Hot Day (Oct 02 2012)


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Technical News : Hot Day (Oct 02 2012)

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author Message
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 6819
Credit: 24,567,099
RAC: 26,880
United Kingdom
Message 1292987 - Posted: 8 Oct 2012, 23:21:57 UTC
Last modified: 8 Oct 2012, 23:22:27 UTC

Last time I talked with Jeff he mentioned that NTPCKR and RFI are almost always running however that doesn't typically show up on the server status page.
Oh nice to know! Pity it isn't general knowledge to the rest of the people doing the crunching.

Pity the NTPCKR thread hasn't been updated with new candidates for 539 days, with no explanation.
____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile Tron
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 09
Posts: 180
Credit: 2,236,055
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1292990 - Posted: 8 Oct 2012, 23:31:07 UTC - in response to Message 1292978.

I do believe the airspace is owned by Berkeley, and such radio transmissions may disrupt other buildings. Therefore I do believe this would still be an issue that needs the permission of the Regents of Berkeley so that it can be cleared whether those concerns are real.


A perfect example of how an uninformed individual can discount a viable option.
And, why there is so much red tape in the first place.
"we probably wont be able to obtain permission , so we should'nt even bother" is what I'm hearing.

However , no entity can control the radio signals above and beyond the FCC in the USA, Berkeley has absolutely no say in that matter.

They may be able to restrict the ground based facility of the transmitter or dictate it's location.
They may also have "radio free" areas for certain experiments but overall no.

To say that there would be unwanted interference with any other project on campus is simply a lack of knowledge of the systems involved. (no offence)

If that were true wouldn't all cell phones, tablets and other wireless devices that live on campus need to be regulated?

Airspace = something else entirely and has nothing to do with data transmission

This appears to have become a thread jacking , sorry Matt .
I'll shut up now :P

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,365,970
RAC: 15,897
United States
Message 1292994 - Posted: 8 Oct 2012, 23:44:00 UTC - in response to Message 1292990.
Last modified: 9 Oct 2012, 0:42:39 UTC

"we probably wont be able to obtain permission , so we should'nt even bother" is what I'm hearing.


It seems this is a perfect example of someone reading/hearing what they want to without confirming what they are hearing.

I may be being dismissive, but I never said they couldn't try.

If that were true wouldn't all cell phones, tablets and other wireless devices that live on campus need to be regulated?


It is not an uncommon practice these days for private entities to install devices such as cell phone jammers (some U.S. theaters do this) for short range blockage.

The FCC may have jurisdiction to dictate what standards and what frequencies are allowed to be used by whom, but they cannot and do not have jurisdiction in private settings.

The University of California at Berkeley may be a public institution, but the Regents of Berkeley are responsible for everything that happens on their campus, including any radio transmitters that may disrupt or cause problems with other science equipment in other buildings. Yes, if everything is FCC certified, this shouldn't be an issue, but part of the problem that crops up is that when building scientific instruments and not every piece of equipment is passed through the FCC for validation, especially if the device is a prototype.

The area where SETI@Home resides is in a shared laboratory called Space Sciences Lab, and there are many other scientific projects going on inside that building other than SETI@Home. The Regents may want input from anyone around the area before approving anything regardless of how you think it will likely not affect them.

That is the reason for red tape. To say that the Regents of Berkeley or any other project in the area will have no objection shows how little you have in an understanding of the politics involved (no offense).

Airspace = something else entirely and has nothing to do with data transmission


I'm referring to the immediate airspace of the owned land, and it has everything to do with the politics in being allowed. If I wanted to, I could install a signal blocker in my house to block any signal in my immediate area. This blocker won't affect any major long-range communications as the frequencies are usually bounced off the ionosphere and therefore would not be in violation of federal laws. Every land owner has the right to do this, and as stated previously, it does happen in many areas all over the US.

So yes, the Regents of Berkeley can choose to restrict the short-range communications going over their immediate airspace if they wanted, for the previously stated reasons of possible conflicts to other systems.

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5694
Credit: 56,321,284
RAC: 48,737
Australia
Message 1293007 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 0:41:37 UTC - in response to Message 1292994.

To say that the Regents of Berkeley or any other project in the area will have no objection shows how little you have in an understanding of the politics involved (no offense).

From my past experieneces, even those involved in the politics often have no idea why things are the way they are...

____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,365,970
RAC: 15,897
United States
Message 1293008 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 0:48:15 UTC - in response to Message 1293007.

To say that the Regents of Berkeley or any other project in the area will have no objection shows how little you have in an understanding of the politics involved (no offense).

From my past experieneces, even those involved in the politics often have no idea why things are the way they are...


Agreed, which is why politics shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

Profile Tron
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 09
Posts: 180
Credit: 2,236,055
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1293025 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 1:36:33 UTC

volunteer tester wrote:
A bunch of stuff

I did not state that there would be no objections, even went so far as to offer some probable ones. Politics can be played by it's own game.

The entire SSL building could benefit from such a system.

If someone who actually knows if/why a potential wireless plan was scrapped before, could pipe in here.

It's pretty obvious that cost alone would probably kill this idea...

But just FYI an entity may choose to block incoming radio signals as it deems fit , but it may not impede the transmission from point a to point b in the process. That is fact.
You can use whatever means you have to "block" the signals but, if your device alters or distorts the signal in such a way that it cannot be received, it is then illegal
So, Hypothetically, if I wanted to beam burst microwaves (with FCC approved equipment) across campus ,as long as my transmit and receive array are not "on the property", I can.
If berkeley wishes, they can "block " my signal from being received "on campus" but they may not impede my signals travel across campus


However the above is moot since, at least one of the wireless devices would "need" to be on campus. I"m only trying to make the legality of it clear to those who may be mislead by your statements.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,365,970
RAC: 15,897
United States
Message 1293027 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 1:45:50 UTC - in response to Message 1293025.
Last modified: 9 Oct 2012, 1:58:18 UTC

But just FYI an entity may choose to block incoming radio signals as it deems fit , but it may not impede the transmission from point a to point b in the process. That is fact.
You can use whatever means you have to "block" the signals but, if your device alters or distorts the signal in such a way that it cannot be received, it is then illegal
So, Hypothetically, if I wanted to beam burst microwaves (with FCC approved equipment) across campus ,as long as my transmit and receive array are not "on the property", I can.
If berkeley wishes, they can "block " my signal from being received "on campus" but they may not impede my signals travel across campus


However the above is moot since, at least one of the wireless devices would "need" to be on campus. I"m only trying to make the legality of it clear to those who may be mislead by your statements.


Correction, the above scenario is only true if you are using FCC validated equipment and you have permission from the land owner to not only receive, but to also transmit a signal. None of it is governed by the FCC if the equipment is prototype or if you are strictly forbidden to transmit the signal in the first place.

But yes, the entirety above is moot as my entire post was discussing any point (transmitter or receiver) being located on the property of the land owner, which I clearly stated. I never once said that modifying an FCC approved signal was legal in any way, nor do I think anyone would have been mislead by what I stated despite your concern.

Profile Tron
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 09
Posts: 180
Credit: 2,236,055
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1293032 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 2:07:43 UTC

This statement specifically

volunteer tester wrote:
So yes, the Regents of Berkeley can choose to restrict the short-range communications going over their immediate airspace if they wanted, for the previously stated reasons of possible conflicts to other systems.

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,365,970
RAC: 15,897
United States
Message 1293034 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 2:10:03 UTC - in response to Message 1293032.

This statement specifically
volunteer tester wrote:
So yes, the Regents of Berkeley can choose to restrict the short-range communications going over their immediate airspace if they wanted, for the previously stated reasons of possible conflicts to other systems.


...and? Restricting is not the same thing as modifying.

Wiyosaya
Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 39
Credit: 801,970
RAC: 14
United States
Message 1293057 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 2:57:20 UTC
Last modified: 9 Oct 2012, 2:59:27 UTC

After many days of extremely slow downloads - taking on the order of twice the time that it takes for them to run - I have had a few today that are speedy:

10/8/2012 21:46:46 | SETI@home | Started download of 28my12ah.29510.4735.140733193388036.10.220
10/8/2012 21:46:49 | SETI@home | Finished download of 28my12ah.29510.4735.140733193388036.10.220

10/8/2012 22:00:03 | SETI@home | Started download of 28my12ah.29510.6371.140733193388036.10.95
10/8/2012 22:00:06 | SETI@home | Finished download of 28my12ah.29510.6371.140733193388036.10.95

10/8/2012 22:47:11 | SETI@home | Started download of 22fe12ae.10600.4334.140733193388039.10.155
10/8/2012 22:47:16 | SETI@home | Finished download of 22fe12ae.10600.4334.140733193388039.10.155

The first two took ~3-seconds each while the last one took ~5-seconds. If someone has done something to correct the download problem, it looks as if it might have been successful.
____________

Cheopis
Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 00
Posts: 139
Credit: 10,608,121
RAC: 9,420
United States
Message 1293067 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 4:12:18 UTC

I'm wondering if anyone has seriously considered lasers as a transmission method?

After 5 minutes Googling I found references to 200+ MB/sec 6000m range full duplex laser communications systems.

Berkley might have issues with restricting typical communications EM, but would they object to low power laser transmission?

I did NOT look at the pricing for this stuff, but it certainly seems doable - without dishes and massive towers.

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5694
Credit: 56,321,284
RAC: 48,737
Australia
Message 1293070 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 4:32:27 UTC - in response to Message 1293057.

If someone has done something to correct the download problem, it looks as if it might have been successful.

The shorty storm is over, most people have finished processing them, no AP work is being produced, and most caches would now be full.
End result- drastically reduced download traffic.
Once AP starts up or another batch of shorties goes through, or after the usual weekly outage, expect downloads to revert to a crawl again.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

Profile Donald L. Johnson
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Aug 02
Posts: 6006
Credit: 632,324
RAC: 941
United States
Message 1293106 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 6:46:06 UTC - in response to Message 1292994.
Last modified: 9 Oct 2012, 7:05:32 UTC

It is not an uncommon practice these days for private entities to install devices such as cell phone jammers (some U.S. theaters do this) for short range blockage.

If they are, they are breaking the law and should be reported. Last time I looked, any interference with radio-telephone or other telecommunications, except for certain law-enforcement and military exemptions, is a violation of Federal Law and FCC regulation. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) got crapped on earlier this year for shutting down cell-phone repeaters in its underground stations to prevent a flash-mob protest they thought might turn violent.

The FCC may have jurisdiction to dictate what standards and what frequencies are allowed to be used by whom, but they cannot and do not have jurisdiction in private settings.

I believe that is also incorrect. The FCC has jurisdiction over ALL radio-frequency spectrum and communications within the borders of the United States. In that regard, there are NO private settings.
____________
Donald
Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired

alan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Feb 00
Posts: 131
Credit: 401,606
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1293111 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 7:27:16 UTC

On the "wireless" link possibilities:

It would be a microwave link, working in the same way that telco's already use for long-distance transmission. These have been installed by many large companies, in some cases to eliminate expensive leased lines, in others to provide links in areas where cabling is difficult. Such equipment isn't an impulse purchase, but is affordable and non-disruptive.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13541
Credit: 29,365,970
RAC: 15,897
United States
Message 1293252 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 22:40:07 UTC - in response to Message 1293106.
Last modified: 9 Oct 2012, 22:47:01 UTC

It is not an uncommon practice these days for private entities to install devices such as cell phone jammers (some U.S. theaters do this) for short range blockage.

If they are, they are breaking the law and should be reported. Last time I looked, any interference with radio-telephone or other telecommunications, except for certain law-enforcement and military exemptions, is a violation of Federal Law and FCC regulation. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) got crapped on earlier this year for shutting down cell-phone repeaters in its underground stations to prevent a flash-mob protest they thought might turn violent.

The FCC may have jurisdiction to dictate what standards and what frequencies are allowed to be used by whom, but they cannot and do not have jurisdiction in private settings.

I believe that is also incorrect. The FCC has jurisdiction over ALL radio-frequency spectrum and communications within the borders of the United States. In that regard, there are NO private settings.


Mea culpa on the cell phone jammers, but on everything else, no, I am not incorrect:

Generally, the FCC has jurisdiction everywhere in the USA. By its rules jamming by your average Joe or Jane of any licensed service is completely illegal:

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

However the Reagan and Bush administrations have heavily thinned out the FCC (And EPA, and FDA, FTC, and DOC ) inspection, monitoring, and enforcement budgets, so in reality you can get away with most anything.

Also note the loophole about "Licensed" communications. Lots of heavily-used systems, like wireless home phones, baby monitors, and Wi-Fi are unlicensed.


The FCC does not have jurisdiction over unlicensed products.

Profile Tron
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 09
Posts: 180
Credit: 2,236,055
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1293277 - Posted: 9 Oct 2012, 23:08:02 UTC - in response to Message 1293111.

On the "wireless" link possibilities:

It would be a microwave link, working in the same way that telco's already use for long-distance transmission. These have been installed by many large companies, in some cases to eliminate expensive leased lines, in others to provide links in areas where cabling is difficult. Such equipment isn't an impulse purchase, but is affordable and non-disruptive.


I agree. Unfortunately, I did a little map check and there is no good line of sight from the likely transmission points , more than 3 repeaters would be needed and a whole lot more co-opperation than just the university would be involved ... towers rented, utility costs, all long term debts, that would hamper the project more than it would help.

I'm guessing that the seti@home project does not "pay" for the bandwidth the school provides either, or it is automatically figured into their budget.
That said, I don't see it fitting in the plans

On the other hand : if the work distribution problems that randomly plague this project are interfering with good science then some action will have to be taken.

rob smith
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8132
Credit: 52,620,353
RAC: 74,946
United Kingdom
Message 1293395 - Posted: 10 Oct 2012, 5:42:12 UTC

As S@H data is classed non-time critical, and the science is generally happening with the walls of the SSL the restricted bandwidth and other problems are not significant to S@H as a project. Of all the recent outages the only one of any significance was probably the power cable fix which took out the supply to more than just the SSL.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12123
Credit: 6,406,711
RAC: 8,162
United States
Message 1293462 - Posted: 10 Oct 2012, 13:58:24 UTC

The talk of microwave links has been hashed before. The Regents is still the landlord and the size of dish needed isn't something that can be on a camera tripod in a window. A rather substantial structure would need to be built.

As to lasers, I believe the FAA might have some objection to that idea. The elevation of the SSL is above the flight paths to several airports in the bay area.

Finally, all of you are forgetting you would need the permission at the other end to install the equipment and pay the rent at PIAX to house it. Right now the router at PIAX is donated as is the monthly fee for the rack space.

Finally all of you have forgotten the security issue. The computers that SETI uses are connected to the campus internet, and still would be after any data link. Campus IT would have to be in charge of the link for that reason alone. The politics can not be avoided.

____________

Profile PERPLEXER ~ Thomas Huettinger
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Jan 05
Posts: 6
Credit: 248,572,767
RAC: 50,117
Germany
Message 1293658 - Posted: 10 Oct 2012, 23:38:29 UTC

Sooner or later everything is kaputt...earth too, sun also, that's the plan.
Goodnight world
____________

Cheopis
Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 00
Posts: 139
Credit: 10,608,121
RAC: 9,420
United States
Message 1293711 - Posted: 11 Oct 2012, 5:05:04 UTC - in response to Message 1293462.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2012, 5:06:30 UTC

The talk of microwave links has been hashed before. The Regents is still the landlord and the size of dish needed isn't something that can be on a camera tripod in a window. A rather substantial structure would need to be built.

As to lasers, I believe the FAA might have some objection to that idea. The elevation of the SSL is above the flight paths to several airports in the bay area.

Finally, all of you are forgetting you would need the permission at the other end to install the equipment and pay the rent at PIAX to house it. Right now the router at PIAX is donated as is the monthly fee for the rack space.

Finally all of you have forgotten the security issue. The computers that SETI uses are connected to the campus internet, and still would be after any data link. Campus IT would have to be in charge of the link for that reason alone. The politics can not be avoided.


Well, since I don't know what's still classified and what's not, I won't go into detail, but the military has had very small antennae with many-miles range for 30 years now. It's part of US military wireless networking equipment called Mobile Subscriber Equipment, and I would have a very very difficult time believing that we can't make it more efficient than it was 30 years ago. There's an image of one of the antennae here. The range of these are many miles. And yes, you can detach them from their prefab towers and simply mount them on existing structures. They were designed with this in mind. I've done it. http://news.cnet.com/2300-1035_3-10004616-26.html

Not that SETI will get their hands on the equipment, and not that it's got a fast enough transmission rate to be worth the effort, but the whole size and installation issue is a non-factor. The question is what sort of transmission rate is possible with that size equipment today.

The network security issue could also be a non-factor. Simply use data transfer drives like what is used for the data that the telescopes send SETI, so there's never a direct network link into the campus network.

Are there serious considerations? Definitely. But size and installation difficulties aren't problems. Cost might be. Politics certainly would be. A lot of stuff might be worked around. The people trying to do the working around need to have a good idea of what's possible though, or they are just shooting in the dark when they are trying to get a powerful data link established.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Technical News : Hot Day (Oct 02 2012)

Copyright © 2014 University of California