tubee said:
So let's see, Einstein made the occasional mistake in his theorizing therefore everything everyone else does must be based on total falsehood and silliness because, after all, if Einstein could make a mistake, just image the layers upon layers of mistakes made by the average highly educated person. You can't believe anything anyone says, therefore, your ideas about things are as good as anyone else's.
I think you need to look up the definition of competent. Einstein may not have been perfect, but he most certainly was competent. People educated in specific fields (areas of study, NOT magnetic or electrical fields!) know much more about them than people who are not educated about them. That is why, for example, engineers can make things like semiconductors and hard disk drives, and even DECT cordless phones. And that is why companies that make such things hire people who are educated in those fields.
ak_47_boy said:
Intentionally causing interference IS illegal, no matter what power level you use. Our friend doesn't need to jam signals, he needs an aluminum foil hat.
I_F
Will look up for the term incompetent.
Btw looked at your first posted links I_F looked at some videoos, all mumbu jumbo imo.
That aluminium hat is to me recommended by a collegue also.
When you are right I_F, EM radiation 99.9% certain innociousis, i am gald i protected my daugter from it, even when only 0.1 % chance of "harmful"
Tests told otherwise by now, about 50% of investigations say it is harmful, 50% say not. (and some of them are funded by the telephone company's)
Btw looked at your first posted links I_F looked at some videoos, all mumbu jumbo imo.
That aluminium hat is to me recommended by a collegue also.
When you are right I_F, EM radiation 99.9% certain innociousis, i am gald i protected my daugter from it, even when only 0.1 % chance of "harmful"
Tests told otherwise by now, about 50% of investigations say it is harmful, 50% say not. (and some of them are funded by the telephone company's)
I want such a jammer, saw a demo on youtube, a directive antenna can be mounted also. Don't know if dect is disturbed too. It's illegal for sure.
http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2007/10/12/cheap-cellphone-jammer/
Will search some diy solutions and post them soon.
http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2007/10/12/cheap-cellphone-jammer/
Will search some diy solutions and post them soon.
I have a pdf of some jammer circuits, a simple one can be made of an old TV or VCR UHF tuner followed some extra stages, motorola Mostar 30W RF power amplifier, omnidirectional antenna, or preferred, a directional antenna 
Found this too, german site:
http://www.carookee.com/forum/broadcasting/1
My personal last-night-thoughts about "competent"
When person "A" says he is competent on a certain field, there must be someone else (sitting in a board or whatever) who must be more "competent" and judging if "A" really is. But who verifies if that judge is competent? (Even after judge ahs a Cum Laude graduation?) If person "A" sets up new formulas or a new thesis, who can verify his competence? So in the end everybody might be incompetent. There are a lot of persons believed to be competent in this world.
If someone is competent in EM radiation, he or she might not have comprehend the possible biological effects because it is not his "field". For a biologist talking about EM it could be the same.
_________________________________________________________________________
Now the definition of competent from a dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/competently) found this morning:
competent
Main Entry:
com·pe·tent Listen to the pronunciation of competent
Pronunciation:
\ˈkäm-pə-tənt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, suitable, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin competent-, competens, from present participle of competere
Date:
15th century
1: proper or rightly pertinent2: having requisite or adequate ability or qualities : fit <a competent teacher> <a competent piece of work>3: legally qualified or adequate <a competent witness>4: having the capacity to function or develop in a particular way; specifically : having the capacity to respond (as by producing an antibody) to an antigenic determinant <immunologically competent cells>
synonyms see sufficient
— com·pe·tent·ly adverb
Found this too, german site:
http://www.carookee.com/forum/broadcasting/1
My personal last-night-thoughts about "competent"
When person "A" says he is competent on a certain field, there must be someone else (sitting in a board or whatever) who must be more "competent" and judging if "A" really is. But who verifies if that judge is competent? (Even after judge ahs a Cum Laude graduation?) If person "A" sets up new formulas or a new thesis, who can verify his competence? So in the end everybody might be incompetent. There are a lot of persons believed to be competent in this world.
If someone is competent in EM radiation, he or she might not have comprehend the possible biological effects because it is not his "field". For a biologist talking about EM it could be the same.
_________________________________________________________________________
Now the definition of competent from a dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/competently) found this morning:
competent
Main Entry:
com·pe·tent Listen to the pronunciation of competent
Pronunciation:
\ˈkäm-pə-tənt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, suitable, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin competent-, competens, from present participle of competere
Date:
15th century
1: proper or rightly pertinent2: having requisite or adequate ability or qualities : fit <a competent teacher> <a competent piece of work>3: legally qualified or adequate <a competent witness>4: having the capacity to function or develop in a particular way; specifically : having the capacity to respond (as by producing an antibody) to an antigenic determinant <immunologically competent cells>
synonyms see sufficient
— com·pe·tent·ly adverb
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie
Finally a photo of a hat, waited for it all the time. Lets see, where have i seen one too, oh yes here it is: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1325221#post1325221
But head-spaz's hat is better, it screens more surface!
But head-spaz's hat is better, it screens more surface!
I've been making WDCT/DECT phone for 6 years, and yes, the 100Hz modulation is very true. We call it TDD noise (Time Domain Duplexing).
Heavy shielding and lots of small caps were added to lessen the problem. But the interference to other device are no cure. That's why I can use my guitar amp as a call indicator.
The problem is even more severe with modile phone, where RF power is 10dB higher.
Heavy shielding and lots of small caps were added to lessen the problem. But the interference to other device are no cure. That's why I can use my guitar amp as a call indicator.
The problem is even more severe with modile phone, where RF power is 10dB higher.
The GHz EM radiation alone is not that bad, the combination of 100Hz modulated waveform with the Ghz Dect radiation is the problem. It cannonates through concrete walls, and our body. (wich absorbs quite some energy from it)
I have measured EM radiation from my HP 1.8Ghz pc, first off, switched on. Maximum reading reached 50mV/m right on the processor. (sidepanel off, on mobo) The speaker of the analyser made a sort of buzzing sound then. Turning and pointing the analizer to a remote (800M?) GSM/UMTS antenna, the speaker made a sharp and hollow knirping sound due to the modulating (GSM-modulate frequency is about 400Hz?) and reading 12mV/m
My doughter sleeps better in a EM shielded bed, i know her by now. It is not a coincidence.
For a few weeks ago i searched for a gamepad. 80% of them is wireless allready. Not the best choice if you ask me to put that stuff in your kid's hands. Bought a cheap wired USB one. Also mouses, printers, back speakers of surround systems, cellphone connection systems, everything must be "sans fil" nowadays. The problem of a small gsm transmitter alone is not that bad i gues, we deal with it from around 1994. The problem exagerates when all our gadgets multiplexes EM waiste around us.
I should design a EM radiation inhibiter, a tool wich creates a conta-signal in the Mhz to few Ghz range to compensate EM. difficult i guess. For audio allready available (Sennheiser has a contra-sound earphone for eg airplane)
I have measured EM radiation from my HP 1.8Ghz pc, first off, switched on. Maximum reading reached 50mV/m right on the processor. (sidepanel off, on mobo) The speaker of the analyser made a sort of buzzing sound then. Turning and pointing the analizer to a remote (800M?) GSM/UMTS antenna, the speaker made a sharp and hollow knirping sound due to the modulating (GSM-modulate frequency is about 400Hz?) and reading 12mV/m
My doughter sleeps better in a EM shielded bed, i know her by now. It is not a coincidence.
For a few weeks ago i searched for a gamepad. 80% of them is wireless allready. Not the best choice if you ask me to put that stuff in your kid's hands. Bought a cheap wired USB one. Also mouses, printers, back speakers of surround systems, cellphone connection systems, everything must be "sans fil" nowadays. The problem of a small gsm transmitter alone is not that bad i gues, we deal with it from around 1994. The problem exagerates when all our gadgets multiplexes EM waiste around us.
I should design a EM radiation inhibiter, a tool wich creates a conta-signal in the Mhz to few Ghz range to compensate EM. difficult i guess. For audio allready available (Sennheiser has a contra-sound earphone for eg airplane)
Thanks for advise anonymous1.
5 cities in the UK, for me some nearer have also WIFI towns. In about ten years from now we surely learned more and understand better the effects of all that EM waiste to us and our kids. Wifi town, what a "development" and a rich contribution of our society. Everybody can communicate with laptops and cellphones, the real physical 'talking' communication is gone then in the future. That's the biggest waiste we get on top.
5 cities in the UK, for me some nearer have also WIFI towns. In about ten years from now we surely learned more and understand better the effects of all that EM waiste to us and our kids. Wifi town, what a "development" and a rich contribution of our society. Everybody can communicate with laptops and cellphones, the real physical 'talking' communication is gone then in the future. That's the biggest waiste we get on top.
What people like to forget is those old AMPS cell phones we don't hardly have here in the US anymore (because they will be outlawed soon to change that frequency over to digital). They ran 1 and 3 watts of power all the time. Now we have PCS running TDMA, CDMA, GSM...and the slightly more powerful nextel iDen for the short time it is supposed to last. Anyway, the common CDMA runs a max of 600mw, just over half a watt. It will only run that high if you are far from a site or in a poor coverage area. The phone continuously lowers power until it has to increase it (there is minimum of about a 386cpu of computing power running the call in a CDMA phone). This is primarily done for two reasons....one is battery life, that is the only way you can have that tiny phone with the tiny battery. Note if you have one that can run analog (AMPS) and do, it will die very quickly like 20min talk time (compare that to a week of use from the phone I had that did that, that right there shows you the amount of energy used). Second is interference, because with the limited frequency band it is very congested and every call raises the noise floor. So, the question is how sick are those people who had AMPS cell phones years ago? All of this new stuff is aimed at low power for reasons more serious than your health. Another factor is distance and dispersion, as you go away from the source your exposure drops greatly unless the antenna is very focused. That is why you don't get power off of towers unless you get up by the panels. Being 1" from your phone antenna however, you do get some but the phone is very limited in output. While the tower puts out more, say 8 or 16 watts (while your microwave puts out 800-1,000), it also has huge 'ears' to hear the tiny little phone. That is another reason more short towers are better than one big one; because they will put out less power with better coverage. Not to mention that one big tower will not work because you can't reuse your frequency in different parts of that area (say a town) so it has to work that way and works better that way. Once a few carriers get coverage the tower building will stop.
Last I knew some cells maxed out at 400mw, and of course home cordless phones have less or you would be required to license them. I don't recall the limits on those, it depends on the frequency used. The high frequency (5GH) tend to be higher than the lower(2.4, then 900) but higher frequency does not travel as far.
AMPS is an old (+/- 1983) analog system. The problem with the nowadays used digital systems is the combination of the modulated frequencies, even when low powered. This modulation is needed to improve transmit distances with the low powers used.
We have dealt a very long time, maybe a 100 years now, with analog AM, FM, VHF and UHF bands, no problem, or only small maybe when you sit on an transmitting antenna, because it was analog with a smooth frequency pattern. And also the marine used a long time even more powerful systems. Because AM, FM VHF and UHF is analog, a reasonable high power is needed indeed, AM must be transmitted due to the enourmous wavelenght with considerate high powers. (off topic: AM has a merit, it reflects in our own global atmosfere, and so is transmittable over very very long distances)
Biologists in germany and over the world agreed the combination of high freq. with modulated sub frequencies of the digital systems is the problem.
We have dealt a very long time, maybe a 100 years now, with analog AM, FM, VHF and UHF bands, no problem, or only small maybe when you sit on an transmitting antenna, because it was analog with a smooth frequency pattern. And also the marine used a long time even more powerful systems. Because AM, FM VHF and UHF is analog, a reasonable high power is needed indeed, AM must be transmitted due to the enourmous wavelenght with considerate high powers. (off topic: AM has a merit, it reflects in our own global atmosfere, and so is transmittable over very very long distances)
Biologists in germany and over the world agreed the combination of high freq. with modulated sub frequencies of the digital systems is the problem.
CDMA actually runs on a band of frequency, not just one, and the signal is a digital spread spectrum. My point is technology like this offers communication at low power levels and low energy consumption previously not possible. It also uses less bandwidth. Given the fact that a modern cell phone battery could not run an old flashlight for that long, just how can it damage the human body? In addition the human body is mostly water, and that absorbs the signal handily thus why you can block the signal with your hand when measuring...this would be turned into heat then, and make it very difficult for the signal to penetrate inside the body. Not the same, but look at the heat sunlight can generate on you in contrast to a phone you can't measure. Sure anything is possible, but there appear to be more important things in life to worry about.
I talk about cell phones because they have more power than any home phone, at least a legal one here in the US, and cell power is much reduced today. I have found no evidence that digital or analog radio waves are detectable by a human under regulated practice, let alone one more than the other. For all intensive purposes the cell phone is considered intrinsically safe. I even laugh at the signs in gas stations here saying not to use them when people are driving cars up to the pumps....in cars with hot parts because there is fire in the engine? Doh. Too many people believe every made up tall tail chain letter they get in their email. Our idiot media does not help, instead of reporting actual news they like to talk about this non-sensical drivel and make a big deal about actually telling the truth on the occasion they do.
I talk about cell phones because they have more power than any home phone, at least a legal one here in the US, and cell power is much reduced today. I have found no evidence that digital or analog radio waves are detectable by a human under regulated practice, let alone one more than the other. For all intensive purposes the cell phone is considered intrinsically safe. I even laugh at the signs in gas stations here saying not to use them when people are driving cars up to the pumps....in cars with hot parts because there is fire in the engine? Doh. Too many people believe every made up tall tail chain letter they get in their email. Our idiot media does not help, instead of reporting actual news they like to talk about this non-sensical drivel and make a big deal about actually telling the truth on the occasion they do.
I agree the useless worries about cellphone's in hospitals and gasstations. The katalisator of a car could easily set grass in fire.
I had an Opel Astra, a woman in germany was set in fire at a gasstation with that same type car, electrostatic discharge. All Astra cars where provided with a grounding clamp on fuelinlet. So, one person was set in fire one time, and all cars, maybe 100.000 cars where checked to solve this and never let reoccur. There are a lot of people in the world who have undeclared medical problems wich might be caused by EM radiation, but there are NO measures taken. Remember, all that people have the same symptoms, as soon as a GSM antenna was placed. In Sweden the Swedisch government provide the EM sensitive people with anti-radiation paint for free, an expensive paint. There they might begin to understand the problem.
Agree, there are also sick-building syndrome people who complain about a nearby gsm antenna, claim they have problems, even when the antenna is never switched on!
Our body consists in great deal of water indeed. The power rates of transmitting equipment is tested on a few litres bag of water, as big as our head. Then they cranked up the power, until the water is heated one degree celcius. The huge energy level to reach 1 degr. is not set as reference for maximum power level for future communication systems, but they set it about 100 times lower (i am not certain on the right value) to be sure never exceeding the safety level of 1 degr. heating.
But, there is one big mistake in this whole in vitro theory: our body consists of a largely more complicated system compared to a bag of water: innervated muscles, blood vessels, cavities (as long as the wavelenght of the transmitted freqencies) nerves, nerve controlled hormone levels, biological processes working on very tiny voltages. And they are sensitive reacting, at least for some people, on disturbances from EM waiste we fly around in our atmosphere. In vitro no complications, but wat happens in vivo?
I had an Opel Astra, a woman in germany was set in fire at a gasstation with that same type car, electrostatic discharge. All Astra cars where provided with a grounding clamp on fuelinlet. So, one person was set in fire one time, and all cars, maybe 100.000 cars where checked to solve this and never let reoccur. There are a lot of people in the world who have undeclared medical problems wich might be caused by EM radiation, but there are NO measures taken. Remember, all that people have the same symptoms, as soon as a GSM antenna was placed. In Sweden the Swedisch government provide the EM sensitive people with anti-radiation paint for free, an expensive paint. There they might begin to understand the problem.
Agree, there are also sick-building syndrome people who complain about a nearby gsm antenna, claim they have problems, even when the antenna is never switched on!
Our body consists in great deal of water indeed. The power rates of transmitting equipment is tested on a few litres bag of water, as big as our head. Then they cranked up the power, until the water is heated one degree celcius. The huge energy level to reach 1 degr. is not set as reference for maximum power level for future communication systems, but they set it about 100 times lower (i am not certain on the right value) to be sure never exceeding the safety level of 1 degr. heating.
But, there is one big mistake in this whole in vitro theory: our body consists of a largely more complicated system compared to a bag of water: innervated muscles, blood vessels, cavities (as long as the wavelenght of the transmitted freqencies) nerves, nerve controlled hormone levels, biological processes working on very tiny voltages. And they are sensitive reacting, at least for some people, on disturbances from EM waiste we fly around in our atmosphere. In vitro no complications, but wat happens in vivo?
They have never been able to get a phone to produce enough power to make any static electricity. The only time they could start a fire was when defective/fake batteries melted down, much like the sony laptops did. A car can generate a lot of it easily with thousands of moving parts. Defective tires with wrong amount of carbon in them can cause it.
There may be fringe issues with all this, possibly...on the other hand try to tell even one person they do not need wireless products!
There may be fringe issues with all this, possibly...on the other hand try to tell even one person they do not need wireless products!
I have an old CT+ telephone, it sends out a tiny analog power level @ 800Mhz, not pulsating. It starts to send/receive when i pick up the phone.
I had a dect telephone, it radiates 250mW, so a lot more the the CT+, and the base station radiates 24 ours a day / 7 days a week, wether i use it or not. The power output in RMS maybe only 250mW average, but because of the digital signal the power peak levels are very high. Unfortunate this technology is used more and more, even babyphone have dect, the parents don't understand the crying every night of their baby. After removal of dect: good nightrest again, for parent and child.
I don't understand why there are no measures taken to reduce that technology worldwide, or improve it, with better in vivo test results. The time will learn.
I had a dect telephone, it radiates 250mW, so a lot more the the CT+, and the base station radiates 24 ours a day / 7 days a week, wether i use it or not. The power output in RMS maybe only 250mW average, but because of the digital signal the power peak levels are very high. Unfortunate this technology is used more and more, even babyphone have dect, the parents don't understand the crying every night of their baby. After removal of dect: good nightrest again, for parent and child.
I don't understand why there are no measures taken to reduce that technology worldwide, or improve it, with better in vivo test results. The time will learn.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.