Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on
geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional aerials is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of the radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the average human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four times the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the body would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on the orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of the radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength with which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of all this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I drew from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to induce resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation to the direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know if anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be received by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland. This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such devices. Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by which they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of radiation, based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part of the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of such devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they don't work for different people experiencing health problems due to different frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these questions. Thanks Lachlan |
Lachlan,
Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure - there is still no simple answer (if any)... All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled. (There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.) Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies. I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular). Drasko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM Subject: [eSens] More Questions > Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on > geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional aerials > is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of the > radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the average > human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four times > the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres > high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the body > would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on the > orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of the > radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength with > which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if I'm > wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of all > this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I drew > from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to induce > resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation to the > direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know if > anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be received > by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland. > > This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of > conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such devices. > Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by which > they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of radiation, > based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part of > the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of such > devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they don't > work for different people experiencing health problems due to different > frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these questions. > Thanks > Lachlan > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > |
Hello,
to put it bluntly: it is impossible for simple mortals to understand exactly what is going on. Sure, it is frequency dependant. But it is not determind which ones. The high frequencies react to the body, but also the low frequencies. Especially the low frequent modulations added to the high frquencies for mobile phone. The go like 17.3 Hz, 100 Hz and 217 Hz, even 15000 Hz with UMTS. Do not fortget, that we speak about normal transversal waves AND longitudinal or Tesla waves. The latter we cannot measure directly, so we cannot discuss them according theory. A simple cordless home telephone according the DECT/GAP principle is killing you! Not directly, but in a few months. Its pulsed signals are emitted 14 hours a day. A simple cordless home telephone according an analogue principle is not pulsed, and radiates only when you phone. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ http://www.hese-project.org checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Drasko Cvijovic" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 22:51 Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions > Lachlan, > Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what > really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure - > there is still no simple answer (if any)... > > All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are > somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled. > (There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.) > > Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding > frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts > like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other > mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies. > > I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates > exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the > body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant > feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular). > > > Drasko > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM > Subject: [eSens] More Questions > > > > Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on > > geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional > aerials > > is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of > the > > radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the > average > > human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of > times > > the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres > > high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the > body > > would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on > the > > orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of > the > > radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength > with > > which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if > I'm > > wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding > all > > this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I > drew > > from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to > induce > > resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation > to the > > direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know > if > > anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be > received > > by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland. > > > > This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of > > conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such > devices. > > Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by > which > > they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of > radiation, > > based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any > of > > the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of > such > > devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they > don't > > work for different people experiencing health problems due to different > > frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these > questions. > > Thanks > > Lachlan > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic
> Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of
> what really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing > is for sure - there is still no simple answer (if any)... I don't think any of us here can state with any certainty that there is no simple explanation for EMF sensitivity. All we can really state is that *we* have not figured it out. Someone may very well have the answer right now. But either we don't know know about it... or we don't believe it... :-) > I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that > operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially > resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives > me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to > mention the cellular). Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x 768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency... Marc |
Hello Marc,
but that I do not understand. The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. You may run 800x600 or 1024x768, as long as your refreh rate is the same. With a good monitor, it can be adjusted to 85 Hz. So, than 800x600 or 1024x768 is still running at 85 Hz. or higher, as you videocard allows it. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ http://www.hese-project.org checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 19:21 Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions > Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different > reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x > 768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency... > > Marc > |
Administrator
|
> The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency.
Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in "frequency" as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in *something*. Marc |
Hello Marc,
which refresh rates do you use? When I buy a Flight Simulator, there is a card in the package that warns me for *epilepsy*. It is the flickering of the images on the monitor that are the cause for it. When I play a game, where I have to move through long tunnels, I get also feelings of nausea, when I play too long. The very fast moving pixels, with their contrasting colors, do have that effect. In Japan, a number of children watching TV fell sideways because of this epilepsy. There was a special film, with a lot of flickering images. So, it is quite understandable, that you may feel uncomfortable with certain refresh rates. Normally, it is, that as high as possible gives the best relaxing view. But it is possible, that you, as an eSens people, just gets irritated at certain refresh rates. Perhaps you should test all of them, just to know which ones you can not bear. Greetings, Charles Claessens member Verband Baubiologie http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ http://www.hese-project.org checked by Norton Antivirus ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 20:30 Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions > > The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. > > Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if > I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems > to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information > than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in > "frequency" as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in > *something*. > > Marc > |
Administrator
|
> which refresh rates do you use?
I use 75 Hz. And I don't play videogames. :-) But for me, it's the resolution of the monitor that's the bigger factor, not the refresh rate. Certainly you must have a meter which registers differently with different CRT monitor resolutions? :-) Marc |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Marc.
You use a cordless telephone without any problems? You don´t mind use a computer with a CRT - screen. Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT electrosensitive ? Wille Borlin SWEDEN Marc Martin wrote: >>The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. >> >> > >Hmmm, nevertheless, I react more negatively to a CRT computer monitor if >I either increase the resolution or increase the refresh rate. It seems >to me that a monitor operating at 1024x768 is sending more information >than a monitor operating at 800x600. That may not be a change in >"frequency" as it is commonly defined, but it is certainly a change in >*something*. > >Marc > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic
Drasco.
I sent almost the same text to Marc a few minutes ago. What makes you electrosensitive? You use a cordless telephone and obviously do a lot with computers. I think you have other problems than electrosensitiver ones. Wille Borlin SWEDEN Drasko Cvijovic wrote: >Lachlan, >Your question about frequency is related to a very complicated issue of what >really causes adverse reactions to EMF... Up to now, one thing is for sure - >there is still no simple answer (if any)... > >All we know is that ES and other reactions to proximity of EM fields *are >somehow related* to (measurable) physical characteristics of the filled. >(There is no evident and stable cause - reaction relationship.) > >Just one of the measurable characteristics is frequency. And regarding >frequency, potential resonance with the body as whole or with smaller parts >like cells are, is just one of the factors involved, there are other >mechanisms of influence of various fields and frequencies. > >I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that operates >exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially resonant to the >body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives me less unpleasant >feeling than a regular table telephone (not to mention the cellular). > > >Drasko > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Lachlan Mudge" <[hidden email]> >To: <[hidden email]> >Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:10 PM >Subject: [eSens] More Questions > > > > >>Conventional aerials used to receive EM radiation are optimised based on >>geometry.... As far as I understand, a general rule for conventional >> >> >aerials > > >>is that their length should be at least one quarter of the wavelength of >> >> >the > > >>radiation they are trying to receive. Based on this assumption, the >> >> >average > > >>human body would act as an aerial for radiation with a wavelength of four >> >> >times > > >>the size of the body. Assuming that the average human body was 1.8 metres >>high, the largest wavelength that could be significantly received by the >> >> >body > > >>would theoretically be 7.2metres (41.67MHz), though this is dependant on >> >> >the > > >>orientation of the body with respect to the direction of polarisation of >> >> >the > > >>radiation. I have heard this value quoted by others as the wavelength >> >> >with > > >>which the entire body will resonate. Could someone please correct me if >> >> >I'm > > >>wrong on any of this as I am very keen to gain a correct understanding of >> >> >all > > >>this and hope to use this understanding productively. The conclusion I >> >> >drew > > >>from all this was that radiation above 41.67MHz has the potential to >> >> >induce > > >>resonance in certain body parts, depending on their size and orientation >> >> >to the > > >>direction of polarisation of the radiation. I would be interested to know >> >> >if > > >>anyone has ever calculated what frequency of radiation would best be >> >> >received > > >>by particularly susceptible body parts, such as the pineal gland. >> >>This discussion also deliberately brings me to another recent topic of >>conversation on the list, namely the bioprotect card and other such >> >> >devices. > > >>Could Dietrich, Charles or someone else please clarify the mechanism by >> >> >which > > >>they operate? Do these devices 'attract' a certain frequency of >> >> >radiation, > > >>based on their geometry, so that the device resonates rather than any part >> >> >of > > >>the human anatomy? Furthermore, would this mean that the effectiveness of >> >> >such > > >>devices is frequency dependant and could this therefore explain why they >> >> >don't > > >>work for different people experiencing health problems due to different >>frequencies of radiation? I hope someone can help me out with these >> >> >questions. > > >>Thanks >>Lachlan >> >> >> >> >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by WILLE BÖRLIN
> You use a cordless telephone without any problems?
I've never used a cordless telephone. I don't know where you got that idea. > Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT > electrosensitive ? Ha! You obviously haven't read my introductory message to the mailing list. Three years ago I could not use a regular CORDED telephone, watch TV, stand near power lines, use a computer (CRT or LCD), use a cellphone, use audio headphones, or go into the store because of the fluorescent lights. I could even feel the electricity in the walls when I standing next to them. I was on medical disability from work for many months because I could not tolerate being in the building for longer than 20 minutes. In other words, I was VERY electrically sensitive. Today, with the help of food, supplements, "new age devices", and having my mercury fillings removed, I can now use a corded telephone, I can watch TV, I can stand near power lines, I can use a computer for 8 hours/day, I can go to the store, and I'm working full time. I don't use cellphones or audio earphones, but the last time I checked they still caused pain in my head. So technically, while I'm still electrically sensitive, in practical terms I've found solutions so that the it has no impact on the things I want to do. And I plan on getting over the ES entirely, so that I do not need to depend on the food, supplements, and devices. But at my rate of improvement, I'd say that this is at least or year or more away. Marc |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by WILLE BÖRLIN
> You use a cordless telephone and obviously do a lot with computers.
> I think you have other problems than electrosensitiver ones. Drasko has already posted on this group several times that he has to stay a long distance away from his computer monitor, and uses binoculars to read the screen (I think he also has a metal barrier as well). On the other hand, I don't recall *you* ever posting what makes *you* electrosensitive. Perhaps you could share with us some accurate information about yourself, rather than make inaccurate statements about others? Marc |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Marc.
I am sorry for the false accusations ! I obviously read your answer sloppy, i interpreted this text as coming from you; "I, for example, keep using my simple cordless home telephone that > operates exactly at the frequency you pointed out as potentially > resonant to the body, and although I am highly sensitive, it gives > me less unpleasant feeling than a regular table telephone (not to > mention the cellular)." When checking back i see that the text is mixed question / answer, which i always find a bit confusing. Yours Wille Borlin SWEDEN Marc Martin wrote: >>You use a cordless telephone without any problems? >> >> > >I've never used a cordless telephone. I don't know where >you got that idea. > > > >>Have you ever considered the fact that You are actually NOT >>electrosensitive ? >> >> > >Ha! You obviously haven't read my introductory message >to the mailing list. Three years ago I could not use >a regular CORDED telephone, watch TV, stand near power lines, >use a computer (CRT or LCD), use a cellphone, use audio >headphones, or go into the store because of the fluorescent >lights. I could even feel the electricity in the walls >when I standing next to them. I was on medical disability >from work for many months because I could not tolerate >being in the building for longer than 20 minutes. > >In other words, I was VERY electrically sensitive. > >Today, with the help of food, supplements, "new age >devices", and having my mercury fillings removed, I can >now use a corded telephone, I can watch TV, I can stand >near power lines, I can use a computer for 8 hours/day, >I can go to the store, and I'm working full time. >I don't use cellphones or audio earphones, but the >last time I checked they still caused pain in my head. > >So technically, while I'm still electrically sensitive, >in practical terms I've found solutions so that the >it has no impact on the things I want to do. > >And I plan on getting over the ES entirely, so that >I do not need to depend on the food, supplements, >and devices. But at my rate of improvement, I'd >say that this is at least or year or more away. > >Marc > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by charles-2
Hi Charles, Marc,
I guess that this issue is solved already, but if not: Marc is compleatly correct when he say that the frequency alter with altered resolution! If you have a resolution of 800x600 at 85Hz, then you have to update 800x600=480.000 pixels 85 times each second, that gives a bit-rate of 40800000 per sec. The line scan frequency is 600x85=51000Hz (51kHz). As for 1025x768 you get a bit-rate of 1024x768x85=66846720 per sec. The line scan frequency is 768x85=65280Hz (65.28kHz). greetings Anders Eriksson charles wrote: > Hello Marc, > > but that I do not understand. > > The screen reolution has nothing to do with frequency. > You may run 800x600 or 1024x768, as long as your refreh rate is the same. > With a good monitor, it can be adjusted to 85 Hz. > So, than 800x600 or 1024x768 is still running at 85 Hz. or higher, as you > videocard allows it. > > Greetings, > Charles Claessens > member Verband Baubiologie > http://members.rott.chello.nl/cclaessens/ > http://www.hese-project.org > checked by Norton Antivirus > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 19:21 > Subject: Re: [eSens] More Questions > > > >>Certainly frequency is a factor -- for example, I have a different >>reaction to my computer monitor running at 800x600 resolution than 1024x >>768 resolution. The only change there is the frequency... >> >>Marc >> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |