Re: Another mobile phone radiation device

The main BS is that AFAIK there's no evidence whatsoever that microwaves

> from cell phones at the frequencies and power levels mandated by the > various regulatory agencies cause any damage to soft tissues.

Damage: probably not. Effects, that is a different story.

But indeed, shielding is not the way of avoiding that, due to the automatic power control. Putting more towers is, as you will be closer to a tower all the time and thus use less power.

But of course those that fear the "phone radiation" are also active in trying to limit new tower deployments, achieving the opposite of what they want.

Reply to
Rob
Loading thread data ...

Among the under 35 crowd, using a mobile phone as an actual voice communication device is so rare that radiation into the head would seem to be a non-issue. Everybody uses SMS or texting apps and the "phone" is simply an afterthought.."mobile phones" are really Internet-enabled pocket computers.

I'm at the outside edge of that demographic, and I find I use my phone to actually make voice calls about 4 hours a month, tops.

My girlfriend is 28 and I can't recall if I've even had a voice conversation with her.

Reply to
bitrex

Yes, but that may have more to do with your relationship. I assume this includes face-to-face conversations, yes?

Reply to
John S

It's apparently not uncommon among the younger crowd for a couple to text message each other when they're simply in different rooms of the apartment/home.

Reply to
bitrex

You and ? do that?

Reply to
John S

Nope, we're a little older and not entirely ready to have our brains removed and put into Internet-enabled vats hooked to a 10 terabit per second 24/7 social media feed just yet...though I suppose in the long run this fate is unavoidable.

Reply to
bitrex

Of all the people you know, how many do that? A ratio would be descriptive, perhaps. If you want to be more descriptive, you could break it down into young/old populations. You say uncommon, but that is very subjective and relies on some desires in your brain to urge your point, unless you are an exceptional person.

Reply to
John S

Or across the table from each other in a restaurant.

Reply to
krw

Probably not as well as designer PCB material. In about 1975, I had the bright idea of making a business card on 1/32" G10 PCB material. Of course, I needed something for the back, so I stuck some PCB layout tape together in a geometric pattern and produced a simulated microstrip design. I thought of adding a few SMT components and possibly make it do something, but didn't have the time. I made a few such business cards, but gave up on the idea after it didn't generate much more than odd questions.

Many years later, when cell phones became ubiquitous, some creative entrepreneur began selling stick on labels that were alleged to improve cell phone coverage, which at the time was genuinely lousy. The labels looked very much like my business card. Suing for infringement would have been possible, except that I didn't patent my "active" business card, and it had been about 20 years later when any patent would probably have expired. Today, the idea is common:

Sorry. I didn't know what to call it. Perhaps two foam donuts would be suitable description.

That lets everyone within hearing distance hear the conversation. Using earphones, a wired headset, or a BlueGoof contrivance would probably be better. Still few bother unless threatened with an expensive traffic ticket for talking while driving without a headset. If you must have a speakerphone, perhaps a cardboard or plastic megaphone?

From past experience, none in the technical newsgroups, but a few in the non-technical newsgroups. My previous rants on the topic of RF exposure and brain cancer: has attracted some attention from those that genuinely fear RF exposure or claim to be "electrosensitive". A few have build RF detectors or purchased commercial field strength meters for the purpose of testing various RF attenuation methods. Nobody in this newsgroup would bother, because they're generally familiar with how RF works and such a crude and inaccurate test would be immediately proclaimed as worthless.

Actually, I would guess perhaps 5 people in this newsgroup would try it, simply because it's easy to do, they have a spectrum analyzer, and they're curious. Possibly one might be curious if the signal level decreases linearly (near field) or exponentially (far field) or how their cell phone acts if the antenna is detuned.

When I previously posted the link and instructions to using the "field test mode", I received some emails asking for help or thanking me for the information. I don't recall if it was in this group, or another, but I believe I received about 8 emails. If I were to speculate on the how many in S.E.D. would bother, my guess is perhaps 3, all of whom will not do anything adventuresome, such as changing some of the settings to see what might happen. If this were some of the cellular enthusiasts newsgroups, all the regulars would have dived into the "field test mode" many times in the past. Many of those will have done the Learn By Destroying(tm) exercise and possibly bricked their phones. Of those that post in S.E.D., I see perhaps 2 people that are that adventuresome.

Target audience? I supply the ammunition. You get to shoot yourself in the foot.

I hate one line retorts. So little thought, so little useful information. Is there something in my previous posting with which you disagree? Any questions? Anything useful to contribute?

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Why? Does on false claim automatically negate all other claims? Do you fail an exam simply because you missed one question? Methinks not. Each claim should be judged individually.

The logic is that the skull is thinner and therefore RF penetrates deeper into the brain and over a larger area. The SAR test head phantoms simulate an adult head and skull and therefore do not take children's smaller heads into consideration:

The sketch allegedly came from an unspecified article in the "IEEE Journal on Microwave Theory and Techniques" which is actually the IEEE Transactions, not Journal. It may have come from one of these articles: My guess is that it's in this one: "The peak SAR10 g in the brain of the CS or CL head is slightly more significant than that for the adult one." CS = Child size, CL = Child like. I no longer have access to IEEE material and can't trace it back to the source.

Also, if the incidence of brain and central nervous system cancer is an indication of RF exposure, the evidence is lacking: Notice that the incidence of brain and CNS cancer does not appear until after age 50.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

True, but that might be because cell phone voice quality is horrible and well below what might be considered tolerable. The rush towards data just might be an aversion to voice (quality).

About 350 minutes per month, all of it voice except for the a few odd SMS messages.

Mine is much older and I can't get her to shut up. Maybe if I get her a new smartphone?

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Or at the same table.

Reply to
F Murtz

I think it's psychological - text message gives one both the feeling of instant "closeness" i.e. "they're only a text away! I don't have to dial a number and wait for it to connect, but also a feeling of comfortable "distance" i.e. "if I need a few minutes to formulate a nice way to tell that guy I talked to at the bar that I don't want to go on a date with him, I'm not immediately put on the spot"

Reply to
bitrex

Did you look at the applicable patents? The only claim is that it is ornamental, not functional in any manner. I guess the designer is competent to design ornaments.

This patent probably covers the product: The "ornamental" devices features in the previous 2 patents now have a useful function. Here's the punch line [029]: An attachment according to the present invention effectively forms a bi-directional band pass filter which allows only signals with a particular frequency range to pass through the filter. The bi-directionality of the filter allows signals (within the relevant band of frequencies) to pass to and from the electronic communications device.

Amazing. This thing is suppose to block signals from reaching the head. Presumably, all the RF that would normally radiate from the back of the phone, will go through this 3 band bi-directional band pass filter while everything else is blocked. I would think that the "ornamental" design would block at least half of the desired signal. The reflected signals, which I presume means anything outside of the bandpass filter frequency range, would not be passed. However, they also won't be absorbed, but the metal in the device will reflect, not absorb these signals. However, that's not important, because the phone design and regulatory approval insures that there is very very very little radiation outside of the operating frequency channels. What is reflected is the part of the operating signal that does not pass through the bandpass filter, which goes directly to the users face, thus increasing the SAR. Incidentally, building a bandpass filter that will pass 3 bands is not a trivial exercise.

If the content of the patent is accurate, I don't see how it can reduce SAR.

Note: I don't pass judgment on the designer, only his designs.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.