Re:We have them at University of North Texas
on
To Flush Or Not To Flush
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I know the men's room you mention. I am a student at UNT myself (physics major), and this semester have two classes in the EESAT building. Those waterless urinals are all well and good... until the filters clog. Then, you get the "lake 'o pee" that someone else mentioned above. The janitorial staff usually tape up a trashbag over the urinal until they get around to replacing the filter, and I have sometimes seen that take a few days. Once, I saw all THREE of them 'down' at the same time. It was more than a little ripe in there then, but normally, like you said, there is very little odor. They really do need to work on the reliability of the waterless urinals, because about half the time I use that restroom, at least one of the three is out of order.
I do find it interesting, however, that the waterless urinals are only used in the 1st floor men's room. The men's rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors use reqular flush-type urinals. Is it that those waterless urinals were just a 'demo' project of the company that made them (getting free adverts from the plaques mounted above EACH one of the three -- at nearly eye level... you can't miss reading them while you are taking a leak), or is there just some reason they can only be used at ground level?
There are several factors at work in the cell-tower/public safety interference issue. There is the bandwidth issue (a narrow-band FM voice channel takes about 10KHz). One cannot pack channels closer than that. This limits the number of channels available in any given area, and they have to be shared by the various competeing services. Much of the time, there is some dead space between the channels so that the reciever does not have to be as selective (hence less expensive). A common spaceing in this area of the spectrum is 15 KHz. This means that the channels are something like this:
800.000MHz 800.015MHz 800.030MHz... etc.
Due to the popularity of repeaters, these frequencies are paired. On each channel, there is a transmit freq. and a recieve freq. The 'repeater' listens on the 'remote unit transmit frequency' and when it detects a signal, it rebroadcasts the signal on the 'remote unit recieve frequency.' The repeater is usually WAY higher powered than the remote unit, and has a MUCH better antenna, thus allowing everyone in a wide area to hear the signal of the remote unit (usually a handheld or vehicle mounted radio). The dispatcher usually has a direct tie-in with the repeater and uses it to listen and transmit.
But, other than just terrain effects in the 'dead zones' (such as being down in valleys, or in the RF shadow of various structures), the most likely cause of the interference to public safety radio systems in the dead zones is due to the nearness and power level of the cell phone transmitters.
Public Safety radio systems are (nowadays) usually 'trunked'. This means that the system is allocated a number of channels with one used as a 'control' channel. When a remote unit (police handheld, for instance) wants to transmit, it sends a request to the central system on the control channel, which handshakes with the remote unit to negotiate a frequency pair to use. This allows several related 'services' such as police, fire, and various other agencies to 'share' the same set of channels, with the services radio nets and subnets being programmed into the trunked system controller. One particular channel might be used for police one transmission, and for the fire dept. the next. Fewer channels needed -> More services can share the same spectrum.
The problem is that high powered (relatively speaking) transmitters in close proximitiy (in both frequency and position) to the handheld/vehicle radio will tend to block the control signals from the trunked network in several ways, preventing the handshake and rendering the police/fire radio USELESS at that location. One cause of blocking is that FM recievers reject all but the strongest signal, and if the cell phone transmitter is putting out adjecent channel interference, and the police radio is close, it will only 'hear' the cell tower. Another cause is that FM recievers tend to desensitize around transmitters in the same general frequency band. Even if the other signal is too far removed in frequency to produce adjecent channel interference, the FM reciever effectively 'puts its fingers in its ears' and again, the unit will not handshake with the trunking system. These same factors can also interrupt conversations in progress. Both causes are due to the way that FM radio works, and are very difficult to design around.
About the ONLY solution is to put these two services in TOTALLY different bands, but, due to enormous investment in equipment for both cell phones and police/fire radio, and the inherent scaraceity of spectrum space, this either is not gonna happen, or its gonna take quite a number of years....
The only OTHER solution is to put both cell phones and public safety/local govt. onto the same system (migrate the public safety stuff onto the cell phone network, with a suitable preempt of the cell traffic in case of public safety need). This MIGHT work, but again would require capital expenditure from both parties.
All in all, this is a sticky situtation that is only going to get worse as our society becomes ever more dependant on wireless communication.
uhh... Well, Seti@Home *has* produced results. Just not a 'hit' on an ET civilization. The project has produced valuable data on hydrogen distribution in our neighborhood of our galaxy. This was reported by S@H back on Nov. 6, 2001 in their Newsletter #10. The URL is here.
I run S@H, and have since it started back in May 1999. I contribute my spare CPU cycles to the project gladly, and I do so to further astronomic research (such as the Hydrogen distribution I mentioned above). The odds, with our current technology of actually *finding* an ET signal are between slim and none, in my opinion, but I do believe there is quite likely some out there.
In my opinion, the whole 'ET' angle is just a hook to get people to process the data on the VERY remote chance that an ET signal MIGHT be detected.
On the subject of Folding@Home (and related bio-medical DC projects): I have tried several of them, but I am worried about commercialization of the results. If, lets say, a cure for some illness (such as cancer) was found, somebody at some drug company would patent it and charge everyone that wanted it large sums of money (similar to what they do with new drugs today). I, due to allergic reactions to many of the more common antibioitics, have had occasion for quite some time to take 'Cipro' (this was years before the anthrax scare made the drug 'famous' last year). The cost? Drug companies sold it at almost US$7 a pill (in lots of 1000, and YES, I used to work in the medical industry, and my sister still does). The reason why cipro costs so much (when other antibioitics cost an order of magnitude less)? 'Bayer' holds the US patent on it, and milks (at least they did *pre-anthrax-scare*) those consumers that needed it for MUCH money. A drug company in India (not covered by the US patent) makes cipro and sells it to much of the rest of the world at around US$1 or $2 a pill, and still MAKES a profit on it. Just as in the software industry, I believe that patents on drugs and genes are a BAD THING.
This is the reason I am really not too keen on 'bio-medical' DC projects. The bio-medical industry's past behavior. As other posters on this subject have indicated, it is MY choice which (if any) DC project I run, just as its your choice which (if any) you run. And I would rather contribute my spare CPU cycles to something that helps deepen our understanding of the universe around us. But, as always, your mileage may vary. If you wish to run one, run your favorite. Many of them do have at least the possibility of contributing useful knowledge.
But, above all, have fun!
KWSN - MajorKong
Member of The Knights Who Say Ni!
KWSN forum admin.
Well, since it seems that a moderator has misunderstood my above comment and declared it off-topic, allow me to revise and extend my remarks for the purpose of showing why it is not offtopic. My statement "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi" refered to my disgust at the 'commercialization' of yet another domain. The latin phrase translates literally as 'Thus passes the glory of the world', but a more modern idiom would be 'Things have gone to hell in a handbasket'.
I have been involved with computers in one fashion or another now for almost 3 decades (since '73), and I watched the rise of the Internet with a great deal of interest. However, lately, I have watched the beginnings of it's fall. Business interests are doing their best to change what once was a medium for the free exchange of ideas into just another revenue stream for themselves.
So, I apologize if my previous attempt at a clear and concise expression of my disgust over the current trend of commercialization of the internet was misunderstood. It was my first post to this forum, although I am a regular reader. Next time I post on a topic, I will attempt to have more clairity in my wording.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the men's room you mention. I am a student at UNT myself (physics major), and this semester have two classes in the EESAT building. Those waterless urinals are all well and good... until the filters clog. Then, you get the "lake 'o pee" that someone else mentioned above. The janitorial staff usually tape up a trashbag over the urinal until they get around to replacing the filter, and I have sometimes seen that take a few days. Once, I saw all THREE of them 'down' at the same time. It was more than a little ripe in there then, but normally, like you said, there is very little odor. They really do need to work on the reliability of the waterless urinals, because about half the time I use that restroom, at least one of the three is out of order.
I do find it interesting, however, that the waterless urinals are only used in the 1st floor men's room. The men's rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors use reqular flush-type urinals. Is it that those waterless urinals were just a 'demo' project of the company that made them (getting free adverts from the plaques mounted above EACH one of the three -- at nearly eye level... you can't miss reading them while you are taking a leak), or is there just some reason they can only be used at ground level?
Actually, it was the other way around.... Public Service was there first... The wireless carriers intruded...
There are several factors at work in the cell-tower/public safety interference issue. There is the bandwidth issue (a narrow-band FM voice channel takes about 10KHz). One cannot pack channels closer than that. This limits the number of channels available in any given area, and they have to be shared by the various competeing services. Much of the time, there is some dead space between the channels so that the reciever does not have to be as selective (hence less expensive). A common spaceing in this area of the spectrum is 15 KHz. This means that the channels are something like this:
800.000MHz 800.015MHz 800.030MHz... etc.
Due to the popularity of repeaters, these frequencies are paired. On each channel, there is a transmit freq. and a recieve freq. The 'repeater' listens on the 'remote unit transmit frequency' and when it detects a signal, it rebroadcasts the signal on the 'remote unit recieve frequency.' The repeater is usually WAY higher powered than the remote unit, and has a MUCH better antenna, thus allowing everyone in a wide area to hear the signal of the remote unit (usually a handheld or vehicle mounted radio). The dispatcher usually has a direct tie-in with the repeater and uses it to listen and transmit.
But, other than just terrain effects in the 'dead zones' (such as being down in valleys, or in the RF shadow of various structures), the most likely cause of the interference to public safety radio systems in the dead zones is due to the nearness and power level of the cell phone transmitters.
Public Safety radio systems are (nowadays) usually 'trunked'. This means that the system is allocated a number of channels with one used as a 'control' channel. When a remote unit (police handheld, for instance) wants to transmit, it sends a request to the central system on the control channel, which handshakes with the remote unit to negotiate a frequency pair to use. This allows several related 'services' such as police, fire, and various other agencies to 'share' the same set of channels, with the services radio nets and subnets being programmed into the trunked system controller. One particular channel might be used for police one transmission, and for the fire dept. the next. Fewer channels needed -> More services can share the same spectrum.
The problem is that high powered (relatively speaking) transmitters in close proximitiy (in both frequency and position) to the handheld/vehicle radio will tend to block the control signals from the trunked network in several ways, preventing the handshake and rendering the police/fire radio USELESS at that location. One cause of blocking is that FM recievers reject all but the strongest signal, and if the cell phone transmitter is putting out adjecent channel interference, and the police radio is close, it will only 'hear' the cell tower. Another cause is that FM recievers tend to desensitize around transmitters in the same general frequency band. Even if the other signal is too far removed in frequency to produce adjecent channel interference, the FM reciever effectively 'puts its fingers in its ears' and again, the unit will not handshake with the trunking system. These same factors can also interrupt conversations in progress. Both causes are due to the way that FM radio works, and are very difficult to design around.
About the ONLY solution is to put these two services in TOTALLY different bands, but, due to enormous investment in equipment for both cell phones and police/fire radio, and the inherent scaraceity of spectrum space, this either is not gonna happen, or its gonna take quite a number of years....
The only OTHER solution is to put both cell phones and public safety/local govt. onto the same system (migrate the public safety stuff onto the cell phone network, with a suitable preempt of the cell traffic in case of public safety need). This MIGHT work, but again would require capital expenditure from both parties.
All in all, this is a sticky situtation that is only going to get worse as our society becomes ever more dependant on wireless communication.
uhh... Well, Seti@Home *has* produced results. Just not a 'hit' on an ET civilization. The project has produced valuable data on hydrogen distribution in our neighborhood of our galaxy. This was reported by S@H back on Nov. 6, 2001 in their Newsletter #10. The URL is here.
I run S@H, and have since it started back in May 1999. I contribute my spare CPU cycles to the project gladly, and I do so to further astronomic research (such as the Hydrogen distribution I mentioned above). The odds, with our current technology of actually *finding* an ET signal are between slim and none, in my opinion, but I do believe there is quite likely some out there.
In my opinion, the whole 'ET' angle is just a hook to get people to process the data on the VERY remote chance that an ET signal MIGHT be detected.
On the subject of Folding@Home (and related bio-medical DC projects): I have tried several of them, but I am worried about commercialization of the results. If, lets say, a cure for some illness (such as cancer) was found, somebody at some drug company would patent it and charge everyone that wanted it large sums of money (similar to what they do with new drugs today). I, due to allergic reactions to many of the more common antibioitics, have had occasion for quite some time to take 'Cipro' (this was years before the anthrax scare made the drug 'famous' last year). The cost? Drug companies sold it at almost US$7 a pill (in lots of 1000, and YES, I used to work in the medical industry, and my sister still does). The reason why cipro costs so much (when other antibioitics cost an order of magnitude less)? 'Bayer' holds the US patent on it, and milks (at least they did *pre-anthrax-scare*) those consumers that needed it for MUCH money. A drug company in India (not covered by the US patent) makes cipro and sells it to much of the rest of the world at around US$1 or $2 a pill, and still MAKES a profit on it. Just as in the software industry, I believe that patents on drugs and genes are a BAD THING.
This is the reason I am really not too keen on 'bio-medical' DC projects. The bio-medical industry's past behavior. As other posters on this subject have indicated, it is MY choice which (if any) DC project I run, just as its your choice which (if any) you run. And I would rather contribute my spare CPU cycles to something that helps deepen our understanding of the universe around us. But, as always, your mileage may vary. If you wish to run one, run your favorite. Many of them do have at least the possibility of contributing useful knowledge.
But, above all, have fun!
KWSN - MajorKong
Member of The Knights Who Say Ni!
KWSN forum admin.
It is so nice to see one evil mega-corp giving another one the shaft.
Way to go Waltons!
Well, since it seems that a moderator has misunderstood my above comment and declared it off-topic, allow me to revise and extend my remarks for the purpose of showing why it is not offtopic. My statement "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi" refered to my disgust at the 'commercialization' of yet another domain. The latin phrase translates literally as 'Thus passes the glory of the world', but a more modern idiom would be 'Things have gone to hell in a handbasket'.
I have been involved with computers in one fashion or another now for almost 3 decades (since '73), and I watched the rise of the Internet with a great deal of interest. However, lately, I have watched the beginnings of it's fall. Business interests are doing their best to change what once was a medium for the free exchange of ideas into just another revenue stream for themselves.
So, I apologize if my previous attempt at a clear and concise expression of my disgust over the current trend of commercialization of the internet was misunderstood. It was my first post to this forum, although I am a regular reader. Next time I post on a topic, I will attempt to have more clairity in my wording.
You folks have a nice day!
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi