 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / February 2005Clustering the Mini Mac
Hi all, I was reading an article on O'Reilly -[ http://oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/6208 ]- and the author suggested you could cluster multiple Mac Mini's with Xgrid -[ http://www.apple.com/acg/xgrid/ ]-. Is this possible? If so then buying multple mini's is a good idea for a rather powerful box. Just curious if anyone is considering this as a use for the Mini. Sounds like an awesome idea! Ringo >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Ringo Main problem I see with using the Mini is the lack of a Gigabit ethernet port. However other then that it should work as well as any other computer for the task. > >Hi all, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ethernet port. However other then that it should work as well as any > other computer for the task. A herd of these running something like Siege would be excellent for testing a web server's capacity. You don't need gigabit ethernet for that.  SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/200/ > >Hi all, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ethernet port. However other then that it should work as well as any > other computer for the task. Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? (Excluding the internal lans of course) ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc.] [clustering Mac Minis using Xgrid] >> Main problem I see with using the Mini is the lack of a Gigabit >> ethernet port. However other then that it should work as well as any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? > (Excluding the internal lans of course) Uh... when you're talking clusters, you're not talking about communicating over the broader Internet. You're talking about communication over an internal network. This network, at its *slowest*, will be 10 Mbps half duplex; at its fastest, it can be 10 Gbps full duplex (assuming capable hardware). In the context of the Mac Mini, the limiting factor in that regard is its inbuilt network port: 100 Mbps. However, there's nothing stopping you from running the networking over the firewire port, at 400 Mbps, assuming all your data will fit on the internal drive, or you don't mind the contention between the networking and hard drive traffic. SignatureMy Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet". > Uh... where would this have any effect? > The best I can get > off my ISP is 3mbits. Clustering doesn't make use of your ISP's bandwidth. Many clusters now use infiniband. Beverly SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > > Uh... where would this have any effect? > The best I can get > > off my ISP is 3mbits. > > Clustering doesn't make use of your ISP's bandwidth. Many > clusters now use infiniband. It's been ages since I was in IT. Of course you must've missed my disclaimer about Lans. I see the Mac Mini as a decent switch over for people stuck with windows but don't want to throw out all their hardware. I see it mostly for home use. Maybe Jobs will reconsider for the corporate setting. > > > Uh... where would this have any effect? > The best I can get > > > off my ISP is 3mbits. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > hardware. I see it mostly for home use. Maybe Jobs will > reconsider for the corporate setting. It woudn't really need to change much at all for most corporate users. And the ones for whom it needs to be customized are probably better off with a G5 anyway. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/200/ Steve Buggie buggie@unm.edu UNM-Gallup 200 College Road Gallup NM 87301 MACINTOSH POWERBOOK #170 LAPTOP ================================== THANKS to all who offered advice on getting my Mac #170 to read/write Apple II disks. Som eone sent me a file for the extensions folder, and it now works! NEED 12vDC POWER ADAPTOR: The 115v AC adaptor gives output of DC 7.5 volts, 2.0 amps, center-positive polarity. What I now want is an adaptor to run the computer from a cars cigarette lighter socket: DC 12 volts. Who has it? Would offer $10. if the adaptor is the orginal one for Mac lamptop. (Would also buy the 115V AC adapter with this one as a pair. If your Powerbook #170 is non-functioning, would bid for it also at a nominally cheap price ($10) to get it for spare parts. REPLACE INTERNAL BATTERY FOR MAC #170: The battery inside my Mac #170 seems dead. How do I get inside to replace the battery? Where can the battery be purchased, and at approx what cost? Is it Ni-Cad or some other type? If I remove the screws from the bottom of the Mac 170, will any components fly out? Is the battery replacement user-serviceable? Thanks, Steve Buggie buggie@unm.edu 2/17/2005 Steve Buggie | Programmer / D.J. | Psychology Professor | TROPICAL REGGAE | Univ. of New Mexico, Gallup | 10pm to 12pm Friday | 200 College Rd. | KGLP-FM 91.7 MHz | Gallup, NM 87301 | Gallup Public Radio | **=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=** ** buggie@unm.edu phone: (505) 863-7504 or 863-2390 ** ** Music on this show is "roots reggae" only; No rap, No ** ** hip-hop. Dancehall style will be aired only if it has a ** ** clear reggae beat. For KGLP programming information, check ** ** our website: www.kglp.org Promotional CDs should be ** ** mailed to: Tropical Reggae, KGLP-FM, Gallup Public Radio, ** ** 200 College Road, Gallup NM 87301 ** **=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=** > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? In clustering, the bandwidth isn't needed out to the Internet, it is needed from node to node. For example, a database needs to exchange lock information and data between nodes when running in parallel. The closer you are to the RAM bus speeds you do this, the faster the database will perform. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== > > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when running in parallel. The closer you are to the RAM bus > speeds you do this, the faster the database will perform. True. However, it all depends on the granularity of the problem. For example, if you built a Mac Min cluster to run SETI (where individual work packets take many minutes), a 10/100 Ethernet would be more than sufficient. > > > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > > > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > packets take many minutes), a 10/100 Ethernet would be more than > sufficient. Not so much the granularity as the independence of cells from each other. With SETI, each piece of work needs to know nothing at all about any other piece of work. So the SETI@home "cluster" doesn't need any internode communication at all; only between the nodes and the coordinating computer. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/200/ > > > > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > > > > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > work. So the SETI@home "cluster" doesn't need any internode communication at > all; only between the nodes and the coordinating computer. OK. My terminology as wrong, but you got the idea. Check this site out, It will tell you all of the steps to getting a free MiniMac, or many other things, The only requirements, is that you have to sign up for a free trial, and a couple of friends to do the same, for the sh, check this site out www.auburn.edu/~mayhew or just check out http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=13899755 > Check this site out, It will tell you all of the steps to getting a > free MiniMac, or many other things, The only requirements, is that you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=[rederer number deleted] Why would I sign up for a pyramid scheme that is going to encourage me to spam newsgroups? > > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when running in parallel. The closer you are to the RAM bus > speeds you do this, the faster the database will perform. I know that. But read the last line of my post. At $500 I think that the Mac Mini is more pointed at PC switchers and helping them by defraying the costs of the peripherals. I don't even need the 100mbit part of the Lan for home use. >> > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get >> > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I know that. But read the last line of my post. Your point is well-taken (and I think you're right, btw -- the Mac mini may well be targeted at switchers). I think the responses to your post arise because this was a thread about clustering (as indicated by the Subject header). And for the latter, 100mbit is mediocre, gigabit is better, and currently infiniband is better yet. Beverly SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > >> > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > >> > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And for the latter, 100mbit is mediocre, gigabit is better, > and currently infiniband is better yet. Last time I admined a machine was in 1993. At that time I was responsible for building a WAN for the Navy. I used only the best available at the time... fibre optics. I don't know where this fits in with current terminology, but last I heard they were quite happy with my choices of hardware. At home I prefer the cat-5 cable over wifi. Something about 2.7Ghz bothers me for some reason... could it be that it is the same frequency as my microwave oven?? >> Your point is well-taken (and I think you're right, btw -- the >> Mac mini may well be targeted at switchers). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > only the best available at the time... fibre optics. I > don't know where this fits in with current terminology I don't know -- I haven't worked with fiber-optic in a long time (about as long as you). The last I heard was that for short runs (upto a few hundred metres) one could get gigabit speeds. Longer than that 100Mbit. For a WAN, you probably ended up with 100Mbit. > , but > last I heard they were quite happy with my choices of > hardware. For the time, it was very good. > At home I prefer the cat-5 cable over wifi. Something about > 2.7Ghz bothers me for some reason... could it be that it is > the same frequency as my microwave oven?? 2.4 GHz. SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > > >> > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > > >> > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 2.7Ghz bothers me for some reason... could it be that it is > the same frequency as my microwave oven?? It's the power that should worry you. Pretty much any energy in that band will heat your body ... it's just that your WiFi transmitter's effects are unmeasurable. Do you use a cell phone? SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/200/ >> At home I prefer the cat-5 cable over wifi. Something about >> 2.7Ghz bothers me for some reason... could it be that it is >> the same frequency as my microwave oven?? > > It's the power that should worry you. Perhaps it was the service interruptions that bothered him. That being said, using my microwave has never interfered with my Wifi connection. The cell phone has (one of the 2.4 GHz units). SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer >>>At home I prefer the cat-5 cable over wifi. Something about >>>2.7Ghz bothers me for some reason... could it be that it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > said, using my microwave has never interfered with my Wifi connection. > The cell phone has (one of the 2.4 GHz units). Yup. Our new cordless phone interrupts Airtunes when it rings. No amount of tweaking the settings has fixed this. > >>>At home I prefer the cat-5 cable over wifi. Something about > >>>2.7Ghz bothers me for some reason... could it be that it is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yup. Our new cordless phone interrupts Airtunes when it rings. No > amount of tweaking the settings has fixed this. Our 2.4GHz cordless phone causes the Airport signal to drop from 5 bars to 1 when only 5 feed from the Airport Extreme base station. I've been shopping for a new cordless phone. The Microwave also causes a reduction in signal strength. I'm keeping the microwave :-) Bob Harris > > > >> > Uh... where would this have any effect? The best I can get > > > >> > off my ISP is 3mbits. Tell me who the ISP is that can offer this? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Do you use a cell phone? No... I don't have a use for one. They cost too much anyways. The cell phone output was researched by one independent engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones and use of them during the lunch hour pretty much done something to the kids. The rest of the day they acted pretty dumb and didn't learn anything. Seemed to a temporary phenomena. > > > > >> In article <41ECAA73.8B0C0B61@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > >> <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > pretty dumb and didn't learn anything. Seemed to a > temporary phenomena. Sounds like a pretty silly study. It didn't occur to them that the kids who spend their entire lunch hour blabbing on the phone are more likely to have learning difficulties than the ones who sit in the corner and quietly read a book? > > > > > >> In article <41ECAA73.8B0C0B61@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > >> <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Sounds like a pretty silly study. Not really. Motorola wanted to know if the cell phone technology was really safe. I suppose they were hoping for a positive answer, but instead got a negative one. This really hinges more around liabilities and court challenges than anything else. There have been a lot of claims of damages done, but so far, no one has been able to come up with hard evidence. Kind of like the high power tension lines near a home causing cancer... very difficult to prove. > It didn't occur to them that the kids who spend their entire lunch hour > blabbing on the phone are more likely to have learning difficulties than > the ones who sit in the corner and quietly read a book? > > Sounds like a pretty silly study. > > Not really. Motorola wanted to know if the cell phone > technology was really safe. I suppose they were hoping for > a positive answer, but instead got a negative one. By "one independent engineer" which is hardly conclusive. A single study is suggestive, but needs to be replicated several times and peer reviewed to carry any scientific validity. Can you please let us know where the results were published (what scientific journal), and who did the study? Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > > Sounds like a pretty silly study. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > study is suggestive, but needs to be replicated several times and peer > reviewed to carry any scientific validity. Your implying that it is one independent engineer. What ever makes you think that?? > Can you please let us know where the results were published (what > scientific journal), and who did the study? It was done for Verizon and Motorola,... who or what study I don't know. But surely you know how to use Google as well as anyone else. Or is it that you work and have a vested interest in Cell Phones?? Doesn't matter to me, as I don't own the things. Too expensive to use when some pocket change to use a regular phone is all I need. > > > > Sounds like a pretty silly study. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your implying that it is one independent engineer. What > ever makes you think that?? Well, considering that you refuse to provide any information that would allow anyone to check this out, it's hard to tell. Have you found a URL yet? > > Can you please let us know where the results were published (what > > scientific journal), and who did the study? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expensive to use when some pocket change to use a regular > phone is all I need. Maybe he simply wants proof of your statement? You might also find that with an appropriate rate plan, cell phones aren't all that much more than POTS any more. But that's an aside. > Your implying that it is one independent engineer. What > ever makes you think that?? Your saying so. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > It was done for Verizon and Motorola,... who or what study I > don't know. But surely you know how to use Google as well > as anyone else. You used it as an anecdote, not me. Back it up. Where diid you read about this allleged study? > Or is it that you work and have a vested interest in Cell > Phones?? I already told you what field I work in. I post under my real name, so you could probably find out who AI am with a simple Google search. Surely you know how to use Google as well as anyone else? djb Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > > > > > >> In article <41ECAA73.8B0C0B61@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > >> <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Kind of like the high power tension lines near a home > causing cancer... very difficult to prove. If that's all true, you should be able to come up with some reference to this 'study'. > > > > > > > >> In article <41ECAA73.8B0C0B61@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > > >> <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > If that's all true, you should be able to come up with some reference to > this 'study'. http://www.futuredynamicadvantage.com/research/cellular.html Plenty of inside links to look at. I'll see what you think. > > > > > > In article <41EDD7E8.91246C73@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Plenty of inside links to look at. I'll see what you think. Let's see. Your page was last changed 5 years ago. There have been a lot of studies since then showing no effect. > > > > > > > In article <41EDD7E8.91246C73@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > > <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > There have been a lot of studies since then showing no effect. Then it is as I have thought. The Industrial giants have greased many medical palms to cover their backsides. No matter to me. I only brought it up because I heard it on the evening news a week or so ago. > > > > > > In article <41EEB786.5CC53933@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > greased many medical palms to cover their backsides. No > matter to me. Amazing. Were you born with the ability to put anything that disagrees your world view down to a conspiracy or is it a learned trait? > > > > > > > In article <41EEB786.5CC53933@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > > <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > Were you born with the ability to put anything that disagrees your world > view down to a conspiracy or is it a learned trait? Learned from working with the government. Happens all the time. Apparently you don't believe in planned obsolescence either. But that is exactly what the industry does to make money. And it is too obvious that once a big money industry will fight you tooth in nail if you prove to people that their products are dangerous to their health. Man, it's a no-brainer. > > > > > > If that's all true, you should be able to come up with some > > > > > > reference [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > products are dangerous to their health. Man, it's a > no-brainer. IOW, you don't have any facts, but the conspiracy theory fits your world view, so that's what you'll believe. Thanks for confirming that. > > > > > > > If that's all true, you should be able to come up with some > > > > > > > reference [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > IOW, you don't have any facts, but the conspiracy theory fits your world > view, so that's what you'll believe. There aren't any conspiracy theories, just the ones that you think exist. For instance, a 100watt light bulb will last an x number of hours and then burns out. However, there are industrial light bulbs that are designed to last for years where the bulb is needed but inaccessible. These bulbs have no threads... they are soldered in. So GE, White-WestingHouse, Sylvania, etc that makes light bulbs want you to continue to keep buying light bulbs in your home because they have designed in the obsolescence factor. This isn't conspiracy theory, but hard fact. Common sense dictates that once a corporation is in movement will remain in movement. Don't try and get in their way. You seem to be clueless in this area. > > > > > > In article <41EF21BC.8E602DD6@mist.com>, GreyCloud > > > > > > <cumulus@mist.com> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > your home because they have designed in the obsolescence > factor. This isn't conspiracy theory, but hard fact. Wrong. You can buy those bulbs for your home. However, since they're several times the cost of 'disposable' bulbs, not many homeowners buy them. > Common sense dictates that once a corporation is in movement > will remain in movement. Don't try and get in their way. In your case, common sense is neither. While I agree that a corporation wants to stay in business, your allegations that there's a conspiracy among the cell phone manufacturers to buy off the entire world medical research system is absurd. > You seem to be clueless in this area. That's funny - you're the one seeing wierd conspiracies with no evidence at all. > > There aren't any conspiracy theories, just the ones that you > > think exist. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Wrong. You can buy those bulbs for your home. Oh you can? Since when?? I've yet to see any solder in light bulbs for home use. > However, since they're > several times the cost of 'disposable' bulbs, not many homeowners buy > them. Rottsa Ruck finding them too. > > Common sense dictates that once a corporation is in movement > > will remain in movement. Don't try and get in their way. > > In your case, common sense is neither. Guffaw! > While I agree that a corporation wants to stay in business, your > allegations that there's a conspiracy among the cell phone manufacturers > to buy off the entire world medical research system is absurd. Nothing absurd about it.. it's common business practice. Go work for a real industrial company and you'll soon find out. > > You seem to be clueless in this area. > > That's funny - you're the one seeing wierd conspiracies with no evidence > at all. There are no conspiracies,... just business as usual. There are books published that explains planned obsolescence. http://www.smalltownmarketing.com/plannedobsolescence.html > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones > and use of them during the lunch hour pretty much done > something to the kids. The rest of the day they acted > pretty dumb and didn't learn anything. Uh, yeah... Sure. Cite the study, please? Sure it was the cell phones and not the joints they were smoking in the parking lot? Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sure it was the cell phones and not the joints they were smoking in the > parking lot? There's always one in every crowd. Do you work for Motorola?? Or was that Verizon?? > There's always one in every crowd. Do you work for > Motorola?? Or was that Verizon?? No, I work for a newspaper actually (not as a journalist). But I wasn't being sarcastic. Can you cite the study, or a summary of it? I'd like to read it. What journal was it published in? A single study isn't definitive and a review of the methodology is helpful. If you can't point to the published study then please say so. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > There's always one in every crowd. Do you work for > > Motorola?? Or was that Verizon?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But I wasn't being sarcastic. Can you cite the study, or a summary of > it? I'd like to read it. What journal was it published in? http://www.futuredynamicadvantage.com/research/cellular.html About the easiest thing to do... using Google I punched in "Cell Phone Hazards". And there are many links. I'd think that the biggest problem with a study of this magnitude would be a conflict of interest of a very large and profitable industry. I'd bet that there are as many refutations as there are claims of harm. What I do notice is that it is almost impossible to buy a regular telephone that is wired to the phone jack. Back in 1968 in Panama, in the Army at the time, the environmental test center researched for RF damage in neurological disorders. I didn't manage to stay around long enough to see the results, but the hypothesis was that RF energy of low amounts could alter the way people think and behave. > A single study isn't definitive and a review of the methodology is > helpful. > > If you can't point to the published study then please say so. I'm just like you and the rest... all I hear is what is on TV news these days... and that means your peers published this stuff. > About the easiest thing to do... using Google I punched in > "Cell Phone Hazards". > And there are many links. So then you can surely provide a link to the alleged study you quote? Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > About the easiest thing to do... using Google I punched in > > "Cell Phone Hazards". > > And there are many links. > > So then you can surely provide a link to the alleged study you quote? Take the first one in the list from Google "Cell Phone Hazards". I only heard it on the news, so I don't see why I should take any flake for it. > > > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > > > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There's always one in every crowd. Do you work for > Motorola?? Or was that Verizon?? He just asked for evidence to back up your claim. > > > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > > > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There's always one in every crowd. Do you work for > Motorola?? Or was that Verizon?? Could just be suspicious of "studies" without cites. > > > > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > > > > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Could just be suspicious of "studies" without cites. Then why do news organizations report stuff like this?? Or could it be just their way of bumping up their own profits at the expense of sensationalism. The cite point... oh, ABC news a week ago. I don't have a subscription to them. > > > > > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > > > > > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Then why do news organizations report stuff like this?? They report all sorts of things. A lot of them being sheerest bunkum. "If it looks like it might be sensational, go with it." Rarely do news organizations (with the exception of some specialists) have the technical background to be able to judge whether or not a technical issue is valid or not. The tipping point, for me, was the realization that just about every "investigative journalism" story that covered an area where I had significant expertise, was in error, in multiple parts of the story. What about the stories on issues where I didn't have any specific knowledge? About all they're good for is bringing up something that might be interesting to dig in to. Beyond that, their utility decreases rapidly. > Or could it be just their way of bumping up their own > profits at the expense of sensationalism. Sensationalism is cheap. Which is why it is resorted to so often. > The cite point... oh, ABC news a week ago. > I don't have a subscription to them. Don't need it with Google and other search engines available. Heck, ABC's site has a search engine, doesn't it? > > > > > > The cell phone output was researched by one independent > > > > > > engineer and it was found that kids that have cell phones [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > About all they're good for is bringing up something that might be > interesting to dig in to. Beyond that, their utility decreases rapidly. Or it could be the truth. See, that's the problem. If someone does raise a red flag and it is legitimate, the industrial base will try and counter the probe. Big money always talks. > > Or could it be just their way of bumping up their own > > profits at the expense of sensationalism. > > Sensationalism is cheap. Which is why it is resorted to so often. Then it makes the news media suspect in all their reports. Not that I'm quibbling with you, it is just sad is all. > > The cite point... oh, ABC news a week ago. > > I don't have a subscription to them. > > Don't need it with Google and other search engines available. Heck, > ABC's site has a search engine, doesn't it? Only if you are a subscriber. I even tried AP, which is the only real newsfeed in this country. > The cite point... oh, ABC news a week ago. Ah... it's anecdotal then, rather than scientific. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > The cite point... oh, ABC news a week ago. > > Ah... it's anecdotal then, rather than scientific. http://www.rfsafe.com/article511.html Here is one that is scientific, along with measurements. Will that do? > > > The cite point... oh, ABC news a week ago. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here is one that is scientific, along with measurements. > Will that do? Well, it might if the measurements were remotely reasonable. Let's just take one line: "Fig.4 Assay showing effect of 2 hrs of microwave exposure (2.45GHz) at a SAR (absorption) level of 0.6 W/kg [about cellphone handset levels]" Hmm, so the average cell phone exposure is 0.6 W/kg? If I way 70 kg, that means my cell phone is putting out 42 watts of energy? And I'm using it continuously for 2 hours? Seems to me that they either have a problem with understanding even simple scientific concepts or they're making it all up. Either way, I'll wait for you to provide a reputable source. > Let's just take one line: > "Fig.4 Assay showing effect of 2 hrs of microwave exposure (2.45GHz) at > a SAR (absorption) level of 0.6 W/kg [about cellphone handset levels]" 2 hours of continuous exposure, rather than cumulative. As well, the study was done using frequencies *higher* than cell phone or PCS phones. In fact, there appear to be no solid conclusions drawn from the research quoted in the article. And I find no mention of dim-witted high school students at all. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > Let's just take one line: > > "Fig.4 Assay showing effect of 2 hrs of microwave exposure (2.45GHz) at [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And I find no mention of dim-witted high school students at all. Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 watts of continuous energy. > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > watts of continuous energy. No, I don't think that's the claim. I read it as claiming the absorption rate of the exposed tissue is 0.6W/kg. It still proves nothing (scientifically) about cell phones, as the scientists quoted in the article say themselves... djb Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > > watts of continuous energy. > > No, I don't think that's the claim. I read it as claiming the > absorption rate of the exposed tissue is 0.6W/kg. That's right. And if you weigh 70 kg (154 lb), then the dose they're giving you is equivalent to a cell phone putting out 42 watts. Do the math. > That's right. And if you weigh 70 kg (154 lb), then the dose they're > giving you is equivalent to a cell phone putting out 42 watts. Only if you assume your entire body is doing the absorption. That's not the case. There's no math to do. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > That's right. And if you weigh 70 kg (154 lb), then the dose they're > > giving you is equivalent to a cell phone putting out 42 watts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's no math to do. You'd have to do an integral which I don't care to do. Let's reduce it to the lowest reasonable level. Let's assume that your head weight 5 kg (11 lb). Their dosage would mean that the phone is putting out 3 watts continuously for 2 hours. That's still absurdly high - even assuming that the rest of your body doesn't get any does. > Their dosage would mean that the phone is putting out 3 watts > continuously for 2 hours. If your head was 100% efficient at absorption, the phone would be putting out 0.6 watts. If a 100 watt light bulb illuminates 1000 square feet of wall, you don't think it's actually a 100,000 watt source, do you? Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > Their dosage would mean that the phone is putting out 3 watts > > continuously for 2 hours. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If a 100 watt light bulb illuminates 1000 square feet of wall, you > don't think it's actually a 100,000 watt source, do you? Look. I have a PhD in Chemistry and used to do this for a living. Based on your silly example, I'd guess that you had a great deal of trouble with high school algebra (if you got that far). They gave a dosage of 0.6 watts per kilogram. That means that the sample received a dosage of 0.6 watts for every kilogram of material. If the material (your head) weighs 5 kg, then your head has absorbed 3 watts. Your post did remind me of one thing, though. The phone output would be 3 watts only if the phone's entire output was absorbed by the head. Given that the head only covers around 30-40% of the radial energy distribution, the phone would have to be putting out at least 7-8 watts to get that dosage level. Your example is so incredibly absurd that I can't imagine that it requires comment. For starters, you have your units completely screwed up. To correct it, if a 100 watt light bulb illuminates 1000 square foot of area, the walls illumination (or dosage, if you wish) is 0.1 watts per square meter - assuming that the 1000 square feet completely surrounds the light bulb and all of the light bulb's light energy hits the wall. > Look. I have a PhD in Chemistry and used to do this for a living. Good for you. Now, as a thought experiment... and please bear with me, I don't have a PhD and will have to use small words. Given the same radiation source (ie, a cell phone)... If the absorption rate of rat flesh in the test is 0.6W/kg, and the rat weighs .5 Kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? If the absorption rate of a rock is 0.2W/kg and the rock weighs 20 kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? If the rock weighs 20,000 kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? If the absorption rate of vacuum is 0.0W/kg and the volume of vacuum in question weighs 0 kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? Take your time... Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > Look. I have a PhD in Chemistry and used to do this for a living. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If the absorption rate of rat flesh in the test is 0.6W/kg, and the rat > weighs .5 Kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? 0.3 watts - IF and only if 100% of the cell phone's radiation is absorbed by the rat. But: 1. A cell phone puts out radiation in all directions. Only a small portion goes in the direction of the rat. 2. Not all of the radiation is absorbed. In fact, the radiation from cell phones is largely NOT absorbed - as evidenced by the fact that your cell phone reception doesn't stop when your head is between the phone and the tower. So, the total output would have to be many times higher than 0.3 watts. > If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > source? 42 watts - again, if and only if 100% of the radiation is absorbed. > If the absorption rate of a rock is 0.2W/kg and the rock weighs 20 kg, > how much radiation is being output by the source? 4 Watts - if and only if all the radiation is absorbed by the rock. > If the rock weighs 20,000 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > source? 4,000 watts - same qualifier. > If the absorption rate of vacuum is 0.0W/kg and the volume of vacuum in > question weighs 0 kg, how much radiation is being output by the source? Undefined. > Take your time... It doesn't take any time - if you understand the principles involved. Why are you so eager to make yourself look stupid? > > If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > > source? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If the absorption rate of a rock is 0.2W/kg and the rock weighs 20 kg, > > how much radiation is being output by the source? So the output of an electronic device is modified by the absorption rate of whatever is in its path, then. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > > If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > > > source? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So the output of an electronic device is modified by the absorption > rate of whatever is in its path, then. Wrong. I never said any such thing. In order to get a certain dosage, you need more power for a larger object. Let me try to explain it this way (although you don't seem bright enough to understand it): Let's say I have a microwave that heats one cup of water to boiling in 1 minute. Now, I want to heat TWO cups of water to boiling in 1 minute. Will that microwave do it? Of course not. You need more microwave power. > > > > If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > > > > source? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > minute. Now, I want to heat TWO cups of water to boiling in 1 minute. > Will that microwave do it? Of course not. You need more microwave power. Actually, it might, depending on how much of the power output is actually absorbed by the first cup. If there is enough energy lost (the radiation output to the oven has to go *somewhere*, even if there is nothing in the chamber to heat), the excess might be enough to heat the second additional cup of water. We don't know the power output of the oven, so we can't answer the question. (Can't help it, my background was in physics.) > > > > > If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > > > > > source? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > nothing in the chamber to heat), the excess might be enough to heat the > second additional cup of water. Wrong. If ANY energy is absorbed by the first cup (and it must be since the water boils), then there's less energy left to heat the second cup. So it has to take longer. I never said it would take twice as long, because it won't. > We don't know the power output of the oven, so we can't answer the > question. (Can't help it, my background was in physics.) Think it through. You don't need to know the power output to know that it will take longer if you use the same oven - or that if you need to do it in the same amount of time that you need more power. > Wrong. I never said any such thing. Go back to the thought experiment. You said that: > > Given the same radiation source (ie, a cell phone)... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 0.3 watts - IF and only if 100% of the cell phone's radiation is > absorbed by the rat. and > > If the rat weighs 70 kg, how much radiation is being output by the > > source? > > 42 watts - again, if and only if 100% of the radiation is absorbed. The only variable in the thought experiment is the weight (mass, actually) of the rat, yet you claim that the output of the radiation source is changing. djb Signature"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance." -- Edward Flaherty > > Wrong. I never said any such thing. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > actually) of the rat, yet you claim that the output of the radiation > source is changing. Damn, you're stupid. IF you have a rat that weighs 0.5 kg, THEN you need an 0.3 W source to get a given dosage. IF you have a rat that weighs 70 kg, THEN you need a 42 W source to get the same dosage. Now, what part of that are you just too plain stupid to understand? > Damn, you're stupid. Ah, resorting to insults... The last refuge, and all that. Welcome to the killfile. Signature"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B, sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows > > Damn, you're stupid. > > Ah, resorting to insults... The last refuge, and all that. > > Welcome to the killfile. Is that your way of admitting that you were completely wrong about everything? Sorry for the insult, but I explained it several times in a way that a third grader should have understood and you were refusing to listen. > > > Wrong. I never said any such thing. > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Now, what part of that are you just too plain stupid to understand? If you two can argue for this long without either of you twigging to the fact that you are interpreting the words 'absorption rate' (maximum possible absorption vs. actual measured absorption) in entirely different ways, then you are both dumb as doornails. PhD, indeed. I would love to have been there at your oral. > > > In article > <Nowhere-A690F7.10250521012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > different ways, then you are both dumb as doornails. PhD, indeed. I > would love to have been there at your oral. PhD he's not. I gave him the DNA damage evidence from a website and no more comments came from him. Signature"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894. > > That's right. And if you weigh 70 kg (154 lb), then the dose they're > > giving you is equivalent to a cell phone putting out 42 watts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's no math to do. You can't do it then, can you. > > > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > > > watts of continuous energy. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do the math. Which you obviously don't do. It isn't about full body exposure, it is full noggin exposure... something you wouldn't understand. RF energy can cause neurological damage. But then you are only a market whiz... not a doctor. Guffaw! > > > > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > > > > watts of continuous energy. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > RF energy can cause neurological damage. But then you are > only a market whiz... not a doctor. No, dolt. I'm a PhD Chemist - which gives me approximately 50,000 times greater credentials in this area than you have. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your entire body DOES absorb radiation from a cell phone. However, it's true that since the head is closer, it gets a higher dose. That's why I used the more conservative figure in my followup post and said that even if only the head was involved and even if 100% of the cell phone's energy were absorbed by the head, the phone would STILL have to put out 3 watts - which is way too high. In reality, only a portion of the energy even hits the head (probably 30-40%). AND, only a portion of the energy directed at the head is absorbed. So to get the dosage these people require, a cell phone would have to put out many times higher power than 3 watts. In reality, most cell phones put out considerably less than 1/2 watt - so it would be impossible to achieve the dosages your site claims. > > > > > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > > > > > watts of continuous energy. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No, dolt. I'm a PhD Chemist - which gives me approximately 50,000 times > greater credentials in this area than you have. Gee, how could we tell. Got any more fairy tales to tell?? Guffaw!! You've got the cheek to lie on usenet... which is obvious. And chemists don't know squat diddly about RF radiation either. > > > > > > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > > > > > > watts of continuous energy. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Guffaw!! You've got the cheek to lie on usenet... which is > obvious. It's easily verifiable. > And chemists don't know squat diddly about RF radiation > either. Do you want to try to make yourself look even stupider? No, wait, that's not possible. First, many chemists (myself included) do a great deal of work with analyitical chemistry - things like NMR and so on - where RF radiation IS important. Second, it's not even a matter of being an expert in the subject. You provided an article which claimed a dosage of 0.6 W/kg. All I did was explain that this would require a phone to put out well in excess of 42 watts - which is at least a couple of orders of magnitude too high. Chemists (all scientists, in fact) have to do that all the time. Simple math - if you know anything past 5th grade math, that is. > > > > > > > Not to mention that they're claiming that the cell phone puts out 42 > > > > > > > watts of continuous energy. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > It's easily verifiable. Sure... whose ID are you going to steal?? > > And chemists don't know squat diddly about RF radiation > > either. > > Do you want to try to make yourself look even stupider? No, wait, that's > not possible. You are only making yourself look the fool that you are. Tell us more fairy tales about your great indepth knowledge about RF radiation, oh Karnack the Great. > First, many chemists (myself included) do a great deal of work with > analyitical chemistry - things like NMR and so on - where RF radiation > IS important. And yet you show very little knowledge of RF energies. > Second, it's not even a matter of being an expert in the subject. You > provided an article which claimed a dosage of 0.6 W/kg. All I did was > explain that this would require a phone to put out well in excess of 42 > watts - which is at least a couple of orders of magnitude too high. > Chemists (all scientists, in fact) have to do that all the time. And yet you don't know what the 600mw per kilogram of radiation does to neurons. You're no doctor that is certain and your ability to tie this in shows your total ignorance. Radiation can cause mental disorders in case you didn't know that. Are you really this stupid or are you living in some concrete underground basement?? Don't you remember the old KGB in Russia radiating our embassy with microwave radiation?? The staff got headaches and health problems... and the radiation was of low levels. So don't sit there with your thumbs in your ears claiming to know that much about RF energies. > Simple math - if you know anything past 5th grade math, that is. Guffaw!! You're living proof of the US academic downturn. Signature"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894. > > > And chemists don't know squat diddly about RF radiation > > > either. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Tell us more fairy tales about your great indepth knowledge > about RF radiation, oh Karnack the Great. OK. Let's go through it: > > First, many chemists (myself included) do a great deal of work with > > analyitical chemistry - things like NMR and so on - where RF radiation > > IS important. > > And yet you show very little knowledge of RF energies. Really? Why don't you point out my errors and document them with a real reference rather than pulling things out of your a.s? > > > Second, it's not even a matter of being an expert in the subject. You [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Radiation can cause mental disorders in case you didn't know > that. I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I ever claim to know what 600 mW of RF per kg would do to a brain. In fact, I accepted your article that said that 0.6 W/kg caused damage. However, unlike you, I was able to put that into context and show that it's irrelevant for cell phones. You see, I have some basic mathematical skills. You really don't need much - just a little bit of algebra. It's rather informative that it's way over your head. Now, let's go through it again. Maybe you can find a 5th grader to explain it to you. ACCEPTING that 0.6 W/kg does damage to a person's brain, let's see how much energy a cell phone would need to put out to do that. I don't know what a person's head weighs, but we'll leave out your pea brain and say the average is 5 kg. In order for a source to irradiate 5 kg with an average dose of 0.6 W/kg, then the source needs to put out 3 W. Still with me? Did you find someone to explain it? OK, now, that 3 W is the MINIMUM the source would have to put out. 3 W would be sufficient if, and only if, 100% of the energy was fully absorbed into your brain. That's not true for 2 reasons: a. A cell phone radiates in all directions. Only a modest percentage is radiated in the direction of the brain. b. Only a very small percentage of the radiated energy is absorbed by the brain. If all of the energy were absorbed by the brain, then you wouldn't get any cell phone reception if your head was between the tower and the phone. Since your head doesn't block reception, it can't be absorbing all the energy. SO, a 3 W phone would not be enough energy for your head to absorb 0.6 W/ kg. You'd need a phone that was much, much more powerful. Given that cell phone radiation is not very readily absorbed by non-metallic materials, you might easily need a kW phone. But it doesn't matter - even 3 W is far, far more energy than a cell phone puts out. SO, there's no possible way that a cell phone could give you a 0.6 W/ kg dosage. It can't happen. No matter how many conspiracy theories you want to come up with. > Are you really this stupid or are you living in some > concrete underground basement?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The staff got headaches and health problems... and the > radiation was of low levels. IOW, you're STILL dreaming things up. Furthermore, nothing I've said refutes that. It's quite possible that they did do that - and it doesn't change the fact that a cell phone is incapable of providing the amount of energy needed to cause the damage that you cited in your 'study'. > So don't sit there with your thumbs in your ears claiming to > know that much about RF energies. I obviously know infinitely more than you - because I can at least do the simple analysis above. > > Simple math - if you know anything past 5th grade math, that is. > > Guffaw!! You're living proof of the US academic downturn. Right. So why don't you tell me exactly what's wrong with my analysis instead of just calling me names and coming up with more conspiracy theories. > ACCEPTING that 0.6 W/kg does damage to a person's brain, let's see how > much energy a cell phone would need to put out to do that. I don't know > what a person's head weighs, but we'll leave out your pea brain and say > the average is 5 kg. In order for a source to irradiate 5 kg with an > average dose of 0.6 W/kg, then the source needs to put out 3 W. There are some problems with this. (1) You wouldn't have a uniform field strength throughout the tissue. To get an average of 0.6 W/kg throughout the brain would actually require more wattage than you've calculated. (2) However, the question you have to ask when determining if you have enough wattage to cause damage is not whether you reach damaging levels *everywhere*, but rather whether you reach damaging levels *anywhere*. Signature--Tim Smith > > ACCEPTING that 0.6 W/kg does damage to a person's brain, let's see how > > much energy a cell phone would need to put out to do that. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > get an average of 0.6 W/kg throughout the brain would actually require more > wattage than you've calculated. True. I underestimated. > (2) However, the question you have to ask when determining if you have > enough wattage to cause damage is not whether you reach damaging levels > *everywhere*, but rather whether you reach damaging levels *anywhere*. True. But remember that cell phone radiation isn't very readily absorbed by the brain. So there isn't much of a shielding effect. Bottom line is that a cell phone would have to put out vastly more power than is even remotely plausible to get the dosages he's claiming. > > > ACCEPTING that 0.6 W/kg does damage to a person's brain, let's see how > > > much energy a cell phone would need to put out to do that. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Bottom line is that a cell phone would have to put out vastly more power > than is even remotely plausible to get the dosages he's claiming. I'm not talking about that kind of damage. I'm talking about mental damage that can be caused. Signature"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894. > > > In article <trman-1DC1C8.15491622012005@news.central.cox.net>, > > > TravelinMan [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I'm not talking about that kind of damage. I'm talking > about mental damage that can be caused. So you're imagining something that you want us to accept at face value with no evidence - in spite of the fact that you've been spouting conspiracy theories ever since I came back to this group - and the fact that you haven't refuted a single thing I've posted. No thanks. > > > > In article <trman-1DC1C8.15491622012005@news.central.cox.net>, > > > > TravelinMan [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > conspiracy theories ever since I came back to this group - and the fact > that you haven't refuted a single thing I've posted. Guffaw!! There you go again about conspiracy theories. If I saw you on the ocean beach and saw the tide go way out there and yelled 'Tsunami!' and ran, would you think I was spouting a conspiracy theory?? Only an idiot would stand there and stare. Pretty much what you are doing when you are using a cell phone. The industry was quick to push this junk onto the public, and yes it is great idea, but not thoroughly tested. I view it like asbestos. Idiots like you never fail to amaze me. Signature"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894. > > > > And chemists don't know squat diddly about RF radiation > > > > either. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Really? Why don't you point out my errors and document them with a real > reference rather than pulling things out of your a.s? You haven't proven yourself as a chemist yet. And yeah, I've got a phd too, to what little use that paper is. First, you didn't say how it effects the brain. The brain can be interferred with by any electrical signal that can match the neuron communication to other neurons. The best way is by RF means. > > > Second, it's not even a matter of being an expert in the subject. You > > > provided an article which claimed a dosage of 0.6 W/kg. All I did was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I ever claim to know what 600 mW of > RF per kg would do to a brain. But you blatantly giggled it off like a girl. > In fact, I accepted your article that said that 0.6 W/kg caused damage. > > However, unlike you, I was able to put that into context and show that > it's irrelevant for cell phones. Sure you have. Apparently you don't get out much and see for yourself how cell phones effect peoples behaviour. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message