Author Archives: mike@standardsmichigan.com

Loading
loading...

Exploration of the Theory of Electric Shock Drowning

Exploration of the Theory of Electric Shock Drowning

Jesse Kotsch – Brandon Prussak – Michael Morse – James Kohl

University of San Diego

Abstract:  Drowning due to electric shock is theorized to occur when a current that is greater than the “let go” current passes through a body of water and conducts with the human body. Drowning would occur when the skeletal muscles contract and the victim can no longer swim. It is theorized that the likelihood of receiving a deadly shock in a freshwater environment (such as a lake) is higher than the likelihood in a saltwater environment (such as a marina). It is possible that due to the high conductivity of salt water, the current shunts around the individual, while in freshwater, where the conductivity of the water is lower than that of the human; a majority of the current will travel through the individual. The purpose of this research is to either validate or disprove these claims. To address this, we used Finite Element analysis in order to simulate a human swimming in a large body of water in which electric current has leaked from a 120V source. The conductivity of the water was varied from .005 S/m (pure water) up to 4.8 S/m (salt water) and the current density through a cross sectional area of the human was measured. With this research, we hope to educate swimmers on the best action to take if caught in such a situation.

CLICK HERE to order complete paper.

Marina & Boatyard Electrical Safety

Facilities Management

Swimming Pool Dimensions and Construction

University of Michigan | Washtenaw County

About Last Night: #Paris2024

A standard Olympic-sized swimming pool is defined by the following dimensions:

  • Length: 50 meters
  • Width: 25 meters
  • Depth: A minimum of 2 meters
  • Lanes: 10 lanes, each 2.5 meters wide

The total area of the pool is therefore 1,250 square meters, and it holds approximately 2,500 cubic meters (or 2.5 million liters) of water.

https://standardsmichigan.com/australia/

The organization that sets the standards for Olympic-sized pools is the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) — now World Aquatics — the governing body for swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming, and open water swimming. FINA establishes the regulations for the dimensions and equipment of competition pools used in international events, including the Olympic Games.

The top ten universities that have produced Olympic champion:

  1. University of Southern California (USC)
  2. Stanford University
  3. University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley)
  4. University of Florida
  5. University of Texas at Austin
  6. University of Michigan – Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time.
  7. Indiana University
  8. Auburn University
  9. University of Georgia
  10. University of Arizona

News:

Swim Swam: 2024 Pool “Slow” and not setting records

Paris Olympics swimmers noticing pool is ‘slow’ 

Pool, Spa & Recreational Waters

Swimming, Water Polo and Diving Lighting

Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa & Hot Tub Code

Rewind: District Energy

University of California Merced

Lucas Hyman is the co-author of “Sustainable On Site CHP Systems:  Design, Construction and Operations” published by McGraw-Hill 2010 ISBN 978-0-07-160317-1, Co-Editor Martin Meckler is a graduate of the University of Michigan.  Mike Anthony contributed Chapter 23 — Government Mission Critical – A combined FMECA and time value of money study on Critical Operations Power Systems.

Goss Engineering was one of the engineers for the University of California Merced; the first university campus with an energy infrastructure begun from “scratch”.  Here, Lucas offers his insight into the subtle energy economic trade-offs between centralized and de-centralized systems.


LEARN MORE:

Backgrounder from 2007 ASHRAE conference presentation by Goss EngineeringDesigning Sustainable CHP Systems

MIL-STD

Today at the usual hour we take will take a broad view of the technical standards catalog of all military branches as they apply to the educational settings of each of the US military branches. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

“Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

United States defense standards are used to help achieve standardization objectives by the U.S. Department of Defense. Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability, total cost of ownership, compatibility with logistics systems, and similar defense-related objectives. Defense standards are also used by other non-defense government organizations, technical organizations, and industry.

Military technical standards and public sector technical standards differ primarily in their purposes, scope, and requirements. Military standards — such as MIL-STD and MIL-SPEC — are designed to ensure high reliability, durability, and performance under extreme conditions, as they often pertain to defense systems, weaponry, and other critical applications. These standards prioritize security, robustness, and interoperability in challenging environments, and typically involve stringent testing and certification processes.

In contrast, public sector technical standards, like those developed by the International Organization for Standardization  or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, are geared towards broader civilian applications. They focus on safety, quality, efficiency, and compatibility for a wide range of industries, including manufacturing, technology, and services. These standards aim to facilitate trade, ensure consumer safety, and promote innovation and best practices. While public sector standards also emphasize reliability and performance, they are generally less rigid than military standards, reflecting a broader range of use cases and operational conditions.

United States Defense Logistics Agency

 

Unified Facilities Criteria

Memorandum

Our interest lies in the built environment for higher education students seeking careers in the military.   Many marquee colleges and universities are, at best, ambivalent about the presence of the military in their educational settlements.  Alas, that is a discussion for another organization; not ours.

 We list a few pros and five cons regarding how the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) may support our primary mission this industry, based on its alignment with the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) and the National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI).

Pros

  • Comprehensive Resource Hub via NCEF: NIBS manages the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1997, which serves as a vital resource for school administrators, facility managers, designers, and researchers. It provides free access to news, events, data, and statistics on school facilities planning, design, funding, construction, and maintenance, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions for safe, healthy, and high-performing educational environments.

  • Advocacy for Safe and Sustainable Schools: Through the National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI), NIBS collaborates with partners to provide technical assistance and training to state and local educational agencies. This initiative focuses on improving public school infrastructure to ensure health, safety, sustainability, and equity, helping schools address challenges like aging facilities and climate resilience.

  • Development of Standards and Guidelines: NIBS develops criteria, guidelines, and best practices recognized by organizations like the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the International Code Council (ICC). These resources can guide the construction and renovation of educational facilities to meet high-performance standards, ensuring durability, energy efficiency, and safety.

  • Promotion of Digital Transformation: NIBS supports initiatives like the U.S. National BIM Program, which promotes digital transformation in designing, constructing, and operating educational facilities. Building Information Modeling (BIM) can streamline project management, reduce costs, and improve facility maintenance in schools.

  • Stakeholder Collaboration: NIBS brings together experts from government, industry, labor, and academia to address challenges in the built environment. This collaborative approach fosters innovative solutions tailored to educational facilities, such as resilient design to mitigate natural hazards, which is critical for protecting students and staff.

Cons

  • Dependence on Funding and Membership: NIBS relies on a mix of public and private financing, including membership dues and grants. Budget constraints or shifts in funding priorities could limit the resources available for educational facility-specific programs like NCEF or NCSI, reducing their effectiveness.
  • Complexity of Implementation: The technical standards and guidelines developed by NIBS, such as those for BIM or resilience, may be complex and require significant expertise to implement. Smaller school districts with limited resources or technical know-how may struggle to adopt these advanced practices.

  • Potential for Slow Consensus-Building: NIBS emphasizes collaboration and consensus among diverse stakeholders, which can be time-consuming. This process may delay the development or implementation of solutions critical for addressing urgent needs in educational facilities, such as rapid repairs for aging infrastructure.

  • Limited Public Awareness: Despite its contributions, NIBS may not be widely known among local school administrators or facility managers. This lack of awareness could hinder the adoption of its resources, such as NCEF’s database or NCSI’s technical assistance, limiting their impact on the educational facilities industry.

NIBS offers significant benefits to the educational facilities industry through its resources, technical assistance, and collaborative approach, particularly via programs like NCEF and NCSI. However, its broad focus, funding dependencies, and the complexity of its solutions may pose challenges for widespread adoption, especially in under-resourced school districts. For more information on NIBS’s initiatives, visit nibs.org or explore specific programs like the NCSI at ed.gov.


Comment (MAA):  A snarky slide title that implies that current policy is working.  Uncertain policy means the American people are asking for change given US Debt; some of it accelerated by partisans of a large government and its handmaidens in academia.

 

City of Things: Designing a smart city playground

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.

Landscape Guidelines

Standards Kentucky

Kentucky Building Code: Chapter 18 Soils and Foundations 

 

Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content