Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    location location location
    Posts
    595
    As an RF Engineer I can unequivocally state the answer is definitely maybe. As with climate change there are so many variables involved that anyone could pitch a case quite convincingly either for or against the 'danger'.

    How-fucking-ever let's not (continue to) conflate "5G" with what the real health concerns are, which is specifically the new set of millimeter wave frequencies (28GHz-38GHz) as a new means to deliver 5G service. 5G is simply the evolution of technology (1G = voice calls, 2G = text capabilities, 3G = internet access, 4G = streaming) but a leap forward more significant than all of the other 'G's' combined. 5G improves on latency, connection density, network efficiency, throughput, and traffic capacity that will enable all sorts of technologies we've only dreamed of so far (real-world autonomous cars, IoT, holographic porn ... ).

    That said, 5G will also be delivered using existing commercial frequencies from 600MHz-2.7GHz, and newer bands at 3.5GHz as well as 5GHz, which BTW are all microwave frequencies to begin with, but notice nobody is running around telling you to ditch your cell phone, or WiFi because it's going to kill you in the same manner. We fought those battles 20 years ago ... along with high voltage power lines, microwave oven radiation, sunspots, and a lot of other hype.

    So when I see comments like this; " Once 4G/5G antennas are densely installed in communities around the globe, no one will be able to escape continuous, involuntary exposure to non-ionizing radiation." ...

    I have to laugh because, surprise!, we're already there. It's funny to me that these experts consider the densely installed antennas to be the concern and ignore the fact that we're all carrying one in our pocket (RF power density is 'roughly' a function of transmit power divided by distance so if the distance is zero then ...).

    So to summarize - we're all fucked so enjoy the holographic porn while you can.
    Who cares how the crow flies

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13,205
    ^^^ When?
    Ooof!

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    7,446
    https://www.politico.com/news/agenda...y-chaos-106335

    ...covers the policy aspects.

    Despite the turmoil, there have been some baby steps. Commerce Department and FCC officials seemed to settle some differences in August over 5G standards to safeguard weather forecasting ahead of a global telecom conference.
    Apologies in advance to any MAGA snowflakes...like any article on national policy (eg corona virus), this one bumps into the chaos and lack of coordinated leadership in this administration. :shrug:

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    location location location
    Posts
    595
    Good article. The the policy cluster-fuck is more about the monetization and use of new spectrum (i.e. the 'scary' millimeter waves), and as with anything money-related the chaos and lack of coordinated leadership from this administration is simply a byproduct of catering to the highest bidder, and not necessarily what's best for general public well-being or even what's the best technological solution.

    FWIW we're already several steps behind other countries in the race to 5G so we're not "winning" jack shit. We chose poorly in using millimeter wave frequencies for numerous reasons while the rest of the world took more practical approaches.
    Who cares how the crow flies

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    22,382
    Quote Originally Posted by YoEddy View Post
    we're all fucked so enjoy the holographic porn while you can.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    location location location
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunion 2020 View Post
    ^^^ When?
    What, 5G?

    Technically it's already here, but only sort of no matter what those lying-fuck commercials tell you. T-Mo and Sprint both claim to have "the widest 5G network in the US", but it's all bullshit. The 5G service they provide is actually significantly slower than their current 4G offering, but the phone icon says "5G" so people get all excited. It reminds me when we were transitioning from 3G to 4G and AT&T was the first one out of the gate to claim they had a 4G network, but those in the industry jokingly called it "faux G".

    Practically speaking it'll be at least 5 years before we have it in any real-world applicable manner, and 10 years for it to be ubiquitous. Consider that conservative estimates are that the mobile operators will have to spend upwards of $275 Billion to get there. And oh BTW there isn't enough existing fiber in the ground to support it.
    Who cares how the crow flies

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    11,513
    Quote Originally Posted by nickwm21 View Post
    I am planning a project that places a crew a few feet away from cell antennas on the roof of a building. A consultant placed the FCC radiation exposure limit at 6 minutes...

    These things must exponentially become much safer the further away you are? I sure hope so...
    All EM radiation is governed by the Inverse Square Law: https://www.softschools.com/formulas...aw_formula/82/

    So, yeah, literally exponentially safer as you move further away from the source. Assuming "a few feet" means 3 feet, allowable exposure time at 6 feet would be 24 minutes, at 12 feet it would be 96 minutes, etc.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    location location location
    Posts
    595
    I would add to DTM's post that your consultant apparently used the FCC averaging time of 6 minutes for MPE. Of course there are a lot of variables to consider like will they be standing/working in bore-sight of the antennas or off to the side, what bands are being transmitted and at what power, etc. Being a few feet below the antenna is a lot better than being a few feet directly in bore-sight.

    For some light reading:
    http://www.rfcafe.com/references/ele...e-exposure.htm

    Name:  2020-02-25_111828.jpg
Views: 202
Size:  80.5 KB
    Who cares how the crow flies

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    7,111
    My 'hood is freaking the fuck out!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5G1.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	170.9 KB 
ID:	317367

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5G2.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	197.1 KB 
ID:	317368

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5G3.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	216.1 KB 
ID:	317369

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    betwixt the Silvers and Saint Johns
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by YoEddy View Post
    let's not (continue to) conflate "5G" with what the real health concerns are, which is specifically the new set of millimeter wave frequencies (28GHz-38GHz) as a new means to deliver 5G service.
    Thanks for your input. Can you deliver 5G at scale without the new mm wave frequencies? If not it probably doesn't matter if people conflate the two, if so then it seems like there might be better arguments that "5G" opponents could be making.

    I have a friend all up in arms about this, but he doesn't wear a seat belt, so . . .

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    7,111
    Does you friend carry a cell phone? Wifi in his house?

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    I would like to hear Ron Johnson's opinion on this before just blindly accepting Neufox's opinion.
    Sorry, I can't help on this one.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    16,344
    The millions who die from Wuhanflu get off easy?
    watch out for snakes

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    location location location
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by Tele 'til You're Smelly View Post
    ... Can you deliver 5G at scale without the new mm wave frequencies? If not it probably doesn't matter if people conflate the two, if so then it seems like there might be better arguments that "5G" opponents could be making.
    Good question that made me rethink my original knee-jerk response. Being in the industry I'm painfully familiar with current arguments about the new mmW frequencies and how harmful they can be, and continually have to argue the mmW versus 5G confusion so that's the angle where I was coming from. However, I started to answer your question above as follows:

    "At scale" is the question - what devices & technology will require it remains to be seen, but it ultimately depends on uptake and the number of devices in the ecosystem using/requiring the bandwidth. We can deliver real-world 5G functionality today without mmW no problem, but once we invent shiny new toys & applications, and everybody buys into them probably not so much. We'll need more bandwidth than the current commercial cellular frequencies provide. That said mmW is line of sight so it's not going to be used in the same manner as lower 'mobile' frequencies anyway, but it'll have it's own use cases gobbling up bandwidth.

    But then I realized that the specific concern of the OG post was really getting at the ever-increasing signal density regardless of frequency.

    "Cells" have been getting smaller and smaller over time (densification) to keep up with the capacity and throughput demands. In the "old days" there were maybe one or two tall cell towers in a city and the phone was a 5W bag phone because you needed that much power to get "back" to the tower that could be many miles away. Cell providers used to pay a premium to be at the top of towers to cover as much as possible with one cell, but now they pay that premium to be at the bottom of towers, on low rooftops, etc. That's because they need to limit how far each cell transmits so they can pack more and more cells into the same area to handle the increased capacity needs. As the cells get smaller the amount of power required gets lower for each transmitter (including the mobile devices), but the overall signal density goes up because it's coming from more sources at generally closer proximity. Millimeter Wave will require even more densification out of the gate given it's LOS limitations and relatively poor propagation.

    The 5G debate is really about that ever increasing densification required at ALL bands, and not just the new scary ones. More densification means more and more lower power devices in closer proximity to everyone and everything, and overall higher signal density.

    So to go full circle -as an RF Engineer I can unequivocally state the answer is definitely maybe.
    Who cares how the crow flies

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    It's Full of Stars....
    Posts
    2,261
    Quote Originally Posted by YoEddy View Post
    What, 5G?

    Technically it's already here, but only sort of no matter what those lying-fuck commercials tell you. T-Mo and Sprint both claim to have "the widest 5G network in the US", but it's all bullshit. The 5G service they provide is actually significantly slower than their current 4G offering, but the phone icon says "5G" so people get all excited. It reminds me when we were transitioning from 3G to 4G and AT&T was the first one out of the gate to claim they had a 4G network, but those in the industry jokingly called it "faux G".

    Practically speaking it'll be at least 5 years before we have it in any real-world applicable manner, and 10 years for it to be ubiquitous. Consider that conservative estimates are that the mobile operators will have to spend upwards of $275 Billion to get there. And oh BTW there isn't enough existing fiber in the ground to support it.
    I think he was asking about the holographic porn. If he wasn't, I am........
    What we have here is an intelligence failure. You may be familiar with staring directly at that when shaving. .
    -Ottime

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nashville TN
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by seano732 View Post
    I think he was asking about the holographic porn. If he wasn't, I am........
    thirded.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ventura Highway in the Sunshine
    Posts
    21,579
    Will holographic porn be safe if wearing a tinfoil fedora?

    I agree it is a constitutional right for Americans to be assholes...its just too bad that so many take the opportunity...
    iscariot

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    betwixt the Silvers and Saint Johns
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by YoEddy View Post
    So to go full circle -as an RF Engineer I can unequivocally state the answer is definitely maybe.
    thanks- good food for thought, I hadn't really dug into the 5G thing yet

  19. #44
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    30,535
    Quote Originally Posted by YoEddy View Post
    As an RF Engineer I can unequivocally state the answer is definitely maybe. As with climate change there are so many variables involved that anyone could pitch a case quite convincingly either for or against the 'danger'.

    How-fucking-ever let's not (continue to) conflate "5G" with what the real health concerns are, which is specifically the new set of millimeter wave frequencies (28GHz-38GHz) as a new means to deliver 5G service. 5G is simply the evolution of technology (1G = voice calls, 2G = text capabilities, 3G = internet access, 4G = streaming) but a leap forward more significant than all of the other 'G's' combined. 5G improves on latency, connection density, network efficiency, throughput, and traffic capacity that will enable all sorts of technologies we've only dreamed of so far (real-world autonomous cars, IoT, holographic porn ... ).

    That said, 5G will also be delivered using existing commercial frequencies from 600MHz-2.7GHz, and newer bands at 3.5GHz as well as 5GHz, which BTW are all microwave frequencies to begin with, but notice nobody is running around telling you to ditch your cell phone, or WiFi because it's going to kill you in the same manner. We fought those battles 20 years ago ... along with high voltage power lines, microwave oven radiation, sunspots, and a lot of other hype.

    So when I see comments like this; " Once 4G/5G antennas are densely installed in communities around the globe, no one will be able to escape continuous, involuntary exposure to non-ionizing radiation." ...

    I have to laugh because, surprise!, we're already there. It's funny to me that these experts consider the densely installed antennas to be the concern and ignore the fact that we're all carrying one in our pocket (RF power density is 'roughly' a function of transmit power divided by distance so if the distance is zero then ...).

    So to summarize - we're all fucked so enjoy the holographic porn while you can.

    .........Good article. The policy cluster-fuck is more about the monetization and use of new spectrum (i.e. the 'scary' millimeter waves), and as with anything money-related the chaos and lack of coordinated leadership from this administration is simply a byproduct of catering to the highest bidder, and not necessarily what's best for general public well-being or even what's the best technological solution.

    FWIW we're already several steps behind other countries in the race to 5G so we're not "winning" jack shit. We chose poorly in using millimeter wave frequencies for numerous reasons while the rest of the world took more practical approaches.
    Thanks, mang. Appreciate your input. What GHz will that holographic porn be on? I'd like to invest early, if possible.

    Note to the TGR holoporn staff - please install that app asap.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    17,996
    Holographic pron will be 430-770 THz
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    30,801
    Quote Originally Posted by hutash View Post
    Will holographic porn be safe if wearing a tinfoil fedora?
    If you wear it on your cock.

    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The Micky D's in Idaho Springs
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by DJSapp View Post
    Tin foil hats are amateurish. Pros use a full face tin foil helmets.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ventura Highway in the Sunshine
    Posts
    21,579
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    If you wear it on your cock.

    Yes.
    Migtht it not be better worn on the right hand?...assuming you are right handed, of course.

    I agree it is a constitutional right for Americans to be assholes...its just too bad that so many take the opportunity...
    iscariot

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    General Sherman's Favorite City
    Posts
    19,752
    Quote Originally Posted by hutash View Post
    Will holographic porn be safe if wearing a tinfoil fedora?
    Yes. It will keep you safe from speaking to women.

    Forever.
    I still call it The Jake.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    30,801
    Quote Originally Posted by hutash View Post
    Migtht it not be better worn on the right hand?...assuming you are right handed, of course.
    Foil gloves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •