Last time I argued with you about this you told me you got shocked by an RF antenna
You proved my point. I loved radio, but I like Pandora better and that comes through a cable (at least to my house :)) Stewart On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:41 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Not really Stewart. I have worked on radios and theory for many years > and I understand it quite well. You are missing the point about the pulse > repetition rate and its relationship to the radiated signal. The low > frequencies are not radiated by a very band limited high frequency RF > transmission system. That is trivial and anyone with RF experience > understands it. You are not well informed about how these systems operate > and are making assumptions that do not exist. > > Have you spent many years designing radios or putting systems into > operation? You should let all the vortex readers know about your > background in RF transmitters so that they can judge the accuracy of your > predictions. I am happy to discuss my career in that field. > > Much of the modern world depends upon RF communications and I am quite > proud of the work I have done in that area. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2015 2:00 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible cause for coral reefs dying... > > No, I have concentrated on pulsed radars, which pulse at 0-1000 Hz, > considered very low frequencies. > > Dave you are generalizing and have done no research yourself. > > Here is some: > > > http://darkmattersalot.com/2015/05/19/and-you-thought-the-bp-oil-spill-was-bad/ > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> Of course if you limit your impact to those transmitters that >> communicate with submarines then these very low frequency signals do travel >> into the deeper water. But, so far it appears that you have placed all >> type of radars, etc. into the same category, which is not reasonable. >> >> From what I read in the news there are ocean dead zones in many locations >> that have little or nothing at all to do with RF transmissions. Many >> reefs are dying where no transmitters are located nearby to contribute to >> the problem. The concern about warming waters is a major one that is often >> used to explain the dying and that is more likely than high frequency RF >> transmissions. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Tue, Jul 7, 2015 10:07 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible cause for coral reefs dying... >> >> Thanks for the numbers. >> >> This should be relatively straight forward to test: >> >> Set up two salt water aquariums supporting comparable coral >> populations. Run them for a year or so to see they are stable. Then >> subject one of them to low frequency EM radiation. >> >> PS: What I mean contraction in terms is that "pulse" implies high >> frequency components and, indeed, is usually illustrated by time >> differential on a square wave to filter out the low frequency components. >> However, your point is well taken -- a short duration transmission of a >> high power low frequency signal will penetrate salt water -- with a very >> drastic reduction in power with depth, as your numbers show. >> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:50 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Low frequency pulse. >>> >>> Also, we are not communicating with the marine life and coral reef, >>> the evidence is mounting that 2 terrawatts of effective isotropic radiated >>> power (EIRP) in a local area scattered by the overhead atmosphere is mildly >>> shocking the marine life through electromagnetic induction and conduction >>> through the salt water near the surface as it "grounds out" into the ocean. >>> You can't fool mother nature sort of thing. >>> >>> Here is a model of induced electrical currents in seawater surface >>> around just one ship's antennas. Now imagine 27 high power coastal based >>> radars/antennas and 45 warship radars/antennas in one area. >>> >>> >>> http://darkmattersalot.com/2015/05/14/how-cousteau-and-noaa-killed-the-reef/ >>> >>> >>> Effects of Electrical Current* on the Body [3] >>> <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-123/2002-123f.html#end3> *Current* >>> *Reaction* 1 milliamp Just a faint tingle. 5 milliamps Slight shock >>> felt. Disturbing, but not painful. Most people can “let go.” However, >>> strong involuntary movements can cause injuries. 6-25 milliamps >>> (women)† >>> 9-30 milliamps (men) Painful shock. Muscular control is lost. This is >>> the range where “freezing currents” start. It may not be possible to “let >>> go.” 50-150 milliamps Extremely painful shock, respiratory arrest >>> (breathing stops), severe muscle contractions. Flexor muscles may cause >>> holding on; extensor muscles may cause intense pushing away. Death is >>> possible. 1,000-4,300 milliamps (1-4.3 amps) Ventricular fibrillation >>> (heart pumping action not rhythmic) occurs. Muscles contract; nerve damage >>> occurs. Death is likely. 10,000 milliamps (10 amps) Cardiac arrest and >>> severe burns occur. Death is probable. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:43 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Low pulsed frequency is a contradiction in terms. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 7:01 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Except low pulsed frequencies >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015, James Bowery < jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:42 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint < >>>>>> zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is primarily meant for fellow Vort, ChemEng (Stewart), but >>>>>>> some others may have an interest… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stewart, I think I may have a cause for your hypothesis re: a link >>>>>>> between our modern radar systems and the dying of coral reefs… >>>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> Time to break out the tin-foil hats??? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No need. Salt water shields against EM penetration. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
