Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Australia Idle Technology

17-Year-Old Radio Astronomy Mystery Traced Back To Kitchen Microwave 227

Posted by samzenpus from the give-it-another-30-secs dept.
New submitter Bo'Bob'O writes: The BBC reports that the scientists at the Parkes and Bleien Radio Observatories in New South Wales, Australia, have tracked down earth-based signals that had been eluding observation for 17 years. These signals, which came to be called Perytons "occurred only during office hours and predominantly on weekdays." The source, as it turned out, was located right inside the antenna's tower where impatient scientists had been opening the kitchen microwave door before its cycle had finished. As the linked paper concludes, this, and a worn magnetron caused a condition that allowed the microwaves to emit a burst of frequencies not expected by the scientists, only compounding the original mystery.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

17-Year-Old Radio Astronomy Mystery Traced Back To Kitchen Microwave More

17-Year-Old Radio Astronomy Mystery Traced Back To Kitchen Microwave

Comments Filter:

  • Brand? (Score:5, Funny)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @02:25PM (#49632183)

    I'd like to know which brand of microwave lasts 17 years?

    • I have a Sharp R-5000E which has been trucking for couple of decades.

    • My parents still have their original microwave from around 1985. They had to replace the light bulb once so far. Mine is a $50 KMart special that is still working 10 years later.

    • My GE microwave is 23 years old.

    • I'd like to know which brand of microwave lasts 17 years?

      I'm using a 25 year old Panasonic. Before that my parents had a 34 year old microwave. Basic microwaves are so simple it's rare that they fail. The new inverter ones breakdown easily though (parents are on their 3rd one in 10 years)

      • I'd like to know which brand of microwave lasts 17 years?

        I'm using a 25 year old Panasonic. Before that my parents had a 34 year old microwave. Basic microwaves are so simple it's rare that they fail. The new inverter ones breakdown easily though (parents are on their 3rd one in 10 years)

        I have a 15 year old Panasonic. I even went looking for something to replace it a while back, wanting a stainless steel one instead of white but, based on the reviews, most models today seem to be built to last only 3 years.

        • most models today seem to be built to last only 3 years.

          This isn't just the case for Microwaves. Refrigerators, washing machines, and many other big appliances seem to be built with a 10 year maximum lifespan. Somewhere along the way, the manufacturers figured out just how long a device should work so that users won't think of them as defective (breaking in the first year = bad) but not lasting so long that they miss out on people buying new devices to replace the older ones. If your washing machine last

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by amorsen ( 7485 )

            If you have a 10 year old washing machine, the likelihood is that a new one will pay itself back in energy + water savings in a few years. The efficiency improvements in white goods over the last decade have been astounding.

            • Remember to include the manufacturing energy consumed to replace it every 10 years. It is not obvious that the small efficiency increases outweigh the difference in lifespan. A belief one way or the other needs to be based on numbers, or else "efficiency" isn't being understood.

              Also remember that the efficiency numbers published on the device label is just a benchmark. It doesn't compare actual loads. For example, newer machines tend to waste less power when you do really small loads. That really, really he

              • Re:Brand? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by adolf ( 21054 ) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @09:01PM (#49634937) Journal

                Remember to include the manufacturing energy consumed to replace it every 10 years.

                Why do people keep talking about the energy used in manufacturing as if it is a separate thing? That energy is already built into the purchase price of the item, from the energy consumed by the machines digging the ore to the truck delivering the finished product to your doorstep, and including all of the energy which in turn was used to produce those machines.

                It doesn't need to be factored separately. It's already a part of the equation.

                That said, the primary energy savings in a new-fangled front-load washer/drier combo seems to be in having a better/faster spin cycle: The less-wet that the clothes are after they exit the washer, the less heat energy the drier needs to use to finish the job of producing dry clothes.

                (And none of this beats a washer (any semi-modern automatic washer) and an outdoor clothesline, weather-permitting.)

            • Perhaps. Clothes dryers not so much.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by alen ( 225700 )

            10 years is about the average time people stay in a home until moving and when people buy a new home they like to buy their own stuff for it

            win win

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jythie ( 914043 )
            Consumer expectations have also changed, with people more reluctant to invest in quality equipment and more likely to buy larger amounts of cheaper products.

      • Household here has gotten through many microwaves over the years. Not one from electrical fault. It's always the body that goes - paint cracks, steam gets in, steel corrodes. Blisters and rust.

        There's just not much to go wrong in one. There are only two moving parts: The cooling fan, and the motor that spins the turntable. Both of which are done using brushless motors. The actual microwave stuff is a transformer, capacitor, diode and old-fashioned vacuum tube coupled to a waveguide.

    • Re:Brand? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Defenestrar ( 1773808 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @03:14PM (#49632689)
      In college I lived with a few guys who had one (brand unknown - nameplate had fallen off) built when faux wood and analog control dials were the thing of the future. It still worked just fine - whether or not the door was open.

    • Almost all of them?
      Microwaves are like Volvos: they keep working long past the point where you decide you need a new one.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by alen ( 225700 )

      whatever my mother in law has and whatever doesn't come out of walmart

    • I have a 30 year old Panasonic and a 29 year old that I don't remember the brand name. They both get lots of use and still work great!

    • I know someone who beats all the rest of you: my mother's bff still uses her Amana Radarange she got in 1969.

    • Re:Brand? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @03:52PM (#49633047)

      What amazes me most is the failure to notice the modulation frequency and ti's phase lock to local power.

      Non inverter (all older) micrwaves use a 1/2 wave voltage doubler so the magnitron is only on for 1/2 the AC cycle. Google Microwave oven power supply to see a typical schematic.

      For unexpected frequencies, a non linerate in RF from arcing in the door seal can cause odd order harmonics. EG splattered food on the door seal area.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jaime2 ( 824950 )
      I'm surprised they lasted that long, but for a specific reason: what they were doing typically breaks microwave ovens. There is a switch that turns the magnetron off when the door is open, but if it opens while there is current flowing, it creates an arc. This arc causes a lot more wear than if the switch had opened with no current flowing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I'm surprised they lasted that long, but for a specific reason: what they were doing typically breaks microwave ovens. There is a switch that turns the magnetron off when the door is open, but if it opens while there is current flowing, it creates an arc. This arc causes a lot more wear than if the switch had opened with no current flowing.

        Actually, I believe most safety switches don't cut out the power supply to the magnetron - they instead either signal the microprocessor to shut down the power supply or

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sconeu ( 64226 )

      There's a Sharp in my kitchen -- a vent hood model -- that was in there and old when I bought the house in 1999. By my count that's a minimum of 16, and given that it was old even then, probably much more.

    • I'd like to know which brand of microwave lasts 17 years?

      *.*

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      I'd like to know which brand of microwave lasts 17 years?

      Any brand, so long as it was made more than 25 years ago or so.

      My kids like to watch vintage TV shows, and in one sitcom from the early 80s there was a plot line involving a TV remote -- this was back when remotes were still an expensive novelty. I paused and pointed out the thing in question. It was huge blocky moster of metal and wood, and looked like it had been forged by Durin in the deeps of Mount Gundabad. While virtually everything they use is incomparably more sophisticated than that thing, nothi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        Of all the Cheap Chinese Crap I've had to deal with, remote controls have probably been the least troublesome. They generally live as long as the devices they control, and who knows what's left in them after that?

        Now if only the Rii Touch keyboard had been as reliable...

    • Not sure of the brand but my mother's microwave was bought in 89. Still works just fine. So that is 26 years. Massive beast too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by marciot ( 598356 )

      I'd like to know which brand of microwave lasts 17 years?

      Maybe it’s one of the originals made by Raytheon.

  • Now the climate deniers are going to pounce on us all. What's next, a Tachyon Field Generator inside the Large Hadron Collider?

  • NEW SOUTH WALES, you insensitive clod! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ann O'Nymous-Coward ( 460094 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @02:32PM (#49632243)

    Thar she blows! Typo off the starboard bow! Give it the trusty nitpick, er, harpoon...

    • Thar she blows! Typo off the starboard bow! Give it the trusty nitpick, er, harpoon...

      Close. It should be "Nuke the Whales"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        Thar she blows! Typo off the starboard bow! Give it the trusty nitpick, er, harpoon...

        Close. It should be "Nuke the Whales"

        Keep up please, now days it is Nuke the unborn gay whales

    • Shows what you know! Those are the fresh Confederate cetacean recruits!

  • 15 co-authors (Score:3)

    by Flyskippy1 ( 625890 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @02:39PM (#49632313) Homepage

    I'm surprised that the paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.02165v1.pdf) required 15 co-authors. It seems like the sort of thing I'd give to an undergrad to write once somebody figured it out...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by pla ( 258480 )
      "So, Dr. Flyskippy1, how many papers did you get published this year? Oh, only eight? Yeah, we need you to move out of the corner office next week to make room for a star postdoc who helped solve a radio astronomy mystery that stumped you tenured geniuses for the past 17 years. No hard feelings, right?"

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        In my experience, papers where you're not the first or second author aren't really counted as toward a single person's research performance. For the purposes of looking at project performance and adviser performance, it doesn't matter if the adviser or PI's name actually appears on the paper.

        Extra authors usually comes down to either courtesy or policy, to acknowledge those that helped contribute to the paper or project.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by khr ( 708262 )

      Maybe that's everybody in their office who's nuked some popcorn to generate the mystery in the first place.

    • I think this is normal for fields like astronomy which involve a large number of scientists sharing a single, very expensive, piece of equipment.

    • I'm surprised it was written at all. Would YOU want anyone to know that you'd spent 17 years looking out into the galaxy for a signal that only occurred during office hours on weekdays and came from the microwave oven in your own break room? It would be much less embarrassing to just buy a new microwave and let the signals mysteriously disappear. Maybe attribute them to some convenient change in the galactic environment. Or maybe even better to remove sources of microwaves from the vicinity of an operating

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I'm surprised it was written at all. Would YOU want anyone to know that you'd spent 17 years looking out into the galaxy for a signal that only occurred during office hours on weekdays and came from the microwave oven in your own break room? It would be much less embarrassing to just buy a new microwave and let the signals mysteriously disappear. Maybe attribute them to some convenient change in the galactic environment. Or maybe even better to remove sources of microwaves from the vicinity of an operating

        • Perhaps it happened a touch more often around noon,

          If you read the paper, you'll find the histogram of events. The count for 1200 to 1300 local was 25, and if you combine the "lunch hour" (1100 to 1400) the total is 40. The total events attributed to FRB was 12. "A touch more" is an understatement. The paper makes the comment that they were probably under-detecting the "lunch hour" since that's when the dish was often down for maintenance.

          there's also an interesting spike from 0800-0900, which I would guess is people getting to work nuking their first cof

        • once had a system that would go down between 10 and 12. Trouble was NT used a longer time stamp than 98 was a 'y2k upgrade'

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      I'm surprised that the paper required 15 co-authors

      They should consider "juicing it up" to make it sound more worthy:

      "Using Dr. Foo's bi-directional triangulation method, the source of the mysterious Peryton radiation was eventually pin-pointed after 17 years of difficult and dangerous research among native fauna.

      The source turned out to be a cuboid cooking mechanism used by the species, Homo Sapiens. Further research was conducted to understand the pattern of behavior related to the cuboid cooking device.

      I

      • It was observed that the Homo Sapiens were warned by their familial matriarch not to open the magic heating device before it had ceased to display magic properties. However, a subset of the pack ignored her and needlessly risked their genetic futures, creating the high probability of either individual sterility or dangerous mutations leading to unwarranted increased sentience or higher levels of rational thought.

        FTFY.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      This sort of work is clearly worthy of an Ignobel nomination.

  • Somewhere in there is a Farside cartoon waiting to happen.

  • One of my favorite films was "The Dish" staring Sam Neil. A slightly fictionalized retelling of how Parkes was used to broadcast the Appollo 11 Moon landings.

  • Now if you could finally come up with a cooking preset to get Hot Pocket and Burritos to cook evenly without an ice-cold center
  • If they eluded observation for 17 years, how did they know they were happening? Perhaps "elude identification"?

    And a signal that happens only on weekdays during office hours? They thought there was any chance that these were extraterrestrial in origin? "Searching the galaxy for 17 years.." How did the aliens get our calendar to know when we have weekends? (I know -- they went into the Home Depot and picked up a free one before going out front to find temp work for the day...) That still doesn't explain on

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by amorsen ( 7485 )

      They did not spend millions of dollars looking for the microwave oven, and they knew all along that the signal was man-made. Figuring out precisely which item made it is the kind of thing that gets you in the newspapers, so they did a little PR stunt.

      Their usual work changes our understanding of the universe but does not have a chance to make it into the mainstream news. Can you begrudge them their 15 minutes of fame?

      • Re:Elude observation? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @04:43PM (#49633451)

        They did not spend millions of dollars looking for the microwave oven,

        Time on a radio telescope and the associated equipment (including supercomputer time) is not free. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but not excessive considering the venue of my comment.

        and they knew all along that the signal was man-made.

        I'll yield on that one. The paper says the properties of the signal "suggested" it was in the near field. It was only TFA (BBC) that says:

        After 17 years of fruitlessly searching the galaxy,

        Figuring out precisely which item made it is the kind of thing that gets you in the newspapers,

        Figuring out that a microwave oven generated microwave signals picked up by a microwave antenna at the same building may make the newspapers in Australia, but in advanced countries it wouldn't. OTH, we do have to own the idea that people in the US don't seem to understand that cell phones use radio waves, so nobody is completely innocent. The difference is that these are radio astronomy scientists and the cell-phone ignoramii are mostly Joe Sixpack and his cousin Bubba types.

        Can you begrudge them their 15 minutes of fame?

        You think someone becomes famous because they discover the obvious? You ought to read the paper. It's a hoot.

        First, they used a communications receiver with a directional antenna that made a full circle every 20 minutes and obtained 0.1 sec of data at any given frequency. That they thought this receiver would observe RFI that lasts for 200ms and occurs rarely (three events during Jan-Mar 2015) is, well, not flattering to their experiment design qualifications.

        Then they tested three microwaves at three locations by looking for emissions while heating a cup of water for 10 - 60s. Interestingly, they found perytons during this test. What they couldn't figure out is how the microwave they were testing at the time could have gotten a signal to the antenna -- it was blocked. A real puzzler. Then they found out that they had forgotten their control protocol for the experiment. Someone was using one of the other two microwave ovens while they were testing the third. Basic science: if you want to test object A for causality, you don't allow object B to be used at the same time. Corollary 1: if you're just going to come up with reasons why the observations were impossible, why bother making them in the first place?

        Long story short: a facility that needs to avoid RFI at microwave frequencies took no precautions to avoid RFI at microwave frequencies and spent a lot of time (where the Beeb comes up with 17 years I can't determine) trying to figure out where the RFI they were seeing came from, and quite a bit of time analyzing what they knew was RFI so they could distinguish what they already knew was RFI from signals they already know are galactic in origin.

        Anyone who knows that radio waves aren't magic and that microwave ovens are called microwave ovens because they use microwave radiation is scratching his head wondering why they didn't just get rid of the microwave ovens 17 years ago and not put 17 years worth of scientific research into galactic radio phenomena in jeopardy. The fact that they now have to defend the observations of FRB as real could have been prevented by one simple rule: no sources of RF on site. That they've publicly admitted they didn't take this obvious, basic preventative measure isn't "fame".

    • If you assume the word "galaxy" implies "aliens," you're going to have a hard time understanding any radio astronomy.

      Actually, they weren't searching the galaxy. As the abstract mentions, the (real) FRB 010724 signals are excellent candidates for genuine extra-galactic transients.

      • If you assume the word "galaxy" implies "aliens," you're going to have a hard time understanding any radio astronomy.

        Whoosh. And I thought the comment about Home Depot would be a dead giveaway that the aliens bit was a joke.

  • I'm surprised it took so long for such learned men (and women) to figure that out. I get elusive, I get intermittent... but still.. 17 freaking years. They already knew it mainly happened during office hours, that should have been a good place to start.

    • Yeah, but it always happened when they were gone...it was like those god damned aliens *waited* until lunch time to pull their stunt, and no matter how fast the scientists rushed to get back - sometimes not even waiting until the food was done - it always happened right before they got back. ;-)

      (btw - I naturally didn't rtfa, but if they worked odd shifts from time to time it would have show up occasionally during non-work hours, throwing them off.)

    • A lot of people are making wild assumptions just based on the phrasings in the media.

      It was known for that long as an Earth-based signal. There is not actually a huge need to explain all of those. There are lots of Earth-based signals a radio telescope picks up. The goal is mostly to identify what the signal looks like, how to detect it, how to subtract or exclude it from the results.

      You make it sound almost like you think they spent 17 years looking for this. No. They first observed it 17 years ago. 17 yea

  • Patient: "Doctor, I get a sharp pain in my eye when I drink my tea."

    Doctor: "Take the spoon out of the cup."

    This is basically the same thing.

  • This article [wired.com] claims that the National Radio Astronomy Observatory [nrao.edu] in Green Bank, WV, has the "cafeteria's microwave oven is kept in a shielded cage" and "Large chambers designed to absorb radio waves - including a 5,000-square-foot conference room - have been built to make sure that, as Sizemore tells it, "radiation generated in the building stays in the building."

    I visited NRAO once and got to drive a diesel '69 Checker cab (no spark plugs).

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I told you the Burrito Nebula wasn't real

  • Much like the NASA EM drive, this happens when a virtual quantum burrito is created in the microwave chamber. Not only is thrust always guaranteed in the event that a burrito is in the microwave chamber, but virtual quantum burritos tend to be very loud in the EM spectrum due to quantum entanglement of the burrito particles.

    Mmmm... burrito...

  • Not news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MPBoulton ( 3865641 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @03:15PM (#49632701)

    I worked at Jodrell Bank (the largest radio telescope in the UK) for a summer almost 10 years ago, and their on-site kitchen microwave was surrounded by a Faraday cage to prevent the microwave from interferring with signals picked up by the telescope.

    To imply that astronomers had no idea that the microwave could be responsible is just a lie, this is a well-known problem that was solved a long time ago.

  • AT&T DSL mystery tied to faulty CFL ballast (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whyde ( 123448 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @04:03PM (#49633133)

    I had a friend who was bemoaning how his "crappy" AT&T DSL service would flake out every evening at about the same time, and he'd had techs out to replace his DSL modem twice, re-do the wiring to his house, everything! He asked me whether I was happy with TWC (I wasn't), because he was fed up and was going to switch.

    We got talking in general. I asked him whether he'd also done any renovating around his house, no matter what type. He admitted that he'd recently replaced all of his exterior house lights with CFL equivalents, and I asked him whether any were on timers, sensors, etc. He admitted that there was an exterior flood light on a light sensor.

    I asked him if that sensor turned on that lamp about the same time of day his DSL service flaked out. His expression dropped. He replaced that one light with an incandescent, and the problem went away.

  • Wrong Wrong Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stox ( 131684 )

    The reason for Linux's success was due to the momentum that BSD/386 had built up. With the AT&T Lawsuit, everyone was looking for an alternative that AT&T could not claim was derivative work. Linux was in the right place, at the right time. They all jumped on, and ran! The rest is history.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close