15 Jun
2007
15 Jun
'07
11:45 p.m.
Most of the hardware hasn't been cabled up yet, and the hardware that's
actually running isn't pictured because it's my network core and I won't
put pictures of it on the internet for security reasons... BUT...
Here are pictures of my machine room. It's a work in progress, but it
shows what I've done to reinforce the floor.
Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
Peace... Sridhar
15 Jun
15 Jun
11:50 p.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Most of the hardware hasn't been cabled up yet, and the hardware that's
actually running isn't pictured because it's my network core and I won't
put pictures of it on the internet for security reasons... BUT...
Here are pictures of my machine room. It's a work in progress, but it
shows what I've done to reinforce the floor.
Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
Whoops. I forgot the URL. It's:
http://www.ikickass.org/machineroom/
Peace... Sridhar
16 Jun
16 Jun
12:21 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sridhar Ayengar" <ploopster at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>; <midatlanticretro at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
http://www.ikickass.org/machineroom/
Peace... Sridhar
You need to hit the lottery and buy a small warehouse for that stuff.
12:34 a.m.
Teo Zenios wrote:
I have a storage locker full of gear and one very large machine in a
friend's warehouse. This is the stuff I keep around the house.
Peace... Sridhar
http://www.ikickass.org/machineroom/
Peace... Sridhar
You need to hit the lottery and buy a small warehouse for that stuff. 
10:27 a.m.
> Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor
loading capacity.
Interesting how things are made in USA (?). Here everything is done with
brick and cement, you don't need usually to do what you did. I still wonder
why americans (and other people) build houses all of wood :oO
Greetz from Brazil
Alexandre Souza
10:36 a.m.
Alexandre Souza wrote:
Interesting how things are made in USA (?). Here
everything is done
with brick and cement, you don't need usually to do what you did. I
still wonder why americans (and other people) build houses all of wood :oO
At one time wood was cheap. So was brick a very long time ago.
Greetz from Brazil
Alexandre Souza
10:40 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandre Souza" <alexandre-listas at e-secure.com.br>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
with
> Because
I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
Interesting how things are made in USA (?). Here everything is done brick and cement, you don't need usually to do
what you did. I still
wonder
why americans (and other people) build houses all of
wood :oO
Greetz from Brazil
Alexandre Souza
Because most houses are not in an earthquake zone, building with wood is
faster and cheaper, and the US and Canada is full of forests.
2:56 p.m.
> why americans (and other people) build houses all
of wood :oO
> Greetz from Brazil
> Alexandre Souza
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Teo Zenios wrote:
Because most houses are not in an earthquake zone,
building with wood is
faster and cheaper, and the US and Canada is full of forests.
and when those forests are all cut down, they will still be importing wood
cheaply from Brazil
3:56 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
Quite a bit of the wood they cut is stuff they planted a long time ago. The
really old trees tend to be in national parks and they do not get cut down
as far as I know. If you have never been to the US there are huge areas with
nothing but trees, we have 300M people but there is plenty of unused land
still (unlike old Europe). Not sure why we even import trees from Canada,
must be cheaper I guess.
> why
americans (and other people) build houses all of wood :oO
> Greetz from Brazil
> Alexandre Souza
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Teo Zenios wrote:
Because most houses are not in an earthquake
zone, building with wood is
faster and cheaper, and the US and Canada is full of forests.
and when those forests are all cut down, they will still be importing wood
cheaply from Brazil
7:04 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
On 16 Jun 2007 at 18:56, Teo Zenios wrote:
US sugar is expensive as hell, most of the candy companies left for Canada
or Mexico because of that. Did you mean we subsidize corn (which is how we
have corn syrup as a sweetener for most everything).?
Not sure why we even import trees from Canada,
must be cheaper I guess.
Can you say "government subsidies"? Just like US sugar.
7:43 p.m.
On 16 Jun 2007 at 22:04, Teo Zenios wrote:
US sugar is expensive as hell, most of the candy
companies left for Canada
or Mexico because of that. Did you mean we subsidize corn (which is how we
have corn syrup as a sweetener for most everything).?
Not to drift too far afield, but the US spends about $1.2 Billion
(2005 numbers) in Federal subsidies and price supports, as well as
import quotas. This means that domestic growers can export sugar and
sell it for less abroad than it costs domestically. The same story
obtains for other crops such as cotton.
Any more and I'd be straying into politics.
Cheers,
Chuck
5:13 p.m.
Teo Zenios wrote:
Quite a bit of the wood they cut is stuff they planted
a long time ago. The
really old trees tend to be in national parks and they do not get cut down
as far as I know. If you have never been to the US there are huge areas with
nothing but trees, we have 300M people but there is plenty of unused land
still (unlike old Europe). Not sure why we even import trees from Canada,
must be cheaper I guess.
I am still not sure why Canada imports Trees too. Ikea comes to mind.
All we have around here is the cheap MFB stuff.
4:24 p.m.
On 16 Jun 2007 at 14:56, Fred Cisin wrote:
and when those forests are all cut down, they will
still be importing wood
cheaply from Brazil
I hadn't realized that Brazil was a good source of softwood. The
Pacific Northwest is basically a temperate rain forest. On the "wet
side" Douglas-fir (not actually a fir) grows like weeds. The natives
here used to set fires to keep their camas fields clear of trees and
brush, but now all of those old praries are getting taken over by
trees.
Strength-to-weight of softwood compares favorably to steel and is far
ahead of brick or concrete. And you need lots of energy to make
brick and concrete and steel.
Bamboo is better, but the US doesn't grow a lot of structural bamboo.
See:
http://www.organicbuilding.com/index.mvc?ArticleID=35
Cheers,
Chuck
17 Jun
17 Jun
2:56 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 13:40 -0400, Teo Zenios wrote:
Because most houses are not in an earthquake zone, building with wood is
faster and cheaper, and the US and Canada is full of forests.
In the UK we have a lot of timber from Forestry Commission plantations,
but we still build with brick, concrete or stone. My house up north has
3' thick stone walls. Anything less and it would blow away in the
winter storms. What Floridians call a tornado, we call "January".
Basically for a month and a bit, we get a minimum of 70mph winds,
anything up to 120 and we've recorded sustained wind speeds of nearly
150mph. Makes it hard to hang your washing out to dry; you need to use
mole grips instead of clothes pegs.
Gordon
10:24 a.m.
On 16 Jun 2007 at 13:40, Teo Zenios wrote:
Because most houses are not in an earthquake zone,
building with wood is
faster and cheaper, and the US and Canada is full of forests.
I'm not sure that I parsed that statement right.
Building with wood in an earthquake zone is far easier than building
with brick and stone, at least given local codes. Were I to build a
house with, say, brick, state earthquake building codes would require
me to run rebar through the walls to ensure that they don't
disintegrate during a temblor. Wood structures have a lot more
"give" and if tied securely to the foundation (required by current
code) will ride out most quakes with minimal damage (other than the
nails popping out of the sheetrock and cracks showing in plaster).
The quakes on the Pacific coast states would probably exact a much
higher toll in property damage and human life if structures were
constructed of masonry.
Codes also require treated lumber where the structure is in contact
with the ground or masonry. With adquate maintenance, there's no
reason that a correctly-constructed wooden structures in most places
shouldn't last several hundred years. Some of the warmer states have
serious problems with insects, however.
When it comes to adding on to or modifying a structure, it's hard to
beat wood.
Cheers,
Chuck
10:41 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Building with wood in an earthquake zone is far easier
than building
with brick and stone, at least given local codes. Were I to build a
house with, say, brick, state earthquake building codes would require
me to run rebar through the walls to ensure that they don't
disintegrate during a temblor.
I live where you can sleep though a earthquake. :)
The biggest loss of life will not be the west coast of
the USA when the next big quake hits -- they know about them.
Some where under the Mississippi river there are several big faults.
12:07 p.m.
woodelf wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
How about New York City and the Ramapo Fault? It's caused problems in
the past. There's a lot of unreinforced masonry in NYC.
Peace... Sridhar
Building with wood in an earthquake zone is far
easier than building
with brick and stone, at least given local codes. Were I to build a
house with, say, brick, state earthquake building codes would require
me to run rebar through the walls to ensure that they don't
disintegrate during a temblor.
I live where you can sleep though a earthquake. :)
The biggest loss of life will not be the west coast of
the USA when the next big quake hits -- they know about them.
Some where under the Mississippi river there are several big faults.
1 p.m.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, woodelf wrote:
I live where you can sleep though a earthquake. :)
The biggest loss of life will not be the west coast of
the USA when the next big quake hits -- they know about them.
Some where under the Mississippi river there are several big faults.
Yep.
When the San Andreas finally goes, everything east of it will slide into
the Atlantic.
OB_CC: Where can you get plywood that matches the Northstar Horizon?
The "home" stores don't even have the right thickness!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
2:10 p.m.
On 17 Jun 2007 at 13:00, Fred Cisin wrote:
OB_CC: Where can you get plywood that matches the
Northstar Horizon?
The "home" stores don't even have the right thickness!
You might want to try a woodworker's store, such as Woodcrafters.
What's the thickness that you need?
Cheers,
Chuck
12:55 p.m.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
When it comes to adding on to or modifying a
structure, it's hard to
beat wood.
When it comes to modifying, it sure would be handy if it were available in
"standard" sizes. 2x4 is NOT 2x4, and has changed MANY times.
When the second section of my house was added on in 1919, the size of the
studs was not an exact match. And the pieces used for the additions in
the 1950s are very different in size.
Even a sheet of 1/2 inch or 3/4 inch plywood is getting hard to find. It
has only shrunk about 1/32?, but that is still enough to get in the way of
mixing old and new.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:58 p.m.
On Sunday 17 June 2007 15:55, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4 that was actually 2 inches by 4
inches...!
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
When it comes to adding on to or modifying a
structure, it's hard to
beat wood.
When it comes to modifying, it sure would be handy if it were available in
"standard" sizes. 2x4 is NOT 2x4, and has changed MANY times.
When the second section of my house was added on in 1919, the size of the
studs was not an exact match. And the pieces used for the additions in
the 1950s are very different in size.
Even a sheet of 1/2 inch or 3/4 inch plywood is getting hard to find. It
has only shrunk about 1/32?, but that is still enough to get in the way of
mixing old and new.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
2:08 p.m.
On 17 Jun 2007 at 15:58, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4 that
was actually 2 inches by 4
inches...!
It's called a "rough cut" 2x4 and is actually 2x4 inches, albeit with
a finish that will tear your hands up in nothing flat. The reduced
dimensions result from planing to size (called S4S for "surfaced 4
sides". I often buy S2S hardwood lumber for projects because it's
cheaper than S4S and I own a planer.
But since current practice seems to be framing with "green" studs
(not kiln-dried), it's hard to say exactly *what* the final
dimensions will be.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:26 p.m.
> Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4
that was actually 2 inches by 4
> inches...!
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
It's called a "rough cut" 2x4 and is
actually 2x4 inches, albeit with
a finish that will tear your hands up in nothing flat. The reduced
dimensions result from planing to size (called S4S for "surfaced 4
sides". I often buy S2S hardwood lumber for projects because it's
cheaper than S4S and I own a planer.
But, do they really need to plane more off than they used to?
I can remember when S4S was 1 5/8" x 3 5/8".
And inside my walls there are 2" x 4" S4Ss.
Oh, well. I guess that it is like selling disks based on their
unformatted capacity - a 2.8M ED disk is called "2.88" by IBM, and was
called "4 meg" by NeXT.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
18 Jun
18 Jun
10:01 a.m.
On Sunday 17 June 2007 17:26, Fred Cisin wrote:
Oh, well. ?I guess that it is like selling disks based
on their
unformatted capacity - a 2.8M ED disk is called "2.88" by IBM, and was
called "4 meg" by NeXT.
I have some boxes that had "1.44s" in them branded IBM and which were
labeled "2.0MB"...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
10:50 a.m.
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 17:26, Fred Cisin wrote:
Indeed. All of the IBM 2.88's I have are labeled 4.0MB.
Peace... Sridhar
Oh, well. I guess that it is like selling disks
based on their
unformatted capacity - a 2.8M ED disk is called "2.88" by IBM, and was
called "4 meg" by NeXT.
I have some boxes that had "1.44s" in them branded IBM and which were
labeled "2.0MB"...
3:07 p.m.
>> Oh, well. I guess that it is like selling
disks based on their
>> unformatted capacity - a 2.8M ED disk is called "2.88" by IBM, and
was
>> called "4 meg" by NeXT.
> I have some boxes that had "1.44s" in them branded IBM and which were
> labeled "2.0MB"...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Indeed. All of the IBM 2.88's I have are labeled
4.0MB.
The 2.8M diskettes mostly called "4 meg".
The 2.8M DRIVES were called "2.88 meg" by IBM, and were called "4
meg"
by NeXT.
11:55 a.m.
On 18 Jun 2007 at 13:01, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
I have some boxes that had "1.44s" in them
branded IBM and which were
labeled "2.0MB"...
...and I have some DS2D's labeled "1.0MB". But I fail to see the
issue.
Consider that, at 250Kb/sec and 300 rev/min, a "720K" diskette has a
capacity of 6250 byes/track (that's raw, not accounting for gaps,
address marks, CRCs or any of that nonsense). Such a diskette has
160 tracks, so we get 6250*160 = 1 000 000 bytes. For once, the
label tells the real truth. How you want to format those million
bytes is your problem. ;-)
Cheers,
Chuck
9:59 a.m.
On Sunday 17 June 2007 17:08, Chuck Guzis wrote:
But since current practice seems to be framing with
"green" studs
(not kiln-dried), it's hard to say exactly *what* the final
dimensions will be.
Or the final topology!
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
17 Jun
17 Jun
2:41 p.m.
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
The fine print says 'before drying'.
> Even a sheet of 1/2 inch or 3/4 inch plywood is
getting hard to find. It
> has only shrunk about 1/32?, but that is still enough to get in the way of
> mixing old and new.
Stupid metric here in Canada. I like real inches for my wood construction.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4 that was actually 2 inches by 4
inches...!
8:51 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Basically my entire house was built in 1928, so it's all really 2x4".
And there isn't any plywood. It's all floorboards. And plaster with
wood lath.
Problem is that getting full-cut lumber is damn near impossible
nowadays, and putting in new outlets, etc. is hard because of the
plaster walls.
Peace... Sridhar
When it comes to adding on to or modifying a
structure, it's hard to
beat wood.
When it comes to modifying, it sure would be handy if it were available in
"standard" sizes. 2x4 is NOT 2x4, and has changed MANY times.
When the second section of my house was added on in 1919, the size of the
studs was not an exact match. And the pieces used for the additions in
the 1950s are very different in size.
Even a sheet of 1/2 inch or 3/4 inch plywood is getting hard to find. It
has only shrunk about 1/32?, but that is still enough to get in the way of
mixing old and new. 
18 Jun
18 Jun
9:12 a.m.
Rumor has it that Sridhar Ayengar may have mentioned these words:
Basically my entire house was built in 1928, so
it's all really 2x4". And
there isn't any plywood. It's all floorboards. And plaster with wood lath.
Problem is that getting full-cut lumber is damn near
impossible nowadays,
and putting in new outlets, etc. is hard because of the plaster walls.
My house was built around 1880, and it's such a bodge anyway (both
electricity & internal plumbing were run about 10-15 years *after* it was
built) that for some electric & networking I ran conduit & external boxes
screwed into the wall/stud [1]...
... but where I had access to both sides of the wall (say, going into the
basement) I gutted the backside of the wall, marked out where I wanted my
new outlets & networking stuff to be routed, took a "zip-tool" (mine's
made
by Dremel - a circular router/cutting device) and a carbide blade, routed
holes through the lath & plaster, affixed the electrical / networking boxen
& then just re-drywalled the back side of the wall when I was done.
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
[1] That is, until I can gut the room(s) completely & rewire, reinsulate &
drywall it right. Of course, when I do, I will rewire for RS-232 as well! ;-)
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_??_ zmerch at 30below.com
(?||?) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
6:10 a.m.
At 02:55 PM 6/17/2007, Fred Cisin wrote:
When it comes to modifying, it sure would be handy if
it were available in
"standard" sizes. 2x4 is NOT 2x4, and has changed MANY times.
As they say about computer standards: Standards are great!
There's so many to choose from.
At 03:00 PM 6/17/2007, Fred Cisin wrote:
OB_CC: Where can you get plywood that matches the
Northstar Horizon?
The "home" stores don't even have the right thickness!
What size and composition is it? I bet you can find it.
At 02:58 PM 6/17/2007, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4 that
was actually 2 inches by 4
inches...!
What for? Easy of calculation? You might be able to find a
lumber yard that makes their own. You can certainly get it from
the wreckage of an old building. I have a pile of dimensional
2x6 circa 1885 virgin Wisconsin pine wasting away here...
At 04:08 PM 6/17/2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I often buy S2S hardwood lumber for projects because
it's
cheaper than S4S and I own a planer.
Yes, I do that, too. Then you're free to make your house as
non-standard and as custom as you like.
- John
10:15 a.m.
On Monday 18 June 2007 09:10, John Foust wrote:
At 02:58 PM 6/17/2007, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Among other things.
Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4
that was actually 2 inches by
4 inches...!
What for? Easy of calculation? You might be able to find a lumber yard that makes
their own.
OTOH I have one friend with a sawmill and another talking about getting
one. :-)
You can certainly get it from the wreckage of an old
building.
Recycling old lumber is a big thing in these parts, and I'm sure in other
places as well.
I have a pile of dimensional 2x6 circa 1885 virgin
Wisconsin pine wasting
away here...
Too bad I can do nothing about that at this point in time.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
11:24 a.m.
New subject: WAY OFF TOPIC...Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
I know that this thread started on topic, and I typically ignore of
topic threads, but this is getting ridiculous!
Come on guys! What do construction techniques, lumber and saw mills
have to do with Classic Computers?
Gesh!
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007 09:10, John Foust wrote:
--
TTFN - Guy
At 02:58 PM 6/17/2007, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Among other things.
Yeah! I'd like to be able to buy a damn 2x4
that was actually 2 inches by
4 inches...!
What for? Easy of calculation?
You might be able to find a lumber yard that
makes their own.
OTOH I have one friend with a sawmill and another talking about getting
one. :-)
You can certainly get it from the wreckage of an
old building.
Recycling old lumber is a big thing in these parts, and I'm sure in other
places as well.
I have a pile of dimensional 2x6 circa 1885
virgin Wisconsin pine wasting
away here...
Too bad I can do nothing about that at this point in time.
12:10 p.m.
New subject: WAY OFF TOPIC...Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
Guy Sotomayor wrote:
I know that this thread started on topic, and I
typically ignore of
topic threads, but this is getting ridiculous!
Come on guys! What do construction techniques, lumber and saw mills
have to do with Classic Computers?
Floor loading capacity for large computers, mostly.
Peace... Sridhar
3:11 p.m.
New subject: WAY OFF TOPIC...Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
I know that
this thread started on topic, and I typically ignore of
topic threads, but this is getting ridiculous!
Come on guys! What do construction techniques, lumber and saw mills
have to do with Classic Computers?
Floor loading capacity for large computers, mostly. 
1:28 p.m.
New subject: WAY OFF TOPIC...Pictures of My Machine Room (So Far)
Didn't the original pong machine have a wooden case??
I think there were a few computers in the late 70's/early 80's that had wooden
cases. Then plastic took over and grew into boring black or grey over the years :(
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
Guy Sotomayor <ggs at shiresoft.com> wrote: I know that this thread started on
topic, and I typically ignore of
topic threads, but this is getting ridiculous!
Come on guys! What do construction techniques, lumber and saw mills
have to do with Classic Computers?
Gesh!
16 Jun
16 Jun
10:45 a.m.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:27:31 -0300, Alexandre Souza wrote:
>> Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the
floor loading capacity.
Interesting how things are made in USA ... why
americans (and other people) build houses all of wood
Would you believe it is a Druid thing :)
how about the fact we have so much wood here, we burn it for entertainment.
There is a feel to a nice strung wood floor and a warmth to a wood house,
that can not be found with cement and block houses.
I have lived on slab floors and winters are not the same.
Bob
10:50 a.m.
We tend to wonder why other homes are built all in cinderblock as I see
a great deal in Central and South America. Its a matter of available
resources, climate/humidity...
obviously with severe humidity, insects and severe weather a
ciderblock/cement home will stand up for a longer period of time over
wood construction -- However, in a diverse climate like here in New
York where winters are generally down in 0F to summers as high as 100+F
and going from very dry to very humid, Stone/Ciderblock and mortar
joints all take a severe beating from the expansion and contraction of
the materials, so generally only the foundations, mostly under the frost
line as the only ciderblock and rebarred concrete parts of a home
structure while the remainder is lighter and more climate-durable
woodframed, OSB/Plywood sheathed and then covered in a wrap and cosmetic
accenting.)
The other factor too, peoples tastes and preferences in materials as well.
Curt
Alexandre Souza wrote:
> Because
I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
Interesting how things are made in USA (?). Here everything is done
with brick and cement, you don't need usually to do what you did. I
still wonder why americans (and other people) build houses all of wood
:oO
Greetz from Brazil
Alexandre Souza
11:10 a.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I would be
nervous about not having some cross support on the extra
beams. they will tend to twist as you move around, and you should do
lateral bracing on a setup like this if it is long term. Good idea though
with what you have up top though.
I was always luck to be able to set up on a slab when I did anything
like this.
jim
Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
5:41 p.m.
jim wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Well, actually, this is more of a temporary setup. The basement floor
is deteriorating a bit, it being 80+ years old and having seen its share
of damp. So what I'm intending on doing is chipping out the parts that
are flaking and pouring a good 3"+ slab on top of the existing one. I'm
going to be extending those beams all the way across to the other side
of the house, and seating them on poured footings. Plus, the beams I
have right now are doubled-up 2x12s. I'll replace them with
manufactured wood I-beams later. That's the long-term goal anyway.
Right now, I'm just making sure not to roll anything around too fast.
That said, the room definitely feels pretty solid when you're walking
around.
Peace... Sridhar
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I would
be nervous about not having some cross support on the extra
beams. they will tend to twist as you move around, and you should do
lateral bracing on a setup like this if it is long term. Good idea though
with what you have up top though.
Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
12:59 p.m.
On Jun 16, 2007, at 2:50 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Most excellent. Hey, I recognize some of that hardware! ;) (the
power control rack for the 8700 still needs to be picked up from
Maryland!)
I like the floor reinforcements...very nicely done.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Most of the
hardware hasn't been cabled up yet, and the hardware
that's actually running isn't pictured because it's my network
core and I won't put pictures of it on the internet for security
reasons... BUT...
Here are pictures of my machine room. It's a work in progress,
but it shows what I've done to reinforce the floor.
Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
Whoops. I forgot the URL. It's:
http://www.ikickass.org/machineroom/
5:44 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 2:50 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Most excellent. Hey, I recognize some of that hardware! ;) (the
power control rack for the 8700 still needs to be picked up from Maryland!)
I should be able to afford to do it before too long.
Speaking of that power control rack. How close to the CPU does it need
to be? Can I put it on the basement floor underneath and cable it
straight upwards?
Peace... Sridhar
Most of
the hardware hasn't been cabled up yet, and the hardware
that's actually running isn't pictured because it's my network core
and I won't put pictures of it on the internet for security
reasons... BUT...
Here are pictures of my machine room. It's a work in progress, but
it shows what I've done to reinforce the floor.
Because I've *decidedly* exceeded the floor loading capacity.
Whoops. I forgot the URL. It's:
http://www.ikickass.org/machineroom/ 
8:19 a.m.
Stroller wrote:
On 16 Jun 2007, at 07:45, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
No, because it isn't hard to figure out what the IP address is.
Peace... Sridhar
... the hardware that's actually running isn't pictured because it's
my network core and I won't put pictures of it on the internet for
security reasons...
Can't you just photoshop out the IP addresses?
10:07 a.m.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:19:29 -0400, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Stroller wrote:
>
> On 16 Jun 2007, at 07:45, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
>
>>
>> ... the hardware that's actually running isn't pictured because it's
>> my network core and I won't put pictures of it on the internet for
>> security reasons...
>
> Can't you just photoshop out the IP addresses?
No, because it isn't hard to figure out what the IP
address is.
Peace... Sridhar
If the IP address is easy to
figure out, than what would a picture of the room show, that a port scan,
would not find, or show up on a deep index search of your name ?
Just a thought ...
Bob
2:36 p.m.
On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
No, because it isn't hard to figure out what the IP address is.
So you've sunk to security by obscurity? ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
... the hardware that's actually running isn't
pictured because
it's my network core and I won't put pictures of it on the
internet for security reasons...
Can't you just photoshop out the IP
addresses?
6397
days inactive
6399
days old
47 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
alexandre-listas＠e-secure.com.br -
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
caveguy＠sbcglobal.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp.org＠stellar.eclipse.co.uk -
curt＠atarimuseum.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jwstephens＠msm.umr.edu -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
rtellason＠verizon.net -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
zmerch-cctalk＠30below.com