the 60W light bulb misconception

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
Do excuse my *****ing mistakes in my previous post! You will notice them.

---

› See More: the 60W light bulb misconception

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:37:14 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

>A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
>that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
>60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless.

Where did they say that?

>3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension,

I suggest you avail yourself of the following:-

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/20/i...one-radiation/


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In message <[email protected]>, Tim Dunne
<[email protected]> writes
>"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>
>> the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with
>> photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate
>
>**** me.
>
>I bet 60W bulbs are harmful if swallowed, too.
>
>Tim
>
They're bloody dangerous if you touch em after they've been on for a bit
too. I bet you could do someone a nasty injury if you chucked one at
them as well. Even something seemingly inert like a house brick can be
dangerous to someone who's electro-sensitive, especially if they start
spouting this crap near me and I've got one in my hand.
--
Clint Sharp

stop picking on poor lenny, it's not his fault the midwife dropped him onto
his head.
also without gullible fools like him all the churches would be empty, and
that nice 2 hours 10 - 12 on a sunday morning would have more idiots on the
road!


"Peter Parry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:37:14 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
>>that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
>>60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless.
>
> Where did they say that?
>
>>3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension,
>
> I suggest you avail yourself of the following:-
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/20/i...one-radiation/
>
>
> --
> Peter Parry.
> http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension, in
> particular the difference in the frequency that characterises the visible
> light from the light bulb from that which defines the radiation to be
> (invisible) microwave radiation.

You behave like an idiot.. don't you understand black body radiation at all?
Light bulbs do emit microwaves just as they emit IR and visible light too.
Now when you have found out why and how much please feel free to come back
and debate why you look like an idiot.

"tony h" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stop picking on poor lenny, it's not his fault the midwife dropped him
> onto his head.
> also without gullible fools like him all the churches would be empty, and
> that nice 2 hours 10 - 12 on a sunday morning would have more idiots on
> the road!

We wouldn't have all these religious posts with people bragging about how
they are better than everyone else though.

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>
> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
> 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless. Quite apart from the fact that
> the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with
> photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate, the
> comparison is solely based on intensities and neglects three important
> points:-
>
>
> 1. The fact that more than one carrier signal is usually transmitted from
> the mast. Thus, the figure of 60W must be multiplied by the number of
> carriers that are actually transmitted in any particular case; in order to
> minimise inter-carrier interference, however, this number is restricted
> typically to 4 at the most, so the total output wattage can be a high as
> 240W.

I am already breaking into a smirk.

>
> 2. Beams from the mast, however, are not emitted uniformly in all
> directions (as happens with light from a light-bulb), but are instead
> concentrated in specific directions, the degree of directional focusing
> being quantified through the so-called ‘gain’ (G) of the antenna, even
> omni-directional types, typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range
> from about 40 to 60. If we use an optimistic figure of 30 the so-called
> ‘effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), given by the multiplying Power
> by Gain – is 1800W, which is further increased to 7.2kW if 4 carriers are
> transmitted – a value that is 120 times higher than the 60W quoted! The
> maximum EIRP value permitted by law is 1500W per carrier, whilst the
> maximum number of carrier signals is 16 (at 1800MHz) and 10 (at 900MHz);
> in practice, however, the number of carriers is usually restricted to 4 at
> the most, for the reason mentioned above.

Now I am actually laughing.

>
> 3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension, in
> particular the difference in the frequency that characterises the visible
> light from the light bulb from that which defines the radiation to be
> (invisible) microwave radiation. For whilst the output from such a bulb
> is, during the day, completely negligible in comparison with visible light
> of natural origin – i.e. that from the Sun – this is not so in the
> case of the microwave radiation emitted by a phone mast antenna day and
> night, which, several hundred of metres away, is typically 10 billion
> (1013) times higher than the microwave radiation that is emitted by the
> Sun at the same frequency. Accordingly, the emissions of mobile phone
> masts have caused an enormous (and relatively sudden) alteration in the
> natural environment (at this frequency) from that in which life on Earth
> has, over a very much longer time, evolved. The impact of this altered
> environment on biology is further enhanced by the high coherence of the
> mobile phone radiation. [11]

Please stop, I am going to split my sides.



Look dork brain the sun's incident radiation is 1-2kw/sqm and there is
plenty all through the spectrum including microwave and ionising
ultra-violet.

No matter how you slice it the incident energy from a phone mast at its
maximum output is a few micro watts per sqm at normal ranges, and perhaps a
few milliwatts close to a mast. 1sqm is about your cross section. The
phone itself will output up to 0.6W, a fraction of which will be absorbed by
the user.

I won't bother to correct your misconceptions about directional beams,
receiver gain etc. but believe me you do not get 30X gain on an
omnidirectional aerial!

BTW all base stations broadcast at the lowest power that will achieve
communication AND tell the phones to do the same. In a dense urban
environment with masts close together that means that almost all of the time
both masts and phones are broadcasting an order of magnitude or two below
maximum power.

"Andy Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 04/08/2007 22:37, Lenny wrote:
>
>> A familiar piece of misinformation
>
> Do us all a favour and **** OFF!

No his entertainment value is actually increasing.

"Brian Gregory [UK]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So you think the 60W is for each carrier do you?
>
> Just exactly why would the mast need to be able to transmit to phones that
> were so far away that they haven't a hope in hell of being able to
> transmit back to the mast with their tiny 4W peak transmitters??

1W on GSM. Higher on analog (6W) but not in handheld (0.6W).

>
> The 60W is the total you ASSHOLE.
>
> --
>
> Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
> [email protected]
> To email me remove the letter vee.
>

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Look dork brain the sun's incident radiation is 1-2kw/sqm and there is
> plenty all through the spectrum including microwave and ionising
> ultra-violet.
>
> No matter how you slice it the incident energy from a phone mast at its
> maximum output is a few micro watts per sqm at normal ranges, and perhaps
> a > few milliwatts close to a mast. 1sqm is about your cross section.
> The phone itself will output up to 0.6W, a fraction of which will be
> absorbed by the user.

To make a fair comparison, I suppose you should look at the sun's power
*over the range of frequencies that mobile phones use* rather than over the
whole RF to X-ray range which I think is what you were talking about with
the 1-2 kW/sq m.

I would have thought that even if you take this into account, the sun
proably emits more radiation than a mobile phone over the same range of
frequencies, but I don't know whether that's true.


How does the power received by the body at a typical range compare between
mobile phones and wireless networks? I've encountered several customers who
won't have a wireless network whereas they are quite happy to carry a mobile
phone right next to their body. The frequencies are fairly similar, aren't
they, so effect on the body should be dependent mainly on the incident power
in W/sq m.

And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to the
router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that some
microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice of
available channels.

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> "Brian Gregory [UK]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So you think the 60W is for each carrier do you?
> >
> > Just exactly why would the mast need to be able to
> > transmit to phones that were so far away that they
> > haven't a hope in hell of being able to transmit back
> > to the mast with their tiny 4W peak transmitters??
>
> 1W on GSM. Higher on analog (6W) but not in handheld
> (0.6W).

ISTR 900MHz GSM are 2W max and 1800 1W, which may go some way to
explaining our old friend Jim's dislike of 1800 MHz systems ;-)


Ivor

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]

[snip]

> Oh don't go encouraging the do-gooders. We will now
> require a warning on the box as people might rush off to
> buy one to try eating it. I forgot to say to Loony that
> he should take a fluorescent tube to a transmitter site
> at night and wave it in the air. It will light up. You
> could do it at Rugby before the masts went and you can do
> it by large TV transmitters such as Winter Hill. I hope he slips on the
> tube.

A mate of mine many years ago used to cause traffic chaos (and almost a
crash or two..!) by parking in a pub car park on a busy street (in Rugby
as it happened..!) and keying up a 100W TX on 2 metres while waving a 4ft
fluorescent tube in the air.

Ivor

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >
> Do excuse my *****ing mistakes in my previous post! You
> will notice them.

Yes, but Lenny won't. You're wasting your time trying to explain anything
to him.

Ivor

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:37:14 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Typical misinformation

Lenny, in a previous post you claimed to be a licensed radio amateur.

I presume you are only at the foundation licence (FL) stage to quote
that load of bollox and suspect it to be fact.!

A few things to note:

A typical 900 MHz GSM carrier has an output of 20-30 Watts (43 dBm +/-
3dBm)

A typical site will have up to 4 carriers per sectors, often less, but
in large capacity sites can be up to 6 using remote tuned cavity (RTC)
combiners. Combiner losses before the transmitters even get to the top
of the rack on to the feeder are 2 -6 dB depending on number of
carriers combined.

Typical feeder loss = 3dB

Typical antenna gain for a sector antenna is 13-15 dBi.

It's the gain of the base station antenna and higher sensitivity of
the receiver that allows the transmitter powers between the Base
station at 20 watts and the mobile phone at 2 watts (max) to balance
in the link budget.

Now go away, Google about power budgets in RF link design and you
might learn something, it might even inspire you to try the full RAE.

Mortimer wrote:

> "R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> No matter how you slice it the incident energy from a phone mast at its
>> maximum output is a few micro watts per sqm at normal ranges, and perhaps
>> a > few milliwatts close to a mast. 1sqm is about your cross section.
>> The phone itself will output up to 0.6W, a fraction of which will be
>> absorbed by the user.
>
> To make a fair comparison, I suppose you should look at the sun's power
> *over the range of frequencies that mobile phones use* rather than over
> the whole RF to X-ray range which I think is what you were talking about
> with the 1-2 kW/sq m.
>
> I would have thought that even if you take this into account, the sun
> proably emits more radiation than a mobile phone over the same range of
> frequencies, but I don't know whether that's true.

Maybe, maybe not, I have no idea. But what does occur to me is, if the sun
really was emitting vast amounts of radiation at GSM frequencies, surely
phones would stop working during daylight hours?

> How does the power received by the body at a typical range compare between
> mobile phones and wireless networks? I've encountered several customers
> who won't have a wireless network whereas they are quite happy to carry a
> mobile phone right next to their body. The frequencies are fairly similar,
> aren't they, so effect on the body should be dependent mainly on the
> incident power in W/sq m.

GSM mobiles: 900 and 1800MHz, Wifi and microwave ovens, 2.4GHz.
Define 'similar'.

> And what's the incident power from the leakage of microwaves from a
> microwave oven if you are standing next to it? Is it true that this can
> often be higher than that from a wireless network when you are next to the
> router or the PC's wireless adaptor? Hence the interference that some
> microwave ovens cause to wireless networks, restricting the choice of
> available channels.

A leakage figure of 1W sounds familiar (but I think that came from
Wackypedia, so all bets are off) and wifi nodes use up to about 1/10th of
that.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
21:17:48 up 19 days, 3:02, 2 users, load average: 0.56, 0.50, 0.42
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0