BT Headset - You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

"Keith" <@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I recently bought a Jabra 250 BT headset to go with my Nokia 6820.
>
> I already have a full car kit and only wanted the headset for when I am
> walking etc.
>
> I thought of putting a small foam cover over the mic (like the TV people
> use) but don't know where to get one from.


Any decent auto store should be able to provide a "sock" for you. I doubt
that they would have a specific on, but with so many different mic's in the
music industry, I'm sure that they'd find one.

Why do people use these things ... don't you realise that you look like a
member of the Borg collective?

---

› See More: BT Headset - You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:02:23 +0100, "SA" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why do people use these things

Because they are brilliant. You can talk to people over the hone
without having to hold a lump of sweaty plastic to your ear, or be
encumbered b a cable.

>... don't you realise that you look like a
>member of the Borg collective?

Don't you realise that being obsessed with what you look like is a
personal failing?


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:02:23 +0100, SA wrote:

> Why do people use these things

Because some of us have to use our phones *handsfree* , and do NOT want long dangly tangle prone wires.

.... don't you realise that you look like a
> member of the Borg collective?

This is why I use a SE HBH-200 BT headset.

--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
[email protected]

"michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:02:23 +0100, SA wrote:
>
> > Why do people use these things
>
> Because some of us have to use our phones *handsfree* , and do NOT want
long dangly tangle prone wires.
>
> ... don't you realise that you look like a
> > member of the Borg collective?
>
> This is why I use a SE HBH-200 BT headset.
>
> --
> Michael Turner
> Email (ROT13)
> [email protected]

Because I am in enough danger of loosing my licence with the dreaded speed
camera revenue pumps, with holding my phone while driving.

Andy

I have a full car kit - I only bought the BT headset for when I am walking
etc. which is why the wind noise if so annoying.

I can't help but wonder how long the money grabbing police will take before
they start fining people with headsets in for decreasing their natural
hearing!

"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:02:23 +0100, SA wrote:
> >
> > > Why do people use these things
> >
> > Because some of us have to use our phones *handsfree* , and do NOT want
> long dangly tangle prone wires.
> >
> > ... don't you realise that you look like a
> > > member of the Borg collective?
> >
> > This is why I use a SE HBH-200 BT headset.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Turner
> > Email (ROT13)
> > [email protected]
>
> Because I am in enough danger of loosing my licence with the dreaded speed
> camera revenue pumps, with holding my phone while driving.
>
> Andy
>
>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:02:23 +0100, "SA" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Why do people use these things ... don't you realise that you look like a
>member of the Borg collective?

If you are making a longish call then it's just so much nicer to
not have to hold a phone up all the time. You can also wander around
and do other stuff while talking.

Then there's the whole 'radiation' worry thing (supposedly the
bluetooth originated radiation isn't as potentially harmful ....
hmmmmm).

Finally of course there's the absolute necessity to use handsfree
when driving. Wireless is much better than having tangle-prone wires.


Gav

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:36:14 GMT,
[email protected]lid (Gav) wrote:

>supposedly the
>bluetooth originated radiation isn't as potentially harmful

Twaddle. It is much the same: lower power but nearer.

If there is any risk at all, it is from microwave ovens and TV
transmitters, not mobile phones. But I don't think there is any risk
at all.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

MUCH lower power - and not a lot nearer when you consider putting a 2W gsm
phone to your ear. One study showed that wired handsfrees conduct RF
towards the head too.

There is a theory that ultra low dose radiation protects against cancer -
because the tissue gets so used to repairing minor damage that when a nasty
'error' occurs there is lots of repair activity already available.... (this
was in context of Radon in houses mind you)

>MUCH lower power - and not a lot nearer when you consider putting a 2W gsm
>phone to your ear. One study showed that wired handsfrees conduct RF
>towards the head too.

2 Watt?

NONE of the current phones have a maximum power output higher than .6 (6/10th)
of a watt. This is legislated.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >MUCH lower power - and not a lot nearer when you consider putting a 2W
gsm
> >phone to your ear. One study showed that wired handsfrees conduct RF
> >towards the head too.
>
> 2 Watt?
>
> NONE of the current phones have a maximum power output higher than .6
(6/10th)
> of a watt. This is legislated.

In which country..?

Here in the UK 900MHz phones have a max. output of 2W, 1800MHz is max. 1W.
Of course it's rare that a phone will use that much power as it's usually
close enough to a base station to use a much reduced level.

Ivor

>In which country..?

I am speaking about the USA legalities.

>Here in the UK 900MHz phones have a max. output of 2W, 1800MHz is max. 1W.
>Of course it's rare that a phone will use that much power as it's usually
>close enough to a base station to use a much reduced level.

Your laws might say that but I don't think that a manufacturer would make a
phone with a higher power capability for one part of the world and the same
make and model for the USA with a lower power.

I am just guessing now, but I suspect that a phone made for sale in the USA AND
Europe AND Asia, is no more than .6 watts.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >In which country..?
>
> I am speaking about the USA legalities.
>
> >Here in the UK 900MHz phones have a max. output of 2W, 1800MHz is max.
1W.
> >Of course it's rare that a phone will use that much power as it's usually
> >close enough to a base station to use a much reduced level.
>
> Your laws might say that but I don't think that a manufacturer would make
a
> phone with a higher power capability for one part of the world and the
same
> make and model for the USA with a lower power.
>
> I am just guessing now, but I suspect that a phone made for sale in the
USA AND
> Europe AND Asia, is no more than .6 watts.
>
> --
> John S.
> e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

USA is 1.6W.kg not .6W/kg.
Quote from Nokia User Guide on SARs for use in europe
The exposure standard for mobile phones employs a unit of measurement known
as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. The SAR limit recommended by The
Council of the European Union is 2.0 W/kg.* Tests for SAR have been
conducted using standard operating positions with the phone transmitting at
its highest certified power level in all tested frequency bands. Although
the SAR is determined at the highest certified power level, the actual SAR
level of the phone while operating can be well below the maximum value. This
is because the phone is designed to operate at multiple power levels so as
to use only the power required to reach the network. In general, the closer
you are to a base station antenna, the lower the power output.

Quote from Nokia User Guide on SARs for use in USA

The exposure standard for wireless mobile phones employs a unit of
measurement known

as the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. The SAR limit set by the FCC is
1.6W/kg.* Tests for SAR are conducted using standard operating positions
accepted by the FCC with the phone transmitting at its highest certified
power level in all tested frequency bands. Although the SAR is determined at
the highest certified power level, the actual SAR level of the phone while
operating can be well below the maximum value. This is because the phone is
designed to operate at multiple power levels so as to use only the power
required to reach the network. In general, the closer you are to a wireless
base station antenna, the lower the power output.

Before a phone model is available for sale to the public, it must be tested
and certified to the FCC that it does not exceed the limit established by
the government-adopted requirement for safe exposure. The tests are
performed in positions and locations (for example, at the ear and worn on
the body) as required by the FCC for each model.



As you can see they do make phones for a market all it needs is for it to be
turned up or down .4W/kg to fit the market. If Nokia want to sell phones in
a particular market they do what is asked or do not get into that market.



DaveT

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:05:10 GMT, "Carl" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>MUCH lower power -

Yes

> and not a lot nearer when you consider putting a 2W gsm
>phone to your ear.

No A mobile phone normally has the antenna on the other side of the
handset, about a half centimeter or more away from your ear, possibly
a centimetre away from your head.

A BT headset is right hard up against your head: with the antenna
probably touching your head.

> One study showed that wired handsfrees conduct RF
>towards the head too.

Yes, and it was bolix. It tested them with the wire hanging free and
untangled. Has anyone ever managed to pull one of those out of their
pocket and use it without a few (rf-obstructing) tangles in it?


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:05:10 GMT, "Carl" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
<snip>
> > One study showed that wired handsfrees conduct RF
> >towards the head too.
>
> Yes, and it was bolix. It tested them with the wire hanging free and
> untangled. Has anyone ever managed to pull one of those out of their
> pocket and use it without a few (rf-obstructing) tangles in it?
> Iain
>
Biggest factor was if the length of the PHF wire was the right length
to resonate at or near 900 / 1800MHz?
Not something the manufactures even considered.
Some lengths made a perfect resonate aerial, putting the conducted RF
into the earpiece :-(

Then manufacturers tried ferrite beads close to the earpiece as a
RF trap, finding then that the RF isolated coil in the earpiece itself
resonated at 900/1800 !

Steve Terry

>USA is 1.6W.kg not .6W/kg.

I am not sure what you are talking about.

The maximum output for transmitter power on a "portable" (handheld) phone is 6
tenths (.6) of a watt. It has nothing at all to do with weight (kg).

Reading on you are talking about radiation by body weight. That is a safety
consideration. Although it is important is people's mind, it has little to
nothing to do with the legal transmitter output.

It is a rating or ratio.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net