Instead of shutting it down couldn't he put the miner in a faraday cage?
Surrounding the device with metal containing 2.1cm (0.85in) holes would probably work and only require minor modifications to support heat dissipation.
Side note, now everyone knows Victor Rosario in Brooklyn probably has a bunch of cryptocurrency...
[1] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
At 1155 GH/s, he has probably mined upwards of several dozen dollars worth of cryptocurrency this month. And an extra hundred dollars on his power bill, assuming it’s not included in his rent.
And in that case, a miner is just as efficent if not more efficient since it's making the user some money (maybe).
https://www.amazon.com/Honeywell-MM14CHCS-Portable-Condition...
Portable heat pump + air con. I've had something like this before, typically comes with something to slot/seal up into a gap from leaving the window open. Can be moved between rentals.
OTOH a mining rig, well who knows that IS complicated. You might lose money, or spend a lot of time tweaking but break even.
EDIT: mixed them up, Spoondoolies ones had a nice mesh but the Antminer ones don't behind the fans. That 1" of plastic must be enough to let a significant amount through (or the power supply wires still)
You dissipate the heat into the faraday cage. There's been a patent for this: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5901040
Powerline Ethernet has this problem, but it uses only a 25MHz carrier wave, so it only bothers hams.
“Faraday cages are also used to enclose devices that produce RFI, such as radio transmitters, to prevent their radio waves from interfering with other nearby equipment.”
The fault is on FCC side for approving borderline power supplies.
However, I think the fact that the Faraday cage is not symmetric when it comes to static electric fields is very interesting. Ask yourself this: how does the cage know what "inside" versus "outside" means? You know the old joke where a mathematician has to enclose the greatest area with a given fence and so she takes the fence and wraps it around herself and declares "I am outside the fence." Well, why can't I declare myself to be inside the Faraday cage and suddenly get the benefits of its shielding?
You might say that the difference is that the outside has the "boundary" of the universe and that makes it distinct from the inside. [1] But we don't yet know that the universe isn't finite and wrapped up on itself spatially, so if that were the difference, then isn't a Faraday cage experimental evidence in favor of the universe not being finite? I think therein lies the answer: if we wanted to actually use this as an experiment, we would have to place a charge outside of the Faraday cage and wait for sufficiently long time that the electric field is effectively static. However, for our experiment to work, we would have to wait so long that the electric field becomes static on the scale of the entire universe. And so no, the Faraday cage is not an experiment we can practically perform to measure the shape of the universe and the difference is the obvious one: the exterior is the larger one and is simply just "big enough" that we can't ever wait for the EM fields to settle down in the exterior like we can on the interior.
[1] Mathematically, this come in as the fact that the Poincare lemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_and_exact_differential_... requires a "contractible" domain. The exterior of the cage is not contractible, so we are not guaranteed to be able to use the integral forms of Maxwell's equations over the exterior of the cage. However, the interior is contractible.
What are you on about?
>So for all intents and purposes, the cage generates the same DC electric field that it would generate if it were simply affected by the charge placed inside.
You said:
> Faraday cage complete protects the interior from external charges but does nothing to shield the interior from the external charges
So you are saying that the interior IS protected from but IS NOT shielded from the exterior charges. Most people would expect "protected from" and "shielded from" to mean the same thing. Hence the confusion.