Many years ago, this was explained clearly on my smarter website starting at Pagina100.html
I have also explained in layman's words which faults were made with the TNO-Cofam study.
Here they placed the test persons in the near field, without measuring the magnetical component.
Look also at:
http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina301.htmlGreetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton
----- Original Message -----
From: S Andreason
To:
[hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [eSens] EMF Blocking
I might be wrong about that. The magnetic component may indeed travel
for miles, but in logrthmic fashion it drops off rapidly with distance.
To quote from a smarter book: " Power flux density (also called
electromagnetic field, measured in W/m2) really consists of two separate
fields: The electric field (measured in V/m) and the magnetic field
(measured in A/m). However, as these do not exist separately anymore at
high frequencies, their separate indication is not really interesting
for RF exposure."
The distance at which the "near-field" can be calculated is given as a
formula, and is dependant on the frequency. Speed of light (C in m/s) /
frequency (Hz) = wavelength (m)
Then multiply Wavelength x 10 = close-up range, inside of which,
measurements are not accurately possible.
For a 900 MHz cell phone, that is a wavelength of 0.33 meters, so inside
of 3.3 meters (10.8 feet), the magnetic and electric fields are *not*
coupled to each other, and must be measured separately.
Still learning...
Stewart
S Andreason wrote:
> So In this case, the Magnetic part of the name refers to the process
> of creating the RF, and not inferring the magnetic field extends for
> miles.
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Locked
