|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 292 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 56 of 292:
| 
Oct 8 21:52 UTC 1999 |
I don't think #54 is correct. A battery generates hydrogen and oxygen by
electroysis of the battery acid during charging, after the battery is
fully charged. It does not generate the gases on discharge, which is
what would be happening with the backward charger. I would expect that
the explosion would result from heat generation.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 57 of 292:
|
Oct 10 00:38 UTC 1999 |
I think you are correct. However, the space between the plates and the top
of the case is filled with oxygen and hydrogen gas unless the caps are
removed. The exploded batteries I've seen had the cases ripped apart above
the electrolyte level but were intact below this level. Had the energy
for the explosion come from the stored charge, I'd expect the lower part
of the case to be shredded. I have also noticed gas bubbles while
charging discharged lead-acid batteries before they were fully charged.
|
krj
|
|
response 58 of 292:
|
Oct 10 04:26 UTC 1999 |
Could I please get a comment on my resp:55 from a staff member?
|
pfv
|
|
response 59 of 292:
|
Oct 10 04:39 UTC 1999 |
They're all too busy debating fires and batteries.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 292:
|
Oct 10 05:31 UTC 1999 |
The explosion can be a result of a mix of things. The only gases generated
in the battery is a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2, which really
goes bang. The shorting of the battery can generate enough heat to
probably melt connections and hence create sparks. Unless the battery is
ventilated, it will retain that explosive gas mixture for quite a long
time, from previous charging. And yes, the overvoltage used for charging
can indeed produce some of the gas mixture even before the battery is
fully charged.
|
drewmike
|
|
response 61 of 292:
|
Oct 10 18:39 UTC 1999 |
Item 65.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 292:
|
Oct 10 19:29 UTC 1999 |
Ken, I believe the limit on e-mail size is 100K, so I don't know why your mail
was rejected.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 292:
|
Oct 12 15:02 UTC 1999 |
is there any way to expand the time (30 seconds) grex allows for one to
login once one gets a login prompt-- when there is a long que and one
leaves the grex window open while the que is running, 30 seconds is
often not enough time to catch the login while it is up. Maybe 60
or 90 seconds would be better.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 64 of 292:
|
Oct 12 16:20 UTC 1999 |
How about if I increase it to 120 seconds, retroactive for the past
year or two?
<poof!> It's done.
(and all without having root, too!)
|
danr
|
|
response 65 of 292:
|
Oct 12 16:40 UTC 1999 |
Impressive.
|
richard
|
|
response 66 of 292:
|
Oct 13 16:31 UTC 1999 |
oh, is it 120, well it seems like 30 seconds, maybe it should be
upped to 180 seconds or 240.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 67 of 292:
|
Oct 13 17:07 UTC 1999 |
Maybe you should pay attention. 120 seconds is two minutes when other
people in the queue are being forced to wait because you are not paying
attention.
|
richard
|
|
response 68 of 292:
|
Oct 13 18:10 UTC 1999 |
also, is there a way to turn off !talk requests without turning
of !tels? Or at least limit the number of times you can get paged
for a !talk request to maybe twice. I hate it when complete
strangers, usually new users, !talk me and I get paged for what seems
like forever.
|
pfv
|
|
response 69 of 292:
|
Oct 13 18:22 UTC 1999 |
I thought this was a "non-problem" aka: "non-issue"..?
|
remmers
|
|
response 70 of 292:
|
Oct 16 23:39 UTC 1999 |
I think 120 seconds is reasonable. It *does* beep when it gives you the
login prompt; this is supposed to get your attention.
As for allowing tels and disallowing talk requests - I'm not sure if
it's possible currently, but with the architecture of the write/tel
program I don't think it would be too difficult to implement.
I think that it's possible to get part of the effect you want by doing
"mesg ne" and then specifying in your .yeswrite file (if that's the
name) a set of people who are allowed to write/tel you.
|
eprom
|
|
response 71 of 292:
|
Oct 17 06:57 UTC 1999 |
how bout adding a couple more beeps
If im in another window and I have a window to m-net open and idling
it will beep three time....it tends to get my attention better than a
single beep...
|
goose
|
|
response 72 of 292:
|
Oct 18 10:03 UTC 1999 |
Please no more beeps.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 73 of 292:
|
Oct 18 23:00 UTC 1999 |
Dialed in this evening to 761-3000 (no idea what line I wound up on)
but got the "connecting.. this may take a minute" message followed
by NO CARRIER. Happened several times running -- perhaps one (or more)
of the dial-ins is messed up?
|
scott
|
|
response 74 of 292:
|
Oct 18 23:28 UTC 1999 |
Nope, inetd had died somehow.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 75 of 292:
|
Oct 19 01:59 UTC 1999 |
I had the same dial-in problem earlier this evening.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 76 of 292:
|
Oct 19 04:40 UTC 1999 |
Hmmm.. I'd've thought that would've prevented me from ssh'ing in,
too -- or was it fixed by the time I posted #73?
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 292:
|
Oct 19 05:05 UTC 1999 |
sshd generally isn't run from inetd. The reason is that inetd only launches
a program when there's an incoming connection. That's a bad idea for sshd,
because it needs to generate an encryption key when it's started, and that
can take 15 seconds or so. So usually it's just allowed to run all the
time, independantly of inetd.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 78 of 292:
|
Oct 19 05:27 UTC 1999 |
Makes sense..
|
scg
|
|
response 79 of 292:
|
Oct 19 05:42 UTC 1999 |
Running sshd and inetd independantly is also useful if one of them dies, since
it's then possible to access the system using the other one.
|
jazz
|
|
response 80 of 292:
|
Oct 19 15:27 UTC 1999 |
Naah, that's what modems're for! :)
|
