# 28 hour day?

#### Rach3

24*7=168
28*6=168

Aaaargh! My plans are not working. Somehow I slept for 16 hours today (after going two days without sleep). I think I'm giving up for now...

On the plus side, I got up at 4PM, which means I'll be active until at least noon tomorrow. I can still make it to lunch before falling asleep (and then I'll be up at 9PM, which is even better!).

-Rach3 (looks like this: :yuck: )

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org

#### moose

I wish the day had 25 hours

#### DaveC426913

Gold Member
24*7=168
28*6=168

Aaaargh! My plans are not working. Somehow I slept for 16 hours today (after going two days without sleep). I think I'm giving up for now...

On the plus side, I got up at 4PM, which means I'll be active until at least noon tomorrow. I can still make it to lunch before falling asleep (and then I'll be up at 9PM, which is even better!).

-Rach3 (looks like this: :yuck: )
You must be young.

#### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
You must be young.
:rofl: And you must be old to have deduced that so quickly. :rofl:

Rach, WHY are you on this sort of schedule?

#### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The week before the APS March Meeting in 2005, I had a 3-day week with 40-hour days. This last week, I've been on 16-hour days so my sleep time's been all over the clock. I put in a 30-hour day on monday to right myself again, but I'm still a little off! In my case, my measurement time decides when I get to sleep.

Last edited:

#### DaveC426913

Gold Member
:rofl: And you must be old to have deduced that so quickly. :rofl:

Old enough to have a son who prides himself on how badly he can screw up his metabolism.

Not so old that I don't remember thinking I too was once invulnerable and immortal.

#### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The week before the APS March Meeting in 2005, I had a 3-day week with 40-hour days. This last week, I've been on 16-hour days so my sleep time's been all over the clock. I put in a 30-hour day on monday to right myself again, but I'm still a little off! In my case, my measurement time decides when I get to sleep.
One of our grad students recently submitted a proposal including 55 hour experiments (and there will be lots of them over a few month span of time). His mentor assured him that they could do it with enough help. I pointed out that the only person with enough experience to help on that was me (this is why his mentor wasn't phased by the idea, because he doesn't have much hands-on experience with this himself to realize that the longer that experiment goes, the more problems they'll have just keeping it running).

#### Yonoz

One of our grad students recently submitted a proposal including 55 hour experiments (and there will be lots of them over a few month span of time). His mentor assured him that they could do it with enough help. I pointed out that the only person with enough experience to help on that was me (this is why his mentor wasn't phased by the idea, because he doesn't have much hands-on experience with this himself to realize that the longer that experiment goes, the more problems they'll have just keeping it running).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep" [Broken] :tongue2:

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep" [Broken] :tongue2:
Note the cautionary statement at the top of that article about "unverified claims." What they are describing in that article is what is more commonly known as "fragmented sleep" and is NOT a good thing (parents all know what fragmented sleep is, because they've all experienced at least a few months of it when bringing home a newborn, and they also can all tell you how poorly they function under those conditions...and the co-workers of those who try to work during those first months will also tell you how poorly they function during that time). That article is a good example of why wikipedia is NOT always a good source of information.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Physics_wiz

Would humans be 1.33x more advanced if we didn't have to sleep (assuming an 8 hours average/day)?
One of my New Year resolutions is to sleep right. I was on a rigid schedule over the summer and I slept/woke up at the same time every day (got 8 hours)...it was magical .

#### moose

Would humans be 1.33x more advanced if we didn't have to sleep (assuming an 8 hours average/day)?
One of my New Year resolutions is to sleep right. I was on a rigid schedule over the summer and I slept/woke up at the same time every day (got 8 hours)...it was magical .
Well, you mean .5x MORE advanced, or stated otherwise, 1.5x what we are now. Note that we are comparing 16 awake hours and 24 awake hours. 16 * 1.5 = 24.

So far over winter break I have usually had work until midnight, went home and ate something small, maybe just a bottle of that naked fruit juice stuff, and then went to bed at 1. At this time, I get out my iPod and listen to an hour long podcast (I like some of the ones from WNYC's radio lab), and then go to sleep at around 2. I wake up anywhere from 10:30-1:30....

#### Rach3

More like $$e^{1.5}\approx 4.47$$.

#### Rach3

I don't know what I did, but I just woke up and it was 7:10 AM. woot!

edit: oh hell, my clock is off, it was only 6:10 AM...

Last edited by a moderator:

#### moose

I have work tomorrow at noon:surprised

Geez, that means I will have to wake up at 11:00:grumpy:

#### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I was looking for articles/papers that showed evidence for a 25-hour biological clock, and stumbled upon this: http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

#### verty

Homework Helper
Rach, why are you doing this?

#### Rach3

Rach, why are you doing this?
I want to test the limits of student productivity.