The up-point seems to be, it does not happen in Europe (or any other part of the world except for America(USA)).
http://www.jointlinepoint.com/download/Cell_Phones_Poisoning_Of_America.pdf
http://www.jointlinepoint.com/download/Cell_Phones_Poisoning_Of_America.pdf
Reference to a topic of a single or some studies and turning it into an established fact is what this document does (Logical Health LLC).
George
Me publishing this was intended to have a good measure of sarcasm 🙂
It is more than 40 years ago that I operated a (2 meter) licensed ham-radio station, part of the needed paper work was to learn what was know about effects of the magnetic fields generated, the power trans mitted by this and the danger to life and health. Nothing as draconisch as in the referred paper.
Anyway, me saying that this only was of influence to America and the Americans was to signal non-seriousness 🙂
I really hope that people (are you reading this Dan 🙂) do not take that paper too serious.
Last edited:
That's the problem here: Disbelieving everything that is not 'proven' to your satisfaction. Of course, it is important and frustrating to me that people do not accept what I have found as useful in audio design, but this extends to other areas obviously, by certain people who just ignore anything that is not 'nailed down' (and by then, old knowledge, rather than new knowledge).
I find it more useful to keep an open mind about new info, rather than reject it.
I find it more useful to keep an open mind about new info, rather than reject it.
still waiting for the study showing all the problems of holding the cel phone up to one side of the head and the localized damage it causes.
oh, wait, there isn't one!
One of the "famous" studies of the deleterious effects of non-ionizing radiation was a Soviet publication that showed a weight loss in rats exposed to RF in the broadcast band. But no one could replicate the study. It turned out to be the watering tubes, they were made of metal in the Soviet study, and everyone else had been using plastic of some kind. When you used metal watering tubes, the RF levels used drew an arc between the rat and the tube, a sufficient negative stimulus to drink less water and hence subsequent weight loss.
no, I don't have the citation anymore.
Cheers
Alan
oh, wait, there isn't one!
One of the "famous" studies of the deleterious effects of non-ionizing radiation was a Soviet publication that showed a weight loss in rats exposed to RF in the broadcast band. But no one could replicate the study. It turned out to be the watering tubes, they were made of metal in the Soviet study, and everyone else had been using plastic of some kind. When you used metal watering tubes, the RF levels used drew an arc between the rat and the tube, a sufficient negative stimulus to drink less water and hence subsequent weight loss.
no, I don't have the citation anymore.
Cheers
Alan
Hi John,
-Chris
Within reason, sure. But blindingly accepting things that are presented would end us up in the dark ages again. It's important to gage a new idea against what is known for certain and has stood up to testing by your peers. Miracles aren't acceptable in this day and age.
-Chris
I was sure that was your attitude Frans (and you made it clear).🙂
That’s it !
Is this in reference to the recent topic of hidden powers of uranium ore, or the selective miss-use of research papers to support an agenda?
George
I can only hope you‘re not referring to dowsing as ‚new info‘. If not, I clearly apologize.
What do you mean "again"? Do we live in enlightened times? Misinformation is as useful as it's always been
.
I would certainly like to talk about more serious circuit design as well, but I am always being put off by those who would rather divert this thread to their own 'prejudices' than mine. I try to convey what I have found works in audio design, a little above and beyond putting in a few IC's and making sure that it doesn't oscillate, but it is hard to keep trying in this environment. For the record, I thought that that was all there was to it, 50 years ago. I just had to wait for better IC's, so I thought. Caps, resistors, etc, I just used what I could get away with, back then. So when I find people making these same assumptions, I think of myself 45-50 years ago, when I tried and failed a couple of times, and the listener feedback put me back on track. I would hope that people would learn to avoid hi Q ceramic caps, slow IC op amps, and really cheap resistors, but it seems that they cannot learn from the experience of other designers, including me, who have tried and learned over the last 45 years or so to make better designs.
Even some relatively successful designs like Neve, could have been approved more than 40 years ago, because of parts selection. It is rather sad.
Even some relatively successful designs like Neve, could have been approved more than 40 years ago, because of parts selection. It is rather sad.
For a serious discussion John you actually could start a thread in the appropriate section of the general forums. This is a Lounge thread which says it all. 😀
Analogue Line would be the place to start a serious discussion about a line pre-amp design, and I think many would be thrilled if you did.
Analogue Line would be the place to start a serious discussion about a line pre-amp design, and I think many would be thrilled if you did.
Hi John,
I think you have the floor whenever you put things on track. It's when nothing is happening that the course is lost.
Most of what you are talking about is agreed on by most here I would think. It's only when you get onto the tiny weedy paths that you lose your audience and communication breaks down. One perfect example of this would be anything Bybee. Don't go there.
-Chris
Edit:
Kevin also has a point. Outside the lounge things are more seriously considered, and moderated more closely.
I think you have the floor whenever you put things on track. It's when nothing is happening that the course is lost.
Most of what you are talking about is agreed on by most here I would think. It's only when you get onto the tiny weedy paths that you lose your audience and communication breaks down. One perfect example of this would be anything Bybee. Don't go there.
-Chris
Edit:
Kevin also has a point. Outside the lounge things are more seriously considered, and moderated more closely.
John, I know that I have diverted things by discussing dowsing etc, sorry about that.
My purpose is to reinforce the concept that materials can have and can cause unique and identifiable sounds/signatures, and the final sound of a stage or system is not wholly due to the accepted standard measurable THD and IMD distortion mechanisms.
In my experience when system typical materials sounds are optimised/cancelled/overwritten, THD and IMD become of much lesser consequence and present as masking and information loss and do not 'spoil the party' as such.
IOW a mid-fi system can groove and sound fun despite loss of detail....your BT efforts have optimised materials and circuit techniques and the result speaks for itself in terms of detail and musicality.
My experiment earlier this week in recording a rock/blues band bear testimony to the concept that pretty ordinary pro audio gear can sound jaw droppingly good, and the recording captured this ime uniquely well.....the mixdown and distribution will be the proof in the eating.
So, good luck with your efforts in sorting digital conversion sound, I am sure you will succeed, I look forward to hearing of your results.
Dan.
Kevinkr, this thread did NOT START in 'The Lounge'. Go back to part one and check it out. It was put there by the moderators in order to reduce its effectiveness in influencing people, years ago, and probably to discourage me from continuing to support it. I have persisted for about 12 years now with this thread, and I am hopeful to get more from it, by others who contribute something useful.
Dan, I don't mind the 'dowsing' stuff or related subjects, but I don't have to make a decision, one way or another about it, because I have never experienced dousing, and have no need to try it. Yet many here, are in the same position as me and they DO have strong opinions against it, without trying it. That is the problem.
I do believe that there is much that we do not yet understand about physics, and music reproduction, yet I hear 'miracles' with my own ears, sometimes great musical instruments like violins and classical guitars, and sometimes in sound reproduction, where it may not make any sense WHY something sounds better or worse, BUT IT DOES! No why do I stay with this thread? I like the 'links' that you Dan, and others post. For example, a recent link on cell phone 'problems' got me to search Andrew Weil on the internet. Of course, I know about the guy, but in checking him out, I got several links that are very useful to maintaining my health, supplementing what my doctors are already telling me. This is what I get out of the thread, more or less.
Dan, I don't mind the 'dowsing' stuff or related subjects, but I don't have to make a decision, one way or another about it, because I have never experienced dousing, and have no need to try it. Yet many here, are in the same position as me and they DO have strong opinions against it, without trying it. That is the problem.
I do believe that there is much that we do not yet understand about physics, and music reproduction, yet I hear 'miracles' with my own ears, sometimes great musical instruments like violins and classical guitars, and sometimes in sound reproduction, where it may not make any sense WHY something sounds better or worse, BUT IT DOES! No why do I stay with this thread? I like the 'links' that you Dan, and others post. For example, a recent link on cell phone 'problems' got me to search Andrew Weil on the internet. Of course, I know about the guy, but in checking him out, I got several links that are very useful to maintaining my health, supplementing what my doctors are already telling me. This is what I get out of the thread, more or less.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.