I can remember the KZ500; had a couple of high school partying friends in surgery over what happened riding these things. Let's see 60 hp, sub-14 sec 1/4 mile, drum front brake - what could go wrong?
I no longer ride, as life in the PNW and the roads arent what they used to be. Too dangerous, period.
More on topic, can an RTLSDR / HDSDR USB stick radio be used effectively as an RF surveying tool? I think it can get up there pretty high, but unsure if they go all the way into 5G land. Hat's off to the DIY crowd that put that combo together; RF spectrum analysis for the masses? The hardware part is certainly quite reasonable; software free.
I no longer ride, as life in the PNW and the roads arent what they used to be. Too dangerous, period.
More on topic, can an RTLSDR / HDSDR USB stick radio be used effectively as an RF surveying tool? I think it can get up there pretty high, but unsure if they go all the way into 5G land. Hat's off to the DIY crowd that put that combo together; RF spectrum analysis for the masses? The hardware part is certainly quite reasonable; software free.
Last edited:
Most of the budget SDR hardware stops at 2 GHz or there about. Many of the free software packages will only span 5 to 10 MHz at a time, so a blanket DC to daylight scan is not possible. The "Hack RF" goes to 6 GHz and also transmits at low power, but it is not so cheap. None of these are well calibrated for accurate level measurements, but still quite useful.
The frequencies allocated for 5G do extend well into the millimeter wave region, but "5G" like 4G before it has become a marketing term, often having no correlation with the actual ETSI 5G specs.
The original 4G spec was all about LTE (Long Term Evolution), a set of fluid specs to constantly evolve to meet the changing needs. When one large US carrier got a bit behind the other, they started calling their enhanced 3G network "4G." Some legal stuff happened, and to this day there are two different icons on the phones, "4G" and "4G LTE." They are not the same. "4G" is using the old 3G frequency bands, and may be LTE, or a CDMA variant. 4G LTE is true LTE in one of several frequency bands including the old 3G bands. At least here, most voice calls still use 3G, but data goes through the 4G system. This means that coverage from both are needed for a fully functioning phone.
Today T-Mobile owns most of the TV spectrum from channel 39 to channel 50. They are deploying LTE in that spectrum as the TV stations are being kicked out, but calling it "5G." It actually operates in the 600 MHz region, the LOWEST frequency band used for cell service in North America. That's why their TV commercials call it the longest reaching 5G service.
T-Mobile has started offering cell service in this area. As of yet I have seen no RF activity in the 600 MHz spectrum. There are NO UHF TV signals here, although people high in the hills can get Pittsburgh TV, so the spectrum may not be called vacant yet. I have only seen T-Mobile in band 4, around 2 GHz. I have not taken the spectrum analyzer for a ride since November though.
The frequencies allocated for 5G do extend well into the millimeter wave region, but "5G" like 4G before it has become a marketing term, often having no correlation with the actual ETSI 5G specs.
The original 4G spec was all about LTE (Long Term Evolution), a set of fluid specs to constantly evolve to meet the changing needs. When one large US carrier got a bit behind the other, they started calling their enhanced 3G network "4G." Some legal stuff happened, and to this day there are two different icons on the phones, "4G" and "4G LTE." They are not the same. "4G" is using the old 3G frequency bands, and may be LTE, or a CDMA variant. 4G LTE is true LTE in one of several frequency bands including the old 3G bands. At least here, most voice calls still use 3G, but data goes through the 4G system. This means that coverage from both are needed for a fully functioning phone.
Today T-Mobile owns most of the TV spectrum from channel 39 to channel 50. They are deploying LTE in that spectrum as the TV stations are being kicked out, but calling it "5G." It actually operates in the 600 MHz region, the LOWEST frequency band used for cell service in North America. That's why their TV commercials call it the longest reaching 5G service.
T-Mobile has started offering cell service in this area. As of yet I have seen no RF activity in the 600 MHz spectrum. There are NO UHF TV signals here, although people high in the hills can get Pittsburgh TV, so the spectrum may not be called vacant yet. I have only seen T-Mobile in band 4, around 2 GHz. I have not taken the spectrum analyzer for a ride since November though.
We are only here because of Jupiter.
Jupiter attracts some space debris before it can get as far as earth.
Unfortunately, Nigel, recent computer simulations reveal that Jupiter is just as likely to launch asteroids and comets towards Earth.
Jupiter throws comets and asteroids towards Earth like a 'sniper', scientist warns | Metro News
It's not with me that Prof. Cox would have to disagree (if in fact he did), but physicist Kevin Grazier!
Here's a quote from Prof. Cox in regard to his 'The Planets - Jupiter' programme:
But it didnt blow any heat on the windshield so you drove with one hand and scraped the windshield with the other in between shifting.
But a lot of it slingshots past picking up energy. Still not buying either theory. Its too far away. I Would think the sun would do a much better job at both.
Thanks Tubelab_com, it's good to have an experienced RF guy around. Just wondering what RF "quiet" is like and if something like these inexpensive USB stick receivers would do. I'm selling a National Panasonic SW receiver on ebay and had to use my Agilent FG to test it; all I could get was the WWV in the usual 3 spots - all the rest of the bands only received various noise, I assume from widespread computer equipment.
I did make a conscious effort to locate my wireless routers as far away from sleeping quarters as possible. I have two, each at opposite diagonal corners of the house. Still, I'm pretty sure I sleep every night within a 30 ft radius of one of them. I took the wireless off the HT PC and run a 10T cable - figure "one less" out of, oh, 8-10 wireless devices in the house is a millistep in the right direction. But I guess it's shoveling sand against the tide.
Is the 5G the OP is referring to running at ~600 MHz, or is that just T mobile's "5G"?
I did make a conscious effort to locate my wireless routers as far away from sleeping quarters as possible. I have two, each at opposite diagonal corners of the house. Still, I'm pretty sure I sleep every night within a 30 ft radius of one of them. I took the wireless off the HT PC and run a 10T cable - figure "one less" out of, oh, 8-10 wireless devices in the house is a millistep in the right direction. But I guess it's shoveling sand against the tide.
Is the 5G the OP is referring to running at ~600 MHz, or is that just T mobile's "5G"?
I'm not sure there is such a place any more. If I fire up one of my Zenith Transoceanics all I hear is buzzing and noise.. Much of it comes from the SMPS's in the LED and CFL light bulbs, but even if I kill power to my house the noise doesn't completely go away. When a tree falls and takes out the power for much of the surrounding area it does get quite a bit quieter.
T-Mobile is running "5G" or at least advertizing 5G at 600 MHz, 2.1 GHz, and other frequency bands. AT&T has deployed 5G in the original 850 MHz analog cellular band. I'm not sure where Verizon is, but they will all need at least one "low" band for in building coverage, and one around 2 GHz for higher data rates.
The new "5G" spec has multiple frequency bands from 600 MHz to 72 GHz.
Currently "4G" cellular uses frequencies from 600 MHz to around 2.5 GHz. Some non traditional carriers like cable TV companies are using their WiFi hot spots at 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz for voice and data and relying on the more traditional carriers for coverage outside their WiFi areas. Comcast roams on Verizon in the USA when outside the WiFi coverage area.
Traditional 4G carriers have multiple small chunks of RF spectrum in the 600 MHz to 2.5 GHz range. The original 1G cell spec in the US had two 10 MHz wide frequency bands allocated for analog cell phone use. One was allocated to the traditional landline carrier, AT&T and the other was for the alternate carrier.
As cellular use exploded and more spectrum was needed, more small chunks were taken from other services, mostly broadcast TV in the US. This created multiple small "cellular frequency bands" scattered throughout the RF spectrum. Most are less than 10 MHz wide. The last time I looked at a chart there are almost 100 unique cell phone bands around the world, many not compatible with those in neighboring (or the same) countries. (chart included)
The amount of contiguous frequency space is the general limit for the instantaneous data rate available at any point in time. It is possible to split a data transfer across two or more different frequency bands (called carrier aggregation) but it is a complicated process that requires good signal to the phone from two different transmitters. It is nearly impossible during periods of peak system loading.
As the frequency of a radio signal increases, it's range and ability to penetrate concrete and dense vegetation decreases. Cell phone transmitters below 900 MHz are needed to provide coverage inside buildings and in dense wet tree canopy. Frequency bands in the 900 MHz to 2.5 Ghz range have greater bandwidth and can move more data, but have poorer coverage.
There is some attempt to reallocate these bands and provide more spectrum in the 2.4 to 4.2 GHz in the 5G "New Radio" spec. Much of this will be used in a manner similar to the current 4G system, although some new coding and beam steering methods will provide for higher data rates. These frequencies have been used for point to point, and point to multipoint microwave relay for years. Much of this has been replaced with fiber, so this is a reuse of existing spectrum, albeit with much higher density.
To date most of the 5G being rolled out world wide is below 4.2 GHz, and the power levels on the ground should be similar to today, and below the level of the 5 GHz WiFi being blasted out by my Comcast box......My spectrum analyzer only goes to 3.2 GHz, so I have not verified any of this though.
The big controversy comes from the allocation of "millimeter waves" in the 24 to 72 GHz region. These are short wavelength waves that have near zero ability to penetrate much of what we encounter daily, especially cars and buildings. Even small shrubs, people and rain storms can create severe coverage shadows. The published spec allows for a maximum transmitter power of 20 watts, less than a current 4G cell tower. Still, I wouldn't want one outside my bedroom window.
Much of the talk about this kind of 5G is centered around the IoT (Internet of Things) where mobility is not always required. Will millimeter wave to a mobile human ever be commercially feasible? That remains to be seen.
I think the strangest thing about 5G is that it's being imposed in an undemocratic way. There are communities/cities that have rejected it by extreme majorities but it's still being installed. Warranted or not, WTF? What damn country do we live in? (those of us in the US)
As far as is 5G harmful... I don't know. It's not inspiring when they wear special suites to install the antennas. And it's kinda ****** up that the only studies they want to do is if it causes cancer. Already posted but in annoying ways, it's clear radiation has negative effects on us in some ways. I'm not sure exact frequency but maybe even as low as 60hz does have an affect on either the human body or micobiome enough to drag health down to a miserable level if it's radiated enough to you - it may not be death but could be as bad as being dysfunctional enough not to be able to work from all the consequences.
As far as is 5G harmful... I don't know. It's not inspiring when they wear special suites to install the antennas. And it's kinda ****** up that the only studies they want to do is if it causes cancer. Already posted but in annoying ways, it's clear radiation has negative effects on us in some ways. I'm not sure exact frequency but maybe even as low as 60hz does have an affect on either the human body or micobiome enough to drag health down to a miserable level if it's radiated enough to you - it may not be death but could be as bad as being dysfunctional enough not to be able to work from all the consequences.
It's not just cellular.......
Anyone going to the Superbowl in Miami. The upper deck of that stadium has some of the highest levels of RF that I ever measured in publicly accessible places. Why, there are four tall TV towers about 1 mile north east of the stadium. one even has condo's and townhouses built surrounding it. There is a fifth transmitter site about 2 miles further north east also surrounded by homes. Want to live there? It's all visible on Google maps.
There were 11 seperate transmitters at that location when I tested there, almost 6 years ago. Each is putting out 1 MEGAWATT of power.....and people worry about 30 watt cell towers.
Note, I have not been to or tested at that stadium since they put the roof on it, but there is some serious RF energy in the area near that stadium, and it gets stronger the higher up you climb. I'm sure there are plenty of places like this all over the country.
Anyone going to the Superbowl in Miami. The upper deck of that stadium has some of the highest levels of RF that I ever measured in publicly accessible places. Why, there are four tall TV towers about 1 mile north east of the stadium. one even has condo's and townhouses built surrounding it. There is a fifth transmitter site about 2 miles further north east also surrounded by homes. Want to live there? It's all visible on Google maps.
There were 11 seperate transmitters at that location when I tested there, almost 6 years ago. Each is putting out 1 MEGAWATT of power.....and people worry about 30 watt cell towers.
Note, I have not been to or tested at that stadium since they put the roof on it, but there is some serious RF energy in the area near that stadium, and it gets stronger the higher up you climb. I'm sure there are plenty of places like this all over the country.
Have you come to the US from a tribal village somewhere? Otherwise, where has this idea of democracy come from?
Suddenly everyone seems to demand a finger in every decision being made.. here too in the UK. It seems to be the knock-on effect of populism - "take back control" being the rallying cry of every cheap populist.. and in response, the people want to be consulted about everything..
Ironically, the same folks loving the populism also tend to be those advocating less corporate regulation and wanting smaller government, haha.. (I.e. loosing control to corporations and people with money).
Where is the outcry about no democratic decision on gun ownership - it kills thousands every year for sure - no fear-mongering hype/consipracy theory there, it's real. Similarly, cars and roads - where was the democratic vote for cars and roads that kill thousands?
Infrastructure is rolled out by government and you vote the government in once. That's democracy. if you don't like what government then does, then you either protest or you vote them out next time.
Last edited:
I think you're going a bit overboard and taking a few things in favor/out of favor here.
While it's true people now want a say on everything, and let's face it the general populous isn't as smart as the average DIYaudio forum member... But also it's very easy to reach everyone and do mail ballots etc.
Firstly we aren't talking about something that is a state wide or federally shared thing, as it's extremely local unlike the roadways that must be maintained for access, commerce, and military. This doesn't play those function, and there's no lack of cellphone reception for emergencies (in fact anything besides 5G is better since it's extremely localized). This is no different than a city deciding whether it wants a roundabout or not at a city (non-highway/freeway) controlled intersection. It's not different on making a decision to have or not have telephone polls in new development areas (they don't put them in anymore in most places).
While I would advise not getting in politics as you seem to be jumping at... I'll give an example of why a populous vote makes some and doesn't make some sense in my state. When it comes to 5G towers, that's city specific and basically in these cases no one isn't being represented when overwhelming majorities vote to have it banned. But the gun control example you mention is more interesting because the populous vote to win a subject like that - that is state wide law they're voting on - only takes a couple counties on the coast to win. Is it really right to have 90%+ of the counties, meaning 99% of the land in the state under a law they adamantly oppose? That's wrong, and poor representation. This is where concepts like city-states come up and make sense. And this is where people's choice in cell towers vs state wide things obviously diverge greatly and share nothing under the scrupulous knife of word play, once played out.
While it's true people now want a say on everything, and let's face it the general populous isn't as smart as the average DIYaudio forum member... But also it's very easy to reach everyone and do mail ballots etc.
Firstly we aren't talking about something that is a state wide or federally shared thing, as it's extremely local unlike the roadways that must be maintained for access, commerce, and military. This doesn't play those function, and there's no lack of cellphone reception for emergencies (in fact anything besides 5G is better since it's extremely localized). This is no different than a city deciding whether it wants a roundabout or not at a city (non-highway/freeway) controlled intersection. It's not different on making a decision to have or not have telephone polls in new development areas (they don't put them in anymore in most places).
While I would advise not getting in politics as you seem to be jumping at... I'll give an example of why a populous vote makes some and doesn't make some sense in my state. When it comes to 5G towers, that's city specific and basically in these cases no one isn't being represented when overwhelming majorities vote to have it banned. But the gun control example you mention is more interesting because the populous vote to win a subject like that - that is state wide law they're voting on - only takes a couple counties on the coast to win. Is it really right to have 90%+ of the counties, meaning 99% of the land in the state under a law they adamantly oppose? That's wrong, and poor representation. This is where concepts like city-states come up and make sense. And this is where people's choice in cell towers vs state wide things obviously diverge greatly and share nothing under the scrupulous knife of word play, once played out.
From a physics point of view radio frequencies do not have enough energy per photon to cause ionisation. This means, exposure to such frequencies is like exposure to a warm surface which cause atoms to vibrarate more energetically about their rest positions. Unless body exposure to such frequencies, causes localised temperature pockets that reach dangerous levels that damage cells, there is not much to be worried about.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.