It sounds like you are being RF level starved Mark! I was working on a PIN diode band switch once where I felt like I could measure to that degree of accuracy. I am not sure that I could actually reach that level of performance since any equipment reflection totally over whelmed the signal.
You need to play with more power if you want to have some fun. I once received an RF burn from a 100 watt VHF transmitter that I was load pulling. That put a hurt on me! Do I understand properly that you have a forward moving RF signal that is at some level, and that the reflections must not cause the primary signal amplitude to vary by more than .01 dB? Wow! Dave -----Original Message----- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 1:13 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought Dave: I sent you the paper PDF via personal email so you can see if there’s enough detail to answer your questions… I’m used to dealing with signals < .01dB, so when I see a signal that is ‘several dBs’ above what is expected, that’s a good thing!! J -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought Mark, you are working on an interesting project and I wish you great success. As you suggest, biological tissue is assumed to be very lossy and for that reason the levels due to resonances can not become too large I would think. Standing waves exist due to reflections that reinforce each other. If the material is very lossy then a wave reflecting off the far surface must by definition be reduced significantly before it returns to the opposite source surface. Any triple transit reflections would pretty much be unimportant. If you assume that the reflection is attenuated by 6 dB, which is 3 dB for each path, the maximum would be 3.5 dB above the input level. This calculation is assuming a low loss case of 3 dB so I would think that any reasonable attenuation would result in relatively little excess. Do you recall any examples supplied by the paper that can be analyzed? I bet they do not assume much attenuation before the first reflection even though the wavelength is still fairly long at those frequencies. Dave -----Original Message----- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 10, 2012 8:28 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought As a few here are aware, I’ve been involved in a technology which uses (very LOW power) RF and microwave frequencies to noninvasively measure blood sugar levels… so I’ve got hundreds of references in my lib, and considerable background on the electrical properties of biological tissues. The following paper is out of my reference library and explains why some SPECIFIC frequencies don’t behave as the models show, most likely due to a standing wave phenomenon when wavelengths are a multiple of the physical boundaries involved. I think the concern is reasonable, and that further research should be done to determine what frequency ranges exhibit this kind of amplified effect, and to ban those ranges from the consumer product space. This paper was a serendipitous discovery for me, and explains some of the unusual signals we see with our system… Biological tissue is mostly salt water, which is a very lossy (i.e., heavily damped) medium, thus, barring any resonant effects as explained above, the energy is simply dissipated as heat… and it takes a lot of RF energy (tens to hundreds of watts) to cause any significant heating. Most modern cell phones are between 1W and 4W. This from Wikipedia: “… a GSM handset can have a peak power of 2 watts, and a US analogue phone had a maximum transmit power of 3.6 watts.” And modern phones vary their xmt power depending on signal strength… if closer to cell tower then the phone can use lower xmt power. Here’s the reference: “Mechanisms of RF Electromagnetic Field Absorption in Human Hands and Fingers” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL. 60, NO. 7, JULY 2012 Abstract: The absorption of electromagnetic fields in the hand is investigated over the 900 to 3700 MHz frequency range. This enables the determination of the envelope of the peak spatial specific absorption rate in the hand. It also provides a basis for deriving measurement procedures for evaluating compliance of wireless devices with specific absorption rate limits in the hands. Both plane waves and dipole antennas are used to investigate the patterns of RF absorption in hand and finger tissue models for far and near-field exposures. The results demonstrate that absorption enhancements are found in the hand that are not present in a standardized flat phantom. Enhancements of several decibels are observed, depending on the model parameters. A method to conservatively estimate the exposure in the hand based on flat phantom measurements is proposed. -Mark Iverson From: Adrian Sampaleanu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:51 PM To: David Roberson; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought Hi Dave, I'm curious if you've actually watched the movie in its entirety or if your response is just the first reaction at something that, at least at surface level, seems to be the usual and typical alarmist news. >> "On occasions someone will state that cellular phones cause cancer and make >> the news only to be shown to be stretching the facts to get the results that >> they wish. No one has been successful in that endeavor, but it is not >> because of lack of trying." One of the points made in the documentary is that the wrong question has been asked - it should not be "How are cell phones (and other RF sources of certain frequencies) causing cancer?", but rather "How is RF (of certain frequencies) stopping the body from protecting itself against cancer?" >> "And I can assure you that engineers do take the potential dangers >> associated with RF seriously. Just ask cellular design teams about the many >> hours spent trying to reduce the exposure of users of their products. And I >> know of many hours and concerns being expended toward keeping the magnitude >> of the high level magnetic transmit fields that are used in electronic >> article surveillance equipment at a level that minimizes danger to those >> with pacemakers." I'm sure that engineers (btw, that's my background as well) do take the potential dangers of RF seriously. The problem, as detailed in this film, is that the legislation that sets the "safe" limits to which engineers adhere is created around the knowledge of what RF energy can do when it comes to ionization or thermal effects on molecules and does not account for the clearly demonstrated effects on DNA construction as well as melatonin (antioxidant) production. Additionally, again as discussed by "Resonance", cancer from exposure to RF is something that would need to be looked at after > 10 years of significant exposure to certain kinds of RF. We are just now getting there if you look back at how long most people have been using cell phones. Also, the effect RF can have on magnetically sensitive molecules which certain creatures (bees, butterflies, among others) use for compass-like orientation wrt Earth's magnetic field are also not they typical concern of engineers nor of ICNRP. >> "Engineers have expressed much concern about the products that they create, >> especially when it might endanger the public. It is unfair for anyone to >> suggest otherwise." As talked about in the film, the current cell tower grid (as well as other equipment) was certainly put up without a long term look at health effects. Please reference any studies examining the effects on melatonin production which were taken into account. Being concerned is not the same thing as being cautious. So yes, I'm sure we're all "concerned", but unfortunately, and for the most part, uninformed. In any case, if things are as the movie documents, what are we willing to do given the clear benefits of the technology involved here? For myself, until someone can "debunk" the supposedly alarmist claims, I'm going to minimize cell phone use. If I have to take a call I'll try to stick to speakerphone mode. >> "I am not sure of the agenda of the group that produced the movie you >> listed, but you should question it since it appears to be aimed at alarming >> those who are easily mislead. My daughter actually attended a school >> meeting of concerned parents that were convinced that a cellular tower would >> endanger their children if allowed to be placed at the side of the >> playground. Perhaps if it fell down upon them it would be dangerous, >> otherwise the RF level at the ground near the children would not be >> significant. This is the type of non sense that scare tactics enable." This makes me really think that you haven't taken the time to see the movie, since the negative effects talked about are there even at low power. If anyone has an agenda, it's an industry making billions of dollars which has managed, by way of bringing clear benefits to society, to avoid addressing the concerns discussed in the film (which are not those of "frying" your brain). It's clear that for most people, if it's out of sight, it's out of mind, especially if negative effects could take over a decade to become evident. So why not throw up a tower at your school if it'll pay for books, supplies, etc.? While you're at it, I heard that Coke is still sponsoring lunches at many US schools and they'd probably appreciate parents lobbying on their behalf against those with alarmist views. I think I can usually smell bunk, but the points "Resonance" made were pretty strong (outside of a couple of cases) and I had my wife, a researcher in biochemistry, sit through it as well to see if she would scoff at anything. It didn't seem that she saw any unreasonable claims. I repeat, if there are vortex members who cross the relevant domains here, I'd really like to hear why I shouldn't buy into what the movie is selling. Regards, Adrian From: David Roberson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Those EMP weapons (and your cellphone) could actually be doing more personal harm than previously thought Adrian, your post did not go unread, it just did not generate much emotion among our esteemed colleagues. There has been a long standing battle by lawyers and their clients seeking damages against the radio industry in cases that are poorly made. On occasions someone will state that cellular phones cause cancer and make the news only to be shown to be stretching the facts to get the results that they wish. No one has been successful in that endeavor, but it is not because of lack of trying. And I can assure you that engineers do take the potential dangers associated with RF seriously. Just ask cellular design teams about the many hours spent trying to reduce the exposure of users of their products. And I know of many hours and concerns being expended toward keeping the magnitude of the high level magnetic transmit fields that are used in electronic article surveillance equipment at a level that minimizes danger to those with pacemakers. Engineers have expressed much concern about the products that they create, especially when it might endanger the public. It is unfair for anyone to suggest otherwise. I am not sure of the agenda of the group that produced the movie you listed, but you should question it since it appears to be aimed at alarming those who are easily mislead. My daughter actually attended a school meeting of concerned parents that were convinced that a cellular tower would endanger their children if allowed to be placed at the side of the playground. Perhaps if it fell down upon them it would be dangerous, otherwise the RF level at the ground near the children would not be significant. This is the type of non sense that scare tactics enable. Dave
