5 Sep
2008
5 Sep
'08
9:52 a.m.
On Friday 05 September 2008, Gordon J. C. Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 17:16 -0400, Patrick Finnegan
wrote:
Between the fixed, 75kg or so power supply in the bottom and the other
three 200kg nodes in the rack, it's really not necessary, unless you
are stupid and are removing the nodes from the rack, from the bottom up
instead of top down.. And, in that case, I don't think 100kg of steel
plates in the bottom is going to help you compared to the 200kg node
that's nearly 2m up in the air.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Tony Duell wrote:
Tony, your reasoning sounds like what IBM uses to decide how much
something should weigh.
They're about the only company I know of that takes a 1900lb rack
of machines, and then puts another 200lbs of steel plates on the
bottom to add weight. (IBM SP frames)
Now that I think about it, I'm surprised that I don't yet have a
bad back thanks to my IBM gear.
Of course, having 100kg of ballast in the bottom does give you the
rather handy feature of making the rack not tip over and kill you
when you pull a machine at the top... > For
a few bucks, you could get a 5 Volt transformer with a
> decent current rating of 10 Amps, and not have to worry about
> the number of tubes you need to feed for a while.
>
> Filament transformers come in many voltages other than 6.3.
Ya, it would be more authentic but the filament supply would
then weigh 20 lbs instead of 2.
And why is this a problem? It's hardly going to be a portable
device, is it?