People Burners -

oscarBravo

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

If only it were that simple, most of us have seen the effect on a CRT computer monitor when a phone rings beside it. The effect is because the phone uses FULL power at times. If you have any evidence that base stations use reduced power when phones are close I'd like to hear it.

I don't remember suggesting that they do.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

important note IIRC comreg do not have equipment to monitor radiation above 2GHz (I'm open to correction here) so not too sure how safe we are, and their record of enforcement ain't the best

On the contrary, ComReg recently conducted an exhaustive survey of radio transmission sites around the country (bminish has linked it on other forums), and the only transmitter they found in excess of the guideline limits was the RTE MW transmitter outside Athlone.

jessop1 wrote:

See that cook and egg with mobile phones experiment - would you be willing to do that except with your head instead of an egg and for 10 or more hours instead of just one?

I use mobile phones to an extent that would astonish most people. As a rule I almost always have two phones with me at any given time, and often three (for various complicated reasons that have no relevance to this discussion). Last April I had a six-hour phone conversation on a mobile phone, with the phone held against my ear for the entire duration.

Peanut wrote:

Here is a UK T-Mobile planning application for a mast, at the end of the form you can see the stated power is 62 dBm.

No, it's not. The stated power is 62dBm EIRP - equivalent isotropic radiated power. That means that at the point of maximum antenna gain, the output power is equivalent to the power that would be required to acheive the same signal level assuming a theoretical perfectly omnidirectional (in the spherical sense) antenna.

Peanut wrote:

And as has been pointed out - power levels from FWA masts using technologies such as Navini and WiMax-like smart antenna arrays (higher transmit and receive power in a tighter directional beam) are not even being measured in this country, yet ComReg will still tout their ICNIRP compliance levels which mean absolutely nothing, but are sufficient to mislead people into thinking they are actually doing their job to some extent.

They have constantly tendered out their non-ionising radiation reports to only include GSM frequencies (oh sorry they included some 3g this year ), even though FWA operators and others, have been using frequencies above this, and therefore not measured, for YEARS.

FWA uses much lower power than GSM. Have a look at this document, page 20.

oscarBravo

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

To give an idea of what watts are in the real word

While soldering irons are normally around 15 Watts, the variable control ones are frequently 5-40 Watts

...and they all work by direct conduction of heat, which has no bearing on this discussion, which is about RF radiation.

oscarBravo

peterpm wrote:

I am a victim, like many others...

One simple question, Peter: how do you know?

jessop1

Oscar, your position from the outset has been that it is not possible to focus microwaves as weapons at distant targets
due to the inverse square law and the required increase in order of magnitude

oscarBravo wrote:

Jessop1 wrote:

"fair enough it must be more difficult to increase the power to torturous or lethal levels but why is it impossible?"

Because of the amount by which you'd have to increase it - something like 10^11 or so is the difference in the order of magnitude I've explained above.

This being your position, can you give me your views on the raytheon and active denial system links that were posted?

Quoting Raytheon Silent Guardian Product Data Sheet:

"The system’s antenna emits a focused beam of millimeter
wave energy. The beam travels at the speed of light and
penetrates the skin to a depth of 1/64 of an inch, producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes the targeted individuals to instinctively flee or take cover."

"Range: Greater than 250 meters*"

Why doesnt the inverse square law com into play here?

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

On the contrary, ComReg recently conducted an exhaustive survey of radio transmission sites around the country (bminish has linked it on other forums), and the only transmitter they found in excess of the guideline limits was the RTE MW transmitter outside Athlone.

Have you got a link for this please?

oscarBravo wrote:

No, it's not. The stated power is 62dBm EIRP - equivalent isotropic radiated power. That means that at the point of maximum antenna gain, the output power is equivalent to the power that would be required to acheive the same signal level assuming a theoretical perfectly omnidirectional (in the spherical sense) antenna.

Yes I am aware of this, that's why I wrote "1000W EIRP".
It doesn't change the argument - if you are in the beamwidth of the main lobe, you are exposed to RF equivalent to a theoretical 1000W unshielded radiator.

oscarBravo wrote:

FWA uses much lower power than GSM. Have a look at this document, page 20.

That's pretty amusing. There's a difference between standards, and enforcement of those standards.
By FWA, I also mean non-LOS "broadband" internet services. That paper mainly deals with allocated coverage areas for operators - operators may still be transmitting over the limits but restricting their coverage area by adjusting antenna tilt.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Oscar, your position from the outset has been that it is not possible to focus microwaves as weapons at distant targets
due to the inverse square law and the required increase in order of magnitude

No, it hasn't. I've never described it as "impossible" - you brought that word into the discussion, not me.

jessop1 wrote:

This being your position, can you give me your views on the raytheon and active denial system links that were posted?

Quoting Raytheon Silent Guardian Product Data Sheet:

"The system’s antenna emits a focused beam of millimeter
wave energy. The beam travels at the speed of light and
penetrates the skin to a depth of 1/64 of an inch, producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes the targeted individuals to instinctively flee or take cover."

"Range: Greater than 250 meters*"

Why doesnt the inverse square law com into play here?

It does. Note that it has a range limit. Why is that?

The Raytheon device doesn't share many similarities with Peter Mooring's claims. It certainly can't cook meat through walls. It also consists of a pretty huge antenna mounted on a truck, so I doubt there are very many of them covertly driving around manipulating our minds.

oscarBravo

Peanut wrote:

Have you got a link for this please?

http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/nir.554.444.html

Peanut wrote:

Yes I am aware of this, that's why I wrote "1000W EIRP".
It doesn't change the argument - if you are in the beamwidth of the main lobe, you are exposed to RF equivalent to a theoretical 1000W unshielded radiator.

The antenna is mounted 9.5m above ground level, and the beam is almost horizontal. By design it's aimed over nearby buildings, and it's unlikely that anyone will be directly within the area of maximum gain until you're approaching the limits of the cell's coverage.

Peanut wrote:

That's pretty amusing. There's a difference between standards, and enforcement of those standards.

Yes there is, but unless you have specific evidence that FWA operators are producing power output comparable to mobile phone operators, it's fair to assume that they are operating broadly within the terms of their licences.

Peanut wrote:

By FWA, I also mean non-LOS "broadband" internet services. That paper mainly deals with allocated coverage areas for operators - operators may still be transmitting over the limits but restricting their coverage area by adjusting antenna tilt.

Are you suggesting that they are transmitting at several orders of magnitude over the limits? Got any evidence of this?

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

It does. Note that it has a range limit. Why is that?

Oscar you clearly implied that such weapons were unfeasible due to inverse square law. so you are moving the goalposts now by admitting they are possible but within a range limit. I never claimed there was no range limit. And just because raytheon has a 500m limit doesnt mean longer range ones dont exist.

oscarBravo wrote:

The Raytheon device doesn't share many similarities with Peter Mooring's claims. It certainly can't cook meat through walls.

It can cook skin. (lets not argue over the definition of cook though - it can penetrate skin so prolonged such penetration will result in cooking)

So my honest question is this - why cant the raytheon transmit microwaves through walls if mobile phone masts can do just that? Peanut do you have a view on this?

oscarBravo wrote:

It also consists of a pretty huge antenna mounted on a truck, so I doubt there are very many of them covertly driving around manipulating our minds.

Is it possible the black ops people you mentioned may have developed smaller ones they havent told the public about??

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Oscar you clearly implied that such weapons were unfeasible due to inverse square law. so you are moving the goalposts now by admitting they are possible but within a range limit.

Don't lose sight of the context for this discussion: Peter Mooring's claims. He's talking about devices that can cook meat through walls; you're talking about a device that can cause physical discomfort at limited range with clear line of sight.

jessop1 wrote:

I never claimed there was no range limit. And just because raytheon has a 500m limit doesnt mean longer range ones dont exist.

Raytheon's device has a 250m limit, not 500m, and if there are longer range devices, why aren't they being marketed? Understand that range is a function of transmit power and antenna gain. To double the range you have to quadruple either the power or the gain, and the antenna gain can only be realistically acheived by increasing the size.

jessop1 wrote:

It can cook skin. (lets not argue over the definition of cook though - it can penetrate skin so prolonged such penetration will result in cooking)

So my honest question is this - why cant the raytheon transmit microwaves through walls if mobile phone masts can do just that?

It's a question of frequencies. Cell phones operate between 0.9 and 2.2GHz. The Raytheon device operates at something like 90GHz. At that frequency it can only penetrate less than half a millimetre of skin - it's certainly not going to be able to get through a solid wall.

jessop1 wrote:

Is it possible the black ops people you mentioned may have developed smaller ones they havent told the public about??

I don't recall mentioning black ops people. As to making them smaller: a smaller antenna means less gain, which means less focusing, which means shorter range. Bear in mind that the Raytheon gadget has a 45 inch antenna, on top of a 95x83x94", 3-ton transmitter unit.

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/nir.554.444.html

My apologies, there are measurements at some sites up to 40Ghz.
I missed these because they are not done for all sites.

However, I know for a fact that at least one site report only has details refering to GSM bands, when in fact it is a mixed use site with many more operators.

oscarBravo wrote:

The antenna is mounted 9.5m above ground level, and the beam is almost horizontal. By design it's aimed over nearby buildings, and it's unlikely that anyone will be directly within the area of maximum gain until you're approaching the limits of the cell's coverage.

30ft above ground in a built-up area isn't exactly very high, and I don't see any mention of the vertical beamwidth or antenna gain, so I don't know where you're getting that the beam is almost horizontal.

Regardless, I'm just giving that antenna site as an example of power levels. Actual coverage areas will of course be dependant on the particular installation.

oscarBravo wrote:

Yes there is, but unless you have specific evidence that FWA operators are producing power output comparable to mobile phone operators, it's fair to assume that they are operating broadly within the terms of their licences. Are you suggesting that they are transmitting at several orders of magnitude over the limits? Got any evidence of this?

I think if the regulatory regime is patchy then there is a strong motivation for some operators not to give a crap. Perhaps you have more faith in big business, sorry but I don't.

oscarBravo

Peanut wrote:

30ft above ground in a built-up area isn't exactly very high, and I don't see any mention of the vertical beamwidth or antenna gain, so I don't know where you're getting that the beam is almost horizontal.

Regardless, I'm just giving that antenna site as an example of power levels. Actual coverage areas will of course be dependant on the particular installation.

True, there's no mention of antenna gain or beamwidth, but as a practical matter, it makes sense to aim the beam almost horizontally, otherwise the coverage from the site will be extremely limited.

Peanut wrote:

I think if the regulatory regime is patchy then there is a strong motivation for some operators not to give a crap. Perhaps you have more faith in big business, sorry but I don't.

It's not a question of faith, it's a question of whether it makes business sense to implement an engineering strategy that could result in having to rebuild your network and/or lose customers, in the event that the regulator does decide to get fussy.

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not a question of faith, it's a question of whether it makes business sense to implement an engineering strategy that could result in having to rebuild your network and/or lose customers, in the event that the regulator does decide to get fussy.

Right, maybe I am paranoid, and after all, this is the conspiracy theories forum

However, threads like this don't exactly inspire confidence that exactly what you mention there, doesn't happen... losing customers, rebuilding the network?

Hey it may not make sense to rational people, doesn't mean that it can't happen.