many people from that alone. Still, HIV infects white blood cells. Killing off all the infected cells could seriously compromise an immune system even worse than AIDS.
You'd probably have to stick them in an isolated ward and on all sorts of antibiotics and such to try to prevent opportunistic diseases.
Even if it only 'kills' half the cells infected, it'd probably do wonders for the average virus load of somebody infected. Get enough of them and you should be able to avoid progressions into AIDS.
And I'm suprised that they didn't have more protective enclosures. Those wings did a fair amount of exploding on their own.
Still, get everybody behind protective equipment or build an additional containment structure. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a destructive test. The engineers for the 777 pretty much knew when and where and how the breaking would take place. These engineers act as though they don't know. That alone makes me want to find out.
If they can say that the wings can withstand a 9G+ pullup from a dive in a fully loaded plane, bonus.
If it has been determined that 150% is "safe enough" then designing it for 300% is expensive and heavy.
However, this is a new material. The test might of had more relevance with metal wings, with strength being a factor to build to. With carbon fiber, it might be that they're building to a necessary stiffness instead due to an increase in flexibility, because the strength will automatically be there. Not that strength isn't important, but if wings 'just strong enough' are too flexible, then it's no longer the determining trait.
The problem is that carbon fibre is relatively new at this use. The engineers don't fully know its capabilities. In order to design it to the minimum safety margins the "break" test could be really informative. Unless they do, they don't know if it will actually withstand 155% or 500%.
Bingo. That's why I was suggesting that if they're truly afraid, just test it up to the 200-300% range, before there's a good chance it'll break. But I agree, they'd probably be better off going all the way. That way they'd KNOW.
By the way, you might want to either not click the post anonymously button or get an account for posts like this.
Like an earlier poster, I think that you misunderstood me.
I wasn't talking about BUILDING the wing to 2-300% over the needed strength instead of the FAA's 150%. I was talking about [i]testing[/i] the wing to that level. Now, I figure that the reason it's supposably so strong and flexible that the wingtips might be able to touch before breaking is that carbon fiber's more flexible than aluminum, so they're not so much building to that level for strength, but for the necessary stiffness at load.
For the 777 test, they went to 154%, where the wings broke, releasing quite a bit of energy. They did this partially for information about possibly building a heavier plane using the wings later. Wouldn't it be pretty much the same for the 787? Just because they're hesitant about trying to truly break them doesn't mean that they can't go truly above and beyond, but pick a point before the expected break.
Considering that they're wondering if they could get the wings to touch, something tells me that the wings are probably capable of withstanding a whole lot more stress than the 777's 154%.
I don't think that Boeing would be making the change if the benefits of the carbon fiber didn't outweigh traditional materials by quite a bit.
The question is do you test up to that 150% - which is all you need to do to certify the airplane - or do you test until the wing breaks? What, exactly, do you learn from an engineering standpoint by testing beyond the 150% limit? That you've over-engineered the plane? There's nothing really to be gained from testing so far beyond the structural loads that any aircraft will ever encounter - even an extra 50% is, by definition, already 50% more of a load that the wing will ever have to withstand.
Up until you get something that exceeds their theoretical load limit - either they misguessed or something else happened. There's a reason for the 150% requirement.
Personally, I'd test it up to 2-300%, just so they can slap it up as a 'safety' feature; Wings that are stronger than ever before. Twice as strong as FAA requirements!
Yes, but from my reading, it's likely that the carbon fiber wing will still be intact after suffering forces that would have reduced the metal wing to a twisted, useless mess.
So, while some failure modes might be worse than traditional aluminum wings, it's also likely to be better in others.
Then it becomes a matter of risk assessment and minimization. A good example would be seatbelts - there is the occasional accident where you'd be better off without the belt, but in the vast majority of accidents you're far better off with it on.
I think that you've hit upon the whole point of the laws - supposably 'rich' investers have the resources available to be able to make an informed decision, and not have to risk their life savings to invest in startups, which are risky pretty much by nature.
Your average middle class and lower person doesn't have this ability. Many get taken each year in fake charity scams, nigerian emails, etc...
The bible isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I'm considering stuff. While familiar with this piece, it hadn't come to mind when I proposed this.
I'm sorry, but this makes god out to be a d*ck. Yes, I know they were wicked and all that, but it sounds like they had themselves together. Not to mention that it also has a scary number of parallels to today.
And he mentioned a material other than steel for it's production. Steel is used for a lot of stuff today because it's cheap, well known, traditional, and 'good enough'.
Because the required accelerations are so high that everything has to be specially hardened to survive it, and we have no hardened alternatives for many materials?
Venture Capitalists invest in a team, first and foremost. The inability of this 'team' to take advantage of this incredible wonderful opportunity to 'Pitch' to the entire Slashdot community guarantees their inability to raise investment capital, at least not from professional investors.
They're already in trouble for violating investment laws. Do you want them in *more* trouble?
There's rules in place that basically say that venture capitalists can't seek money from people who don't have or make a *lot* of money(I've heard that it's a million in net worth or $100k annual income). While normally venture capitalists would probably seek the said rich people anyways(easier to get a few big investors than lots of small ones), if they were able to get $1 per slashdotter ID it'd be around $2 million for them.
The problem is one of seperating the risky ventures from the outright frauds like water powered cars, magnet-powered motors(ie need no electricity), etc...
From what I've seen, one of the first priorities once you get the first ribbon set up is to set up a second. That way if something does happen, you still have another ribbon.
That and you'd still be able to max cargo transfer for two ribbons at prices that net you more money than the prices you can get for the cargo capacity of one ribbon. (IE 1X$800/kg < 2X$600/kg)
It would increase expense and complicate matters by making the earthside platform immobile(and unable to dodge), but I believe that we could build a 15km tower today if it turned out to be necessary.
Some quick research shows that the tallest tower today is 629 meters tall. There was once one that was 646.
So we'd have to build a tower 24 times as tall as the existing one, which was built in 1963 in 30 days for $500,000(3.3 million in 2007 dollars).
Figure the top section costs the 3.3 million, and each section below that increases in cost by 10%, we end up with a total cost of ~$300 million.
On the other hand, you might want to build something more multipurpose, such as the taipei_101, a 500+meter, 101 story office/retail building. That cost $1.7 billion to build.
I'd imagine that a large cone/volcano type shape might be best, very wide at the bottom, gradually narrowing to a spire, with the cable exiting it at the top.
Are you talking about the current problems with many families tending to abort/kill female babies?
From what I've heard the women are transitioning to the city, if anything, faster than the men.
The way they're currently going, I can see it taking about three generations(very, very rough estimate). Many of the factories going up, especially for internal use, are at least a generation behind 'modern' facilities. We're talking 1970s and 80s stuff here. In another decade hopefully they'll be building 90s to 'modern' stuff, but I'm not going to hold my breath. It'll be a while before they start seeing rises in labor costs to justify it.
a guy was telling us he wouldn't bath, sleep or eat, to play games.
And today he's considered a risk to himself and others for that, whereas he's probably still less stinky than a cowboy a few days into a cattle drive...
China's the largest population country in the world. India is number two. They're pretty much neck to neck in industrializing. When wages increase for them because there's no longer a glut of farmkids emigrating to the cities there will be very little to replace them.
Where would we go? Africa? South/Central America? The middle-east? Even if you add them together they don't have the population of either China or India.
Once China and India are industrialized they'll start looking to export production as well, and there really won't be anywhere left.
That's when we'll see wages jumping off again in the USA.
I'd argue that even as our technology made things faster and easier we simply responded, in many cases, to increasing standards.
It used to be that clothes were worn for multiple days in a row, baths were annual events.
Today many people shudder at the thought of wearing the same outer clothing two days without washing, while living in air conditioned buildings and still using anti-persperants.
Could be up to several weeks.
With large game, you'd gain enough food from one animal taken to last quite a while. It takes a while to eat 80 pounds of deer, for example. You wouldn't want to eat only deer, it's neither interesting or healthy, so some time taken searching for edible wild plants such as raspberries and various tubers would be a good idea as well.
clearly the solution here is to increase the mass of mars... Hm... How about we return Pluto to planetary status by simply ramming any planetoids larger than it into Mars? That way it'll be the 9th largest known non-solar, non-moon mass in the solar system again...
Now how do we arrange the strikes?
t seems that it is entirely natural, if unfortunate, for human beings to be "addicted" to things like gambling and so on.
It's considered a disorder because it interferes with the person's ability to have a normal productive life. Loosing your life savings, house, going into debt to gamble is not considered a 'good' income, and while not gambling they'll even tell you that. They just can't stay away from the one-armed bandit(or other game of choice).
It would appear counter-intuitive to label things as disorders if they are very very common, albeit damaging.
I think that the diagnosises of ADHD in over half of some public school populations is out of line, especially when the 'answer' is drugs. On the other hand I think that serious gambling 'addicts' are about as common as serious alcohol addicts. Alcohol addicts are estimated at around 3.8% of the population(by one googled source). Work filters any searches with 'gambling', so sorry(maybe somebody else can come up with a rate?).
Still, most people require medical care at some point in their life. Being able to diagnose it as a 'disorder' or an 'illness' enables healthcare treatment of the condition, which, if successful, results in a happier, healthier, more productive individual. Preferably before the house is lost and the individual ends up in the street as a bum, of course.
by being good at the same game that other managers play
At that point it's not so much gambling as a 'get ahead in life by schmoozing with the bosses' strategy. In that case, you'd likely actually want to avoid being too good...
That'd be like saying somebody has a gambling addiction with golf because of membership/green fees at the local course.
It's still a stimulous craving disorder; but you're much less likely to financially ruin your family(well, as long as you can still hold your job).
I have no problem with creating or adjusting a disorder to cover somebody who obsessivly plays WoW or other game, I just think that it should be more generic, as I don't think that it's an issue isolated to video games.