rack power question

Tue Mar 25 17:29:25 UTC 2008

We'll need non-returns in there as well, to limit the maximum possible
spillage. More seriously, the energy-efficiency community has a whole design
approach for industrial facilities called "Factor 10 Engineering" which is
about saving heat or cooling by using the shortest, straightest, fattest
pipes you can at any point. You'd probably want to keep the flexible "water
over ethernet" pipes to a minimum; have a pair of bigger risers per rack and
tap into those.

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl at asgaard.org>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Provided the brilliant tech didn't forget to remove the grit from the
> connector on the pizzabox that then gets in the said valve and wedges
> it open..... :)  Remember folks, someone will always make "brighter"
> remote hands....
>
> In principal, though, I like it.
>
>        Chris
>
> On 25 Mar 2008, at 06.08, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> > A valve in the connector; has to be pushed in by the other connector
> > to let the water flow. Water pressure pushes it shut otherwise so it
> > fails-safe.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Leigh Porter <
> leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > That would be pretty good. But seeing some of the disastrous cabling
> > situations it'd have to be made pretty idiot proof.
> >
> > Nice double sealed idiot proof piping with self-sealing ends..
> >
> > --
> > Leigh
> >
> >
> > --
> > Leigh
> >
> > Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> > > I still think the industry needs to standardise water cooling to
> > popularise
> > > it; if there were two water ports on all the pizzaboxes next to
> > the RJ45s,
> > > and a standard set of flexible pipes, how many people would start
> > using it?
> > > There's probably a medical, automotive or aerospace standard out
> > there.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Leigh Porter <
> leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> $5
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This thread begs a question - how much do you think it'd be
> > worth to do
> > >>> things more efficiently?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Adrian
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> - ---
> 李柯睿
> Check my PGP key here:
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCB67593B
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJH6RboAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/O/UIAIEWSjeRr0mEcUNXoclxefEG
> 4k7VjzoGLCBKlven62DwKXcFInBsGaaHXQyZH8vIKiraeh9JYFXo5wLotgO4bjYk
> vV0l7Sd3iLpueDzFLbho3YWAcCh52dmLbZRn31L3/eSoNivagQKBruIy8WQmgJIt
> 54/KiBIr7PUQXFYqA4kwiWnkOAZ+DfpGcfKY/LRhksGltVFW5N+X8FKSvlIR/ZjK
> Ka+omSh2ccUNpD5Y6Iwa+KkAYulEnus5i1pzA07rz0YKxkIfXpPnadlMmdFJJiYo
> wOqwIUVcjQQ2aruANKyXBnkWcTTD228xc06KgLLJToNjVY9XeOeJqQOxF6mNglc=
> =+lj0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20080325/757458db/attachment.html>