Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

"HarryHydro" wrote in message
...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of safe
levels.

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message
...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of safe
levels.

True enough, but for the naysayers, I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message

...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject
to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of
safe
levels.

True enough, but for the naysayers, I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Why not go out in the sun without a hat?
Show me who has been harmed with a 5w Rf source taped to their head? (unless
they were sniffing exhaust or some other uncounted variable at the same
time)

Now stand in front of an XM terrestrial station - A bit too much I'd say,
but still can't prove it. Never gave the Blackberry sites a second thought.

JB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message

...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry
------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject
to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of
safe
levels.
True enough, but for the naysayers, I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Why not go out in the sun without a hat?
Show me who has been harmed with a 5w Rf source taped to their head? (unless
they were sniffing exhaust or some other uncounted variable at the same
time)

Nope, that isn't the question. I neither confirm nor deny that long term
exposure to FR at frequencies near those used in microwave ovens is
harmful. Heck near field exposure may even be beneficial. I'm not saying
one way or the other.

The great irony is that people buy their children cell phones, and the
kids spend every free minute with them pressed to their head, but if we
were to run an experiment that exposed the kids to RF in an exact analog
of what they are doing anyhow, they would go nuts - as well they should!
Would you?

I'm looking for those who think it isn't dangerous to have the courage
of their convictions.

Haven't found any yet. They actually might be on to something, they just
don't know it.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:00:22 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

I'm looking for those who think it isn't dangerous to have the courage
of their convictions.

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately, by your conjecture
I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.
this implies a co-equivalent risk where neither activity have any data
to support that a risk exists. Merely having a fear does not create
that missing data or Saddam's WMD would have been on display in the
white house rose garden.

Haven't found any yet. They actually might be on to something, they just
don't know it.

They actually might be grossly ignorant is more appropriate. The
positive spin is that with great fortune in luck, desire, or hope that
they (there is nothing "actual" involved) might (the illusions of a
gambler betting against the house) be on to something (a fog of
correlation masquerading as causation).

Those with the courage of conviction have more self-assurance than to
drop their lives to join any contest in a flood of whim. What your
challenge would reveal is quite the opposite: those who lack
faculties, are insecure, and hopelessly embrace the latest
superstition. Some swing their banners here without needing an
inviting challenge.

Let's simply return to:
With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna.
and examine this from first principles.

5 feet away from an uncalibrated antenna (the emission is at twice the
"2.4 gig antenna" whatever that means) is also 15 wavelengths away
(probably more, but 15 is certainly instructive). Is this a gain
antenna? That would remove some of the hot-house steam from this
orchid's appeal. The breathless "yes, 100mW" is the dazzle of looking
at the sun through binoculars.

However, let's put the issue of gain aside and accept this valuation,
along with the only known facts - that same 15 wavelength separation.
A simple model performed using a free version of EZNEC, employing a
clear path, no disturbing environment (like a skull), and perfect,
lossless matching of source and load gives a path loss of 45dB. That
report of "yes, 100mW" requires the Blackberry to source something
closer to 5KW.

It is more likely that -10dbW was "actually" -10dBm; and I am tempting
credulity to even allow that.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Unfortunately, by your conjecture
I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.
this implies a co-equivalent risk where neither activity have any data
to support that a risk exists. Merely having a fear does not create
that missing data or Saddam's WMD would have been on display in the
white house rose garden.
...

Funny, didn't someone just mention how it was known tobacco was harmful
to us--long before there was "proper proof."

This argument would hold much more water if microwave freqs from .9Ghz
to 20+ Ghz were not so efficient at heating/affecting water and other
polarized molecules. Now, didn't I read, somewhere, that the brain is
mainly composed of "fat"--fat IS a polarized molecule, and the brain
does contain water ...

I think most prudent men would be leery of holding a device emitting
freqs capable of cooking food next to their brain ...

Ever heard of bluetooth?

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I think

I'm not convinced. All I see is banner waving.

If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I think

I'm not convinced. All I see is banner waving.

If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cryptic, but if reference is made to 30Mhz and below (however, John
Kanzius DOES burn sea water with ~13.56Mhz--and, our blood DOES contain,
roughly, the same concentration of salt as sea water) ... not much worry
here; But then, for decades men have been exposed to TREMENDOUS fields
of these freqs--indeed, hang a turkey on a 5kw antenna, you'll eat a
cold dinner.

On power, my bluetooth is lucky to reach 30ft. I am amazed at how far
my cell phone reaches out to contact a tower ... I do get dropouts
(queued packets are dropped because they have timed out of their "place
in line", loss-of-signal and garble-ing in the valleys in the foothills
and behind hills/mountains.

An ear-set/mic would be the best, however, I always tear the cord loose ...

The phone is always on the console in the car ... when I am home/office,
it forwards calls to the internet phone.

I never claimed I could limit my risks to an absolute zero ... only that
prudent men would worry about this subject--perhaps even enough to take
precautions, which they are capable of.

In summary, if I wish to heat a chicken leg, a burner on the stove is
best (or microwave grin.) However, I DO believe I could accomplish
the same thing with my cigarette lighter, it would just take longer.

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC