Anti-Radiation Phone Sticker - Opinions?

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:51:34 -0800, Robert Baer Gave us:

The half empty half, of course.

Or maybe it's the half fool half.

Why do you reply when you don't know anything about the topic?

On 22 Dec 2015 08:28:46 GMT, Rob Gave us:

Another full of shit putz. That's all you are, asswipe.

Very true. I use this in a talk I give on the topic. Between 1975 and 2006, the incidence of new cases of brain and CNS cancers has not changed much. During the same time period, the use of cell phones has skyrocketed. If there were a causal relationship, it would show on the graphs:

Most people don't, until somone in the family comes down with brain cancer in a manner suitable for litigation. Then, it becomes a major issue, especially if the family doesn't have adequate medical insurance.

Wrong. The various comm authorities set an upper limit on handset power. Manufacturers are more interested in advertising the longest battery life, not the highest transmit power, so most handset have much lower power than the legal maximum. My old LG VX8300 typically belches +17dBm (50 mw). I'm too lazy to check, but I think the maximum for 3G/CDMA on this phone is about +21dBm (125mw). On later phones, the 4G stuff transmits somewhat more power at +23dBm (200mw).

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0800, Jeff Liebermann Gave us:

I did check, and the old was nearly a watt. 3G is as I stated 500mW. or "half a watt".

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:37:27 -0800, Jeff Liebermann Gave us:

Not the max "typical". The max is what some of them MAY get "cranked up" to, as the guy stated. So what really happens is that they get "cranked down", and only get "cranked up" in extreme moments as this increases battery drain immensely.

In that case, could you produce the maker and model number of this handset so I can verify your allegation? In the US, the absolute max for a cellular handset is 600 mw, not "nearly a watt". Ancient AMPS analog mobile and bag phones can do 3 watts.

Ummm... does your cell phone have a crank on the side a candlestick earpiece? Or maybe something even less modern:

In line with my original question, I would appreciate few more responses on exactly WHY, from a technical standpoint, these type of products cannot work as claimed.

Here is one example that includes lab tests.

Sorry for neglecting to provide this link earlier.

Ken Morrow

I guess you missed my reply. See:

Permit me to ignore the lab tests for a moment as they will take some time for me to go through.

Notice that the patch covers the rear of the phone, at the bottom. This is the normal location of the various cellular antennas in most smartphones to provide the minimum SAR. Covering this with any form of metal is considered an abomination by the phone manufacturers. For example, the iPhone 5s at: shows "Do not obstruct this area with metal" in this area. That's because the added barrier between the cell phone antenna increases the path loss, which reduces both the signal level that the cell site hears, and the signal level that the handset hears. The handset and cell site both have automatic transmit level control, which adjusts the transmit power in both directions to some set BER (bit error rate) and SNR (signal to noise ratio) level. If the signal goes down because of some obstruction, the system just increases the power level at both ends so that the BER and SNR are maintained. For the phone, that means *MORE* RF being transmitted and probably *MORE* radiation to the head under normal operating conditions.

So, how does that work? The FCC tests are all done at maximum (actually peak) RF power. For the iPhone 5S, that's about 0.5 watts. There is no way for the handset to increase the power level above this point. What the patch does is detune the antennas in the handset, which is what Apple was trying to prevent with their "keep away" warning on the drawing. By detuning the antenna, the antenna efficiency is reduced. If there's anything absorptive in the sandwich, then the signal level towards the cell site is reduced by the patch. The signal level may actually be reduced in the direction of the cell site, but since the area under the antenna is blocked by the PCB, digitizer, and glass screen, the patch will have little effect on the signal level in the direction of the head.

So, why do the SAR test results show a 40 to 95% reduction in absorbed radiation in the direction of the head? The test is performed at maximum (peak) RF power. When the antenna is detuned, the radiated RF from the antenna is reduced, which appears on the test results.

In the field tests performed by the manufacturer, I see a very different result: Notice that radiated power and sensitivity numbers are about 1 dB different. That's a rather small difference in radiation and well under the +/-1.7 dB uncertainty specified in the same report. In other words, the transmitted radiation has not changed very much with the addition of the patch. For example, the radiated power shown in the report is about -16 dBm or 0.0025 milliwatts. A 1 dB reduction in level to -17 dBm would be about 0.0020 milliwatts, or hardly any change.

So, why does the field test show roughly the same power levels? It's because of the automatic transmit level control is compensating for the patch by increasing the TX power. Add the patch, and handset cranks up the power to compensate.

I know this is rather messy and my explanation might not be particularly coherent (I'm recovering from 3 Christmas lunches today). Ask if there's some part of this that I screwed up or requires additional detail.

Simpler explanation: it's a scam, and the lab tests are bogus.

As you can see, the poster (and other buyers of such things) will not believe explanations like that. They only want to read explanations that say it will work, and will continue to ask for better explanations until they get one they can read that way.

It is like the Batteriser... (anyone heard from them recently? last thing I heard was that in an attempt to "make it even better", they failed to get at produced at all even in a mk1 version)

It's a scam, but the lab reports look real. The various tests, setup, equipment, procedures, and forms all look legitimate. The testing company is FCC certified:

The field strength test reports clearly showed that the sticker did absolutely nothing, which of course the vendor didn't highlight. I haven't gone through all the test documents, but so far, I haven't found anything that looks suspicious or faked. Posting a report that shows that the sticker doesn't work isn't very clever, but it's probably safe if they assume that few people are able to understand the documents.

Also, my explanation of why the SAR is reduced by shielding, holds together. (At full TX power output, the phone cannot increase power to compensate for the shielding loss). The problem is that it's not an easy concept for the GUM (great unwashed masses) to understand.

The big question is how many people will pay $50/ea for one extremely thin sticker of unknown composition, when the running price for the bogus stickers on Amazon and eBay are about $1/ea? Sampling:

Witout going into more detail than your ignorant response warrnts, your assumption is totally unfounded and incorrect.

Ken Morrow

Thank you Jeff. You have most eloquently confirmed my suspicions.

These phone stickers should be banned. Not only are they fraudulent but they discourage people from adopting genuine precautionary measures such as are recommended by the phone manufacturer and govt. safety agencies.

I wonder why they are not prosecuted.

Ken Morrow

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 16:58:33 +1100, Ken Morrow Gave us:

The same reason Trump never got prosecuted for his blatant crimes as a landlord in NYC, or why the retarded bastard gets to keep spewing his lame uneducated horseshit now. Or why "Black Lives Matter" doesn't get declared as a hate group and gets to keep spewing their 'message'.

Prosecuted for what? They ran a series of tests that largely confirmed their claims. If you use a cell phone in the manner that it is tested for SAR, the RF level will definitely decrease. However, if you use the phone in the normal manner, the ALC adjusts the transmit power to compensate for the losses produced by the patch. I would have a somewhat difficult time convincing a judge that this is correct, some difficulty in dragging the necessary test equipment into the courtroom to demonstrate how it works, and doing battle with the company's expert witnesses all claiming that under most circumstances, the device operates as claimed. By claimed, they declare that it reduces SAR by up to 94%, without specifying the conditions under which this might be true.

However, that's not going to happen. More likely the company would just disappear and resurrect the product under a different name in another location or country. The government or FCC certainly are not going to prosecute because there's no money to be returned to the US treasury from any fines or NAL's (notice of apparent liability). Even if the FCC declares them guilty of some creative violation (modifying RF characteristics of a cell phone and failing to re-certifying the phone), the FCC cannot collect on the fine, and requires the assistance of the justice department. The JD does the math, finds that it will cost them more than the fine to collect the money, and graciously declines to do its job. The FCC responded with: which seems to have something wrong with the numbers and offers no sources.

I suppose that you might expect the government to protect you from being cheated by unscrupulous technical scam artists (like me). That would be convenient. No need to think about whether something works, is useful, or is worth the money. Just trust the government to prosecute everyone that drifts away from the conventional and accepted technologies. With a little bureaucracy, you could even have government approved products all standardized until they're indistinguishable from each other (much like todays automobiles). However, I'm not prepared to lose my freedom of choice, just to gain a little more confidence in a product and at potentially great expense. In my never humble opinion, if there is a role for the government, it's dealing with keeping things that are dangerous and hazardous off the market. Something that does absolutely nothing is neither dangerous or hazardous.

Also, since you trust the government so much, perhaps you might read the official FCC position on RF safety: Basically, it says unless you're exposed to really strong RF fields, far above what you might get from a cell phone, you're safe. Since this the final word from the authority you trust to determine for you what works and what doesn't, you surely must believe them.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 22:58:41 -0800, Jeff Liebermann Gave us:

If you are an RF Engineer, then YOU are "an expert witness" and your LAB BASED studies and determinations are just as submissible as their idiot on the stands are.

You do not need to lug in the gear into courtrooms to perform a live demo.

AND you can also cite the standards under which they operate and their manufacturers claim to conform to that further substantiate your claims of how their normal operation would compensate for the attenuation bearing patch.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 22:58:41 -0800, Jeff Liebermann Gave us:

The FCC can levy fines without a courtroom session. They could easily put them out of business.