The murder of Laken Riley occurred on February 22, 2024, in Athens, Georgia. Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student at Augusta University, disappeared when she was jogging at the University of Georgia (UGA). Her body was found near a lake of a wooded area at UGA; her death was caused by blunt force trauma. The police described Riley’s killing as a “crime of opportunity”, and that no murder had been committed at UGA in almost 30 years; a gap filled by the open border policy of Democrat President Joseph Biden, Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and chain of Democrat District Attorney’s who let the perpetrator run free.
The murder has international news, generating extensive media attention — though not nearly as much as the George Floyd tragedy and the Black Lives Matter zietgeist — sparking debate over illegal immigration in United States after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed that Ibarra is a Venezuelan illegal immigrant who is not a U.S. citizen and was caught crossing the border but released back into the United States
Jose Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuelan citizen who entered the US illegally, was arrested by UGA police and has been charged with felony murder, false imprisonment, and kidnapping.[4] Ibarra lived about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the area where Riley’s body was found..
European leaders are indifferent to the rape and murder of their young women by migrant men also:
It happened again. Another European girl was killed at the hands of a migrant in Vienna and she wasn’t the first one this week. And tomorrow it will happen again, because white lives don’t matter to our globalist leaders.
“But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” — James Madison, Federalist 51
Today we update our understanding of best practice catalogs for outdoor and indoor watersport; primarily swimming and rowing. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
USA Swimming and the National Collegiate Athletic Association Swimming are two distinct organizations that oversee different aspects of competitive swimming in the United States. USA Swimming governs competitive swimming in the United States across all age groups and skill levels, while NCAA Swimming specifically focuses on collegiate-level swimming and diving competitions within the NCAA framework. Both organizations play crucial roles in the development and promotion of swimming in the United States.
Governing Body:
USA Swimming is the national governing body for the sport of swimming in the United States. It is responsible for overseeing competitive swimming at all levels, from grassroots programs to elite national and international competitions.
NCAA Swimming: NCAA Swimming is part of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which governs intercollegiate sports in the United States. NCAA Swimming specifically deals with collegiate-level swimming competitions among universities and colleges.
Scope:
USA Swimming is responsible for organizing and regulating competitive swimming for all age groups and skill levels, from youth swimmers to Masters swimmers (adults). It oversees swim clubs, hosts competitions, and develops national teams for international events.
NCAA Swimming: NCAA Swimming focuses exclusively on college-level swimming and diving competitions. It sets the rules and guidelines for swimming and diving programs at NCAA member institutions.
Membership:
Individuals, swim clubs, and teams can become members of USA Swimming, allowing them to participate in USA Swimming-sanctioned events, access coaching resources, and benefit from the organization’s development programs.
NCAA Swimming: NCAA Swimming is composed of collegiate athletes who compete for their respective universities and colleges. Athletes are typically student-athletes who represent their schools in NCAA-sanctioned competitions.
Competition Format:
USA Swimming hosts a wide range of competitions, including local, regional, and national meets, as well as Olympic Trials and international events. Swimmers compete as individuals, representing their swim clubs or teams.
NCAA Swimming: NCAA Swimming primarily consists of dual meets, invitational meets, and conference championships at the collegiate level. Swimmers represent their respective universities or colleges, earning points for their teams in dual meets and competing for conference and national titles.
Scholarships:
USA Swimming itself does not offer scholarships. Scholarships for competitive swimmers are typically awarded by colleges and universities based on an athlete’s performance and potential.
NCAA Swimming: NCAA member institutions offer scholarships to talented student-athletes in various sports, including swimming. These scholarships can cover tuition, room, board, and other expenses, making NCAA swimming an avenue for athletes to receive financial support for their education.
Sie strahlt vor Freude ĂĽber ihre Auszeichnung – TH-Alumna Melanie Klaus. FĂĽr ihre Bachelorarbeit im Bereich Erneuerbare Energien wurde sie vom Solarenergieförderverein Bayern geehrt. In ihrer Bachelorarbeit im Studiengang Elektro- und Informationstechnik untersuchte sie das Zusammenspiel von Wind- und Solarenergie und den Nutzen, der sich hieraus fĂĽr die regenerative Energieerzeugung erzielen lässt. Untersucht wurde also die Nutzung der natĂĽrlichen Kombination von Wind und Sonne fĂĽr die Energieerzeugung. Um die Rentabilität dieser Einspeisekombination zu ermitteln, hat Melanie Klaus ein Software-Tool entwickelt, welches zur Planung und Simulation abgestimmter Photovoltaik-Wind-Kombinationen dient und bereits fĂĽr die Errichtung einer Photovoltaik-Anlage zu einem Windpark eingesetzt wird.
Starting 2023 we break down our coverage of education community energy codes and standards into two tranches:
Energy 200: Codes and standards for building premise energy systems. (Electrical, heating and cooling of the building envelope)
Energy 300: Codes and standards that support the energy systems required for information and communication technology
Energy 400: Codes and standards for energy systems between campus buildings. (District energy systems including interdependence with electrical and water supply)
A different “flavor of money” runs through each of these domains and this condition is reflected in best practice discovery and promulgation. Energy 200 is less informed by tax-free (bonded) money than Energy 400 titles.
Some titles cover safety and sustainability in both interior and exterior energy domains so we simply list them below:
There are other ad hoc and open-source consortia that occupy at least a niche in this domain. All of the fifty United States and the Washington DC-based US Federal Government throw off public consultations routinely and, of course, a great deal of faculty interest lies in research funding.
Please join our daily colloquia using the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
ICYMI – here is our 50th anniversary lecture from Professor Helen Thompson on the 1970s energy crises and what we can learn from it, with some great questions from our audience! https://t.co/9XUqc3fx5fpic.twitter.com/zHvqY8HYL1
Standards Michigan, spun-off in 2016 from the original University of Michigan Business & Finance Operation, has peppered NFPA 70 technical committees writing the 2016-2026 National Electric Code with proposals to reduce the size of building premise feeder infrastructure; accommodating the improvements made in illumination and rotating machinery energy conservation since the 1980’s (variable frequency drives, LED lighting, controls, etc.)
These proposals are routinely voted down in 12-20 member committees representing manufacturers (primarily) though local inspection authorities are complicit in overbuilding electric services because they “bill by the service panel ampere rating”. In other words, when a municipality can charge a higher inspection fee for a 1200 ampere panel, what incentive is there to support changes to the NEC that takes that inspection fee down to 400 amperes?
The energy conservation that would result from the acceptance of our proposals into the NEC are related to the following: reduced step down transformer sizes, reduced wire and conduit sizes, reduced panelboard sizes, reduced electric room cooling systems — including the HVAC cooling systems and the ceiling plenum sheet metal carrying the waste heat away.  Up to 20 percent energy savings is in play here and all the experts around the table know it.  So much for the economic footprint of the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States — about $120 billion annually.
The market incumbents are complicit in ignoring energy conservation opportunity. To paraphrase one of Mike Anthony’s colleagues representing electrical equipment manufacturers:
“You’re right Mike, but I am getting paid to vote against you.”
For decades, application of National Electrical Code (NEC) rules for sizing services, feeders and branch circuits has resulted in unused capacity in almost all occupancy classes. US Department of Energy data compiled in 1999 indicates average load on building transformers between 10 and 25 percent. More recent data gathered by the educational facilities industry has verified this claim. Recognizing that aggressive energy codes are driving energy consumption lower, and that larger than necessary transformers create larger than necessary flash hazard, the 2014 NEC will provide an exception in Section 220.12 that will permit designers to reduce transformer kVA ratings and all related components of the power delivery system. This is a conservative, incremental step in the direction of reduced load density that is limited to lighting systems. More study of feeder and branch circuit loading is necessary to inform discussion about circuit design methods in future revisions of the NEC.
Shouldn’t energy conservation measures be determined by market forces rather than building construction regulations?Â
Energy codes in the United States are adopted and enforced at the state level, and the stringency of the energy codes can vary widely from state to state. For example, as of September 2021, four states (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virginia) had not adopted statewide energy codes at all, according to the Building Codes Assistance Project. Other states may have adopted energy codes but have not updated them to the latest version, which could be less stringent than more recent versions.
We do not spend too many resources challenging the zietgeist. Engineers, by nature, seek to do more with less but it is worth reminding our colleagues that energy conservation practices vary widely around the globe and not every nation supports what amounts to an energy police state.
The International Energy Conservation Code is a model building code developed by the International Code Council for incorporation by reference into state and local energy conservation legislation.  Free access to the current edition is linked below:
Apart from product prescriptive passages IECC is a largely a performance code which draws its inspiration from other energy-related catalogs developed by United States standards developers; notably ASHRAE International. Several accessory titles supporting the current 2021 edition which address energy efficiency on several fronts including cost, energy usage, use of natural resources and the impact of energy usage on the environment are linked below:
Note the pre-occupation with products such as insulation, fenestration, power outlets and lighting — reflecting the financial support of energy activists advocating on behalf of manufacturers who tend build the cost of their advocacy in the price of their product.
A commonly overlooked energy conservation measure is reducing standby power consumption, also known as “vampire power.” Many electronic devices, such as televisions, computers, and chargers, consume energy even when they are not actively being used but are still plugged in. This standby power can account for up to 10% of a building’s energy consumption.
While our focus tends to be on the commercial facility docket, we keep an eye on the residential docket because, a)Â many colleges and universities own and operate square-footage on the periphery of their campuses that is classified as residential, b) many student rental houses are obviously classified as residential and we want property owners to be able to afford reasonable energy conservation measures for the houses they rent to students.*
From previous posts we explained we summarized our priorities for the Group B cycle and the IECC in particular:
Education facilities as storm shelters
Laboratory ventilation
Classroom lighting
Expansion of lighting controls
Expansion of receptacle controls
Expansion of electrical power system design requirements above beyond National Electrical Code minimums.
We encourage our colleagues in energy enterprises in education communities to participate directly in the ICC Code Development Process.*
The IECC is a standing item on our periodic Energy 200, Power, Mechanical and Hello World! colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
University of Michigan
Issue: [Various]
Category: Architectural, Facility Asset Management, Space Planning
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is an ANSI-accredited continuous-maintenance standards developer (a major contributor to what we call a regulatory product development “stream”).  Continuous maintenance means that changes to its consensus products can change in as little as 30 days so it is wise to keep pace.
Among the leading titles in its catalog is ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Sites and Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Standard 90.1 has been a benchmark for commercial building energy codes in the United States and a key basis for codes and standards around the world for more than 35 years. Free access to ASHRAE 90.1 version is available at the link below:
Redlines are released at a fairly brisk pace — with 30 to 45 day consultation periods. A related title — ASHRAE 189.1 Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings — first published in 2009 and far more prescriptive in its scope heavily references parent title 90.1 so we usually them as a pair because 189.1 makes a market for green building conformance enterprises. Note the “extreme prescriptiveness” (our term of art) in 189.1 which has the practical effect of legislating engineering judgement, in our view.
At least two energy/building enclosure related redlines are open for consultation through May 27th. Â
Education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups, sustainability officers, electric shop foreman, electricians and front-line maintenance professionals who change lighting fixtures, maintain environmental air systems are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process.
We also maintain ASHRAE best practice titles as standing items on our Mechanical, Water, Energy and Illumination colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [Various]
Category: Mechanical, Electrical, Energy Conservation, Facility Asset Management, US Department of Energy, #SmartCampus
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Larry Spielvogel, Richard Robben
We use the term “backup” power system to convey the complexity of electrical power sources when the primary source is not used; either as a scheduled or an unscheduled event.  Best practice literature in this domain has been relatively stable, even though challenged by newer primary source of power technologies.  We are running our daily colloquium in parallel with the recurring 4 times monthly meetings of the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee.  You are welcomed to join us with the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
The Life Safety Code addresses those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from the effects of fire, including smoke, heat, and toxic gases created during a fire.  It is widely incorporated by reference into public safety statutes; typically coupled with the consensus products of the International Code Council.  It is a mighty document — one of the NFPA’s leading titles — so we deal with it in pieces; consulting it for decisions to be made for the following:
(1) Determination of the occupancy classification in Chapters 12 through 42.
(2) Determination of whether a building or structure is new or existing.
(3) Determination of the occupant load.
(4) Determination of the hazard of contents.
There are emergent issues — such as active shooter response, integration of life and fire safety systems on the internet of small things — and recurrent issues such as excessive rehabilitation and conformity criteria and the ever-expanding requirements for sprinklers and portable fire extinguishers with which to reckon. It is never easy telling a safety professional paid to make a market for his product or service that it is impossible to be alive and safe. It is even harder telling the dean of a department how much it will cost to bring the square-footage under his stewardship up to the current code.
The 2021 edition is the current edition and is accessible below:
Public input on the 2027 Revision will be received until June 4, 2024.
Since the Life Safety Code is one of the most “living” of living documents — the International Building Code and the National Electric Code also move continuously — we can start anywhere and anytime and still make meaningful contributions to it.  We have been advocating in this document since the 2003 edition in which we submitted proposals for changes such as:
• A student residence facility life safety crosswalk between NFPA 101 and the International Building Code
• Refinements to Chapters 14 and 15 covering education facilities (with particular attention to door technologies)
• Identification of an ingress path for rescue and recovery personnel toward electric service equipment installations.
• Risk-informed requirement for installation of grab bars in bathing areas
• Modification of the 90-minute emergency lighting requirements rule for small buildings and for fixed interval testing
• Modification of emergency illumination fixed interval testing
• Table 7.3.1 Occupant Load revisions
• Harmonization of egress path width with European building codes
There are others. It is typically difficult to make changes to stabilized standard though some of the concepts were integrated by the committee into other parts of the NFPA 101 in unexpected, though productive, ways. Example transcripts of proposed 2023 revisions to the education facility chapter is linked below:
Since NFPA 101 is so vast in its implications we list a few of the sections we track, and can drill into further, according to client interest:
Chapter 3: Definitions
Chapter 7: Means of Egress
Chapter 12: New Assembly Occupancies
Chapter 13: Existing Assembly Occupancies
Chapter 16 Public Input Report: New Day-Care Facilities
Chapter 17 Public Input Report: Existing Day Care Facilities
Chapter 18 Public Input Report: New Health Care Facilities
Chapter 19 Public Input Report: Existing Health Care Facilities
Chapter 28: Public Input Report: New Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 29: Public Input Report: Existing Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 43: Building Rehabilitation
Annex A: Explanatory Material
As always we encourage front-line staff, facility managers, subject matter experts and trade associations to participate directly in the NFPA code development process (CLICK HERE to get started)
NFPA 101 is a cross-cutting title so we maintain it on the agenda of our several colloquia —Housing, Prometheus, Security and Pathways colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [18-90]
Category: Fire Safety, Public Safety
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Elvove, Joe DeRosier, Marcelo Hirschler
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T