Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
Locked
12
12
Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
 
|
I might be a situation where, to use the computer/monitor combo that I think might be relatively o.k. for me (overall) - may require using a HDMI-to-DVI adapter (plus a DVI cable) to connect my computer to the monitor. Does anyone know whether these types of video-signal adapters significantly contribute to emf radiation? Is having to use an adapter (such as HDMI-to-DVI)signifcantly worse, emf-wise, than a direct connection between the computer and monitor? Would I be better off trying to use a monitor with a HDMI-port and forgoing the adapter altogether?
Would a HDMI-to-VGA (or mini display port to VGA) adapter be better? (The concern about this is that VGA doesn't give as high-quality a picture as HDMI or DVI.) I've also been strongly considering using a DVI or HDMI fiber optic cable to connect the monitor to the computer (this may be contingent on finding a fiber-optic cable that isn't insanely lengthy). Does one lose the beneficial effect of a fiber-optic cable if it has to be plugged into an adapter, instead of the computer itself? ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
Administrator
|
> Is having to use an adapter
> (such as HDMI-to-DVI) signifcantly worse, emf-wise, than a direct > connection between the computer and monitor? I tnink an HDMI-to-DVI connector is harmless... they are both the same signal, except HDMI includes audio. Otherwise, it's just a different connector, but the same signal. The real issue I think is whether you tolerate a digital (HDMI/DVI) signal better than an analog (VGA) signal. And VGA may look just as good as HDMI if you've got a good quality monitor and are not using too high of a resolution. I can't really tell the difference, so I use VGA because it's more tolerable. (although we have someone else here who uses fiber optic DVI and says that is better for them than VGA) Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > > I tnink an HDMI-to-DVI connector is harmless... they are both the > same signal, except HDMI includes audio. Otherwise, it's just a > different connector, but the same signal. > > The real issue I think is whether you tolerate a digital (HDMI/DVI) > signal better than an analog (VGA) signal. > > And VGA may look just as good as HDMI if you've got a good quality > monitor and are not using too high of a resolution. I can't really > tell the difference, so I use VGA because it's more tolerable. > (although we have someone else here who uses fiber optic DVI and > says that is better for them than VGA) > > Marc > Thanks for the response. The monitor I'm looking at right now is only 18.5", with a 1360x768 native resolution (I figure that this relatively low-resolution might be overall more tolerable, and easier on my eyes from a text-reading standpoint). So I might be well within the territory where there is no discernable difference between VGA and DVI/HDMI? (The monitor brand/model, btw is a Samsung Syncmaster E1920X. The Samsung Syncmaster line is pretty reputable, I think?) The issue is that the computer I'm considering doesn't have a VGA connection - only a HDMI and mini display port - so if I decide to go the VGA route I would need an adapter. Will having to use an adapter to get VGA output signifcantly degrade the signal? Will an adapter that has to change a digital signal to an analog signal emit bothersome radiation? There seems to be a lot of varying opinion as to whether a DVI/HDMI connection leads to a noticably crisper image over VGA. There are people (like you) who notices no difference in image quality, then there are those who areadamant that there is indeed a noticable difference. There has been some in-store evidence that a VGA connection could be easierfor me to tolerate and has less emf. But if the emf benefits of a VGA connection would be negated by having to use an adapter to change the digital signal to VGA signal, would using a VGA connection even be worth it? ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI,
|
Administrator
|
> The issue is that the computer I'm considering doesn't have a VGA
> connection - only a HDMI and mini display port Ahhh, well if you monitor doesn't accept VGA, then there's nothing you can do (I don't think). If it were me, I'd try to get a monitor that had both analog and digital inputs, so I could experiment. > There seems to be a lot of varying opinion as to whether a DVI/HDMI > connection leads to a noticably crisper image over VGA. There are people > (like you) who notices no difference in image quality, then there are > those who are adamant that there is indeed a noticable difference. It depends on the monitor. I've used one monitor where there was a huge difference between HDMI/VGA, and another monitor where you couldn't tell the difference. This with the same computer. Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > > Ahhh, well if you monitor doesn't accept VGA, then there's nothing > you can do (I don't think). If it were me, I'd try to get a monitor > that had both analog and digital inputs, so I could experiment. > > > Marc > Oh - the monitor accepts VGA...I wasn't trying to say that it didn't. It'sthe *computer* that's the "problem" - it doesn't have a VGA port. It onlyhas a HDMI port and a mini-display-port - and I'm wondering if having to get an adapter to convert a digital signal to VGA output would negate the emf-benefits of using a VGA connection. And like I said, I'm also wondering if the digital-to-VGA conversion process would degrade the VGA signal to any significant extent. But yeah, the monitor itself has both a VGA port and a DVI-D port. ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI,
|
Administrator
|
> It's the *computer* that's the "problem" - it doesn't have a VGA port.
> It only has a HDMI port and a mini-display-port - and I'm wondering if > having to get an adapter to convert a digital signal to VGA output would > negate the emf-benefits of using a VGA connection. Looking at the mini-display-port to VGA adaptor at the Apple Store, that doesn't look like it would cause any trouble. There is no external power source, which indicates to me that perhaps that your computer can output either digital or analog to the mini-display-port, which means that the adaptor is not *converting* anything, but just *adapting* from one type of connector to another. So there would be no degradation either, assuming you use a high-quality VGA cable (which costs virtually nothing these days) Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI,
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Svetaswan-2
> Thanks for the response. The monitor I'm looking at right now is only
> 18.5", with a 1360x768 native resolution (I figure that this relatively > low-resolution might be overall more tolerable, and easier on my eyes > from a text-reading standpoint). So I might be well within the territory > where there is no discernable difference between VGA and DVI/HDMI? Yes, if the monitor has a good quality VGA conversion hardware, then the VGA and HDMI signal should look the same. If it doesn't have good VGA conversion hardware, then the HDMI signal may look better. I'm using a 26" Sony HDTV (1366 x 768 pixels), and I can't tell the difference between VGA and DVI, picture-quality-wise. ES-wise, the VGA option is easier to tolerate. Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Svetaswan-2
You getting a MacBook? My brother just got one (MacBook Pro 15" i7). I'm on it right now, and I can tell you it's an electromagnetic nightmare - Bad chest pains, tinnitus and ear ache. Yesterday I went to Best Buy to test other laptops. They're all the same. 100+ milli gauss just above the keyboard with any of the new i3, i5 or i7 intel mobile chipsets. I'm sticking with my old HP "live strong" laptop and other HP with an Ultra Low Voltage processor. Eli --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote: > > I might be a situation where, to use the computer/monitor combo that I think might be relatively o.k. for me (overall) - may require using a HDMI-to-DVI adapter (plus a DVI cable) to connect my computer to the monitor. Does anyone know whether these types of video-signal adapters significantly contribute to emf radiation? Is having to use an adapter (such as HDMI-to-DVI) signifcantly worse, emf-wise, than a direct connection between the computer and monitor? Would I be better off trying to use a monitor with a HDMI-port and forgoing the adapter altogether? > > Would a HDMI-to-VGA (or mini display port to VGA) adapter be better? (The concern about this is that VGA doesn't give as high-quality a picture as HDMI or DVI.) > > I've also been strongly considering using a DVI or HDMI fiber optic cableto connect the monitor to the computer (this may be contingent on finding a fiber-optic cable that isn't insanely lengthy). Does one lose the beneficial effect of a fiber-optic cable if it has to be plugged into an adapter,instead of the computer itself? > > ~Svetaswan > |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > > Looking at the mini-display-port to VGA adaptor at the Apple Store, that > doesn't look like it would cause any trouble. There is no external > power source, which indicates to me that perhaps that your computer > can output either digital or analog to the mini-display-port, which > means that the adaptor is not *converting* anything, but just > *adapting* from one type of connector to another. So there would be > no degradation either, assuming you use a high-quality VGA cable > (which costs virtually nothing these days) > > Marc > Thanks Marc! Hopefully, if I end up getting the Mac Mini, that the mini-display-port-to-VGA connection works out. from reading the Wikipedia page on video cards, it's a wonder how VGA is more tolerable than DVI - the info on Wikipedia indicates the exact opposite.First of all, it says that the few remaining "legacy LCDs" that use VGA input reconvert the analog signal back to digital before displaying it - so with VGA, the signal undergoes a digital-to-analog-to-digital conversion journey that degrades the signal. Then it goes on to say that VGA connections have the problem of "electrical noise" - while DVI connections avoid electrical noise. Perhaps Wikipedia is off-base on this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_card#RAMDAC (the above claims are under the "RAMDAC" section, and the subsequent "Outputs" section) ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI,
|
Administrator
|
> From reading the Wikipedia page on video cards, it's a wonder how VGA is
> more tolerable than DVI - the info on Wikipedia indicates the exact > opposite. Well, I suspect it varies depending on the person, the video card, the monitor, and the cables connecting the two. I personally find analog signals traveling over a wire more tolerable than digital signals. It doesn't seem to matter about the conversions that take place within the monitor (no matter what signal you feed a monitor, some processing takes place within the monitor). On an unrelated note, I got my first battery-free watch in the mail today, and my initial impression is that it's less tolerable than my battery watch! (it also has a lot more metal in it, and glows in the dark much brighter, so these factors may be more important than whether it has a battery) Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by jaime_schunkewitz
--- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@...> wrote: > > > > You getting a MacBook? > > My brother just got one (MacBook Pro 15" i7). I'm on it right now, > and I can tell you it's an electromagnetic nightmare - Bad chest pains, > tinnitus and ear ache. > > Yesterday I went to Best Buy to test other laptops. They're all the > same. 100+ milli gauss just above the keyboard with any of the > new i3, i5 or i7 intel mobile chipsets. > > I'm sticking with my old HP "live strong" laptop and other HP with > an Ultra Low Voltage processor. > > Eli > Hi Eli :) Yeah, Apple may have reached the point where they are packing too much "stuff" into a too-small chassis, when it comes to their Macbooks. I suppose even the highly-sophisticated throttling/power-management techniques that Macbooks use isn't enough to "save" some from the emfs (including myself, I guess). But no - I'm not getting a Macbook (at least not today I'm not ;) ). I could change my mind at any time, but right now I'm planning on a Mac Mini. Iknow I slammed the Mac Mini when I saw the new, thinner bodystyle (which includes the built-in power supply) - but weighing the alternatives forced me to reconsider. The Dell Zino apparently has major reliability issues, from scanning some of the user feedback. And I'm not comfortable with placing a full-sized desktop in my bedroom - with all of the "heat" it could generate. And I much prefer a company that offers solid technical support - sothat ruled out nettops like the Asrock Nettop and the Acer Aspire Revo. And for various reasons, I'm not too comfortable with purchasing a laptop, especially if my e.s. dictates that I use it as a virtual desktop. I haven't been able to "test" many laptops, anyway. Yes, the Mac Mini has that built-in switching power supply - but I've been trying to convince myself that it would be o.k.. Maybe the aluminum unibody of the Mac Mini shields most of the emf. Maybe Apple designed a kick-a$$ power-supply that minimizes noise. If they are packing the power-supply into that small chassis - surely they must have accounted for "electromagnetic interference"? After all, you can't have the emfs from the power-supply interfering with the other components. Btw, I just read that the Core i7 chip has a TDP of 45W! My 2001 Gateway full-sized desktop had a processor with a TDP of 53W. ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
The max TDP of the i7 is the same as the i5, 35 W. At least that's what Intel says. What they should really rate is the average TDP. Did you take a look at the Samsung XL2270 monitor? It has an external power supply. I haven't measured it, but it may be worth a look. As for netbooks, the HP mini 210 had the lowest magnetic field of them all. It was 3-7 milli gauss, but pulsed up to 15 mg every 5 seconds. All the other netbooks were at 35-50 milli gauss just above the keyboard. Gotta get off this EMF monster now. I thought maybe the aluminum uni-body would help the Mac Pro but I was wrong - maybe it helps with some of the higher frequencies, but the devastating lower frequencies go right through. Eli --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@...> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You getting a MacBook? > > > > My brother just got one (MacBook Pro 15" i7). I'm on it right now, > > and I can tell you it's an electromagnetic nightmare - Bad chest pains, > > tinnitus and ear ache. > > > > Yesterday I went to Best Buy to test other laptops. They're all the > > same. 100+ milli gauss just above the keyboard with any of the > > new i3, i5 or i7 intel mobile chipsets. > > > > I'm sticking with my old HP "live strong" laptop and other HP with > > an Ultra Low Voltage processor. > > > > Eli > > > > > Hi Eli :) > > Yeah, Apple may have reached the point where they are packing too much "stuff" into a too-small chassis, when it comes to their Macbooks. I supposeeven the highly-sophisticated throttling/power-management techniques that Macbooks use isn't enough to "save" some from the emfs (including myself, Iguess). > > But no - I'm not getting a Macbook (at least not today I'm not ;) ). I could change my mind at any time, but right now I'm planning on a Mac Mini. I know I slammed the Mac Mini when I saw the new, thinner bodystyle (whichincludes the built-in power supply) - but weighing the alternatives forcedme to reconsider. The Dell Zino apparently has major reliability issues, from scanning some of the user feedback. And I'm not comfortable with placing a full-sized desktop in my bedroom - with all of the "heat" it could generate. And I much prefer a company that offers solid technical support - so that ruled out nettops like the Asrock Nettop and the Acer Aspire Revo. And for various reasons, I'm not too comfortable with purchasing a laptop,especially if my e.s. dictates that I use it as a virtual desktop. I haven't been able to "test" many laptops, anyway. > > Yes, the Mac Mini has that built-in switching power supply - but I've been trying to convince myself that it would be o.k.. Maybe the aluminum unibody of the Mac Mini shields most of the emf. Maybe Apple designed a kick-a$$ power-supply that minimizes noise. If they are packing the power-supply into that small chassis - surely they must have accounted for "electromagnetic interference"? After all, you can't have the emfs from the power-supply interfering with the other components. > > Btw, I just read that the Core i7 chip has a TDP of 45W! My 2001 Gatewayfull-sized desktop had a processor with a TDP of 53W. > > ~Svetaswan > |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > > Well, I suspect it varies depending on the person, the video card, > the monitor, and the cables connecting the two. I personally find > analog signals traveling over a wire more tolerable than digital > signals. It doesn't seem to matter about the conversions that take > place within the monitor (no matter what signal you feed a monitor, > some processing takes place within the monitor). > > On an unrelated note, I got my first battery-free watch in the mail > today, and my initial impression is that it's less tolerable than > my battery watch! (it also has a lot more metal in it, and glows > in the dark much brighter, so these factors may be more important > than whether it has a battery) > > Marc > So the relative intolerability to a DVI or HDMI-connected screen is solely about the emfs radiating from the connecting wire - and not the increased emfs that may be radiating from the screen due to the digital input signals? I've said that I've had some in-store "evidence" that I may tolerate VGA screens better...well, I looked at the exact same LCD monitor in two different stores, and I noticed that the screen at one location was pretty "quiet" using the AM-radio test, while this same screen at a different store had significantly more RF noise. (I made sure that each screen was at full brightness before I "tested" them.) Since the screen with the RF noise displayeda crisper image than the "quiet" screen, I kinda assumed that it was usingthe HDMI connection, while the quieter screen was using a VGA connection. And when I was looking at the Samsung Syncmaster that I already mentioned in this thread - I noticed that there was something about standing in front of the screen that seemed "more stressful" than standing in front of a different Samsung Syncmaster (same sized-screen) with only a VGA connection. Although the text on both screens was blurry (because they were displaying at 1060x768 - slightly lower than their native resolution), there was something about standing in front of the screen with just the sole VGA connectionthat seemed easier on the eyes. I don't think it was screen brightness - if anything, the VGA-only Samsung seemed brighter than the dual-input Samsung. I wonder if it was a matter of VGA vs. DVI connection. (I didn't do the AM-radio test on these two monitors because the "atmosphere" in the store heightened my self-consciousness.) Sorry to hear about your watch - it must be a solar-powered watch? ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > I'm using a 26" Sony HDTV (1366 x 768 pixels), and I can't tell the > difference between VGA and DVI, picture-quality-wise. ES-wise, the > VGA option is easier to tolerate. > > Marc > Part of me would love to do what you have done, and use a LCD TV as my computer monitor. That way I could ensure large, readable font on even a 22" screen - and I could try to sit at a greater distance and still be able to read text. But there are just too many "unknowns" - I haven't been able to do any "eye tests" on LCD TVs as computer monitors. I'd like to be able touse the screen at full-brightness to avoid the emf-generating dimming mechanism - and LCD TVs might be too bright to use at full-brightness. I thinkthey may make LCD TVs brighter than monitors in order to get a more "cinematic" effect on t.v. and movie images, and because it is assumed that people will be sitting at much greater distances from these TVs than they sit from computer monitors. Do you use your 26" LCD TV as a TV, also? Do you have several "inputs" attached to it - i.e. computer, cable box/DVR, etc.? I'm wondering how havingseveral objects attached to a LCD TV - such as cable box, DVD-recorder, computer, etc. - affects everything from a emf standpoint. Because I'm suddenly wondering if it would be better overall if I bought a large 26" LCD TV - and attached the Mac Mini to it as well as everything else - my cable TV, and whatever DVR or DVD-R I choose. Like yourself, I could sit at a relatively greater distance from this hub. Or would it be better to just implement the plan I already have in mind - get a 18.5" "office"monitor to attach to the Mac Mini, then later (perhaps) get a separate 22"LCD TV to attach cable and DVD player? Whatever option I choose, all of this will be sitting on my dresser in my bedroom. ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI,
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Svetaswan-2
> So the relative intolerability to a DVI or HDMI-connected screen is
> solely about the emfs radiating from the connecting wire - and not the > increased emfs that may be radiating from the screen due to the digital > input signals? Well, keep in mind that I am not measuring anything other than my own symptoms, but yes, it seems a lot like my symptoms are caused by what's radiating out of the DVI/VGA/HDMI cable. > Sorry to hear about your watch - it must be a solar-powered watch? No, spring powered, self-winding "automatic" watch... I haven't given up on it just yet... but it may indicate that the battery is not the issue, and rather the amount of metal in the watch is something that should be minimized. Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI,
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Svetaswan-2
> I'd like to be able to use the screen at full-brightness to avoid the
> emf-generating dimming mechanism My experience with LCD monitors and TVs is that dimming the screen HELPS, not hurts. This seems to be an exception to the rule that dimmers are bad. > Do you use your 26" LCD TV as a TV, also? No, I use it just as a computer monitor. No other wires are going into it other than the VGA and power cable. My TV is a 37" HDTV, with all sorts of signals feeding it. But I sit 10 feet away from that. Marc |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by jaime_schunkewitz
--- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@...> wrote: > > > > The max TDP of the i7 is the same as the i5, 35 W. > At least that's what Intel says. What they should really > rate is the average TDP. > > Did you take a look at the Samsung XL2270 monitor? It has an external > power supply. I haven't measured it, but it may be worth a look. > > As for netbooks, the HP mini 210 had the lowest magnetic field of them > all. It was 3-7 milli gauss, but pulsed up to 15 mg every 5 seconds. All the > other netbooks were at 35-50 milli gauss just above the keyboard. > > Gotta get off this EMF monster now. I thought maybe the aluminum uni-body > would help the Mac Pro but I was wrong - maybe it helps with some of the > higher frequencies, but the devastating lower frequencies go right through. > > Eli > Ah - I guess I should have verified the i7 TDP at the Intel website, instead of taking another website's word for it. The Samsung XL2270 monitor looks nice - but here come the "buts". ;) That native resolution is too high for comfort - Mac OS X doesn't have quite thetext-enlarging options as Windows, so a screen's native resolution takes on greater importance for me. Besides, the higher resolution may lead to less tolerability from an emf-standpoint - perhaps because of the heightened signals that the video card outputs to the monitor (I learned this from an old post of Marc's :) ). And I don't know how I would tolerate the brightness - one thing I've learned is that, although all the monitors list their brightness at 250 nits or 300 nits - manufacturers lie about these specs - and their *real* brightness levels can vary pretty widely. LEDs tend to run brighter than CCFLs, I think. And dimming the screen brings about the same emf-generating mechanism as CCFL screens, right? Do you have this monitor? I doubt I've seen this display in real-life, just wondering if you have. Bummer about the Macs and their low-frequency magnetic fields. I guess this is one of the reasons why Apple's products aren't TCO-certified. I don'tthink I've been as concerned with the low-frequency magnetic fields because these fields don't seem to give me overt symptoms. At least I don't think they do? I mean, I can lay close to the large 27" CRT-TV in our den and not feel much discomfort. (Although that same TV in my much-smaller, poorly-circulated bedroom might be a different story.) I realize that I should perhaps be more concerned about these low-frequencyfields anyway - from a health standpoint. Aren't low-frequency magnetic fields easily mitigated by distance? ~Svetaswan |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.)
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote: > > My experience with LCD monitors and TVs is that dimming the screen > HELPS, not hurts. This seems to be an exception to the rule that > dimmers are bad. > > Marc > Well, my own experience in dimming a LCD monitor has been a very mixed bag.When I dim the screen on this laptop, my eyes (and perhaps my skin) thankme - but at the same time, the increased RF (that I can actually "measure"via an AM radio) is bothersome, I think. And dimming the screen seems to cause increased RF to radiate not only from the screen, but also from the computer keyboard area, from the cord leading from the power supply, and from the power-supply itself. Some of these RF frequencies seem to have a broad range. There are a few frequencies that the radio seems to detect many feet away - far greater distances than you would think a mere laptop would be able to reach. I sometimes notice a certain relief when I turn the screen back to full brightness. But sooner or later - this relief is tarnished by my sensitivity to the bright screen. When I used this laptop with the dimmed monitor in my bedroom, I even pick up RF noise on my bed! (I don't use the laptop on my bed, but the laptop's sreen is about 3 feet from the side of the bed.) I assume that this noise is being emanated from the metal springs inside my mattress. Just recently, I turned the screen back up to full brightness, then ran the AM radio test on my bed again. The RF noise - at least the portion of it detected by AM radio - seemed to disappear. But it's "weird" that a dimmed laptop monitor placed about 3 feet from my bed would cause increased RF noise emanating from my bed. And I'm not just talking about the side of the bed closest to the screen - I'm talking aboutall over my bed (at least the surface). This overall experience from dimming the screen causes me to want to avoid as much as possible having to do it. ~Svetaswan |
|
|
In reply to this post by jaime_schunkewitz
For netbooks (and all laptops) make sure wi-fi is switched off or disabled.Even if you're not using it, it may be on. Especially with the eeepc, the wi-fi is continual. With other laptops, unused wi-fi may be once a minute, but still annoying. Disabling it is the best policy. See http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread.php?t=214308
Regarding AC magnetic fields of laptops, use a USB keyboard or mouse and keep the computer far away (1 meter should be enough). I found that Sun's keyboards tend to be slightly better on EMF than Dell's keyboards. However, with both, it's only when I'm typing that I measure the EMF. (In contrast to laptops where the EMF is quite continual). Keyboard EMF is maybe ~ 1mG -- much lower than the laptop? Mechanical mouse is better than optical mouse, which is better than wireless mouse. --- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@...> wrote: > > > > The max TDP of the i7 is the same as the i5, 35 W. > At least that's what Intel says. What they should really > rate is the average TDP. > > Did you take a look at the Samsung XL2270 monitor? It has an external > power supply. I haven't measured it, but it may be worth a look. > > As for netbooks, the HP mini 210 had the lowest magnetic field of them > all. It was 3-7 milli gauss, but pulsed up to 15 mg every 5 seconds. All the > other netbooks were at 35-50 milli gauss just above the keyboard. > > Gotta get off this EMF monster now. I thought maybe the aluminum uni-body > would help the Mac Pro but I was wrong - maybe it helps with some of the > higher frequencies, but the devastating lower frequencies go right through. > > Eli > > --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You getting a MacBook? > > > > > > My brother just got one (MacBook Pro 15" i7). I'm on it right now, > > > and I can tell you it's an electromagnetic nightmare - Bad chest pains, > > > tinnitus and ear ache. > > > > > > Yesterday I went to Best Buy to test other laptops. They're all the > > > same. 100+ milli gauss just above the keyboard with any of the > > > new i3, i5 or i7 intel mobile chipsets. > > > > > > I'm sticking with my old HP "live strong" laptop and other HP with > > > an Ultra Low Voltage processor. > > > > > > Eli > > > > > > > > > Hi Eli :) > > > > Yeah, Apple may have reached the point where they are packing too much "stuff" into a too-small chassis, when it comes to their Macbooks. I suppose even the highly-sophisticated throttling/power-management techniques that Macbooks use isn't enough to "save" some from the emfs (including myself,I guess). > > > > But no - I'm not getting a Macbook (at least not today I'm not ;) ). Icould change my mind at any time, but right now I'm planning on a Mac Mini. I know I slammed the Mac Mini when I saw the new, thinner bodystyle (which includes the built-in power supply) - but weighing the alternatives forced me to reconsider. The Dell Zino apparently has major reliability issues, from scanning some of the user feedback. And I'm not comfortable with placing a full-sized desktop in my bedroom - with all of the "heat" it could generate. And I much prefer a company that offers solid technical support - so that ruled out nettops like the Asrock Nettop and the Acer Aspire Revo. And for various reasons, I'm not too comfortable with purchasing a laptop, especially if my e.s. dictates that I use it as a virtual desktop. I haven't been able to "test" many laptops, anyway. > > > > Yes, the Mac Mini has that built-in switching power supply - but I've been trying to convince myself that it would be o.k.. Maybe the aluminum unibody of the Mac Mini shields most of the emf. Maybe Apple designed a kick-a$$ power-supply that minimizes noise. If they are packing the power-supply into that small chassis - surely they must have accounted for "electromagnetic interference"? After all, you can't have the emfs from the power-supply interfering with the other components. > > > > Btw, I just read that the Core i7 chip has a TDP of 45W! My 2001 Gateway full-sized desktop had a processor with a TDP of 53W. > > > > ~Svetaswan > > > |
Re: Question about video-signal adapters (HDMI-to-DVI, etc.) [LAPTOPS]
|
|
Yes, of course the WiFry is disabled. That's a given. I measured this MacBook Pro with an Gigahertz Solutions HF59B and it had no measurable RF. 1 meter is not nearly enough distance - I still feel this thing at 3 meters or more. The headache and tinnitus are atrocious. But many here watch TV - quite an amazing feat for an electro sensitive. Eli --- In [hidden email], "emraware" <emraware@...> wrote: > > For netbooks (and all laptops) make sure wi-fi is switched off or disabled. Even if you're not using it, it may be on. Especially with the eeepc, the wi-fi is continual. With other laptops, unused wi-fi may be once a minute, but still annoying. Disabling it is the best policy. See http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread.php?t=214308 > > Regarding AC magnetic fields of laptops, use a USB keyboard or mouse and keep the computer far away (1 meter should be enough). I found that Sun's keyboards tend to be slightly better on EMF than Dell's keyboards. However, with both, it's only when I'm typing that I measure the EMF. (In contrast to laptops where the EMF is quite continual). Keyboard EMF is maybe ~ 1mG -- much lower than the laptop? Mechanical mouse is better than optical mouse, which is better than wireless mouse. > > > --- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The max TDP of the i7 is the same as the i5, 35 W. > > At least that's what Intel says. What they should really > > rate is the average TDP. > > > > Did you take a look at the Samsung XL2270 monitor? It has an external > > power supply. I haven't measured it, but it may be worth a look. > > > > As for netbooks, the HP mini 210 had the lowest magnetic field of them > > all. It was 3-7 milli gauss, but pulsed up to 15 mg every 5 seconds. All the > > other netbooks were at 35-50 milli gauss just above the keyboard. > > > > Gotta get off this EMF monster now. I thought maybe the aluminum uni-body > > would help the Mac Pro but I was wrong - maybe it helps with some of the > > higher frequencies, but the devastating lower frequencies go right through. > > > > Eli > > > > --- In [hidden email], "svetaswan" <svetaswan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [hidden email], "jaime_schunkewitz" <jaime_schunkewitz@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You getting a MacBook? > > > > > > > > My brother just got one (MacBook Pro 15" i7). I'm on it right now, > > > > and I can tell you it's an electromagnetic nightmare - Bad chest pains, > > > > tinnitus and ear ache. > > > > > > > > Yesterday I went to Best Buy to test other laptops. They're all the > > > > same. 100+ milli gauss just above the keyboard with any of the > > > > new i3, i5 or i7 intel mobile chipsets. > > > > > > > > I'm sticking with my old HP "live strong" laptop and other HP with > > > > an Ultra Low Voltage processor. > > > > > > > > Eli > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eli :) > > > > > > Yeah, Apple may have reached the point where they are packing too much "stuff" into a too-small chassis, when it comes to their Macbooks. I suppose even the highly-sophisticated throttling/power-management techniques that Macbooks use isn't enough to "save" some from the emfs (including myself, I guess). > > > > > > But no - I'm not getting a Macbook (at least not today I'm not ;) ). I could change my mind at any time, but right now I'm planning on a Mac Mini. I know I slammed the Mac Mini when I saw the new, thinner bodystyle (which includes the built-in power supply) - but weighing the alternatives forced me to reconsider. The Dell Zino apparently has major reliability issues, from scanning some of the user feedback. And I'm not comfortable with placing a full-sized desktop in my bedroom - with all of the "heat" it could generate. And I much prefer a company that offers solid technical support - so that ruled out nettops like the Asrock Nettop and the Acer Aspire Revo. And for various reasons, I'm not too comfortable with purchasing a laptop, especially if my e.s. dictates that I use it as a virtual desktop. I haven't been able to "test" many laptops, anyway. > > > > > > Yes, the Mac Mini has that built-in switching power supply - but I'vebeen trying to convince myself that it would be o.k.. Maybe the aluminum unibody of the Mac Mini shields most of the emf. Maybe Apple designed a kick-a$$ power-supply that minimizes noise. If they are packing the power-supply into that small chassis - surely they must have accounted for "electromagnetic interference"? After all, you can't have the emfs from the power-supply interfering with the other components. > > > > > > Btw, I just read that the Core i7 chip has a TDP of 45W! My 2001 Gateway full-sized desktop had a processor with a TDP of 53W. > > > > > > ~Svetaswan > > > > > > |
«
Return to ES
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |