Measuring Microwave Output From A Laptop? 108
bethorphil asks: "I was shopping online for a laptop today, and as I was choosing my processor speed, I noticed that the clock frequency of a decent CPU (2.4 GHz) was about the same frequency as the radiation used in a microwave oven. This got me thinking about recent headlines of laptop heat causing male infertility. If the heat alone is a threat, It would make sense that holding a 40-watt microwave emitter in your lap could cause even more serious problems down the road. I assume (optimistically, perhaps) that laptops are designed to shield the user from radiation, and not just to protect the system from interference. , but what I'd really like is a way to test for myself how much microwave radiation actually comes from my laptop. So far, the most interesting thing my searches have come up with is this quack-tastic low emission PC, but actual tools for an amateur to measure this stuff seem hard to come by. What's the best way to find out if my laptop is nuking the family jewels?"
40 watt microwave? (Score:5, Interesting)
As for how to measure the amount of microwave radiation a laptop emits, that would require special equipment that you are not likely to have at home. But the FCC does put serious limits on the RF that it's allowed to emit. I'll bet the actual microwave RF emitted is under a watt. Probably less than 1/10th of a watt.
Now, if you have WiFi, that will emit about 250 mW of power when it's actively transmitting. Which is a small percentage of the time. But your WiFi card probably does emit more microwave radiation than the rest of the laptop combined ...
As for microwaves causing infertility, that has yet to be really shown.
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:5, Insightful)
The story is about laptop heat, not microwaves. And sperm are best produced at about 94 degrees F (if memory serves me correctly), which is why the testicles are outside of the body -- so they can be cooler than body temperature.
Anything that raises the temperature of the testicles above that will reduce sperm production -- be it a laptop, living in Texas, wearing tight underwear or a having a cat in your lap. This is well known.
But as far as I know, the effect is temporary. Remove the laptop, move to Alaska, wear boxers, kick the cat off, and sperm production goes back up. But maybe somebody knows something I don't.
Assuming I'm right, just keep the laptop (and cat) out of your lap while you're trying to knock your wife up, and you'll be fine.
Balls... laptops... (Score:2)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Sheesh, we can put a man on the moon...
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
yes, every egg that passes through a woman's system her entire lifetime is present at birth. when she runs out, menopause takes its toll.
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:1)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:1)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:3, Funny)
The world as we know it would be very different.
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2, Insightful)
See, you've just pointed out one of the fallacies of "intelligent design". Any genuinely "intelligent designer" would have done a better job. Period. But I'm sure that the stupids who buy into this bullshit won't hear of it.
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Good advice. Most women probably would not appreciate attempts to use a laptop while impregnating them, and those cats have sharp claws.
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Given this was posted on Slashdot, don't you think the OP has more to worry about than his sperm? I mean, having a laptop on your lap is a sure-fire way to not get laid in the first place.
I mean, being someone who posts on slashdot is a surefire way to not get laid in the first place.
So, OP, stop worrying about your sperm and start worrying about how many FPS you can g
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
(I only wish that I could get it to WORK...)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:2)
The reason they don't want you to know (Score:2)
There are two key sources for absorbed oestrogen like molecules, pollution [bbc.co.uk] and soya.
A just to make sure you get all the bang for you buck, they also causes birth defects [bbc.co.uk].
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:1)
More's the pity, I'd love to get "Worked All States" while wardriving.
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:1)
Re:40 watt microwave? (Score:3, Interesting)
>that it's allowed to emit. I'll bet the actual
>microwave RF emitted is under a watt.
>Probably less than 1/10th of a watt.
Hmmmm... Perhaps you might want to look at CISPR22 or CFR 47 Part 15 (FCC limits on conducted and emitted radiation from (currently) 150kHz to only 1 GHz. Even if below Class A limits, you will be radiating more than 10mW.
>Now, if you have WiFi, that will emit about
>250 mW of power when it's actively
>transmitting. Which
Divide those numbers by ten (Score:2)
And as to stray emissions from the laptop itself - WAY less than the 1/10 W (100 mW) you mentio
Re:Divide those numbers by ten (Score:2)
For that matter, the sitecom (RaLink) based card in my laptop cann be configured to transmit at 100mw with the stock drivers for Windows, and can be configured tot do a bit more when using some of the alternative drivers (on Linux and FreeBSD)
So.. I would say there are cards around that go in laptops that can transmit at o
Surefire test (Score:5, Funny)
Breed. If your kids come out with extra limbs, scales-for-skin or superpowers, then it is.
Re:Surefire test (Score:2)
Re:Surefire test (Score:2)
Re:Surefire test (Score:2)
The microwave stays in the chip (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The microwave stays in the chip (Score:1)
As seen on TV! (Score:5, Funny)
How much would you pay for this small miracle? Three hundred? Two hundred? NO! Today only I am ready to sell you this modern wonder of technology for a mere six payments of $19.99!!!
Act now! Operators are standing by!
Re:As seen on TV! (Score:2)
1-800-SCAM-NOW
(you really should check this stuff before you hit the post button)
Re:As seen on TV! (Score:1)
duh (Score:1, Insightful)
tard
The clock is 2.4Ghz (Score:3, Informative)
Microwave test (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Microwave test (Score:1)
I won't worry about the laptop (Score:1)
It's well known that heat (hot bath, sauna, etc) causes a drop in male fertility, but it's temporary IIRC. Just don't use a laptop while trying to conceive a child.
Of more concern are studies on microwave cooking that suggest it induces molecular changes to the food that may be har
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:1)
Hertel not only conceived of the study and carried it out, he was one of eight participants. "To control as many variables as possible, we selected eight individuals who were strict macrobiotic diet participants from the Macrobiotic Institute at Kientel, Switzerland," Hertel explained. "We were all housed in the same hotel environment for eight weeks. There was no smoking, no alcohol and no sex." One can readily see that this protocol makes sense.
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not. Like all forms of traditional heat-utilizing cooking, you heat up the food at some place, which heats the rest of it.
Frying, baking, boiling, steaming, etc, all work like this. Microwaving, instead of heating the surface of the food, heats all of the water molecules within the food. This is exactly the same as if you had a knob and could change the temperature of the water without changing the rest of the food in any way. Any notion of "nutritional" changes are highly suspect. There's just no reason to believe microwaves, for example, could significantly change the vitamin or mineral content of the food.
Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation. That means, roughly, that they don't knock atoms into pieces, and thus don't break atomic bonds. They just heat up matter, especially water, since water absorbs microwaves so well.
Some label this pseudoscience.
That's because it is. There's no valid scientific observation, and no logical scientific model, to suggest that microwave radiation directly affects the nutrition in food.
Just because microwave ovens seem more magical than a frying pan does not excuse them from the rigors of science or the laws of reality.
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they don't. Microwave radiation does not affect food nutrition.
I wasn't addressing whether boiling or microwaving vegetables are equally healthy. I was addressing microwave radiation.
Re-read the poster I was replying to:
Of more concern
So you bring up numbers (bogus sounding numbers at that*) that say boiling a vegetable is a little worse than setting it in water, and that microwaving it is slightly worse than that. Big deal. It's not magical molecule transforming rays doing it, it's just heat. Same with frying, baking, flame broiling, deep frying, stewing, etc.
In other words, microwaving food is in the same realm as "traditional cooking", contrary to the pseudoscience the poster promoted.
You are bringing up an entirely different point, which is whether microwaving vegetables or boiling vegetables is healthier. Something to ponder, if you really care about a 5% nutrient difference, but entirely separate from the question at hand.
* 80% nutrient loss by setting a vegetable in cold water? Maybe if you mash it up, and set a small portion in a big bucket of water for a few days or something. Or maybe if you place a sliced apple in water for a half hour. How much does deep frying lose? I bet it's more than the supposed 15% in the microwave.
Beyond that, the numbers are too round. Is it 92% for boiling, and 93% for microwave? Or did it actually come out 80%, 90% and 95%? Are you under-boiling, but over-microwaving? What vegetable is it? Etc.
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:2)
Well, I'm not a microwave engineer, but iirc the microwave oven creates standing waves of microwaves within the "cooking cavity" (for want of a better term). These standing waves induce water molecules in the substance being heated to oscillate, thus heating it.
So yes, it is just heat, but the method of transferring the energy to the thing being heated is unique amongst cooking methods.
Incidentally, it's this that is repsonsible for u
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:2)
Science: fun and delicious!
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:2)
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:1)
This isn't completely true. Microwaves can heat fat and sugars quite effectively, as well.
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:2)
Exactly.
The question at hand is whether microwaves do something unnatural to food, as compared to "traditional cooking".
They don't. Yes, microwaving food is unique in the "signature" it leaves, but so it steaming, boiling, broiling, frying, baking, etc. It's fully in that same realm. It's *not* in the magical and scary realm that the original poster placed it.
The
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:1)
On the other hand, there is evidence that more mundane cooking methods are more dangerous. Barbecuing meats [newhousenews.com]
I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
> > are fundamentally different from traditional cooking
> No, it's not. Like all forms of traditional heat-utilizing cooking,
> you heat up the food at some place, which heats the rest of it.
You are wrong.
When I cook something in normal fashion, I can be sure that the temperature of the food is BELOW the temperature of my heat source - the grill, open fire, oven, steam, etc. Not so with microwave cooking - I can't reli
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
The temperature of your flame is much, much higher than you will ever attain in a microwave.
Certain parts of the food can reach temperatures never attained in normal cooking
Consider this: Why can't you brown foods in a microwave without special equipment? The answer is that the temperature is limited by the boiling point of water (as with steaming/boiling/poaching/etc.)
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
> The temperature of your flame is much, much higher than you will ever attain in a microwave.
No, wrong
Take a look here: a domestic microwave oven can be used to [c2i.net]
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
Reheat your pizza in a steamer and get back to me.
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
It's usually best just to ignore these people, just like you would ignore a foul-smelling mutterer sitting next to you on a bus.
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:2)
-------------
Re:I WOULD worry about the laptop (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, @06:41PM (#12983620)
> Consider this: Why can't you brown foods in a microwave without special equipment?
While it's quite easy to blacken and burn food from the inside out, or even make it burst into flames, that elusive trick of giving your food a gentle surface browning with a microwave oven will definitely require speci
Good article on microwaves and food (Score:1, Interesting)
This was in the "Nutrition Action Health Letter" from the Center for Science in the Public Interest a few months ago. Its a very reputable publication (I recommend a subscription for anyone that tries to eat healthy).
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:2)
After all, how could you tell about subtle changes in a human's blood from eating microwaved food if smoking, booze, junk food, pollution, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and everything else in the common environment were also present?
In other words: the study was very theoretical, and environmental factors affect humans much more than anything a microwave can do to the food.
That's why there was a gag order against slander. The study wasn't meaningfu
Re:I won't worry about the laptop (Score:2)
I read up on the older Swiss work several years ago. A gag order for it is just stupid.
This is just a recent link I found with Google that references it.
I didn't read the second paper, just it's abstract, which you quoted:
> "High-pressure boiling, low-pressure boiling (conventional),
> steaming and microwaving were the four domestic cooking processes used in this work . . .
> [W]e can conclude that a greater quantity of phenolic compounds wi
Hey kids! Try this! (Score:1)
Just to be on the safe side... (Score:3, Funny)
Or, a new trend in body piercing... (Score:3, Funny)
The full scrotal Faraday cage.
ROTFL (Score:2)
Re:ROTFL (Score:1)
Long range dup. (Score:1)
Wouldn't the heatsink aborb the microwave? (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't the heatsink aborb the microwave? (Score:2)
Conversely, ugliness doesn't make you a better person, nor does stupidity. I'd rather be an attractive smart person than an ugly dumb one, wouldn't you?
Supplies... (Score:2)
Red herring (Score:1)
Don't Discount It So Fast (Score:4, Insightful)
I also looked at my cell phone and my Uniden cordless phone, they don't compare. Those devices are pretty focused whereas the Gateway notebook is putting out lots more energy and across more of the spectrum. This thing is like a shotgun.
Re:Don't Discount It So Fast (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't Discount It So Fast (Score:2)
Re:Don't Discount It So Fast... 40 THz WiFi card.. (Score:1)
This could become the beginnings of a new kind of social genocide (hmmm, a new misnomer?), much like a revival of the purported (or real) government quest of the 70's to find the right molecule to knock of black Americans.
Imagine if it were possible to selectively tune these things such that they don't interfere with residential and emergency se
hard to measure (Score:2)
As others have pointed out the radiation level will be quite low. Various standars have required low EM radiation.
Re:hard to measure (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, very easy and enjoyable way (Score:2)
Just have unprotected sex with your life-partner[*] as often as possible for the next 10 years. Observe whether the rate of her pregnancy goes down over the years.
This is in no way a valid test, nor will it reveal anything about the laptop, but it'll be fun in the process, and you'll be able to claim its all in the interests of science!
[*] Usual rules regarding STDs and ensuring you and your life partner stay true to each other, no nipping off to the local establishment to perform other not-
Re:Yes, very easy and enjoyable way (Score:1)
But it wouldn't be scientific without a control group!
Ignoring advice? (Score:1)
So, considering that you don't want to have your laptop on your lap, since it emits heat, why worry about microwaves damaging your "equipment".
It's like saying "I am planning on ignoring this advice about the heat, but I'd like to know if there are even more threats to my health".
My advice, don't put your laptop on your lap, treat it like a por
What about monitors? (Score:2)
I have a CRT and non-grounded outlet.
I know the shieldings only work when grounded, but then I also have no idea if it matters with the radiation.
What is emitted and is it dangerous?
Should I care?
Should i get a TFT immediatly? (please say yes
I could use a cord from the kitchen but uhm, no, that sucks, but I don't want to get hurt by this monitor either. Please help. This is leeloo speaking.
Re:2.4 (Score:1)
Hertz = per second (Score:1)
Re:Hertz = per second (Score:1)
Re:Hertz = per second (Score:2)
Care to back that up with a source?
Re:Hertz = per second (Score:2, Informative)
The Pentium 4 performs much less work per cycle than other CPUs (such as the various Athlon or older Pentium III architectures) but the original design objective - to sacrifice instructions per clock cycle in order to achieve a greater number of cycles per second (i.e. greater frequency or clockspeed) - has been fulfilled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4 [wikipedia.org]
And in case you aren't satisfied with that:
As early as 2000, THG observed that the Pentium 4's performance was clearly inferior to that
Re:Hertz = per second (Score:1)
2GHz = 2.4 billion cycles/second
The GHz is measuring EXACTLY the same thing
Just FYI, the skin depth of a 2.4GHz EM wave should be on the order of 50nm - the heat sink alone should be more than enough to stop virtually all microwave radiation from your laptop
Zapchecker (Score:3, Interesting)
Mine shows some radiation form my computer.
2.4GHz Inside The CPU Only (Score:2)
FCC Certification (Score:2)
But the biggest reason why I wouldn't be concerned is simply the conservation of energy- all of the energy in the laptop is consumed some way- ulti