NEWS: Physics promises wireless power

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:22:12 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Heck, I'm still waiting for my laptop's hydrogen fuel cell- how many new
>> power technologies can I get excited about? ;-)

>I'm waiting for my flying car.

They're here now. Just bring your chequebook:
| http://www.moller.com
| http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...r/sr-index.htm
| http://www.urbanaero.com/Frame-X-Hawk.htm
| http://www.afaco.com

I'll wait for my Buck Rogers personal jet pack.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 [email protected]
# http://802.11junk.com [email protected]
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

---

› See More: NEWS: Physics promises wireless power

John Navas wrote:

>> Let me rephrase that...
>>
>> Kind of like "extended GSM" by US wireless carriers.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/b3a8613ce49f2353>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/msg/15688a284c92c746>
>
> Stands uncontradicted. Unless and until you have some real proof to the
> contrary (which of course you don't), I'm done.

WOW..now that sure is a respectable citation...quoting yourself. NOT!

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:22:12 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> Heck, I'm still waiting for my laptop's hydrogen fuel cell- how many new
>>> power technologies can I get excited about? ;-)
>
>> I'm waiting for my flying car.
>
> They're here now. Just bring your chequebook:
> | http://www.moller.com
> | http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...r/sr-index.htm
> | http://www.urbanaero.com/Frame-X-Hawk.htm
> | http://www.afaco.com

I thought that Navas invented the flying car.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:22:12 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Todd Allcock wrote:
> >>
> >>> Heck, I'm still waiting for my laptop's hydrogen fuel cell- how many new
> >>> power technologies can I get excited about? ;-)
> >
> >> I'm waiting for my flying car.
> >
> > They're here now. Just bring your chequebook:
> > | http://www.moller.com
> > | http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...r/sr-index.htm
> > | http://www.urbanaero.com/Frame-X-Hawk.htm
> > | http://www.afaco.com
>
> I thought that Navas invented the flying car.

He invented the vibrator.

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:11:09 GMT, rob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6129460.stm>:
>>>
>>>I remember seeing this done with florescent light bulbs. It was an inspiring
>>>demonstration for elementary school students in the 70s.
>>>
>>>There are issues of concern. In the United States, electricity is transferred
>>>in the power grid at 60Hz. 60Hz also corresponds to the frequency of the
>>>Lithium Ion (Li+). It has been shown that lithium ions will leave the skin of
>>>a human being when exposed to this frequency for an extensive period of time.
>>>Some have hypothesized that this may cause depression issues in some people,
>>>and others have suggested it may cause cancer. I recall this issue years ago,
>>>but it has been largely squashed; however, I was able to find this one
>>>resource:
>>>
>>>http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm....load_id=437194
>>>
>>>Now, my question is whether this same effect might exist when using a Tesla
>>>coil (that is how this is accomplished). I don't see why it wouldn't. I
>>>suspect that to alleviate concerns, they will have to find a frequency that
>>>they "determine" is safe and tool standardization along that path.
>>>Personally, I think that it is a bad idea from a health perspective and
>>>shouldn't be done without many decades of testing on animals. I would hate to
>>>be that pig.
>>>
>>
>>So 60Hz is the freq. of the lithium ion? Got any references for that
>>statement? Sounds like you've been to the Tesla conference.
>
>
> See his citation. And note:
>
> "DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE"
>
> "The human evidence, as described in the next section, suggests that
> magnetic fields, rather than electric fields, are associated with
> cancer incidence..."
>
> "Electric fields were not found to be a critical factor thus far."
>
> This is the old unproven bugaboo of proximity to high-voltage electric
> transmission lines, not low-voltage residential electric service.
>
Yeah, and 60Hz is not related to any Lithium ion either. You hear these
types at the Tesla conference where few of the speakers or the those
listening know much about high school level physics.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:28:35 GMT, rob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:11:09 GMT, rob <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>>>>http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm....load_id=437194
>>>>
>>>>Now, my question is whether this same effect might exist when using a Tesla
>>>>coil (that is how this is accomplished). I don't see why it wouldn't. I
>>>>suspect that to alleviate concerns, they will have to find a frequency that
>>>>they "determine" is safe and tool standardization along that path.
>>>>Personally, I think that it is a bad idea from a health perspective and
>>>>shouldn't be done without many decades of testing on animals. I would hate to
>>>>be that pig.
>>>
>>>So 60Hz is the freq. of the lithium ion? Got any references for that
>>>statement? Sounds like you've been to the Tesla conference.
>>
>> See his citation. And note:
>>
>> "DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE"
>>
>> "The human evidence, as described in the next section, suggests that
>> magnetic fields, rather than electric fields, are associated with
>> cancer incidence..."
>>
>> "Electric fields were not found to be a critical factor thus far."
>>
>> This is the old unproven bugaboo of proximity to high-voltage electric
>> transmission lines, not low-voltage residential electric service.
>>
>Yeah, and 60Hz is not related to any Lithium ion either. You hear these
>types at the Tesla conference where few of the speakers or the those
>listening know much about high school level physics.

Again, >> see his citation << (page 54) -- there *is* a "cyclotron
resonance" for lithium ions near 60 Hz. See also

* Cross Currents, Robert O. Becker, 1990, pages 234-239
<http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20030531_becker.asp>

* "Lithium ion 'cyclotron resonance' magnetic fields decrease seizure
onset times in lithium-pilocarpine seized rats."
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15527207>

* "Lithium as a normal metabolite: Some implications for cyclotron
resonance of ions in magnetic fields"
<http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112129666/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:28:35 GMT, rob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:11:09 GMT, rob <[email protected]> wrote in
>>><[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>
>>>>>http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm....load_id=437194
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, my question is whether this same effect might exist when using a Tesla
>>>>>coil (that is how this is accomplished). I don't see why it wouldn't. I
>>>>>suspect that to alleviate concerns, they will have to find a frequency that
>>>>>they "determine" is safe and tool standardization along that path.
>>>>>Personally, I think that it is a bad idea from a health perspective and
>>>>>shouldn't be done without many decades of testing on animals. I would hate to
>>>>>be that pig.
>>>>
>>>>So 60Hz is the freq. of the lithium ion? Got any references for that
>>>>statement? Sounds like you've been to the Tesla conference.
>>>
>>>See his citation. And note:
>>>
>>> "DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE"
>>>
>>> "The human evidence, as described in the next section, suggests that
>>> magnetic fields, rather than electric fields, are associated with
>>> cancer incidence..."
>>>
>>> "Electric fields were not found to be a critical factor thus far."
>>>
>>>This is the old unproven bugaboo of proximity to high-voltage electric
>>>transmission lines, not low-voltage residential electric service.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, and 60Hz is not related to any Lithium ion either. You hear these
>>types at the Tesla conference where few of the speakers or the those
>>listening know much about high school level physics.
>
>
> Again, >> see his citation << (page 54) -- there *is* a "cyclotron
> resonance" for lithium ions near 60 Hz. See also
>
> * Cross Currents, Robert O. Becker, 1990, pages 234-239
> <http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20030531_becker.asp>
>
> * "Lithium ion 'cyclotron resonance' magnetic fields decrease seizure
> onset times in lithium-pilocarpine seized rats."
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15527207>
>
> * "Lithium as a normal metabolite: Some implications for cyclotron
> resonance of ions in magnetic fields"
> <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112129666/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>
>
Thanks for the links. I had seen other reports related to this claimed cyclotron
resonance and I don't think it has relevance to real world human activity. They
have to squeeze the Earth's field down to 0.2 gauss to hit this resonance - the
linewidth of which is apparently very narrow. I'm just a cynic on these things - esp. after
the billions spent on the claimed ELF effects from power lines which sounded
preposterous after the first bit of investigation. I think they're looking awful
hard to find some phenomenon to base more claims on. It's an industry.

But, I'll admit that things (my opinions included) could change --- I've seen it happen.

John Navas <[email protected]> hath wroth:

>* "Lithium as a normal metabolite: Some implications for cyclotron
>resonance of ions in magnetic fields"
><http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112129666/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>

The link blows up with a "missing cookie" error. Try instead:
| http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...act/112129666/
which works.

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>
>>> While your concern is understandable, I think it's overdone -- the
>>> physics make such side effects unlikely.
>>
>>They ALWAYS find out that they didn't account for something after
>>millions of people have been exposed.
>
> Not always. People have been ranting about RF harm for years without
> any real justification.
>

I'm not sure how much I agree with that. One project I worked on was a
statewide wireless network deployment. I was in charge if tower site
configuration, validation, and backhaul connectivity to said tower site.

These were shared towers that the state rented space on. There was more
than one tower building I was in that actually made me physically sick
after 15-20 minutes inside.

The first time I happened, it was already mid-afternoon, and I thought it
was becasue I hadn't had any lunch yet. I left the building to get some
food and after about 20 minutes I was feeling fine again. I was gone from
the building about an hour, and when I got back, it was only another 15-20
minutes before I was physically sick again.

Yes, I understand that this was at the source of the RF, but it was a very
short duration. Who really knows what the long term effects are of lower
signal levels fro extended periods of time.

Regards,

DanS

DanS wrote:

> I'm not sure how much I agree with that. One project I worked on was a
> statewide wireless network deployment. I was in charge if tower site
> configuration, validation, and backhaul connectivity to said tower site.

There was a Swedish case-control study that showed a statistically
significant increase in brain tumors from the use of analog cellular phones.

See "http://tinyurl.com/ylmzaw"

There is no argument that a sufficiently high level of RF energy has
negative health effects, the argument centers around what that level is.

I'm shocked that Navas hasn't tried to use this study as a justification
for shutting down the AMPS network, or as a marketing tool for Cingular!

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:56:51 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>DanS wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how much I agree with that. One project I worked on was a
>> statewide wireless network deployment. I was in charge if tower site
>> configuration, validation, and backhaul connectivity to said tower site.
>
>There was a Swedish case-control study that showed a statistically
>significant increase in brain tumors from the use of analog cellular phones.
>
>See "http://tinyurl.com/ylmzaw"
>
>There is no argument that a sufficiently high level of RF energy has
>negative health effects, the argument centers around what that level is.
>
>I'm shocked that Navas hasn't tried to use this study as a justification
>for shutting down the AMPS network, or as a marketing tool for Cingular!

Natural selection at work.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:56:51 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>DanS wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how much I agree with that. One project I worked on was a
>> statewide wireless network deployment. I was in charge if tower site
>> configuration, validation, and backhaul connectivity to said tower site.
>
>There was a Swedish case-control study that showed a statistically
>significant increase in brain tumors from the use of analog cellular phones.
>
>See "http://tinyurl.com/ylmzaw"

"No clear association was found for digital or cordless telephones."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:02:13 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Todd
Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

>At 16 Nov 2006 19:17:31 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> To be clear, I was just pointing out that the energy density of solar
>> panels is too low to make them practical for powering a laptop computer.
>> And of course the cost is prohibitive.
>
>I know, and I honestly wasn'ttrying to offend- my warped sence of humor
>just found a delicious irony when you pointing out the (very real)
>shortcomings of an existing technology while waxing poetic about one that
>is still (mostly?) theoretical!

I guess the point is that even the statement about solar isn't
accurate. Many people have successfully used solar panels to power
laptops.
--
Mark McIntyre

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:13:12 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:02:13 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Todd
>Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>At 16 Nov 2006 19:17:31 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> To be clear, I was just pointing out that the energy density of solar
>>> panels is too low to make them practical for powering a laptop computer.
>>> And of course the cost is prohibitive.
>>
>>I know, and I honestly wasn'ttrying to offend- my warped sence of humor
>>just found a delicious irony when you pointing out the (very real)
>>shortcomings of an existing technology while waxing poetic about one that
>>is still (mostly?) theoretical!
>
>I guess the point is that even the statement about solar isn't
>accurate.

I'll be happy to respond to any specific technical errors you think
you've found.

>Many people have successfully used solar panels to power
>laptops.

Of course, with the limitations I've noted.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:02:13 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Todd
> Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At 16 Nov 2006 19:17:31 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> To be clear, I was just pointing out that the energy density of solar
>>> panels is too low to make them practical for powering a laptop computer.
>>> And of course the cost is prohibitive.
>> I know, and I honestly wasn'ttrying to offend- my warped sence of humor
>> just found a delicious irony when you pointing out the (very real)
>> shortcomings of an existing technology while waxing poetic about one that
>> is still (mostly?) theoretical!
>
> I guess the point is that even the statement about solar isn't
> accurate. Many people have successfully used solar panels to power
> laptops.

True, but I'd probably buy a very low power laptop if I was going to be
carrying the panels around. You can get laptops that draw only 10-12
watts, at least in Japan. Smaller screens, and lower performance
processors, but adequate for most routine tasks.