Historians’ best guess as to the origin of eggnog dates back to the English Middle Ages, where a warm, milky ale called ‘posset’, was consumed. Posset was often consumed with eggs and figs; eggs, figs, dairy, and sherry were products that only the wealthy could afford to enjoy at the time. Eggnog was thought to have arrived in the U.S. prior to the revolutionary war. Whereas most of the eggnog consumed in Britain was by the upper class (with sherry), as eggnog advanced throughout the U.S. like a milky river of frothy delight, it was generally consumed with rum or bourbon.
Because the agricultural-based colonies were flush with chickens and cows, the consumption of eggnog was not limited to crusty upper class Brits, but rather a drink that most people throughout the American colonies could enjoy. In fact, food historian, Emelyn Rude (2015), author of “How Eggnog (Almost) Changed the World”, explains that consumption of eggnog was a popular holiday pastime of many, even including West Point cadets, such as Edgar Allen Poe and Jefferson Davis.
Makowiec is a poppy seed roll evolving from East European baking tradition that is commonly served during the Christmas season. It is a sweet pastry filled with a mixture of ground poppy seeds, honey, nuts, and sometimes raisins. The roll is often braided or shaped into a log and can be dusted with powdered sugar.
‘Makowiec’ (poppy seed cake), photo: Zbigniew Lewczak/Getty Images
The University of Michigan has supported the voice of the United States education facility industry since 1993 — the second longest tenure of any voice in the United States. That voice has survived several organizational changes but remains intact and will continue its Safer-Simpler-Lower Cost-Longer Lasting priorities on Code Panel 3 in the 2029 Edition.
Today, during our customary “Open Door” teleconference we will examine the technical concepts under the purview of Code Panel 3; among them:
Article 206 Signaling Circuits
Article 300 General Requirements for Wiring Methods and Materials
Article 335 Instrumentation Tray Cable
Article 590 Temporary Installations
Chapter 7 Large sections of limited energy cabling for signaling and information technology
Since the lifespan of educational buildings make the building core and shell susceptible to multiple changes not typically associated with commercial buildings, additional pathways should be placed in areas where the core and shell components of the facility are likely to re-main for extended periods of time
It is recommended that all areas of an educational building have wireless coverage unless prohibited
ASHRAE 90.4 defines an alternate compliance path, specific to data centers, while the compliance requirements for “non-data center” components are contained in ASHRAE 90.1 . The 90.4 structure also streamlines the ongoing maintenance process as well ensures that Standards 90.1 and 90.4 stay in their respective lanes to avoid any overlap and redundancies relating to the technical and administrative boundaries. Updates to ASHRAE 90.1 will still include the alternate compliance path defined in ASHRAE 90.4. Conversely the 2022 Edition of 90.4-2022 refers to ASHRAE 90.1-2022; cross-referencing one another synchronously
Links to noteworthy coverage from expert agencies on the 2022 revisions:
This title resides on the standing agenda of our Infotech 400 colloquium; hosted several times per year and as close coupled with the annual meetings of ASHRAE International as possible. Technical committees generally meet during these meetings make decisions about the ASHRAE catalog. The next all committee conference will be hostedJanuary 20-24, 2024 in Chicago. As always we encourage education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process. It is one of the better facilities out there.
Proposed Addendum g makes changes to definitions were modified in section 3 and mandatory language in Section 6 to support the regulation of process heat and process ventilation was moved in the section for clarity. Other changes are added based on comments from the first public review including changes to informative notes.
Consultation closes June 4th
Update: February 10, 2023
The most actively managed consensus standard for data center energy supply operating in education communities (and most others) is not published by the IEEE but rather by ASHRAE International — ASHRAE 90.4 Energy Standard for Data Centers (2019). It is not required to be a free access title although anyone may participate in its development. It is copyrighted and ready for purchase but, for our purpose here, we need only examine its scope and purpose. A superceded version of 90.4 is available in the link below:
It is likely that the technical committee charged with updating this standard are already at work preparing an updated version that will supercede the 2019 Edition. CLICK HERE for a listing of Project Committee Interim Meetings.
We maintain many titles from the ASHRAE catalog on the standing agenda of our Mechanical, Energy 200/400, Data and Cloud teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Originally posted Summer 2020.
ASHRAE International has released four new addenda to its energy conservation consensus document ASHRAE 90.4-2016 Energy Standard for Data Centers. This document establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements of data centers for design and construction, for the creation of a plan for operation and maintenance and for utilization of on-site or off-site renewable energy resources.
It is a relatively new document more fully explained in an article published by ASHRAE in 2016 (Click here). The addenda described briefly:
Addendum a – clarifies existing requirements in Section 6.5 as well as introduce new provisions to encourage heat recovery within data centers.
Addendum b – clarifies existing requirements in Sections 6 and 11 and to provide guidance for taking credit for renewable energy systems.
Addendum d – a response to a Request for Interpretation on the 90.4 consideration of DieselRotary UPS Systems (DRUPS) and the corresponding accounting of these systems in the Electrical Loss Component (ELC). In crafting the IC, the committee also identified several marginal changes to 90.4 definitions and passages in Section 8 that would add further clarity to the issue. This addendum contains the proposed changes for that aim as well as other minor changes to correct spelling or text errors, incorporate the latest ELC values into Section 11, and to refresh information in the Normative Reference.
Addendum e adds language to Section 11 intended to clarify how compliance with Standard 90.4 can be achieved through the use of shared systems.
Comments are due September 6th. Until this deadline you may review the changes and comment upon them by by CLICKING HERE
Education facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE standard development process. Start at ASHRAE’s public commenting facility:
The ASHRAE catalog is a priority title in our practice. This title appears on the standing agenda of our Infotech sessions. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
“Having visited my great grandmother, Omi, in Germany multiple times growing up, I’ve always had a special connection to German baked goods. While I have yet to find the perfect German pretzel in the U.S. or a recipe that yields a decent replica, I have discovered that stollen — a traditional German Christmas bread — is relatively easy to recreate in my own kitchen.” — Alison Tashima, Class of 2024
The recent tragedy inspires a need to review relevant safety standards. Today, a very brief examination and discussion about whether there is an enforceable standard solution that already exists, or is there an affordable solution to remediate a gap. Just a very cursory review today during our Open Office Hour.
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.
The NPADC is a team competition for law students to develop skills in drafting patent applications, focusing on U.S. patent law. Teams receive a hypothetical invention statement, conduct prior art searches, draft specifications and claims, and present their work to judges, including patent examiners and practitioners. For 2025, the invention was an extra-uterine system for supporting premature fetuses, indicating the complexity of tasks involved
There is no publicly available timetable for the 2026 National Patent Application Drafting Competition (NPADC) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as of the latest available information. The USPTO typically releases detailed schedules for the NPADC closer to the competition year, often in the fall of the preceding year (e.g., October or November 2025 for the 2026 competition).
After months of hard work, the top five teams met at USPTO headquarters today for the final round of the 2025 National Patent Application Drafting Competition. 🏆 And the winners are … ⬇️
Thomas Jefferson was the leader in founding the United States Patent Office. Jefferson was a strong supporter of the patent system and believed that it was essential for promoting innovation and progress in the United States. As the first Secretary of State Jefferson was responsible for implementing the country’s patent system.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
“The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
In 1790, Jefferson drafted the first Patent Act, which established the procedures for applying for and granting patents. The act also created the United States Patent Office as a government agency to oversee the patent system. Jefferson appointed the first Patent Board, which was responsible for reviewing patent applications and making recommendations to the Secretary of State.
Jefferson was deeply involved in the early development of the Patent Office and was instrumental in shaping its policies and procedures. He believed that the patent system should be accessible to all inventors, regardless of their social or economic status, and he worked to streamline the patent application process to make it more efficient and user-friendly.
In recognition of his contributions to the development of the patent system, Jefferson is often referred to as the “Father of American Innovation.”
This clause grants Congress the authority to establish a system of patents and copyrights to protect the intellectual property of inventors and authors. The purpose of this system is to encourage innovation and creativity by providing inventors and authors with a temporary monopoly on their creations, allowing them to profit from their work and invest in future projects. The clause also emphasizes the importance of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, reflecting the belief of the founders that the development of new technologies and inventions was essential for the growth and prosperity of the United States.
Over the years, the Patent Office has played a crucial role in the development of the United States as a technological leader, granting patents for inventions ranging from the telephone and the light bulb to the airplane and the computer. Today, the Patent Office is part of the United States Department of Commerce and is responsible for examining patent applications and issuing patents to inventors and companies.
Congratulations to the winners of this year’s National Patent Application Drafting Competition – Khailee, Bree, Rita, and Maria from @gwlaw, and thank you to all participants! Learn more about the competition: https://t.co/gB64fnXaM6pic.twitter.com/FWqak6Mr1m
From creating a race car safety device that protects drivers from injury to revolutionizing chemotherapy, Spartans have contributed to more than 3,300 inventions. #SpartansWillpic.twitter.com/dchCs0BFBx
Transportation Research Institute Driver Interface Group
Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Abstract. Research problem: Readability equations are widely used to compute how well readers will be able to understand written materials. Those equations were usually developed for nontechnical materials, namely, textbooks for elementary, middle, and high schools. This study examines to what extent computerized readability predictions are consistent for highly technical material – selected Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International Standards Organization (ISO) Recommended Practices and Standards relating to driver interfaces. Literature review: A review of original sources of readability equations revealed a lack of specific criteria in counting various punctuation and text elements, leading to inconsistent readability scores. Few studies on the reliability of readability equations have identified this problem, and even fewer have systematically investigated the extent of the problem and the reasons why it occurs. Research questions:
(1) Do the most commonly used equations give identical readability scores?
(2) How do the scores for each readability equation vary with readability tools?
(3) If there are differences between readability tools, why do they occur?
(4) How does the score vary with the length of passage examined?
ICYMI. The OED has recently been updated with:
new words, phrases and senses added
more than 1,000 entries revised
new audio files and pronunciation transcriptions from Northern England and North-Eastern England
and more!
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
