Do I want a cellphone tower on my property?

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 09:35:24 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <7bcqfe5r9bl8hrjqbnqh0s2nskq84feuet@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting,
so better stay away from those dishes!

Perhaps purchasing a "personal RF safety monitor"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor
such as:
https://www.fieldsense.com
Version 2 is only $600. Carry one of these and you don't need to
guess if that nearby antenna will turn your brain to mush. I don't
climb towers any more, but if I did today, I would probably purchase
or build something similar.

You can probably use a much cheaper 3 axis RF field strength meter:
https://www.google.com/search?q=3+axis+rf+field+strength+meter&tbm=isch
However, you might need to do some calculations and graph reading to
determine if you're safe. You will also need to know the frequencies
involved in order to make the determination.

I have one of these (apart from all the real RF stuff I have)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392266677231

adjustable sensitivity, 1MHz to 6.5 GHz
cannot beat the 7$ free shipping price,
goes wild near a PC or raspberry or monitor
or anything that radiates RF.
Very useful thing really.
And has a compass too

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 11:05:12 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

Hey Jeff, how would I find out where my local 5G tower fits in the chart
you posted here,> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#FR2_Network_coverage

the pole,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4njypwglbtmu4t/5G%20pole.jpg?dl=0

The Building permit,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5sq29hlzlcrq2l/5G%20Permit.jpg?dl=0

Not worried about RF, just want to know if it will be of use to me.
I suspect it will be, I'm 1450ft away.
Mikek

PS, the next closest 5G tower I'm aware of, is 1.9 miles away.

Dunno. It says "Verizon 5G" on the permit. The pole looks like
something half way between a pico-cell and a micro-cell. These
classifications are not rigid and there's plenty of room for
creativity.

The VZW web pile isn't much help:
<https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/>

Verizon is using 28GHz. If you happen to have a microwave receiver or
spectrum analyzer handy, you can do some sniffing and direction
finding to locate other sites.

Unfortunately, I have no clue what hardware is on that pole and what
manner of antenna (omni, sector, phased array, beam forming, gain,
etc) is being used, so I can't run any calculations for estimating the
range.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you from installing a big parabolic
dish reflector at your location, put your 5G radio at the focus, and
aim it at the 5G pole. Alignment will be super critical, but I think
it can be done. Do you have line of sight? If not, forget it.

"5G mmWave: Facts and fictions you should definitely know"
<https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-5g-mmwave-933631/>
Base stations will likely offer up to a kilometer of
directed coverage, although 500 meters (~1,500 feet) is
probably a safer bet, after taking into account obstacles
and foliage.

"Millimeter Wave 5G: The Usain Bolt of Wireless?"
<https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/millimeter-wave-5g-the-usain-bolt-of-wireless/a/d-id/742192>
...the consensus from multiple people I spoke to at Mobile
World Congress in Barcelona was that mobile 5G on millimeter
wave would have a range of 100 meters to 200 meters, or 328
feet to 656 feet.

Looks like you're a bit too far.

I predict a revival of the do-it-thyself Wi-Fi reflector range
extenders, except at 24 to 40Ghz frequencies:
<http://www.freeantennas.com>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:49:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 09:35:24 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <7bcqfe5r9bl8hrjqbnqh0s2nskq84feuet@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting,
so better stay away from those dishes!

Perhaps purchasing a "personal RF safety monitor"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor
such as:
https://www.fieldsense.com
Version 2 is only $600. Carry one of these and you don't need to
guess if that nearby antenna will turn your brain to mush. I don't
climb towers any more, but if I did today, I would probably purchase
or build something similar.

You can probably use a much cheaper 3 axis RF field strength meter:
https://www.google.com/search?q=3+axis+rf+field+strength+meter&tbm=isch
However, you might need to do some calculations and graph reading to
determine if you're safe. You will also need to know the frequencies
involved in order to make the determination.

I have one of these (apart from all the real RF stuff I have)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392266677231

adjustable sensitivity, 1MHz to 6.5 GHz
cannot beat the 7$ free shipping price,
goes wild near a PC or raspberry or monitor
or anything that radiates RF.
Very useful thing really.
And has a compass too

Why is a sensitivity adjustment required ?

A proper meter should have a logarithmic rectifier so that the result
cam be displayed in dBV/m (dBuV/m) or dBW/m˛ (dBm/m˛).

Even better, it should have an analog scale, say from -60 dBV/m to +60
dBV/m. This would create less panic in uneducated users.

IMHO, also ionized radiation should be measured with a logarithmic
scale to avoid panic

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:38:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Would not you be just as worried if a 24 GHz antenna was on a street light
next to your bedroom window?

Nope. I've posted the incidence of various cancers versus year and
age several times in this newsgroups. If there was a connection
between cell phone exposure and cancer, it would have appeared in the
graph in about 1990, when cell phone use increased dramatically.
Instead, the graphs by year are flat showing no correlation. Whether
that can be extended to include mm wave exposure is questionable. I
suspect it might be much the same as lower frequencies, but have no
evidence, yet. Want me to repost the relevant graphs and URL's?

>I have a street light on a high pole in front of the house...

I could use it. All I have in front of my house are 200ft high
redwood trees. No street lights within about 2 miles. I guess that
also means no 5G for many years.

>Personally I think 5G is largely a hype.

So do I.

>I use internet extensively, and do not feel the need for higher speed really.

If connectivity speeds were frozen in time at DSL rates about 10 years
ago, how long would it have taken for you to demand more bandwidth?
You don't feel the need right now because the current available
bandwidths match your current needs. However, the value of any new
technology is determined by how it is abused and misused. Use your
imagination as to how you can abuse gigabit bandwidth and 10msec
latency.

Want to build a non-autonomous avatar robot that does your shopping
for you? Maybe the same thing in the form of a remote manipulator?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator>

Action at a distance has always been the dream of many science fiction
writers. Given low latency and lots of bandwidth, it can be done. Are
you ready for 3D TV in high-K resolution? Just 3 high speed cameras,
a 3D display system, some sensory feedback, and it's almost like you
were there in person. Virtual tourism perhaps? Walk around the
inside of a nuclear reactor? 5G sex? Telemedicine? No problem.

My devious mind can't seem to conjure any potential abuses of gigabit
bandwidths right now. However, I'm sure more caffeine and trying
harder will produce sufficient bandwidth abuses to change your mind.

OTOH some people think it is cool to put HD movies on youtube with no
other content than them babbling along.

The surest signs of success are abuse and pollution. YouTube is
certainly successful.

That would be better in a postage stamp size low resolution window...
It is the same with ultra HD TV,
it is the content that counts, not the resolution!
But then a new standard every few year sells new stuff.

Our personalities develop and improve to the point where we're
comfortable. Then, we stop growing for fear of losing it all. I
stopped at about age 23. When new technology is no longer interesting
(or tolerable) and you find yourself delving in retro-technology,
nostalgia, back to the farm, and such, you've lost your will to grow.
The price of progress is never ending change, even for things that for
the moment function quite well.

><end rant (for now)>

All my postings are rants. My rants never end. That's fine because
when someone stops complaining (or ranting), I assume that they're
either satisfied with things as they are and don't need any more
changes, or have given up trying to change things. The first step to
changing something is to complain about it.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:49:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have one of these (apart from all the real RF stuff I have)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392266677231

adjustable sensitivity, 1MHz to 6.5 GHz
cannot beat the 7$ free shipping price,
goes wild near a PC or raspberry or monitor
or anything that radiates RF.
Very useful thing really.
And has a compass too

Sigh. If it's that sensitive, my guess(tm) is that it measures peak
power instead of average power. If the RF signal has any type of duty
cycle involved, such as TDMA cellular, half duplex radio, or Wi-Fi,
you'll see a rediculously high indication which has little
relationship to actual RF exposure. If you installed a filter cap
after the detector to produce something resembling averaging, the
meter would barely detect anything.

Oddly, some models recognize the problem and offer a peak/average
switch:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/GM3120-Digital-LCD-Electromagnetic-Radiation-Detector-EMF-Meter-Dosimeter-Tool/401180553362>
It might actuallly do something useful, but I haven't tested one.

In a fit of temporary insanity, I bought one of these DT-1130 EMF
meters:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/DT-1130-Handheld-EMF-Meter-LCD-Digital-Electromagnetic-Radiation-Detector-Tester/391943540592>
It's good for detecting AC power lines, switching power supplies,
motors, and little else. It will detect older TDMA and GSM phones,
but won't detect CDMA or 4G phones. No way does it work up to 2GHz.
Looks like it might make a nice project box.

If you're really worried about exceeding some RF exposure limit, I
suggest that you build or buy something that works and can be
calibrated.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 21:23:17 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
<t2jqfe19dmkomc1dn95i8ii83iejdun609@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:49:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 09:35:24 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <7bcqfe5r9bl8hrjqbnqh0s2nskq84feuet@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting,
so better stay away from those dishes!

Perhaps purchasing a "personal RF safety monitor"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor
such as:
https://www.fieldsense.com
Version 2 is only $600. Carry one of these and you don't need to
guess if that nearby antenna will turn your brain to mush. I don't
climb towers any more, but if I did today, I would probably purchase
or build something similar.

You can probably use a much cheaper 3 axis RF field strength meter:
https://www.google.com/search?q=3+axis+rf+field+strength+meter&tbm=isch
However, you might need to do some calculations and graph reading to
determine if you're safe. You will also need to know the frequencies
involved in order to make the determination.

I have one of these (apart from all the real RF stuff I have)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392266677231

adjustable sensitivity, 1MHz to 6.5 GHz
cannot beat the 7$ free shipping price,
goes wild near a PC or raspberry or monitor
or anything that radiates RF.
Very useful thing really.
And has a compass too

Why is a sensitivity adjustment required ?

A proper meter should have a logarithmic rectifier so that the result
cam be displayed in dBV/m (dBuV/m) or dBW/m˛ (dBm/m˛).

Even better, it should have an analog scale, say from -60 dBV/m to +60
dBV/m. This would create less panic in uneducated users.

IMHO, also ionized radiation should be measured with a logarithmic
scale to avoid panic

Yes, well it is a detector (for bugs (electronic bugs that is) ),
that is a yes / no signalling.

By setting the trigger level just below alarm you can make it extremely sensitive.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:34:31 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <4jiqfepn6afdj8ris8lqidkp3b40g4lupi@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:49:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have one of these (apart from all the real RF stuff I have)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392266677231

adjustable sensitivity, 1MHz to 6.5 GHz
cannot beat the 7$ free shipping price,
goes wild near a PC or raspberry or monitor
or anything that radiates RF.
Very useful thing really.
And has a compass too

Sigh. If it's that sensitive, my guess(tm) is that it measures peak
power instead of average power. If the RF signal has any type of duty
cycle involved, such as TDMA cellular, half duplex radio, or Wi-Fi,
you'll see a rediculously high indication which has little
relationship to actual RF exposure. If you installed a filter cap
after the detector to produce something resembling averaging, the
meter would barely detect anything.

Oddly, some models recognize the problem and offer a peak/average
switch:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/GM3120-Digital-LCD-Electromagnetic-Radiation-Detector-EMF-Meter-Dosimeter-Tool/401180553362
It might actuallly do something useful, but I haven't tested one.

In a fit of temporary insanity, I bought one of these DT-1130 EMF
meters:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/DT-1130-Handheld-EMF-Meter-LCD-Digital-Electromagnetic-Radiation-Detector-Tester/391943540592
It's good for detecting AC power lines, switching power supplies,
motors, and little else. It will detect older TDMA and GSM phones,
but won't detect CDMA or 4G phones. No way does it work up to 2GHz.
Looks like it might make a nice project box.

If you're really worried about exceeding some RF exposure limit, I
suggest that you build or buy something that works and can be
calibrated.

I have build some RF detectors, but than it is all about the antennas.

You are in the boonies it seems, but here if I do a WiFi scan
I see many many stations, some using boosters perhaps,
2.4 GHz everywhere.

That ebay thing in the link I posted does react to Wifi if close enough.
Also to car keys, 433 MHz gadgets, phones, it does not pretend to do more.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:19 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <5egqfe9fgafskipcuitla36vb4e3qhcusp@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:38:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Would not you be just as worried if a 24 GHz antenna was on a street light
next to your bedroom window?

Nope. I've posted the incidence of various cancers versus year and
age several times in this newsgroups. If there was a connection
between cell phone exposure and cancer, it would have appeared in the
graph in about 1990, when cell phone use increased dramatically.
Instead, the graphs by year are flat showing no correlation.

Is that not a simplification?
I mean it is not only cancers, I could imagine brain damage like what's it called
Adult onset diabetes.
Arthritis.
Kidney and bladder problems.
Dementia.
Parkinson's disease.
Glaucoma.
Lung disease.
Cataracts.
(cut and paste from google 'old age illnesses')
have those been checked against RF exposure?
One could reason those appear in the same time frame?
Personally I would expect the neural system to be a sensitive spot.

Whether
that can be extended to include mm wave exposure is questionable. I
suspect it might be much the same as lower frequencies, but have no
evidence, yet. Want me to repost the relevant graphs and URL's?

I dunno, I grab google if I want to know something, wikipedia,
science papers.

Google changed our way of learning in a fantastic positive way, so does wikipedia, and so does Usenet.
They should not fine google, IMHO.
It is one of the best things we have.

I have a street light on a high pole in front of the house...

I could use it. All I have in front of my house are 200ft high
redwood trees. No street lights within about 2 miles. I guess that
also means no 5G for many years.

Satellite?
I stream HD movies from sat, we have hundreds of FTA sat channels here, so that is the download.
Maybe if SpaceX provides a service...

Personally I think 5G is largely a hype.

So do I.

I use internet extensively, and do not feel the need for higher speed really.

If connectivity speeds were frozen in time at DSL rates about 10 years
ago, how long would it have taken for you to demand more bandwidth?

There is this thing, I think it was discussed recently.
there was a NEED foe cellphones, when I heard about those I wanted one,
so much better than going to a phone booth... Be reachable anywhere..

Video phone never really took of as it was about 'contact' not about the picture so much.
email was cool (SMS) because you could read it when you wanted, later you could add pictures,
also very useful.

But the trend to ever higher resolution is coupled to ever more bandwidth, and is not so much needed,
What IS needed is sunlight readable non reflective screens.
But many people do not ever know what that is.

You don't feel the need right now because the current available
bandwidths match your current needs. However, the value of any new
technology is determined by how it is abused and misused. Use your
imagination as to how you can abuse gigabit bandwidth and 10msec
latency.

Want to build a non-autonomous avatar robot that does your shopping
for you? Maybe the same thing in the form of a remote manipulator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator

Sure, but I do not want a speaker in my room spying on me (Amazon)
or my fridge ordering things, or even smart meters (they just placed a smart electricity and gas meter,
then the new 'smart' gas meter was defective and leaking, it had to be replaced.

Will see when the first bills arrive if it is worse ..

There has to be a real NEED (sorry for the caps shouting) for things to really sell,
not the artificial created needs, those do not last.

Action at a distance has always been the dream of many science fiction
writers. Given low latency and lots of bandwidth, it can be done. Are
you ready for 3D TV in high-K resolution?

I have a 3D TV (Samsung) with high resolution,
had it for years, no transmissions except one seen so far that support it here

Just 3 high speed cameras,
a 3D display system, some sensory feedback, and it's almost like you
were there in person. Virtual tourism perhaps? Walk around the
inside of a nuclear reactor? 5G sex? Telemedicine? No problem.

Sure when they do that star wars like holographic thing in color maybe..
That sort of thing will really take bandwidth... 1000 times more.
Trends, I liked old movies better without those silly simulations,
real explosives!
Next will be artificial actors, artificial people,
and AI writing the script.
It will suck!
Some of those 'almost real women robots' have eyes that frighten me

Before you know you live in the matrix..

My devious mind can't seem to conjure any potential abuses of gigabit
bandwidths right now. However, I'm sure more caffeine and trying
harder will produce sufficient bandwidth abuses to change your mind.

For me at least, and I think I am not so different from anyone else,
the inspiration to design something new must come from a deeper longing
to something.
I'd call that motivation.
I'v hacked things nobody could because I was motivated.
The dangerous thing for this world is the 'motivated hacker'.
I know about some guy, unfortunately for him he landed in jail last I heard,
who was so .. good... he was a threat to Big Brother and likely also to a lot of Little Brothers.

We could be living on mars now, the tech has been there since Von Braun, but the motivation is not there
in humanity.

The motivation

OTOH some people think it is cool to put HD movies on youtube with no
other content than them babbling along.

The surest signs of success are abuse and pollution. YouTube is
certainly successful.

That would be better in a postage stamp size low resolution window...
It is the same with ultra HD TV,
it is the content that counts, not the resolution!
But then a new standard every few year sells new stuff.

Our personalities develop and improve to the point where we're
comfortable. Then, we stop growing for fear of losing it all. I
stopped at about age 23. When new technology is no longer interesting
(or tolerable) and you find yourself delving in retro-technology,
nostalgia, back to the farm, and such, you've lost your will to grow.
The price of progress is never ending change, even for things that for
the moment function quite well.

Maybe I am different, always when I sort of feel 'I got this now' I just quit,
traveled the world, explored things, found something to make money with to be able to eat,
next thing.
This was not always appreciated by employers, some were really pissed I left after a few years..
But so much to learn, some journey, you only live once.
But motivation, curiosity, is important, have some goal.

end rant (for now)

All my postings are rants. My rants never end. That's fine because
when someone stops complaining (or ranting), I assume that they're
either satisfied with things as they are and don't need any more
changes, or have given up trying to change things. The first step to
changing something is to complain about it.

Life is not bad here, I have little to complain, old now, fun hobbies,
yet I know if 'that thing happens that motivates' me all is possible.

In the end there is no free will, we are part of this universe, all those forces of
that universe work on us, and from the subconscious upwards one day we will start on some adventure,,,
yes it is all mechanical like a puppet on a string perhaps,
we are just a wetware computer, with an illusion of self consciousness,
It is 'there but for fortune' and always has been.
Just like stars are born, and stars die,

oops getting into philosophy again..

I am sure past present and future are all known (to us), we are in cross field of those.

From MY experience.

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 12:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 11:05:12 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
Hey Jeff, how would I find out where my local 5G tower fits in the chart
you posted here,> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#FR2_Network_coverage

the pole,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4njypwglbtmu4t/5G%20pole.jpg?dl=0

The Building permit,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5sq29hlzlcrq2l/5G%20Permit.jpg?dl=0

Not worried about RF, just want to know if it will be of use to me.
I suspect it will be, I'm 1450ft away.
Mikek

PS, the next closest 5G tower I'm aware of, is 1.9 miles away.

Dunno. It says "Verizon 5G" on the permit. The pole looks like
something half way between a pico-cell and a micro-cell. These
classifications are not rigid and there's plenty of room for
creativity.

The VZW web pile isn't much help:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/

Verizon is using 28GHz. If you happen to have a microwave receiver or
spectrum analyzer handy, you can do some sniffing and direction
finding to locate other sites.

Unfortunately, I have no clue what hardware is on that pole and what
manner of antenna (omni, sector, phased array, beam forming, gain,
etc) is being used, so I can't run any calculations for estimating the
range.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you from installing a big parabolic
dish reflector at your location, put your 5G radio at the focus, and
aim it at the 5G pole. Alignment will be super critical, but I think
it can be done. Do you have line of sight? If not, forget it.

Doesn't look so good for me then, I have two small apartment buildings
and two large auto repair buildings between my yard and the antenna.
Time to scout for more antennas in the area.
Mikek

"5G mmWave: Facts and fictions you should definitely know"
https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-5g-mmwave-933631/
Base stations will likely offer up to a kilometer of
directed coverage, although 500 meters (~1,500 feet) is
probably a safer bet, after taking into account obstacles
and foliage.

"Millimeter Wave 5G: The Usain Bolt of Wireless?"
https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/millimeter-wave-5g-the-usain-bolt-of-wireless/a/d-id/742192
...the consensus from multiple people I spoke to at Mobile
World Congress in Barcelona was that mobile 5G on millimeter
wave would have a range of 100 meters to 200 meters, or 328
feet to 656 feet.

Looks like you're a bit too far.

I predict a revival of the do-it-thyself Wi-Fi reflector range
extenders, except at 24 to 40Ghz frequencies:
http://www.freeantennas.com

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 5:33:46 AM UTC-4, piglet wrote:

On 09/06/2019 08:15, Jan Panteltje wrote:
That does not bother me, but anything near 2.4 GHz you better watch out for.


Why are you worried by 2.4GHz?

There is zero purpose to discussing such issues with the uninformed and even less purpose to discussing this with someone who had already made up their minds on such evidence as "It is close to the same frequency that heats stuff in your microwave." It shows literally no knowledge of the detailed subject, just a passing familiarity of the general concepts. In other words, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 12:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 11:05:12 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
Hey Jeff, how would I find out where my local 5G tower fits in the chart
you posted here,> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#FR2_Network_coverage

the pole,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4njypwglbtmu4t/5G%20pole.jpg?dl=0

The Building permit,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5sq29hlzlcrq2l/5G%20Permit.jpg?dl=0

Not worried about RF, just want to know if it will be of use to me.
I suspect it will be, I'm 1450ft away.
Mikek

PS, the next closest 5G tower I'm aware of, is 1.9 miles away.

Dunno. It says "Verizon 5G" on the permit. The pole looks like
something half way between a pico-cell and a micro-cell. These
classifications are not rigid and there's plenty of room for
creativity.

The VZW web pile isn't much help:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/

Verizon is using 28GHz. If you happen to have a microwave receiver or
spectrum analyzer handy, you can do some sniffing and direction
finding to locate other sites.

Unfortunately, I have no clue what hardware is on that pole and what
manner of antenna (omni, sector, phased array, beam forming, gain,
etc) is being used, so I can't run any calculations for estimating the
range.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you from installing a big parabolic
dish reflector at your location, put your 5G radio at the focus, and
aim it at the 5G pole. Alignment will be super critical, but I think
it can be done. Do you have line of sight? If not, forget it.

"5G mmWave: Facts and fictions you should definitely know"
https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-5g-mmwave-933631/
Base stations will likely offer up to a kilometer of
directed coverage, although 500 meters (~1,500 feet) is
probably a safer bet, after taking into account obstacles
and foliage.

"Millimeter Wave 5G: The Usain Bolt of Wireless?"
https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/millimeter-wave-5g-the-usain-bolt-of-wireless/a/d-id/742192
...the consensus from multiple people I spoke to at Mobile
World Congress in Barcelona was that mobile 5G on millimeter
wave would have a range of 100 meters to 200 meters, or 328
feet to 656 feet.

Looks like you're a bit too far.

I predict a revival of the do-it-thyself Wi-Fi reflector range
extenders, except at 24 to 40Ghz frequencies:
http://www.freeantennas.com

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-06-09 20:23, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:49:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 09:35:24 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <7bcqfe5r9bl8hrjqbnqh0s2nskq84feuet@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting,
so better stay away from those dishes!

Perhaps purchasing a "personal RF safety monitor"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor
such as:
https://www.fieldsense.com
Version 2 is only $600. Carry one of these and you don't need to
guess if that nearby antenna will turn your brain to mush. I don't
climb towers any more, but if I did today, I would probably purchase
or build something similar.

You can probably use a much cheaper 3 axis RF field strength meter:
https://www.google.com/search?q=3+axis+rf+field+strength+meter&tbm=isch
However, you might need to do some calculations and graph reading to
determine if you're safe. You will also need to know the frequencies
involved in order to make the determination.

I have one of these (apart from all the real RF stuff I have)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392266677231

adjustable sensitivity, 1MHz to 6.5 GHz
cannot beat the 7$ free shipping price,
goes wild near a PC or raspberry or monitor
or anything that radiates RF.
Very useful thing really.
And has a compass too

Why is a sensitivity adjustment required ?

A proper meter should have a logarithmic rectifier so that the result
cam be displayed in dBV/m (dBuV/m) or dBW/m˛ (dBm/m˛).

Even better, it should have an analog scale, say from -60 dBV/m to +60
dBV/m. This would create less panic in uneducated users.

IMHO, also ionized radiation should be measured with a logarithmic
scale to avoid panic

More people should see this: <https://xkcd.com/radiation/>. It's
instructive.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 3:05 PM, amdx wrote:

On 6/9/2019 12:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 11:05:12 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
Hey Jeff, how would I find out where my local 5G tower fits in the chart
you posted here,> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#FR2_Network_coverage

the pole,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4njypwglbtmu4t/5G%20pole.jpg?dl=0

The Building permit,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5sq29hlzlcrq2l/5G%20Permit.jpg?dl=0

Not worried about RF, just want to know if it will be of use to me.
I suspect it will be, I'm 1450ft away.
                                         Mikek

PS, the next closest 5G tower I'm aware of, is 1.9 miles away.

Dunno.  It says "Verizon 5G" on the permit.  The pole looks like
something half way between a pico-cell and a micro-cell.  These
classifications are not rigid and there's plenty of room for
creativity.

The VZW web pile isn't much help:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/5g/

Verizon is using 28GHz.  If you happen to have a microwave receiver or
spectrum analyzer handy, you can do some sniffing and direction
finding to locate other sites.

Unfortunately, I have no clue what hardware is on that pole and what
manner of antenna (omni, sector, phased array, beam forming, gain,
etc) is being used, so I can't run any calculations for estimating the
range.

Of course, there's nothing to stop you from installing a big parabolic
dish reflector at your location, put your 5G radio at the focus, and
aim it at the 5G pole.  Alignment will be super critical, but I think
it can be done.  Do you have line of sight?  If not, forget it.


 Doesn't look so good for me then, I have two small apartment buildings
and two large auto repair buildings between my yard and the antenna.
  Time to scout for more antennas in the area.
                                               Mikek

I just went for a ride and found 6 5G cell sites East of my home, all
1000ft to 2000 ft apart. The seem to follow a middle street between two
major roads in town.
Next trip I'll go West and see what I find.

Mikek

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 8:37:49 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote...

Do not do it, high level RF radiation for a
long time is dangerous.

... What you want is an RF absorber, not a reflector. Tin foil and
aluminum are reflectors and simply reflect the signal in another
direction.

One common black pigment (iron oxide/hematite/magnetite) is a good
absorber over a wide frequency range, and certainly at microwave
frequencies. But it's BLACK, you'd probably not want that as your house
paint color. Maybe as underlayer inside the house, though, it'd be feasible.
Buy some tarps, masking tape and paper, rent a sprayer...

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2019 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<e46d80d3-428e-4647-a411-44dcfa14f9d2@googlegroups.com>:

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 5:33:46 AM UTC-4, piglet wrote:
On 09/06/2019 08:15, Jan Panteltje wrote:
That does not bother me, but anything near 2.4 GHz you better watch out
for.


Why are you worried by 2.4GHz?

There is zero purpose to discussing such issues with the uninformed and even
less purpose to discussing this with someone who had already made up their
minds on such evidence as "It is close to the same frequency that heats stuff
in your microwave." It shows literally no knowledge of the detailed subject,
just a passing familiarity of the general concepts. In other words,
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You are here the usual clueless idiot
you have no RF experience whatsoever,
same with all the other 'opinions' you have.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 19:07:15 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 11:03:19 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <5egqfe9fgafskipcuitla36vb4e3qhcusp@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 16:38:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Would not you be just as worried if a 24 GHz antenna was on a street light
next to your bedroom window?

Nope. I've posted the incidence of various cancers versus year and
age several times in this newsgroups. If there was a connection
between cell phone exposure and cancer, it would have appeared in the
graph in about 1990, when cell phone use increased dramatically.
Instead, the graphs by year are flat showing no correlation.

Is that not a simplification?

No, I don't think its a simplification. I think it's the best test
data we have available. If there were some kind of brain cancer
epidemic with increased cell phone use starting in 1990, it would
appear in the graphs. I see none.
<https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php?site=76&data_type=1&graph_type=1&compareBy=sex&chk_sex_1=1&chk_race_1=1&chk_age_range_1=1&chk_data_type_1=1&advopt_precision=1&advopt_display=2&showDataFor=race_1_and_age_range_1_and_data_type_1>
Besides, I prefer simplicity over complexity.

I mean it is not only cancers, I could imagine brain damage like what's it called
Adult onset diabetes.
Arthritis.
Kidney and bladder problems.
Dementia.
Parkinson's disease.
Glaucoma.
Lung disease.
Cataracts.
(cut and paste from google 'old age illnesses')
have those been checked against RF exposure?

Probably not. However, it's easy enough to do on a large scale. Just
organize a survey of cell phone users and non-users and see what
maladies they accumulate. Finding someone who doesn't use a cell
phone might be a problem. The problem with such a survey is that,
except for diabetes, every malady you listed is far more common as we
get older than with the young. For example, brain cancer incidence
almost totally follows age:
<https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php?site=76&data_type=1&graph_type=3&compareBy=sex&chk_sex_1=1&chk_race_1=1&chk_data_type_1=1&advopt_precision=1&showDataFor=race_1_and_data_type_1>
For that matter, all cancers follow age:
<https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/application.php?site=1&data_type=1&graph_type=3&compareBy=sex&chk_sex_1=1&chk_race_1=1&chk_data_type_1=1&advopt_precision=1&showDataFor=race_1_and_data_type_1>
Oddly, the highest incidence of brain cancer is among those who use
cell phones the least. Unfortunately, I don't have access to such
detailed incidence data for each of your itemized diseases. However,
if I did, I suspect I would see much the same curve.

Another problem with correlating cell phone use with almost any malady
is that many of them are somewhat hereditary. While I can't say that
inherit our diseases from our ancestors, we are genetically disposed
to inheriting their ailments. My family has a history of
cardiovascular problems and I'm following in their footsteps. Yet
neither of my parents every used a cell phone in their life and had
the same problems that I've inherited. If RF exposure were to be
blamed for causing some malady, there would need to be a drastic
increase in incidence because few of our ancestors used cell phones.

>One could reason those appear in the same time frame?

Correlation does not imply causation. Here's a web site full of
spurious correlations:
<https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations>

>Personally I would expect the neural system to be a sensitive spot.

Judging by the logic used by proponents of that suggestions, I would
agree. There are also those who claim that various body parts and
organs are resonant at various frequencies. I don't care. Show me a
malady that shows an increased incidence after about 1990 and follows
cell phone usage patterns and I might begin to pay attention.

Google changed our way of learning in a fantastic positive way, so does wikipedia, and so does Usenet.
They should not fine google, IMHO.
It is one of the best things we have.

Here we agree. I can't even remember what I did to get up to date
information prior to Google. If Google can't find it, it doesn't
exist.

Satellite?
I stream HD movies from sat, we have hundreds of FTA sat channels here, so that is the download.
Maybe if SpaceX provides a service...

Some of my customers have Hughes Net or Exede satellite internet
service. I would consider that a last resort due to download limits,
high latency, and high costs. Also, it's rather difficult for me to
find a hole in the trees suitable for satellite service. This is the
"hole" in the trees that works for the slot at 101 degrees:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/DBS/slides/101a.html>
If I want to see another satellite, I need to use another dish, and
chain saw more branches.

There is this thing, I think it was discussed recently.
there was a NEED foe cellphones, when I heard about those I wanted one,
so much better than going to a phone booth... Be reachable anywhere..

Video phone never really took of as it was about 'contact' not about the picture so much.
email was cool (SMS) because you could read it when you wanted, later you could add pictures,
also very useful.

But the trend to ever higher resolution is coupled to ever more bandwidth, and is not so much needed,
What IS needed is sunlight readable non reflective screens.
But many people do not ever know what that is.

You forgot a major step along the way. Internet music and video were
at one time considered by the ISP's to be abuse and excessive
bandwidth use. At that time, we were on dialup modems, ISDN, and
maybe some DSL. It took a long time to download (stolen) music and
movies, but people did it anyway. It didn't take much effort for the
ISP's to realize that it was easier to meet the demand than to play
enforcer. They could also charge for the increased bandwidth.

We're now in the process of doing that backwards for 5G. If the ISP's
give us almost unlimited bandwidth, would we pay to use and abuse it?
Probably yes, as newer and better ways to violate laws, contracts, and
common sense are contrived.

Whenever something happens that I don't understand, I first ask myself
"What problem are they trying to solve"? In this case, the cell phone
companies have a big problem. They have successfully saturated the
market for cellular. What they need is another service they can
offer, such as 5G. It doesn't matter much (at this time) how it's
used, whether anyone needs or even wants it, or what it might cost.
They have to do something, or they will be forced to compete in the
cellular data business on the basis of price, which nobody wants.

Want to build a non-autonomous avatar robot that does your shopping
for you? Maybe the same thing in the form of a remote manipulator?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator

Sure, but I do not want a speaker in my room spying on me (Amazon)
or my fridge ordering things, or even smart meters (they just placed a smart electricity and gas meter,
then the new 'smart' gas meter was defective and leaking, it had to be replaced.

Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
What will you do when all the remaining ISP's and equipment vendor use
some form of telemetry (spying)?

There has to be a real NEED (sorry for the caps shouting) for things to really sell,
not the artificial created needs, those do not last.

Really? Apple released the seriously expensive iMac Pro last week to
an audience consisting mostly of the GUM (great unwashed masses). In
case the message was lost on the GUM, the $1,000 monitor stand
underscored the message that Apple was selling the iMac Pro to the
very high end of the professional user market, where equipment
expenses is a small part of the cost of doing business, and buying the
very best and most expensive is quite normal. The high end users may
not have the need for a new machine, but now that it was available,
they will probably order them in quantity.

I have a 3D TV (Samsung) with high resolution,
had it for years, no transmissions except one seen so far that support it here

Duz it have an upconverter to 1080i? Lower resolution video, low
quality including broadcast video, looks quite after the upconverter
cleans up the mess.

We may have ATSC 3.0 in the USA shortly.
"ATSC 3.0 to be Deployed in 40 U.S. Markets by End of 2020"
<https://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3/atsc-3-0-to-be-deployed-in-40-u-s-markets-by-end-of-year>

Most of the TV I watch is delivered a streaming. The main draw is the
price (free) and the absence of commercial advertising (YouTube and
others). I really don't care if the content is delivered in 4K video
with Dolby sound if the content is constantly and chronically
interrupted by commercial advertising.

>Sure when they do that star wars like holographic thing in color maybe..

Turn your living room into a holodeck:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=holodeck&tbm=isch>
You don't just sit back and watch the action. You become part of the
action and influence that actions of the various characters and the
plot. More like a video game with your involvement. Tron perhaps?

>That sort of thing will really take bandwidth... 1000 times more.

Eventually, when the home holodeck become commonplace, perhaps 1000x
the current bandwidth. Meanwhile, it can be successfully demonstrated
and sold using less bandwidth. The first blue-red TV movies were
really crude.

Trends, I liked old movies better without those silly simulations,
real explosives!
Next will be artificial actors, artificial people,
and AI writing the script.

We already have those. Look at anything that Pixar has created.

>It will suck!

But it will sell.

Some of those 'almost real women robots' have eyes that frighten me
Before you know you live in the matrix..

When reality and the daily grind become a terminal bore, such escapes
will become popular. Unfortunately, you and I will not be the early
adopters and pioneers of almost real 3D TV. It will be the next few
generations, who have attachment to the past, who will be the first
adopters.

For me at least, and I think I am not so different from anyone else,
the inspiration to design something new must come from a deeper longing
to something.
I'd call that motivation.
I'v hacked things nobody could because I was motivated.
The dangerous thing for this world is the 'motivated hacker'.
I know about some guy, unfortunately for him he landed in jail last I heard,
who was so .. good... he was a threat to Big Brother and likely also to a lot of Little Brothers.

In order to push the envelope, you first need to know where the border
lines are drawn. Cross over, and you risk the wrath of the
establishment, which as you note, fails to appreciate novelties and
hacking. I also know someone who fits your description. However, he
didn't end up in jail. He committed suicide because he couldn't
handle reality. I think that's going to be the real danger of a VR
world.

We could be living on mars now, the tech has been there since Von Braun, but the motivation is not there
in humanity.
The motivation

"5 Reasons Going To Mars is a TERRIBLE Idea"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQ1bKd7Los>

You're almost correct about the motivation. What's needed is a
crisis, such as beating the evil Russians into space, to motivate the
USA into doing something. Making it profitable as well as politically
expedient, also didn't hurt. Right now, the closest approximation to
a threat to US dominance are the Chinese. Whether they're interested
in playing the game is questionable. However, if China announces a
manned mission to Mars, you can be certain that the USA will
immediately follow with a similar project.

Life is not bad here, I have little to complain, old now, fun hobbies,
yet I know if 'that thing happens that motivates' me all is possible.

As a former manager, getting people motivated to start something was
much easier than keeping them motivated all the way to project
completion. It's a very fine line between motivated and burned out.

In the end there is no free will, we are part of this universe, all those forces of
that universe work on us, and from the subconscious upwards one day we will start on some adventure,,,

No need to get deeply metaphysical. You are not in control of
everything that surrounds you. I'm not sure we could handle it if
were totally in control. You do what you can with what you have. Try
to make some money along the way, have as much fun as possible, try
not to piss off too many people, and live life in obscurity (i.e.
don't make yourself a target). That's probably where your friend in
jail failed.

yes it is all mechanical like a puppet on a string perhaps,
we are just a wetware computer, with an illusion of self consciousness,
It is 'there but for fortune' and always has been.
Just like stars are born, and stars die,

Sigh. Title that "The Programmers Lament" and take up a career in
popularizing Greek tragedy in a modern setting. A little advertising
and you'll soon have a Greek Chorus of like minded malcontents
moaning, groaning, and ranting over every conceivable effrontery
available. You might even capitalize on the concept and sell t-shirts
bearing one line descriptions of your latest tragedies.

That reminds me. Please purchase a darker pencil or perhaps a pen and
learn to print so that I can read the schematics on your web pages.
You cannot achieve global domination in any discipline with such ugly
schematics and illegible hand scribbling.

>oops getting into philosophy again..

You never left it.

>I am sure past present and future are all known (to us), we are in cross field of those.

It's difficult to know that you have arrived, if you don't know where
you're going.

>From MY experience.

What would you do if everything you attempted worked the first time
and nothing failed after completion? You would probably become
seriously bored with life. Life is a balance of success and failure,
good and bad, right and wrong, etc. Your "experience" is an
expression of this balance. While you strive for perfection, you
unconsciously don't want it because you know you will hate it and much
prefer the trials and tribulations of the journey.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[amdx]

On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:

On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year college
for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

 Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                   Mikek

You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and money.
Corporations are not perfect, but without them we would not have many of
the technologies we have today, we wouldn't have cheap and easily
available food, depending on where your corporation size cutoff is, we
may not have large highways and bridges, so many things are possible
because huge amounts of money are brought together and used to develop
so much of what we take for granted.
On college tuition, why did you pick an out of state college, if you
want to cut costs, go to a local community college, then switch to the
in state university to finish your degree, you can work and go to
college, so what if it takes you another 3 or 4 years.
Money, well, as I tell everyone, start young, live well below* your
income, invest your savings in American corporations via Vanguard total
stock market fund, find ways to reduce your taxes, then enjoy the
journey to critical mass/Financial Independence.

Mikek

* 20%, 25% if you can.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:

On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year college
for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

 You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack thereof, no.
I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 7:43 PM, amdx wrote:

On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year college
for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

 You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and money.
Corporations are not perfect, but without them we would not have many of
the technologies we have today, we wouldn't have cheap and easily
available food, depending on where your corporation size cutoff is, we
may not have large highways and bridges, so many things are possible
because huge amounts of money are brought together and used to develop
so much of what we take for granted.
 On college tuition, why did you pick an out of state college, if you
want to cut costs, go to a local community college, then switch to the
in state university to finish your degree, you can work and go to
college, so what if it takes you another 3 or 4 years.
 Money, well, as I tell everyone, start young, live well below* your
income, invest your savings in American corporations via Vanguard total
stock market fund, find ways to reduce your taxes, then enjoy the
journey to critical mass/Financial Independence.

                                               Mikek

* 20%, 25% if you can.

And an inspirational talk, (cursing involved)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikbQPldhPY
Mikek

 

[amdx]

On 6/9/2019 8:06 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/9/19 8:43 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 8:14 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/8/2019 7:19 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/8/19 7:12 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qdgo8r$d9p$1@gioia.aioe.org:

AT&T wants to install a new tower in this area, offered me $800/month
for a spot to put it.


   That's good money.  You can start a CD and get taxed very little on
it and send your kides or grandkids to school with it.

   Tell them you want $1400 and then take their next offer of $1150.


   Yeah...  that'll do it.


You could send _one_ kid to a mid-tier out-of-state four year
college for $200,000....like if you had the money _now_, that is.

  Do you have a lot of money saved?
                                    Mikek

  You seem very negative about corporations, college tuition, and money.

I don't believe in magic or that "positive thinking" or a "wealth
mentality" has much of any bearing on one's success or lack thereof, no.
I leave magic to the magicians and the gullible.

I never said anything about magic, I just think--- know, we have it
very good in America. If you have a net worth of $30,000 you are in the
top 1% in the world. We have every need we have easily met with just a
little output. With more output, we have a surplus of time to do great
or silly things. You can hate on corporations, but if we didn't have a
desire to purchase their products they wouldn't survive. Universities
have education goals that you must meet or you are not excepted, there
are more people with the finances to go than actually get in, so
apparently people can afford it, one way or another.
Money, you can take two families give them $60k a year, one will live
paycheck to paycheck, in debt and be broke at retirement the other will
live more frugally, buy used cars, a smaller house and have $1M in 30
years and $2M at retirement. Both families can be happy, but the one
with a retirement fund will be very content.

Mikek