Do I want a cellphone tower on my property?

[bitrex]

On 6/9/19 9:31 PM, amdx wrote:

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.

The Right is justifiably skeptical of the university system but for the
wrong reasons, IMO. The university system is a racket not because it
teaches all those "snowflake subjects" that aren't engineering. There
are many many worthy subjects that are taught in the university system,
yes even "gender studies."

A population well-educated in what are historically called the "liberal
arts and sciences" is in large part what Western Civilization is about.
y'know. the classics.

It's a racket because, well, it's become a racket:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal>

these were just the people who got caught. The racket is pay-for-play.
All things are available for the right price. "education goals"?

 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

You can pretty much always find a way to live beyond your means no
matter how much income you have. Even rock stars making $10 mil/year can
manage to blow through 50 in the same year. Even presidents can find a
way to be $150 million in debt to the Germans. That people who try to
live within their means tend to do better, on average, than the outcomes
of those who don't is rather tautological.

The notion that needs to be put down is that there is some foolproof way
to do everything "right" and always come out ahead. it's wrong. There
are no such guarantees. America is full of people in poverty who did
everything "right"

As far as the original topic is concerned - hey. It may be a great deal
for the person in question. But as a guy who came up from a state of
mostly nothing at age 25 to much more than nothing at age 40 I've
learned a few things about business and life in general. When someone
offers you what seems like easy money, at least take a moment and
consider - why am I being offered this at this particular juncture and
not my neighbor whose land is probably perfectly adequate place to put a
cell tower, too.

If an attractive woman approaches you in a bar and says "I like you a
lot" do you marvel at your good fortune or at least take a moment to
wonder why she approached you as opposed to all the other single men
sitting around like you are? Actually it's not a bad idea at all to just
ask her that directly and see what she says. At the very least if her
intentions are vaguely honest it will make you stand out as compared to
all the other men she's recently told that to.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 5:09:25 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

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.

Are these small cell sites on telephone poles or the big tower type? 1000 feet seems awfully close for the bit towers.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 7:14:11 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

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.

Lol, you have no experience in biology or the effects of non-ionizing radiation exposure to humans. You base your concern on the particular frequency of 2.4 GHz on the fact that microwave ovens operate at that frequency rather than looking at the absorption spectrum of biological tissues (which include water). So you are forming opinions on a near complete lack of knowledge.

Clearly you are the bigger idiot here.

It's actually easy to read a little and educate yourself on the matter. Why not do that rather than spreading unfounded FUD?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 8:16:53 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

Epidemiology is a great way to detect that something is wrong without being totally sure about the cause. But as you explain elsewhere you have to handle the data properly. What you suggest, comparing disease rates over time to use of a potentially dangerous item is a good first pass at detecting a gross problem. So clearly if you have done the data gathering right (including selecting what data to gather) there is not a high risk of problems from non-ionizing radiation from cell phone use.

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.

Not entirely. Cell ads continue to address coverage and there are two companies that are still out of the running in that regard.

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)?

You can always use an encrypted VPN.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:26:57 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2019 10:33:42 +0100) it happened Piglet
erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote in <qdijpl$cgl$1@dont-email.me>:

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?

piglet

It is close to the same frequency that heats stuff in your microwave.

The worst that can happen is it will give you cancer and kill you. But
look at it from the bright side. Some lawyer will make lots of money
after you die from suing the cellular company. And we all know you want
to support the lawyer and his family. So tell the cellular company to
aim it at your house and increase the power.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:41:47 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 8:16:53 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.

Epidemiology is a great way to detect that something is wrong
without being totally sure about the cause. But as you explain
elsewhere you have to handle the data properly. What you suggest,
comparing disease rates over time to use of a potentially dangerous
item is a good first pass at detecting a gross problem. So clearly
if you have done the data gathering right (including selecting what
data to gather) there is not a high risk of problems from non-ionizing
radiation from cell phone use.

Proper data collection is not easy for RF cell phone exposure. I
could distribute RF dosimeters (more correctly a densitometer, but
nobody seems to use the term) to the participants, there would be
substantial variations in the way they are used, worn, and handled. I
could never be sure that the collected data represents the actual RF
exposure. The participants might also be exposed to random sources of
RF, such as leaky microwave ovens, living near an AM/FM/TV station, or
being a ham radio enthusiast. That would introduce RF that is not
related to exposure from a cell phone (or cell site). Of course,
intentionally selecting the test group from individuals with a past
family history of cancer, and the control group from individuals with
no past family history of cancer, would be ummm... cheating. Then,
there's the often humorous equipment handling, which I can't discuss.
The alternative is a study of historical medical records looking for a
pattern. In other words, epidemiology. The theory is that the errors
in things like RF exposure are random, and in a large enough group,
tend to cancel each other out. Such studies are common in historical
climate studies, using proxy data. I'm not convinced that the
resultant averages are always valid, but done properly, it can produce
some useful results.

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.

Not entirely. Cell ads continue to address coverage and there are
two companies that are still out of the running in that regard.

True. The market is not completely saturated. There are new
customers being born or immigrating to the US constantly. However,
the greatest source of new customers is "churn" which the trade name
for customers switching from one carrier to another for some perceived
advantage. The carrier with the most loyal and satisfied customers
has the lowest churn:
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/283511/average-monthly-churn-rate-top-wireless-carriers-us/>
Kinda looks like Verizon and AT&T customers are generally happy, while
T-Mobile and Sprint customers are a problem.

So how does one keep those customers happy? You don't. Instead, you
offer various bundles that include TV service (AT&T), VoIP, Netflix
subscriptions (T-Mobile), etc where changing carrier would involve
much more than simply switching cellular phone carriers.

Incidentally, don't think that a 2% churn rate is insignificant. At
that rate, a carrier would have no customers in 50 months, or lose
half their customers in only 2 years.

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)?

You can always use an encrypted VPN.

Mind if I don't get into that bag of worms? This video should cover
the problems with VPN's.
"The truth about Virtual Private Networks - Should you use a VPN?"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oja3UzuuqGQ>

--
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 23:09:22 -0500) it happened victor@rca.com
wrote in <hilrfelhutqfgpqccj0bdkmgqn1bqtr8r5@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:26:57 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2019 10:33:42 +0100) it happened Piglet
erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote in <qdijpl$cgl$1@dont-email.me>:

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?

piglet

It is close to the same frequency that heats stuff in your microwave.

The worst that can happen is it will give you cancer and kill you. But
look at it from the bright side. Some lawyer will make lots of money
after you die from suing the cellular company. And we all know you want
to support the lawyer and his family. So tell the cellular company to
aim it at your house and increase the power.

Going by the AI brain config of some teslala sales bot that calls itself gnuarm,
victor@rca.com
would fit that picture.

teslala

Very limited code, try a random generator.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jun 2019 17:16:42 -0700) it happened Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in <2s1rfetrq86fra9af8ufi442iaj7to6p8d@4ax.com>:

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_dat
a_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.

What can I say?
Nice write-up!
Thank you.

 

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:26:57 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2019 10:33:42 +0100) it happened Piglet
erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote in <qdijpl$cgl$1@dont-email.me>:

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?

piglet

It is close to the same frequency that heats stuff in your microwave.

I remember the time when there were hot dog stand microwave ovens at
1.27 GHz. Has the hot dog resonance doubled in a few decades .

 

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 23:30:01 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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.

Nice chart.

Now define a new unit dBSv which is desibels relative to 1 Sievert.
Some of the examples fro the chart:

-73 dBSv 0.05 uSv Sleep with someone
-70 dBSv 0.1 uSv Eating one banana
-60 dBSv 1 uSv Using a CRT monitor for a year
-53 dBSv 5 uSv Dental X-ray
-44 dBSv 40 uSv NYC to LA flight
-40 dBSv 100 uSv Two weeks at Fukushima Town Hall
-27 dBSv 2 mSv Head CT scan
-13 dBSv 50 mSv Max yearly dose for radiation workers
-4 dBSv 400 mSv Radiation poisoning symptoms
+3 dBSv 2 Sv Severe radiation poisoning
+9 dBSv 8 Sv Always fatal
+17 dBSv 50 Sv 10 minutes at Chernobyl reactor after explosion

The dBSv values should be easier to comprehend.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-06-10 09:35, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 23:30:01 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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.

Nice chart.

Now define a new unit dBSv which is desibels relative to 1 Sievert.
Some of the examples fro the chart:

-73 dBSv 0.05 uSv Sleep with someone
-70 dBSv 0.1 uSv Eating one banana
-60 dBSv 1 uSv Using a CRT monitor for a year
-53 dBSv 5 uSv Dental X-ray
-44 dBSv 40 uSv NYC to LA flight
-40 dBSv 100 uSv Two weeks at Fukushima Town Hall
-27 dBSv 2 mSv Head CT scan
-13 dBSv 50 mSv Max yearly dose for radiation workers
-4 dBSv 400 mSv Radiation poisoning symptoms
+3 dBSv 2 Sv Severe radiation poisoning
+9 dBSv 8 Sv Always fatal
+17 dBSv 50 Sv 10 minutes at Chernobyl reactor after explosion

The dBSv values should be easier to comprehend.

I've sometimes tried to convince physicists that certain things
are better expressed on a logarithmic scale, but got nowhere.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:24:45 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:26:57 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2019 10:33:42 +0100) it happened Piglet
erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote in <qdijpl$cgl$1@dont-email.me>:

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?

piglet

It is close to the same frequency that heats stuff in your microwave.

I remember the time when there were hot dog stand microwave ovens at
1.27 GHz. Has the hot dog resonance doubled in a few decades .

Yes. Why shouldn't physical properties have inflation as the universe expands?

I recall when there was rapid expansion that defined much of the Universe we see today. That was in the 70's, right?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-4, mako...@yahoo.com wrote:

What he really needs is an RF absorber as used in an anechoic RF test
chamber:


yes, but these are installed INSIDE the chamber.

And the OUTSIDE is copper screen or other conductive REFLECTIVE surface.

m

If you can seal the chamber, the screen is useful. But as indicated leaving leaks makes the screen pointless.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[donald]

On a sunny day (Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:09:56 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <qdl6p3$1r49$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 2019-06-10 09:35, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 23:30:01 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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.

Nice chart.

Now define a new unit dBSv which is desibels relative to 1 Sievert.
Some of the examples fro the chart:

-73 dBSv 0.05 uSv Sleep with someone
-70 dBSv 0.1 uSv Eating one banana
-60 dBSv 1 uSv Using a CRT monitor for a year
-53 dBSv 5 uSv Dental X-ray
-44 dBSv 40 uSv NYC to LA flight
-40 dBSv 100 uSv Two weeks at Fukushima Town Hall
-27 dBSv 2 mSv Head CT scan
-13 dBSv 50 mSv Max yearly dose for radiation workers
-4 dBSv 400 mSv Radiation poisoning symptoms
+3 dBSv 2 Sv Severe radiation poisoning
+9 dBSv 8 Sv Always fatal
+17 dBSv 50 Sv 10 minutes at Chernobyl reactor after explosion

The dBSv values should be easier to comprehend.


I've sometimes tried to convince physicists that certain things
are better expressed on a logarithmic scale, but got nowhere.

Jeroen Belleman

I am absolutely against dB in this contest.

This is from the asm source code of gm_pic that I wrote in year 2010
and have been running 24/7 ever since, logging radiation,

The GM tube is an old mil one and has a background of about 10 ticks per minute.
#define GM_TUBE_SENSITIVITY D'10'

; General:
; This software is supposed to be used with a FHZ76V GM tube, specification:
; detection of gamma and beta radiation
; When measuring gamma the range is 0 to 1 R/h
; voltage: 500 V
; voltage drop when ionised 330 - 380 V
; life expectancy: > 3.10^9 impulses
; temperature range: -40 to +50 C
; temperature coefficient .2 V / C
; Nulleffect 5 to 12 impulses / minute without lead screening

; This sets the GM tube sensitivity so we can calculate uSv from cmp
; For a 1 R/h GM tube 10, for .1 R/h GM tube 100, etc.

; for a FHZ76V 1R/h GM tube:
#define GM_TUBE_SENSITIVITY D'10'

; Also look for 'GM TUBE DEPENDENT' in the code, and change that if using and other GM tube, to get the correct accumulated dose.


; About the units:
; If we assume the null count is 10 cmp for natural background with this tube, then that would be .01 mR/h.
; .01 mR/h corresponds to 0.1 uSv.
; Natural background radiaton depends on where you are, I have measured here between 0 and 18 cmp.
; So all we have to do is divide the cmp by 100 to get uSv
; The following values apply to the use in Rems / hour, and Sievert / hour:
; 10 cpm = 10 uR = 0.1 uSv background radiation
; 100 cpm = 100 uR = 1 uSv low level radiation
; 1000 cmp = 1 mR = 10 uSv daily human limit rate
; 10 000 cpm = 10 mR = 100 uSv get out of there
; 100 000 cpm = 100 mR = 1 mSv substantial exposure
; 1 000 000 cpm = 1 R = 10 mSv bye bye
; 10 000 000 cmp = 10 R = 100 mSv extreme danger
; 100 000 000 cmp = 100 R = 1 Sv 50% chance of death

A very simple system.
So if you hear (10,000 / 60) = 166 Hz, even without looking at the LCD display, you run.

So values change a bit...
Using cpm is much easier.

From the log file:
cpm 15:55 7
cpm 15:56 7
cpm 15:57 6

http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/

I have an other one with a more sensitve tube average maybe 20 cpm for background,
it can log to SDcard with location for example for prospecting or to see where you got radiated and when
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/

cpm is so much easier.

 

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

Nice chart.

Now define a new unit dBSv which is desibels relative to 1 Sievert.
Some of the examples fro the chart:

-73 dBSv 0.05 uSv Sleep with someone
-70 dBSv 0.1 uSv Eating one banana
-60 dBSv 1 uSv Using a CRT monitor for a year
-53 dBSv 5 uSv Dental X-ray
-44 dBSv 40 uSv NYC to LA flight
-40 dBSv 100 uSv Two weeks at Fukushima Town Hall
-27 dBSv 2 mSv Head CT scan
-13 dBSv 50 mSv Max yearly dose for radiation workers
-4 dBSv 400 mSv Radiation poisoning symptoms
+3 dBSv 2 Sv Severe radiation poisoning
+9 dBSv 8 Sv Always fatal
+17 dBSv 50 Sv 10 minutes at Chernobyl reactor after explosion

The dBSv values should be easier to comprehend.

Did you add the dB portion or the web site?

I'm wondering why you used the 10 log rule vs the 20 log rule.

Is a Sievert a unit of power or field intensity?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking the question

Don't start a flame war.

m

 

What he really needs is an RF absorber as used in an anechoic RF test
chamber:

yes, but these are installed INSIDE the chamber.

And the OUTSIDE is copper screen or other conductive REFLECTIVE surface.

m

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2019-06-10 15:58, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

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

Nice chart.

Now define a new unit dBSv which is desibels relative to 1 Sievert.
Some of the examples fro the chart:

-73 dBSv 0.05 uSv Sleep with someone
-70 dBSv 0.1 uSv Eating one banana
-60 dBSv 1 uSv Using a CRT monitor for a year
-53 dBSv 5 uSv Dental X-ray
-44 dBSv 40 uSv NYC to LA flight
-40 dBSv 100 uSv Two weeks at Fukushima Town Hall
-27 dBSv 2 mSv Head CT scan
-13 dBSv 50 mSv Max yearly dose for radiation workers
-4 dBSv 400 mSv Radiation poisoning symptoms
+3 dBSv 2 Sv Severe radiation poisoning
+9 dBSv 8 Sv Always fatal
+17 dBSv 50 Sv 10 minutes at Chernobyl reactor after explosion

The dBSv values should be easier to comprehend.

Did you add the dB portion or the web site?

I'm wondering why you used the 10 log rule vs the 20 log rule.

Is a Sievert a unit of power or field intensity?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking the question

Don't start a flame war.

m

The Sievert is derived from the Gray, which is a measure of
absorbed energy. 10 log is appropriate.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:06:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

I forgot to include an example of the above problem.

Baseball is a balancing act, where opposing teams engage in mock
combat using a stick and ball. As the stick and ball change hands
throughout the game, the resulting excitement is sometimes fun to
watch. However, the ultimate most successful game, performed by the
pitcher from one side, is what is called a shutout:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutouts_in_baseball>
The end result of a shutout is that nothing happens. While this might
be great for the reputation of the pitcher, it does nothing for the
audience. The audience attends the game to witness a mock battle and
should, by conventional reasoning and logic, view the resultant
inactivity as terminally boring.

>What can I say?

Perhaps you could announce that you'll buy a darker pencil and make
future schematics more legible? Extra credit for using schematic
capture software. I really like many of the things you are doing, and
would like to build a few. I'll have more time after I retire.
Decoding the schematics is currently difficult and potentially error
prone. To improve the contrast, I've tried image enhancement software
which doesn't help much due to uneven brightness across the image. The
illegible schematics are oddly a good thing because they force me to
understand what is happening and how everything works before I can
deduce where the almost invisible wires and components should be
connected. I guess if it were easy, it would not be fun.

Nice write-up!
Thank you.

You're welcome. I try to be helpful and generally diplomatic.


--
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 Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:24:41 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

I remember the time when there were hot dog stand microwave ovens at
1.27 GHz. Has the hot dog resonance doubled in a few decades .

That's in the 1.2GHz ham band. Are you sure about that?

The original ovens were designed to work at 915MHz.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Components>
See paragraph starting with "The microwave frequencies used in..."

I'm told that big industrial MW ovens, such as fruit dryers and
plastic dryers, still use 915MHz, but all that I've seen use 2.4Ghz.

The 900 MHz ISM (industrial, scientific, medical) band is not
recognized in every country. So, to be able to sell the same product
anywhere on the planet, the operating frequency was moved to 2.4GHz,
which is recognized in all the ITU regions. The higher frequency also
has the economic advantages of using a smaller magnetron, smaller
waveguide, and smaller door seal choke ring. The down side of this
frequency change is that 915MHz cooks more uniformly.

Why don't microwaves use 915 MHz?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X2bb9nc6uM> (3:06)

--
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 Mon, 10 Jun 2019 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

What he really needs is an RF absorber as used in an anechoic RF test
chamber:

yes, but these are installed INSIDE the chamber.
And the OUTSIDE is copper screen or other conductive REFLECTIVE surface.
m

I'm not suggesting that he convert his house into an RF screen room or
RF anechoic chamber. Such a house or room would not be livable or
comfortable. However, for blocking mmWave frequencies, the mesh would
need to be very tightly woven. Unless there is a need to be porous to
pass air, using soldered sheet copper would be more effective.
However, that's expensive, heavy, and a thermal nightmare. Because it
has no gaps, sheets of conductive material, with fairly low
resistivity, would be much cheaper and easier.

In the distant past, I would hold a wet towel over large parts of the
frontal area of a dish antenna, to estimate the fade margin. When I
tried the same thing with aluminum foil, I had all kinds of
reflections bouncing around the dish. With an RF absorber, there were
no reflections to ruin my test. Hanging wet towels inside the house
might work, but the high humidity, mold, and mildew problems would
make it impractical.

Actually, the solution to reducing indoor RF "electro-smog" is not in
shielding the walls. It's to shield the doors and windows. Modern
construction uses aluminum foil backed insulation in the walls. Most
of the other construction materials (especially those containing water
such as concrete) are RF absorbers. Existing walls are probably
sufficient to block anything at mmWave frequencies. However, the
doors and windows tend to be wide open and leak RF badly. Conductive
glass Low-E glass does tolerably well at blocking cellular and mmWave
frequencies. For doors, and to improve RF blocking through windows,
aluminum bug screening is probably adequate.

Reflections is also the reason a tin foil hat doesn't really work.
Since the parabolic shape of the reflective skull cap will concentrate
any RF that enters the head to a fairly small volume inside the brain.
Putting a cell phone antenna in your mouth while wearing a tin foil
kippah might concentrate the RF sufficiently to fry the brain cells at
the focus. Wearing a carbon doped towel or hat would be much more
effective. Most of these use a wire mesh or metal wires woven into
the fabric, but some use conductive materials with fairly low sheet
resistivity:
<http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html>
The resistivity is high enough to act as an absorber and would
probably work quite well.

Since the electrosensitive and RF paranoia market seems to be growing
with the invention of 5g technology, RF shielding products are
appearing on the market. They offer EMF shielding wallpaper:
<https://www.emrss.com/collections/emf-wallpaper>
including some designed especially for 5g mmWave frequencies:
<https://emfclothing.com/en/emf-shielding-wallpaper/244-5g-shielding-material-securiblok.html>
or are adapted from available clothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=aluminum+survival+poncho&tbm=isch>





--
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