Does more memory require a more powerful fan?

"PAS" wrote

| | Duster gases are such as 1,1-difluoroethane,
1,1,1-trifluoroethane,
| | or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. Hydrocarbons, like butane, were
| | often used in the past, but their flammable nature forced
| | manufacturers to use fluorocarbons.
| |
| | When inhaled, gas duster fumes may produce psychoactive effects
| | and may be harmful to health."
| |

|
| My preferred method is to use both compressed air and the vacuum. With
| my case ope, I run the vacuum and hold the hose up to the case. I use
| the compressed air to blow out all the dust and it gets sucked into the
| vacuum hose.

That sounds thorough, but you're still exposing
yourself to the gases. They sound risky.
Trichloroethane is a known carcinogen. I wonder
if these gases are any less reactive.

Either way, I think it makes the most sense to use
filter material in the vents. I haven't needed to
clean out dust for years now. I just occasionaly
vacuum the air filter material, from the outside.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 01:41:25 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:17:11 -0500,
"Mayayana" wrote:


Interesting point. Compressed air has always seemed
like hype to me. There's no problem vacuuming as long
as one doesn't touch the components. I've done it many
times with no problems.

Assuming I was willing to do this, I have an upright with a hose, I have
a small shop-vac, and I'm sure that somewhere I have a little one meant
to vacuum the car. And I have a cannister kind, the main kind other
than upright. This one will blow as well as suck. Which ones would
you be willing to use? Seems to me I can regulate both the sucking
and the blowing by taping some cardboard over the tube's end.


What he says is correct: "there's no problem vacuuming as long as one
doesn't touch the components."


But you shouldn't use a vacuum cleaner because there is always a risk
that you may accidentally touch a component. Saying "I've done it many
times with no problems" is like saying "I've driven without wearing a
seatbelt many times with no problems." Right, but accidents *do*
happen.

In article , lid says...

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
....
What do divers breathe then?

[snip]

....

The air in their tanks is compressed, but it is not a liquid.
As a result, the tanks don't hold very much.


Amost all scuba divers breathe plain compressed air. A tank (typically
10 - 15 litres) is pumped to something in excess of 200 BAR
(atmospheres). It's still gas, even at that pressure.

Your regulator delivers air to your lungs to match the pressure of the
surrounding water, so near the surface you're "using" the contents of
your tank more slowly than at greater depth. I've had two hours out of
a single 12L tank on a shallow reef dive.

Divers are trained to avoid decompression sickness, which is caused by
saturating body tissues in nitrogen (from the air) under pressure, and
ascending faster than that can safely be released naturally (without
bubbles forming). Some divers (a small proportion, on a small
proportion of total dives) use "Nitrox" which is air with an enhanced
oxygen content - special training is needed to be aware of risks. A
very small number of divers include additional gases (particularly
Helium) for the most challenging dives, with the greatest risk,
otherwise, of decompression sickness.

Diver training is very thorough, even for amateurs, and accidents are
relatively rare. Google PADI, or BSAC.
--

Phil, London (Qualified & experienced scuba diver)

On 1/27/2017 10:05 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"PAS" wrote

| | Duster gases are such as 1,1-difluoroethane,
1,1,1-trifluoroethane,
| | or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. Hydrocarbons, like butane, were
| | often used in the past, but their flammable nature forced
| | manufacturers to use fluorocarbons.
| |
| | When inhaled, gas duster fumes may produce psychoactive effects
| | and may be harmful to health."
| |

|
| My preferred method is to use both compressed air and the vacuum. With
| my case ope, I run the vacuum and hold the hose up to the case. I use
| the compressed air to blow out all the dust and it gets sucked into the
| vacuum hose.

That sounds thorough, but you're still exposing
yourself to the gases. They sound risky.
Trichloroethane is a known carcinogen. I wonder
if these gases are any less reactive.

Trichlorethane. When I was a teenager, I worked in a factory during the
summer when school was out. It was a large window & door manufacturer,
the largest in the Northeast US. There were 55gal drums of
Tricholrethane that we used. We would use that stuff to clean all sorts
of oily, greasy things. Oddly enough, people referred to it as "safety
solvent". As you note, there was nothing safe about it.


Either way, I think it makes the most sense to use
filter material in the vents. I haven't needed to
clean out dust for years now. I just occasionaly
vacuum the air filter material, from the outside.

Mayayana wrote:
"PAS" wrote

| | Duster gases are such as 1,1-difluoroethane,
1,1,1-trifluoroethane,
| | or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. Hydrocarbons, like butane, were
| | often used in the past, but their flammable nature forced
| | manufacturers to use fluorocarbons.
| |
| | When inhaled, gas duster fumes may produce psychoactive effects
| | and may be harmful to health."
| |

|
| My preferred method is to use both compressed air and the vacuum. With
| my case ope, I run the vacuum and hold the hose up to the case. I use
| the compressed air to blow out all the dust and it gets sucked into the
| vacuum hose.

That sounds thorough, but you're still exposing
yourself to the gases. They sound risky.
Trichloroethane is a known carcinogen. I wonder
if these gases are any less reactive.

Either way, I think it makes the most sense to use
filter material in the vents. I haven't needed to
clean out dust for years now. I just occasionaly
vacuum the air filter material, from the outside.



These compounds come in distinct families

Chlorocarbons
ChloroFluoroCarbons
FluoroCarbons

The dusters, are members of the third group.

This one, is a member of the first group. It's banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1-Trichloroethane

"Prior to the Montreal Protocol, it was widely
used for cleaning metal parts and circuit boards"

Back in chem lab, your "general rule of thumb", was
anything with Chloro in it, was a carcinogen. But,
to be clear, this is not always a direct effect.
Sometimes, when the compound breaks down, there
are reactions with other organic compounds which
make what are the actual carcinogens. And that's
why there was a general rule of thumb, or a
"you should be suspicious of this" kind of rule.

So for example, if you were in the lab, someone
had a compound from the first group and said
"here, take a whiff of this", you'd probably pass.
Of course, we're taught that anyway, to not be
using your nose for analysis purposes. That's what
killed the people working on petroleum distillates
a hundred years ago :-) Every generation has done
something unbelievably dumb (our abuse of Xrays
and radium compounds comes to mind - radium based
cough syrup).

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...rink-radiation

Paul

"Ken Blake" wrote


What he says is correct: "there's no problem vacuuming as long as one
doesn't touch the components."


But you shouldn't use a vacuum cleaner because there is always a risk
that you may accidentally touch a component. Saying "I've done it many
times with no problems" is like saying "I've driven without wearing a
seatbelt many times with no problems." Right, but accidents *do*
happen.


I guess I should amend my advice: Never vacuum
if there's a chance of a truck careening out from
between two PCI cards and running a stop sign at
a RAM socket.... at least not without your seatbelt on.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:18:30 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 01:41:25 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:17:11 -0500,
"Mayayana" wrote:


Interesting point. Compressed air has always seemed
like hype to me. There's no problem vacuuming as long
as one doesn't touch the components. I've done it many
times with no problems.

Assuming I was willing to do this, I have an upright with a hose, I have
a small shop-vac, and I'm sure that somewhere I have a little one meant
to vacuum the car. And I have a cannister kind, the main kind other
than upright. This one will blow as well as suck. Which ones would
you be willing to use? Seems to me I can regulate both the sucking
and the blowing by taping some cardboard over the tube's end.


What he says is correct: "there's no problem vacuuming as long as one
doesn't touch the components."


But you shouldn't use a vacuum cleaner because there is always a risk
that you may accidentally touch a component. Saying "I've done it many
times with no problems" is like saying "I've driven without wearing a
seatbelt many times with no problems." Right, but accidents *do*
happen.

I do remember the time I was over in 5F, in Brooklyn, and I was being
careful, didn't even notice making a mistake, but I must have touched
something a lot hotter than 110V, and the shock or the fear knocked me
10 feet back. Started my shoulder dislocating every few days, when it
hadn't done that for 8 years. I think there was 2000 volts nearby.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:33:57 -0500,
"Mayayana" wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote


What he says is correct: "there's no problem vacuuming as long as one
doesn't touch the components."


But you shouldn't use a vacuum cleaner because there is always a risk
that you may accidentally touch a component. Saying "I've done it many
times with no problems" is like saying "I've driven without wearing a
seatbelt many times with no problems." Right, but accidents *do*
happen.


I guess I should amend my advice: Never vacuum
if there's a chance of a truck careening out from
between two PCI cards and running a stop sign at
a RAM socket.... at least not without your seatbelt on.

You laught. I"ve read about that happening.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:19:42 -0500, Paul
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"PAS" wrote

| | Duster gases are such as 1,1-difluoroethane,
1,1,1-trifluoroethane,
| | or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. Hydrocarbons, like butane, were
| | often used in the past, but their flammable nature forced
| | manufacturers to use fluorocarbons.
| |
| | When inhaled, gas duster fumes may produce psychoactive effects
| | and may be harmful to health."
| |

|
| My preferred method is to use both compressed air and the vacuum. With
| my case ope, I run the vacuum and hold the hose up to the case. I use
| the compressed air to blow out all the dust and it gets sucked into the
| vacuum hose.

That sounds thorough, but you're still exposing
yourself to the gases. They sound risky.
Trichloroethane is a known carcinogen. I wonder
if these gases are any less reactive.

Either way, I think it makes the most sense to use
filter material in the vents. I haven't needed to
clean out dust for years now. I just occasionaly
vacuum the air filter material, from the outside.



These compounds come in distinct families

Chlorocarbons
ChloroFluoroCarbons
FluoroCarbons

The dusters, are members of the third group.

This one, is a member of the first group. It's banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1,1-Trichloroethane

"Prior to the Montreal Protocol, it was widely
used for cleaning metal parts and circuit boards"

Back in chem lab, your "general rule of thumb", was
anything with Chloro in it, was a carcinogen. But,
to be clear, this is not always a direct effect.
Sometimes, when the compound breaks down, there
are reactions with other organic compounds which
make what are the actual carcinogens. And that's
why there was a general rule of thumb, or a
"you should be suspicious of this" kind of rule.

So for example, if you were in the lab, someone
had a compound from the first group and said
"here, take a whiff of this", you'd probably pass.
Of course, we're taught that anyway, to not be
using your nose for analysis purposes. That's what
killed the people working on petroleum distillates
a hundred years ago :-) Every generation has done
something unbelievably dumb (our abuse of Xrays
and radium compounds comes to mind - radium based
cough syrup).

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...rink-radiation

Paul

Of course several (lots of?) people on the Manhattan Project died of
radiation poisoning. Not radium but... uranium I guess.

I used to go to school at the U of Chicago and the project was, before
my time, run, secretly, without even the board of directors of the
school knowing, underneath, inside, the football stands, in the squash
courts. After the war was over they realized the building was too
radioactive to keep.

They ate lunch often at the Quadrangle Club (the faculty club) and they,
I'm told assigned a deaf waiter to them so he wouldn't overhear their
discussions about the project. And the government had someone assigned
to burn their napkins, since it seems they would make notes on them.
How wasteful.

micky wrote:


Of course several (lots of?) people on the Manhattan Project died of
radiation poisoning. Not radium but... uranium I guess.

I used to go to school at the U of Chicago and the project was, before
my time, run, secretly, without even the board of directors of the
school knowing, underneath, inside, the football stands, in the squash
courts. After the war was over they realized the building was too
radioactive to keep.

They ate lunch often at the Quadrangle Club (the faculty club) and they,
I'm told assigned a deaf waiter to them so he wouldn't overhear their
discussions about the project. And the government had someone assigned
to burn their napkins, since it seems they would make notes on them.
How wasteful.

Now if that was my university, the students would still
be using those buildings :-) And all the grads would
have a "rosy glow".

Paul