4 ms·

Back in college, I worked on a project whose goals were to examine the effects of closed room vs. fresh air cognition. The solution was a partnership between th

by ccffph 7y ago

Back in college, I worked on a project whose goals were to examine the effects of closed room vs. fresh air cognition. The solution was a partnership between the Architecture and Biotech departments to develop so-called "living walls" to continuously recycle air. In accordance with this article, test subjects showed improved cognition and memory working in fresh, low co2 ppm air. I unfortunately do not have a paper but I did find an article about it and it seems they've deployed it in real life with success: https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/breathe-in-case-puts-its-green-wall-system-to-the-test_o https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/breathe-in-case...

netcan 7y ago
Is average outdoor air optimal?
- ccffph 7y ago
  The objective was to find an eco-friendly method to do so. Thus the living walls, and not just outdoor air intake (which would cost power to run the fans, similar to the energy footprint of running an AC). I can't comment on average outdoor air, but plants certainly helped.
  - netcan 7y ago
    Sorry.. I meant do expirements measuring cognitive performance relative to co2, find an optimal level, and if so is that level what you'd typically get outdoors? I didn't mean "why don't you just open a window."
  - galangalalgol 7y ago
    Were the visual and odor aspects hidden from the participants? If you put some monkeys in a blank white room to do some tasks and some others in a room with visible Flora and the smell of Earth and plants, I suspect the lattre group would perfo better even with O2 an CO2 levels constant.
- fafl 7y ago
  Depends on where you live
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I'd be surprised if it was, especially given that we evolved in a C02 concentration between 180 and 280 ppm, as opposed to the 410 ppm outside today.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gvd 7y ago
    We are ending up being to stupid to solve climate issues
    - leadingthenet 7y ago
      too
      - notJim 7y ago
        Oh god, it's already happening.
        _Nat_ 7y ago
        Plus the comment 4 levels up had "C02" rather than "CO2". <rant> I searched for why people do this 1337-substitution [1], and apparently the justification's that "C02" can be quicker to type on some mobile keyboards since "0" is a single press while "O" requires hitting Shift too. But in chemistry, we'd often write chemical formulae in linear format. For example, "H2O" is water while "C6H12O6" refers to some simple sugars. The basic rule is that digits after any letters are in a subscript position, while digits before any letters are a scalar multiplicand. So, when I see "C02", I immediately parse it to "{C}_{02}" rather than "{C0}_{2}". This reduces to "{C}_{2}", which obviously doesn't make sense, so then I have to figure out what's going on. Obviously it's not too tough to figure out from context that "CO2" was meant, but since I have to infer that from context rather than from direct parsing, it comes off as an obnoxious typo. For example, if someone wrote "C2O", I could figure out what they meant from context too, but it's still annoying to have to be like, "What?". Then I don't even know why it exists. I mean, who talks about CO2 so much more than other chemical species to memorize a 1337-alteration that saves them having to hit a Shift key? It seems like a rather niche micro-optimization that certainly can't be worthwhile to too many typists, even if we ignore the obnoxiousness it imposes on readers. Which, tl;dr, my point's just that "C02" might be a cute 1337 substitution if you don't usually read a lot of chemical formulae, but if you do, it invokes a parsing error that you either have to consciously resolve or else memorize a new slang term to avoid. </rant> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

by ccffph 7y ago

netcan 7y ago

Is average outdoor air optimal?

ccffph 7y ago
The objective was to find an eco-friendly method to do so. Thus the living walls, and not just outdoor air intake (which would cost power to run the fans, similar to the energy footprint of running an AC). I can't comment on average outdoor air, but plants certainly helped.
- netcan 7y ago
  Sorry.. I meant do expirements measuring cognitive performance relative to co2, find an optimal level, and if so is that level what you'd typically get outdoors? I didn't mean "why don't you just open a window."
- galangalalgol 7y ago
  Were the visual and odor aspects hidden from the participants? If you put some monkeys in a blank white room to do some tasks and some others in a room with visible Flora and the smell of Earth and plants, I suspect the lattre group would perfo better even with O2 an CO2 levels constant.
fafl 7y ago
Depends on where you live
Symmetry 7y ago
I'd be surprised if it was, especially given that we evolved in a C02 concentration between 180 and 280 ppm, as opposed to the 410 ppm outside today.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gvd 7y ago
  We are ending up being to stupid to solve climate issues
  - leadingthenet 7y ago
    too
    - notJim 7y ago
      Oh god, it's already happening.
      - _Nat_ 7y ago
        Plus the comment 4 levels up had "C02" rather than "CO2". <rant> I searched for why people do this 1337-substitution [1], and apparently the justification's that "C02" can be quicker to type on some mobile keyboards since "0" is a single press while "O" requires hitting Shift too. But in chemistry, we'd often write chemical formulae in linear format. For example, "H2O" is water while "C6H12O6" refers to some simple sugars. The basic rule is that digits after any letters are in a subscript position, while digits before any letters are a scalar multiplicand. So, when I see "C02", I immediately parse it to "{C}_{02}" rather than "{C0}_{2}". This reduces to "{C}_{2}", which obviously doesn't make sense, so then I have to figure out what's going on. Obviously it's not too tough to figure out from context that "CO2" was meant, but since I have to infer that from context rather than from direct parsing, it comes off as an obnoxious typo. For example, if someone wrote "C2O", I could figure out what they meant from context too, but it's still annoying to have to be like, "What?". Then I don't even know why it exists. I mean, who talks about CO2 so much more than other chemical species to memorize a 1337-alteration that saves them having to hit a Shift key? It seems like a rather niche micro-optimization that certainly can't be worthwhile to too many typists, even if we ignore the obnoxiousness it imposes on readers. Which, tl;dr, my point's just that "C02" might be a cute 1337 substitution if you don't usually read a lot of chemical formulae, but if you do, it invokes a parsing error that you either have to consciously resolve or else memorize a new slang term to avoid. </rant> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet