JB wrote:

...
Just to clarify, I never said that, you did.



Then, let me clarify what I said, 300mw @ 6mm IS 1.2288KW at
~38cm/~15-inches ... if you think it "just slightly" dangerous to do
one, why would you EVER do the other?

I mean, I don't mean to "jump all over the place" or "act like a child";
and please excuse my past behavior ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:13:01 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Who here would tape a wire to their child's head with up to a watt of
power running through it at those freq's ? Child protective services
would probably declare you unfit, take the kids away from you,

Hi Mike,

Child protective services probably would do that even if you NEVER put
ANY rf through the wire. They would react to the obvious issue of
abusive behavior. They haven't got a clue what RF would do, and they
wouldn't distinguish between 1W or 1µW as being good, bad, or
indifferent; and it would be the height of absurdity to expect them to
rummage through their car trunk for exposure meters to figure that out
when they are faced with a wacko and nothing more needs to be sorted
out.

Again, this sort of logic (sic) merely perpetuates the nonsense Brett
Gump loves to forward through these threads.

I can imagine the drift of topic would speculate they would idly stand
by and wait for proof positive that the adult had finally warmed up
the Henry and threw the switch before they were legally obligated to
do what was long obvious.

and you'd
probably have to register as something or another so you could be
tracked down if needed.
Using an ankle cuff with an RF link. Now, apparently, what is
dangerous to the head is entirely benign to the foot - tell this to a
diabetic. Care to assume the liability for this suggestion? Does the
hint of cuffs pinching your wrists come to mind?

This is the absurdity of Brett's Yellow Journalism research and how
the topic has drifted from the technical to the superstitious. Mike,
do you care to respond to my technical comment of 3 days ago, or is
this deviant speculation really that more relevant to anything?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"HarryHydro" wrote in message
...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

First off, you need to use a proper setup and evaluation of the spectrum
analyzer. A setup like you described can give wildly erroneous indications
and even damage sensitive circuits. Just having multipath in the room can
result in reinforcement of the signal. And you were standing where the
signal was best? You aren't the only one caught by that. I never brought
mine to work because "experts" had somehow convinced the powers that be that
burnt out test equipment was a normal thing, so invariably only one or none
might be working, being "in transit" to the depot.

A lot of devices are using modulation techniques that can be detected by
analog devices, and nothing seems to more prone than amplified computer
speakers. I can hear cell phone noise on mine even outside the building,
even though they don't respond to my HF station with the linear on.

It doesn't make sense that energy 1 gig away would cause interference. I
would be more suspicious of the audio circuits and switching transients.
Consider that since RF power is on-off keyed, there is much less than 100%
duty cycle of the On time, so heating effect are much lower than with FM.

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It should be noted, those without a cell phone, or too old to desire/use
one need not worry ... but then, you already knew that!

Regards,
Brett :-)

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

You wrote:

...
Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
...

Let's say just those figures are correct ...

My Motorola Razar V3 phone is approx. 6mm thick (when opened), and where
the antenna is buried in the phone. This means the antenna can be no
more than 6mm from my head if the phone lies against my head. Now, we
assume the phone is emitting 300mw. This would be equivalent to 1.2w of
power emanating from that same antenna at a distance of 12mm from my
head. And, the latter would be equivalent to 4.8w emanating from the
same antenna at a distance of 24mm from my head. And, the last would be
equivalent to 19.2w emanating from the same antenna at a distance of
48mm from my head ... your higher figure, of two watts, is simply
frightening ...

The lunacy is exposed ... correct any error you see in the above ...

Regards,
JS

Sonny, you seem to be using the Inverse, of the Inverse Square Law
here.... the Farther the source is from the receiver the LESS power
reaches the receiver, not MORE. It goes Down, by the SQUARE of the
distance, not up. You also don't get ALL of the 300 Milliwatts
going into your head as the antenna is semi Omni-directional and
only about 120 degrees of the 360 degree transmitted signal will
intersect with your head, and another maybe 10 degrees with you hand.
Better go back and do the Sums, AGAIN, or leave it to folks that
passed Jr. High School Math, and High School Physics.

In article ,
Highland Ham wrote:

In a built-up area or along the highway with nearby base stations the
power can be very low ,whereas at remote locations it can be as high as
2 Watts (at least here in Europe).

BUT we were talking about Handheld Cellphones, and these typically have
a Maximum RF Power to the antenna of 300 Milliwatts, which is then
Telcommanded Lower by the Base Station, depending on Base Stations
Received Signal to Noise Ratio. There are a few, up to, 3 Watt Digital
Cellphone Subscriber Units, but they ALL have external Antennas, and
these antennas are NOT designed to be attached to your HEAD....
Apples and Oranges......

You wrote:

...
Sonny, you seem to be using the Inverse, of the Inverse Square Law
here.... the Farther the source is from the receiver the LESS power
reaches the receiver, not MORE. It goes Down, by the SQUARE of the
distance, not up. You also don't get ALL of the 300 Milliwatts
going into your head as the antenna is semi Omni-directional and
only about 120 degrees of the 360 degree transmitted signal will
intersect with your head, and another maybe 10 degrees with you hand.
Better go back and do the Sums, AGAIN, or leave it to folks that
passed Jr. High School Math, and High School Physics.

EXACTLY! That is why the further the source is from the
"receiver/your-skull" the further the sources power must be increased to
maintain the same field-density! You got it!

Inverse Square Law in action! Or, ~2:4 ratio--every doubling in
distance requires the fourfold increase of the sources output to
maintain field density -- what part of my posts must I "rewrite" for you
to obtain that meaning from them?

Regards,
JS

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:53:27 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

but then, you already knew that!

No, I anticipate with 3 more follow-ons by you to the same posting,
and then 2 more in response to yourself, it still won't be sorted out.
.... not that anyone has ever confused that with an intellectual
aspiration.

Having said that, I will skip the bleeding obvious (sorry Reggie).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You wrote:

...
Sonny, you seem to be using the Inverse, of the Inverse Square Law
here.... the Farther the source is from the receiver the LESS power
reaches the receiver, not MORE. It goes Down, by the SQUARE of the
distance, not up. You also don't get ALL of the 300 Milliwatts
going into your head as the antenna is semi Omni-directional and
only about 120 degrees of the 360 degree transmitted signal will
intersect with your head, and another maybe 10 degrees with you hand.
Better go back and do the Sums, AGAIN, or leave it to folks that
passed Jr. High School Math, and High School Physics.

Or, to simplify, once again, 300mw@6mm ~= ... re-read my
posts, you (that is your "name", right? grin) missed it!

However, I have rethought those distances, since, I now realize the
antenna in the phone is much closer to my skull than I had first
thought; here is the "new breakdown":

3mm@300mw =
=
=
=
=
=

19.2cm ~= ~7.5-inches

Anyway, point is, when I use my cell phone without a headset, that spot
on my head, directly under the cell phones' antenna, is getting the same
exposure as it would get from a 1.2288KW source utilizing the same
antenna, and at a distance of 7.5 to ~15 inches from my head! (realize
the importance of that 19.2cm/7.5-inch vs. 1.2288KW figure!)

Anyway you cut that--it ain't pretty! My wife, frequently, makes 2+ hr
calls to family! Did that help?

Now, anyone want to explain the "yellow journalism" in that to me?

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
No, I anticipate with 3 more follow-ons by you to the same posting,
and then 2 more in response to yourself, it still won't be sorted out.
... not that anyone has ever confused that with an intellectual
aspiration.

Having said that, I will skip the bleeding obvious (sorry Reggie).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Three or more follow-ups, by me, heck, with you around, it will, most
likely, take many more than that!

Some here are just "slow on the uptake", then some like you like tossing
suspicion to hard data around and disinformation (even though cloaked as
"cryptic comments.")

Pull up a chair, get a drink and relax--we may be in for that "ride" you
are threatening ... (i.e., clarifying/defensive posts.)

Did I mention the fact that, those with few/or-no friends are not in
danger, much, from cell phones either? grin

Regards,
JS