/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11677160
Another approach using a 40 MHz carrier pulsed at 50 Hz.

>>11677164
A sizeable amount of literature has shown microwaves are likely physically addictive.

Dose response is nonlinear. Relevant criteria are
-Frequency
-Polarization
-Spatial and temporal signal scheme / modulation
-And in terms of modulation, peak power and rise time.

>>11677160

well, theres a LOT of studies related to dangers of EM emissions but the ""the scientific consensus"" is to not worry about it, the only thing conclusive is to avoid high intesity emmisions that is something everyone agrees

>>11677274
>the ""the scientific consensus"" is to not worry about it
No, it's the opposite. What a very small group of people who make up the various regulatory and public policy institutions say does not make it a "consensus". Most scientists who actually do work in this field disagree with them. However their dominance in the public eye allows them to cast this illusion.

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/time-clean-house

>>11677164
for example in that study 100 to 120 Volts per meter field is quite high but almost everyone agrees that high levels should be avoided and its part of the industry standard for example antennas for radio broadcast can not be installed near communities were people live

in this case 100 to 120 V/m I think that means about 350 watts RF power

I'm using this calculator:
https://www.compeng.com.au/rf-calculator/

>>11677296
please notice I wrote ""the scientific consensus""

>>11677358
How are you calculating that? Just from from the field voltage measured in air the range they reported would be ~2.6 - 3.8 mW/cm2.

>>11677406
Also, that's assuming a continuous wave, so the results are not quite accurate. Without knowing the duty cycle and peak power, and how they measured it, it's hard to infer. But either way, it's relatively low.

>>11677406
heres a another calculator (simpler)
https://www.ahsystems.com/EMC-formulas-equations/field-intensity-calculation.php

the dbi number is a reference meaning an isotropic antenna or omnidirectional, I'm using the reference value of 0 but even if I consider a regular antenna (a straight segment or wire) where the dbi number would be 2 (2.15 to be precise)it still gives me around 300 watts , for the distance I'm using 1 meter

I think the unit mW/cm2 can be missleading... but in any case just that number "100 to 120 V/m" indicates the field intensity is very high

>>11677496
Very high in what sense?

>>11677647
oh that conditions are not what I spected, I thought it was an antenna and the mice were kept at 1m distance.... basically they put the mice in a chamber that was constructed as a capacitor... I think this would definetely be "high" because is a concentration inside that area... are there more technical detail? they definetely are measuring the field intensity as it says here >>11677164 in the middle of the chanber is my guess so its not the voltage taken at the plates (which would give lower field voltage)....

I dont know what to tell you to me all indicates the field is quite "high"

>>11677794
There's no more details in the paper. Relative to modern exposure scenarios it's quite high, but we have to bear in mind that originally the exposure limit for the general population in much of the west was 10mW/cm2 (averaged over any 6 minutes). The Soviet standard was 10 uW/cm2, and people were only allowed 15 minutes of exposure, per day with protective gear, to a maximum of 10 mW/cm2. The perception of the time for the Soviets would have been that they were testing high intensities, in the West it would have been seen as below the threshold where the animal begins to respond to heating (or in some ranges, induced currents).