Cell phone towers

Havoc: yes, I know that. And to clarify, while it's a clock frequency, it is still emitting waves. And obviously those waves' frequencies are proportional to the input frequencies.

The technology might be new, but radio waves are not. And the "black box" effects of radio waves have long been measured and analysed. The problem occurs when doomsdayers come with a product to sell to "protect" you
 
And slashdot is hardly as credible as ieee... I have yet to find a credible, peer-reviewed journal article that presents any reasonable evidence.

I'm not saying it has NO effect... But it's kind of like saying when you get out of the ocean, the water level drops... Technically true, but so insignificant, you might as well disregard the statement
 
HavocXphere said:
You do realize that the one is a clock frequency while the other is electromagnetic radiation? :confused: Not exactly comparing apples & apples...
Click to expand...

100% the same thing.

But a PC is not designed to maximise radiated power, while an antenna is. So the power levels will be substantially different.

You need to read up a bit on frequency, antenna design, ERP and the effect of distance on it.
 
Aha there is the vodacom man himself... don't suppose you know too much about tower rentals do you? And if you did would you give me the correct figure? :)
 
LancelotSA said:
Aha there is the vodacom man himself... don't suppose you know too much about tower rentals do you? And if you did would you give me the correct figure? :)
Click to expand...

No, not too much. It's negotiated per site.

I guess it's all about how much traffic the site will carry vs. the benefits for the residents. In many cases residents will give permission just to get coverage, so I know of numbers as low as R0. ;)
 
vodacom3g said:
No, not too much. It's negotiated per site.

I guess it's all about how much traffic the site will carry vs. the benefits for the residents. In many cases residents will give permission just to get coverage, so I know of numbers as low as R0. ;)
Click to expand...

I live in Pinetown so not much chance of low coverage and our building is one of the two tallest in the area so we hold the cards! :)

And I read into "it's negotiated per site" that Vodacom see how little they can get squeezed for! ;)
 
Oh, and those Swedes... ? That study was conducted using analog mobile phones. Models that aren't even available anymore. Probably using AMPS, which i don't think is even supported anymore.
 
Haha, true, but he wasn't advocating the argument. Simply pointing out an inconsistency.

And Vodacom3G's input hasn't let me down yet...
 
sn3rd said:
At least I have v3g in my corner ;)
Click to expand...

This stuff is all physics, at least how to calculate radiated power and the effect of increasing frequency.

(Note: I'm not commenting on where the radiation 'safety' line should be drawn, I don't know.)

For example, there was a thread a while ago on how we're going to power appliances wirelessly. Now THAT scares me, transmitting a few hundred- or kilo-watts in the home. :eek:
 
So let me clarify something LancelotSA. You have no problem with potentially getting brain tumours so long as the money's right?:confused:
 
I agree completely. And my theory is a little rusty too. I remember some time back, I read that a successful, reliable powering of a light bulb wirelessly at a distance of a few metres was accomplished. I was amazed
 
vodacom3g said:
Or how much the residents try to squeeze for. ;)
Click to expand...

Damn straight! They are after all saving a fortune by not having to build a tower, never mind trying to find a piece of land on which to do it, and have to compensate us for that 1% chance we may all be getting slowly fried! And we have the ammo of knowing exactly what their profits are! :)
 
And I agree that signalling and powering ain't the same animal in this context. High power waves going everywhere could create all sorts of issues... Boiled goldfish, anyone? :p
 
sn3rd said:
I agree completely. And my theory is a little rusty too. I remember some time back, I read that a successful, reliable powering of a light bulb wirelessly at a distance of a few metres was accomplished. I was amazed
Click to expand...

So let's say it was a 10W light bulb. That means they probably transmitted closer to 20 Watts (or more) to power it. And it's continuous.

Compare this to a mobile phone at MAX 2Watts and very bursty.

I know which system I won't come close to. :rolleyes:
 
onebrickshort: hehe... There should be a word for that... Prosti... Hmmm :p
 
True, but remember they also used MUCH lower frequencies. We're talking 2 orders of magnitude lower. which means even BIGGER wavelength, and even less chance of collision. So hopefully it evens out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X