PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

Status
Not open for further replies.
PartSkeptic said:
Many supplies use a microchip to switch the raw DC power to an inductor-capacitor pair. This way they can get both a boost and buck (step-up and step-down) for very little weight.

The raw DC is often say 12volts of 6 volts from 110 or 240 ac. This is obtained by a rectifier bridge feeding a switching chip which feeds a small toroid. The toroid gives isolation and also current boosting.

One design I saw used a single chip to switch the AC direct to the desired DC value. No isolation and only for small currents.

You are correct to read the specs of both supply and laptop. Apart from different voltages, a few have the center pin as negative instead of positive. And the wattage varies from say 60w to 120w.
Click to expand...
Given all this knowledge, why did you end up buying a power supply that wasn’t suitable for your laptop?
 
abaddon said:
And then decide to grind down the connector to force fit it. There is a big question hanging there.
Click to expand...

....aaaah, the Devil had obviously taken over the connector - engorging it in villainous way - and PS was simply doing God's blessed work in thwarting Lucifer's deeply evil and clever plan?
 
Hans said:
....aaaah, the Devil had obviously taken over the connector - engorging it in villainous way - and PS was simply doing God's blessed work in thwarting Lucifer's deeply evil and clever plan?
Click to expand...

No! I thought it was God messing with PS in order to show that He exists without actually proving it since that would violate the rules.
 
EHocking said:
Given all this knowledge, why did you end up buying a power supply that wasn’t suitable for your laptop?
Click to expand...


A sensible question. I was tired of all the different types and sizes. And nothing fit. On the shelf was a universal model. Slim, with clear output voltages, and a selection of 8 different plugs held in a neat rubber strap. One HAD to fit.

Despite being wrong (yes, that happens when I take a chance :D), I will be using the supply because we have a number of items I can use it on. I happened upon a supply that had the right plug, so I will cut it off and use it.
 
JayUtah said:
Yet another appeal to conspiracy.

So if you understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, why are you trying to draw a parallel between cell phone radio-frequency emissions and ionizing radiation such as found in nuclear fission or diagnostic x-rays? Do you understand that those are fundamentally different kinds of effects? You once claimed to be an engineer so skilled as to be able to solve problems that no other engineers could. But now you're making elementary mistakes in basic principles of physics. This does not bode well for the premise that you are competent to understand the science that relates to your claims.

More insinuation to know more than everyone else about whatever subject we're talking about. The difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is real. You're trying to muddy up that distinction by saying, "Well, both can cause harm." Their effects are still night-and-day different, yet you're trying to treat them as equivalent.
Click to expand...


Let us clarify the point that I was making by looking at the history of the exchange.

GG post 745...How are the electrician and gardener doing? Why are you risking their lives by subjecting them to whatever imagined disease you believe in?

My post 775...How are people who work with radiation doing? Xray departments and nuclear power stations? You still do not understand dosage yet. Intensity and duration. It took 4 weeks of power-on under the tower to start having symptoms. It took another 4 months to get sensitized to the level I am at.

CY post 756...No idea. Not sure I see the relevance either. Are cell phones radioactive? If you have a point to make, you need to be a little clearer. What are you trying to say here?

My post 772...Radioactive... Not according to the standard definition: "emitting or relating to the emission of ionizing radiation or particles." But it is according to this definition: "emitting or relating to the emission of radiation or particles that are harmful to living cells."


My point was that IR and NIR are BOTH EMF radiation and BOTH cause harm and cancer. And that NIR follows the laws of IR dose and radiation. The Telcomms industry say that with respect to NIR no harm is caused and that dosage is irrelevant.

Let set your us take the Telcomm stance (and yours - or do I presume too much?) and simplify it to a set of logical steps.

1. IR has sufficient energy to break double DNA bonds.
2. NIR does not have sufficient energy to break double DNA bonds.
3. Cancer caused by radiation only happens when double DNA bonds are broken.
4. Only IR can cause cancer.
5. NIR cannot cause cancer.
6. Cancer is harmful, therefore NIR is not harmful.

Do you know why this is false logic? In more that one place?

And by the way, thanks for forcing me to try the logical step argument.
 
Last edited:
PartSkeptic said:
Finally, some-one who has been paying attention! A gold star and go to the top of the class. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Note for those unfamiliar with this poster: No, this is not sarcasm. He really does believe that such trivial mysteries, which anyone else would shrug off as undoubtedly explicable but not worth the effort of investigating, are messages from god.

Looking forward to reading JayUtah's response to his most recent post. :D
 
PartSkeptic said:
My point was that IR and NIR are BOTH EMF radiation and BOTH cause harm and cancer.
Click to expand...

The "both are harmful" claim does not make them equivalent even if it were true. My point has nothing to do with whether non-ionizing radiation can produce a physiological response, so kindly dispense with the distractionary ploy. You can wave your hands as frantically as you like. You can write a pedantic, straw-man pseudo-syllogism, try to shove it in my mouth, stab your finger condescendingly in the air, and declare it "illogical!" You can regurgitate the doomsaying you read on advocacy websites. None of that makes things that are fundamentally different somehow now on par.

Yes, if you want to replay the discussion, you were asked to explain why people who are exposed to the same electromagnetic field energy as you are not harmed in the way you claim. That's a valid challenge. If you're attempting to hold others accountable for causes and effects you hypothesize, you are required to explain why others similarly situated don't experience the same effect. This has been a chronic failure of all who have stumbled into the same empirical pitfall as you on this point. We go through this every time a new NG cellular system is rolled out, for all applicable values of N. How many times must it empirically fail before the advocates grow tired of wasting everyone's time by wash-rinse-and-repeating the same fear?

Your response was to invoke the predicament of those who are exposed occupationally to ionizing radiation. You cited a couple of specific cases. Unless your rejoinder was meant to imply equivalent cause, it had no point. I'm explaining why those are in no way equivalent conditions and therefore why the comparison doesn't work. And the explanation is taking far more elaboration that I would expect to be necessary to convey the rebuttal to someone who claims relevant qualification. I didn't ask for a lecture presuming that telcos are evil. I didn't ask for a patronizing recital of previous posts. I didn't ask to be treated like a straw man. I'm asking you either to retract the unjustified comparison or justify it with more than your ongoing irrelevant, fear-mongering rant.

Lest there be any confusion, the nuclear fission of uranium isotopes, for example, produces high-energy beta particles and harmful nucleotides in addition to gamma rays, all of which are potentially severe health risks in different ways, and all of which are faced by people who work in those environments. More importantly, this is a fundamentally different kind of radiation than is possible to get from radio telecommunications. It is absurd to compare the two, whether in terms of causes or effects. "Both are EMF" utterly fails to grasp the potential health risks of working around nuclear fission. In fact, do you know the one pertinent thing that isn't produced in nuclear power plants as a result of the fission reaction? Microwave radiation.

And yes, before you try to poison the well, I worked for a time as a scientist/engineer contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy at one of its premier research laboratories in California, where I was in daily proximity to fission reactors, had to wear a dosimeter constantly, and report regularly to health physicists. Knowing the important differences between kinds of radiation was part of my job, not something I read on the back of a cereal box. Don't for a moment believe you can crib ignorant arguments from hand-wringing political advocacy websites and browbeat me into silent submission.

Let set your us take the Telcomm stance (and yours - or do I presume too much?)
Click to expand...

You're doing nothing but presuming. Well, also babbling incoherently, if your grammar in the sentence above is any indication.

Let's be clear: you cannot prevail either in this argument or in court by trying to lump everyone together who disagrees with you and dismiss them all as the objects of your paranoia. You're being challenged not because your critics have some stake in telcos, but because your argument is objectively irrational. Now deal with the argument I actually made and stop trying to turn everything into a fantasy debate where you write the script for both sides and declare yourself the winner.
 
Pixel42 said:
Looking forward to reading JayUtah's response to his most recent post. :D
Click to expand...

My initial plan was simply to point out the obvious circularity of claiming that "Both are X" in an argument that's aimed at showing that one of them is X. Which one would you have preferred to read?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
My initial plan was simply to point out the obvious circularity of claiming that "Both are X" in an argument that's aimed at showing that one of them is X. Which one would you have preferred to read?
Click to expand...
The one you wrote, I think, as it was more informative. Though of course PartSkeptic will refuse to learn.
 
Pixel42 said:
The one you wrote, I think, as it was more informative. Though of course PartSkeptic will refuse to learn.
Click to expand...

That is what is so irrational about all of this. Here I am awash in a sea of emf for decades. Yet I have have never experienced a headache. I peripherally know a little about them since my sister suffers migraines, but that is the extent of what I know about what headaches are like. just her descriptions.

That said, I have been on serious prescription painkillers in the past. Three times.

1. when I had all four wisdom teeth removed under general. I gave up on those because I wasn't really in any particular pain.
2. Post surgery after a bilateral inguinal hernia. I gave up on those because I was not in any particular pain.
3. When they reconstructed my shattered ankle with titanium plates and nuts and bolts. Gave up on those too. Wasn't feeling any particular pain.

Otherwise, in terms of pain, I have had biopsies for melanoma. Even under local that hurt like hell. Three deep biopsies on my leg requiring stitches/ After being held in recovery for about an hour I was given yet another prescription for military grade painkillers. I took none of them, I got up, walked out to the carpark, jumped in my car and drove home.

So am I some kind of hero? Don't make me laugh. I am no hero.

What I am saying is that subjective descriptions of experienced pain are rather oddly inconsistent.
 
Pixel42 said:
The one you wrote, I think, as it was more informative. Though of course PartSkeptic will refuse to learn.
Click to expand...

Of course. He's much too busy being a victim and lashing out at any who venture in range Not a situation I intend to spend much more time in, to be frank.

Certainly my post was more informative and more fun to write. But ultimately not the right argument. If someone is taken ill and wishes to blame the innkeeper for the "spoiled" chicken soup that caused his illness, it's quite proper to point out that there are others eating the same soup with no apparently ill effects. A serviceable rejoinder might be that there perhaps still others, as yet unknown, who were also affected. Or that one's sensitivity to the vicissitudes of soup mold varies. Any number of logical sequiturs present themselves. But the worst rejoinder is to point to the other table of patrons eating five-alarm chili and suffering the expected effect of that. It's a non sequitur, plain and simple. And the least effective answer -- although one that may be made to contain a lot of words -- is to discuss along how many dimensions mild soup and spicy chili may be said to resemble each other or differ. That's exactly the mire that fringe claimants like to wallow in, so it's not usually worth inviting it. Cosmic Yak had it right the first time. The comparison to radiation workers simply doesn't fit. It's a non sequitur at worst and circular at best.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
That is what is so irrational about all of this. Here I am awash in a sea of emf for decades. Yet I have have never experienced a headache. I peripherally know a little about them since my sister suffers migraines, but that is the extent of what I know about what headaches are like. just her descriptions.

That said, I have been on serious prescription painkillers in the past. Three times.

1. when I had all four wisdom teeth removed under general. I gave up on those because I wasn't really in any particular pain.
2. Post surgery after a bilateral inguinal hernia. I gave up on those because I was not in any particular pain.
3. When they reconstructed my shattered ankle with titanium plates and nuts and bolts. Gave up on those too. Wasn't feeling any particular pain.

Otherwise, in terms of pain, I have had biopsies for melanoma. Even under local that hurt like hell. Three deep biopsies on my leg requiring stitches/ After being held in recovery for about an hour I was given yet another prescription for military grade painkillers. I took none of them, I got up, walked out to the carpark, jumped in my car and drove home.

So am I some kind of hero? Don't make me laugh. I am no hero.

What I am saying is that subjective descriptions of experienced pain are rather oddly inconsistent.
Click to expand...

I am similar. A square inch of skin removed from my forehead for a biopsy, they gave me codeine and I took none of it. Stitching stung like bees stinging me and I bled like crazy.
Kidney stone I got fentanyl and took nothing. Tylenol did the job nicely.
Ingrown toenail got fixed. Hurt like hell even with freezing and I got morphine. Took none of those either.
I guess you can laugh at me being a hero too. I still have opioids at home from my cracked ankle too. I have a rather large bag of pills going to disposal soon.
 
JayUtah said:
Cosmic Yak had it right the first time. The comparison to radiation workers simply doesn't fit. It's a non sequitur at worst and circular at best.
Click to expand...

749956.png
 
PartSkeptic said:
A sensible question. I was tired of all the different types and sizes. And nothing fit. On the shelf was a universal model. Slim, with clear output voltages, and a selection of 8 different plugs held in a neat rubber strap. One HAD to fit.
Click to expand...
And in my experience, after accumulating several of these over the years, is that they list all the models/makes that each of those eight plugs fit.
I am not a genius-level engineer, but I have never bought a replacement/emergency power adapter (including In s.Africa) that didn’t fit my laptop/phone/shaver/synthesiser.

Despite being wrong (yes, that happens when I take a chance :D), I will be using the supply because we have a number of items I can use it on. I happened upon a supply that had the right plug, so I will cut it off and use it.
Click to expand...
If you now have a supply that has the right plug - why would you cut it off a perfectly useable unit and Gerry rig it to use with another power unit in order to use it!?
 
EHocking said:
And in my experience, after accumulating several of these over the years, is that they list all the models/makes that each of those eight plugs fit.
I am not a genius-level engineer, but I have never bought a replacement/emergency power adapter (including In s.Africa) that didn’t fit my laptop/phone/shaver/synthesiser.

If you now have a supply that has the right plug - why would you cut it off a perfectly useable unit and Gerry rig it to use with another power unit in order to use it!?
Click to expand...


Matrix Computers advertised a supply for the HP Pavilion. It has two plugs. Neither fit. The eight on the universal unit were probably the most common. I am most frustrated by what should have been a simple issue to fix.

The supply with the correct plug is also the correct voltage. But it is 68Watts instead of the 96watts that is supposed to be used. The laptop will not burn out but it may attempt to draw the maximum current. The 68W unit will then shut off and perhaps attempt to restart. So either it stays off and does not work, or it pulses on and off. Putting the plug on the new unit guarantees the correct plug, the correct voltage, the correct polarity and the correct wattage.
 
JayUtah said:
(snip)
You're doing nothing but presuming. Well, also babbling incoherently, if your grammar in the sentence above is any indication.

Let's be clear: you cannot prevail either in this argument or in court by trying to lump everyone together who disagrees with you and dismiss them all as the objects of your paranoia. You're being challenged not because your critics have some stake in telcos, but because your argument is objectively irrational. Now deal with the argument I actually made and stop trying to turn everything into a fantasy debate where you write the script for both sides and declare yourself the winner.
Click to expand...


I have already admitted that I am in the initial stages of Alzheimers, and that both my spelling and grammar have declined dramatically. I have to read and re-read and constantly correct both. I was in a hurry and did not double-check after writing that sentence. I was changing a thought stream in mid-sentence.

But my word salad is excusable. Yours is not. It is an attempt to avoid dealing with the logic. Dealing with the logic would expose your level of competence.

Your experience is clearly out of date and also not relevant to the current state of the cell-phone industry, nor of current microbiology as it pertains to the effects of microwaves on living cells.

My logic and ability to analyze and rationalize appear to be somewhat intact.
You may have impressed your fans with your high highfalutin diatribe, but not me.

Forget the rest of the post and respond to this part:

1. IR has sufficient energy to break double DNA bonds.
2. NIR does not have sufficient energy to break double DNA bonds.
3. Cancer caused by radiation only happens when double DNA bonds are broken.
4. Only IR can cause cancer.
5. NIR cannot cause cancer.
6. Cancer is harmful, therefore NIR is not harmful.

Do you know why this is false logic? In more that one place?

Feel free to leave the thread in a huff. I will understand. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom