Back to main page

2000
Week 36
Week 37
Week 38
Week 39
Week 40
Week 41
Week 42
Week 43
Week 44
Week 45
Week 46
Week 47
Week 48
Week 49
Week 50
2001
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Weeks 14-20

Back to main page

Spent much of the week and weekend testing the field laboratory on ourselves and others. The foils in the back and on the sides (Eswa, the cheap foils) are controlled by a triac while the table foil (P.O.Thomsens efterfølger, expensive foil) is controlled separately with a vario. This split control of the foils will allow for a more detailed regulation of the temperatures. Moreover, it is important that the table foil does not get too warm as it heats air that will rise and enter the breathing zone. The idea is to have the table temperature more or less constant, namely at the minimal temperature for attainment of thermal comfort on thighs and hands. The final achievement of thermal comfort will be provided through adjustment of clothing and temperature regulation on the remaining foils that have less influence on the air temperature in the breathing zone.

The temperature controls should probably not be given to the subjects because

1. they may turn the power up to a level, where the air temperature cannot be kept down (i.e. insufficient cooling) and
2. subject may have a difficulty controlling the foils, which is one of the conclusion of a previous study (Rasmussen 1997).

Hence, the subjects will fill out questionnaires at 15 minute intervals. These should be the standardised PMV-questionnaires, which can be used by us to adjust the temperature at each workstation for maximum comfort.

We measured the air change rate in the field lab at maximum air flow, and concluded that it reached the expected 6 h^-1.

In the beginning of the week it became apparent, that the Personalised Ventilation group of the Centre were expecting to use the Field Lab during the same period in January, as we were. This was unexpected, and suddenly the conduction of our experiments were at risk. We had numerous time-consuming discussions with everyone involved. It was obvious that no-one at the centre has an overview of the use of the facilities, and no-one has the authority to allocate resources. This came as a surprise, probably caused by naivety. A transcript of each party’s opinion is found below.

Arsen

Made it clear, that we could not officially rely on using the field lab after January 15. Unofficially maybe January 20, but absolutely not later. Had some ideas about what we could do instead:

• End the experiments by jan 15 (thus starting on new years eve)
• Use the "old meeting room" across from the field lab. An air conditioner would have to be installed, but that’s simple.. he said.
• Use climate chamber 3. This is good for thermal investigations, but has a bad smell and is not well suited for air quality evaluations.
• Have the PV group do there experiments in the old meeting room. Jan was sceptical, but didn’t have any real arguments apart from the fact that the room may not be available in January/Febuary (see time schedule below).

Geo

Was very busy. Considered the use of climate chamber 3 to be out of the question. Primarily because of the smell, and secondarily because it has no resemblance to an office.

Jan

Was not eager at all to postpone the PV experiments. They plan on having their workstations ready by January 20, at which time they will move into the field lab and start the calibration of the system which is expected to take some time. Due to the ducting of the system, it is not an option to calibrate it at another location. We agree. They don’t want to postpone because:

• The experiments will last at least two months.
• Cold outdoor air is essential. They need to control the air temperature, and want to heat outdoor air. They claim that cooling it is not an option. This sounds like a vague argument to us.
• Zenfang (the Chinese guy) has to return by May, and want time for data analysis while in Denmark. We understand.

Love

Was helpful. He suggested using the field lab at Östersund, which is vacant in January. Some work has to be done, and equipment borrowed at the Centre. It is 1000 km away, and we will have no place to live up there. But cold air is available. He also suggested that the PV experiments could be performed there, but this was not well received.

We considered using Östersund, but concluded that it would be too time consuming.

Love planned on using the former meeting room at least until the end of January, which collided with any ideas of us using the room at that time. But according to him, it should be possible to easily equip the room so that it satisfies our needs.

Ole

According to Love, Ole is going to use the former meeting room after Love has moved out.

Later in the week, Jørn spoke to Arsen regarding the placement of our experiments in the field laboratory in January 2001. Apparently, it is possible for the PV-group to postpone their experiments until the beginning of February, but on the condition that we HAVE TO be out of the room by this time. This was great news because it allows us to use the field laboratory instead of the climate chamber. However, we must talk to the PV-group and hear whether this delay is fully acceptable to them. We very much hope so!

Perhaps it will not be necessary to run the experiments for more than two weeks. With 7 groups of 4 persons and with 2 sessions each day it will be possible to finish the entire ordeal in 2 weeks insofar we conduct experiments each day of the week. If we start the experiment on Monday 15th of January we will thus be able to run the last experiment on Sunday the 28th of January. This will allow for a few days of catching-up experiments should it be necessary.

We discussed with Thomas and others whether it will be possible to have subjects coming on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. The idea is to have afternoon and evening sessions on week days, while the experiments will be carried out on mornings and afternoons in the weekends. No one had any objections on us doing as planned, so we decided to proceed.

We tested the thermal comfort at the workstation. One group member would be working in the workstation, while the other controlled the temperatures. Thus the subject was unaware of anything but his own thermal sensation. We concluded that it was possible for the subject to obtain thermal comfort at the workstation. Only slight discomfort was observed at the neck and feet region. Another observation was that thermal comfort was achieved at the foil temperature levels we had previously predicted.

The discomfort problem was discussed with Richard de Dear, who suggested that we supplied fleece jackets for the subjects, since they have a high neck. He also suggested that we supplied standardised foot wear so that we had better control of this sensitive region. Thick socks and cheap indoor shoes would be sufficient. We discussed this among ourselves and with Jørn, and concluded that it was not a good idea, since we want to make the subjects feel as much "at home" as possible. As a backup solution for lightly clad subjects, it might be an option.

We also tried the 3-hour succession of tasks and questionnaires to which we plan to expose the subjects. It is dead boring; doing multiplication and addition tasks for half-hours is not a fun way to pass the time. Gregers made a few comments, which are found below:

Comments to tasks:

1. Thorough instruction for the different tasks at training session. Confusion may arise for the proof reading task, where people may sit a look for all kinds of complicated gramatical errors. Thus, examples for each kind of error should be demonstrated and preferably included on the first page of this task.
1. Some questions at the entrance questionnaire are a bit personal (frequency of bathing etc.) and could be omitted. Instead we could ask whether "relative" questions, i.e. "has more time elapsed since your last bath / change of underware than usual?"
2. The 15 minutes for the admittance questionnaire and PMV questionnaire is too long, as it will only take 5 minutes for a trained person to fill out. However, the extra time is a good buffer for people to arrive in time for the solving of the first task (multiplication).
3. The key-board should be placed next to the monitor from the beginnig, as the key-board will not be used until text typing task. Hopefully this placement of the key-board will allow it to be pre-heated, so their fingertips do not get cold.
4. The multiplication is dead boring and tiring => perfect! Maybe people have to be instructed in the multiplication techniques so they do not get all the calculations wrong. The multiplication task could have three coloumns instead of two. Moreover, arrows could indicate the order at which the calculations should be solved as those containing low numbers (especially ones) are easier to solve than those with high numbers (eights and nines).
5. More time is needed for the filling of the "big comfort questionnaire SBS"; it would also be nice to exercise after the filling of this questionnaire.
6. The typing is very loud; perhaps this noise bothers some of the subjects.
7. The final questionnaire should included a estimated performance evaluation of the subject on a scale from 0 - 100 %.

Suggestions for training session A:

1. General introduction of the centre, staff, activities and ourselves.
1. Stressing of the fact that everybody has to show up each time. Otherwise their entire participation is of no use, and we will have waisted a lot of money. However, if they fall sick, then we may be able to arrange something.
2. Thorough explanation of the tasks and questionnaires
3. Special questionnaire asking them about their tendencies to get cold/hot feet, hands etc.
4. Abrieviated run-through of the tasks, which allows time for interview of each subject.
   - we want to know their spontaineous reaction to the office environment. What is annoying?
   - we want to establish a personal relation ship to the subjects so they feel an moral obligation to show up each time. It would thus be helpful to learn their names.

Based on these positive experiences, we ordered the materials we needed for the construction of the remaining panels. As we had realised that we could only have four subjects in the field lab at a time, we would need four workstations. Each comprised 2 side panels and a back panel. Two side panels could be shared, so we needed a total of 6 side panels and 4 back panels. We also needed to build something for the tables, but postponed that.