On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:59:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
 wrote:

>MadAdmin presented the following explanation :
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:54:00 -0400, FromTheRafters
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> MadAdmin has brought this to us :
>>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:06:28 -0400, FromTheRafters
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> After serious thinking SeaNymph wrote :
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>>>> Goodness!  That all sounds like quite the mess.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If he had a deisel generator, he wouldn't have this problem.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> HAH!
>>>> Although realistically diesels tend to be better with more frequent
>>>> use so you don't end up with fuel issues while propane tends to work
>>>> out better if it's more rarely used.
>>> 
>>> Eh, it was just my way of saying it was a spoofed "Diesel" post. The 
>>> "real" Diesel has "diesel" and the spoofer has "deisel" in the FQDN of 
>>> the MID.
>>> 
>>
>> Kinda figured that was what you were on about :)
>>
>>> A diesel generator I used at work was started up by compressed air when 
>>> the supplied power failed. We sometimes had to coordinate a 'test' with 
>>> the power company to avoid problems when testing the backup system. No 
>>> problems with batteries, switches, or flakey contactors.
>>> 
>>
>> I've seen semi trucks started that way which was really kinda cool
>> compared to the normal noise you hear from starting something like
>> that. I've seen backup generators big enough that the power company
>> would call the facility up to ask them to power up to give some juice
>> to the grid.
>
>We couldn't supply *that* much power I don't think, but enough to run a 
>Naval Radio Transmitting Facility. Even with only that, we had to work 
>closely with the power company. I imagine this Diesel fellow is talking 
>about something even smaller.

I'm sure he was :)
The one facility that immediately came to mind was a hosting facility
that maintained excess generator capacity so when the grid got busy
they'd have to ramp up to not only power themselves but feed the grid
their excess juice. The security on that building was higher tech than
what I saw at SOCOM and CENTCOM :) But the latter had guards with
M-16s running around.

>
>> And I've seen the backup generators installed in the new
>> SOCOM building which was an impressive setup. And I would have LOVED
>> to have seen the battle bridge completed and see it in action. But,
>> sadly, that wasn't part of my contract..... But I did my small part to
>> help ensure that the tax money spent on that was well spent in the
>> quality of the end result. Hope it was that way all around......
>
>I spent some time doing SECAS validation, and also would have loved to 
>see the "Battle Bridge". I saw a whole lot of circa 1970 combat 
>information centers (inside and out) and can only imagine what they 
>look like now with huge flat screen monitors and cool #### like that.
>
>Nothing virus related though.
>

Yeah those were some seriously huge screens they were putting in. It
was high tech although it was mostly high tech from about 1999 as it
took them about 10 years to go through all the process to build it so
there was basically CAT5 where I'd have expected fiber and such. Man
the cooling they had to have for all that equipment. And I've NEVER
seen the amount of raised floor and drop ceiling to handle all the
piping, wiring, HVAC, etc.. That single floor was about worth 2 floors
in height compared to a standard commercial building. The sad thing
was how much of the construction materials came from China. I didn't
think military did that but things have seriously changed over the
years...... 
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2