landline phones

Thanks Marc,

Do you use more than one per cord?

Esther


On Dec 23, 2012, at 8:25 AM, Marc Martin wrote:



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [hidden email]
    [hidden email]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On December 24, Esther LeSieur <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thanks Marc,
> Do you use more than one per cord?

You certainly CAN use more than one per cord, or if there is room
inside the snap-on, you can loop around the cord and make a
second pass through the ferrite.  I haven't really experimented
much with this -- the ferrites I use are usually just the ferrites
that came with into the original cords.

Marc

On December 23, Patricia Robinett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> hmm... i don't believe it.  
> when sound comes out of any device, there is EMF.
> i left a message at his comment.  
> perhaps he will respond.  
> love, patricia

Yes, but one can have a terrible reaction to one phone, while another phone
may be perfectly fine.  I think that is what is really meant here about "low
EMF".  That appears to be a pretty benign phone, but of course, some people
are so sensitive that they might not be able to tolerate any telephone.

Marc

well, i asked him if he actually measured the emf
with a meter.  he was saying that there was no
digital components in the phone or handset, but
that's not necessarily going to fix the signal from
the part that the sound comes from.  even the
most 'dumbed down' phone is going to have the
emf coming out at your ear.  again, i'd only use
a speaker phone... or hold the handset far from
my ear... as you would a cell phone.    
love, patricia


On Dec 24, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Marc Martin wrote:

this is the initial customer review at
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1URNAM1A35WJN/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B000LDLZPU&cdForum=Fx1OJIRJLMZLL25&cdPage=1&cdThread=TxEU8O2LB65ALY&newContentID=Mx2FKVYCFVMMO90&newContentNum=3&store=electronics#Mx3UPPY05HL0OS1

---

A good basic phone with very good quality sound., September 13, 2012
By R. Bruce McCreary

This review is from: Northwestern Bell Designer Fashion Corded Phone (21700-1) (Office Product)
Finally, a winner after trying Panasonic, Cortelco, and other basic phones, all of which had very poor sound quality transmitted to callers. This NWB phone has great received and transmitted sound quality, even on a "difficult" line situation.

If you're looking for a low EMF phone (no digital features, nothing in the handset), that also has good sound, this is the one.

-----

you see, marc et al., his definition of 'low emf' is "no digital features" and so on... i doubt he himself is terribly EMF sensitive or he would have a stricter definition of EMF-friendly.  

this is our conversation...

Patricia Robinett says:
have you used an EMF meter to measure the output from the handset? i find that the EMF is the 'sound' that comes out of any earpiece... whether handheld, cell phone, headphones... where the sound comes out, there is also high EMF. thanks for responding.

--

R. Bruce McCreary says:
There is an audio freuquency magnetic from the speaker in a handset. That is unavoidable unless you use an acoustic coupled phone. That's why many with electrical sensitivity use "cups" to extend the distance to the head, or use old fashioned analog speakerphones. Most modern designs inject some above audio frequency noise from the integrated circuit are used to eliminate the old fashioned "wet" (DC bias) audio transformer). If you are extremely sensitive, you may do better with either the Princess (circa '62) or before phones, or the old analog speaker phones.

The phone reviewed is better than most modern phone designs in terms of high frequency emissions (above what you can measure with a magnetic field meter, detectable with the Radio Shack 12-586 AM radio) due to the basic handset without digital features.

--

Patricia Robinett says:
Are you saying that it's better simply because it's not digital? I too would advise people who are aware of and hip to EMF, to use speaker on an analog phone or cell phone - or rig up a system through their computer - and sit far away. i use a microphone and my computer speakers with MagicJack. That works well. I also have a land line with corded phones. But the problem with all phone and headphones is the EMF in the signal that comes out at the ear. I have used EMF meters to measure all types of listening devices and they all have high EMF.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On December 24, Patricia Robinett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> you see, marc et al., his definition of 'low emf' is "no digital features" and so on...
> i doubt he himself is terribly EMF sensitive or he would have a stricter definition of EMF-friendly.  
>
> this is our conversation...
>
> Patricia Robinett says:
> have you used an EMF meter to measure the output from the handset?

Yes, he could have had a stricter definition of EMF-friendly, but I doubt
that your question about using an EMF meter really improves upon that.
I say that because I've had terrible EMF reactions to electronics that
did not register on any EMF meter I had.  But they were still intolerable,
and had to be replaced with something else.

So my definition of EMF-friendly would be something that I can actually
use without adverse symptoms.

Marc

well, i understand that if a meter doesn't show anything and you still
have a reaction, that means that the measurement was irrelevant.  
but if you actually MEASURE something and it has a high EMF reading,
then that means that you very well might have a reaction to it.  
does that make sense?  
it's not easy to talk without inflection and body language.  
:)  love, patricia

On Dec 24, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Marc Martin wrote:

Looking into Magicjack after finding that a regular landline connection was even worse than the high-speed cable connection.  Anyone familiar with both Magicjack and Skype who could explain the difference and the pros and cons?  I know Magicjack allows you to use a normal physical phone whereas Skype does not (except for smart phones, which aren't an option).  And I guess with the new Magicjack it will work even when the computer is off.  With Magicjack you have an actual phone number and can also have voicemail, right?  WHat about with SKype?  Do you get a phone number people can call?  What happens if they call while your computer is off?  Thanks a ton.

Russ

--- In [hidden email], Patricia Robinett <patricia@...> wrote:

--- In [hidden email], "russel395" <russturk@...> wrote:
>
> Looking into Magicjack after finding that a regular landline connection was even worse than the high-speed cable connection.  Anyone familiar with both Magicjack and Skype who could explain the difference and the pros and cons?  I know Magicjack allows you to use a normal physical phone whereas Skype does not (except for smart phones, which aren't an option).  And I guess with the new Magicjack it will work even when the computer is off.  With Magicjack you have an actual phone number and can also have voicemail, right?  WHat about with SKype?  Do you get a phone number people can call?  What happens if they call while your computer is off?  Thanks a ton.
>
> Russ
>

I don't understand how magicjack works.... when I said it agitates me, I'm on the receiving end. I'm not using the phone!  I've been trying to figure out what is going on with the transmission between phones. It seems that with me on the receiving end, some connections agitate and some don't. Oddly, it seems that if the other person is using a cell, that works better for me. So' I don't understand.

Skype works through the computer or tablet. If you can be on a computer, you can Skype. You can see each other - or just use audio. So you don't have to be close to the computer. You can be at a distance from it.  I think Skype is computer to computer...  My son lives out of the country. I call a  local number from my phone,  and it rings through to his computer. He also has that set up so calls transfer/forward to his cell when he isn't home. When he calls me, the calls are as clear as if he is next door.

When I was at my sickest, I couldn't tolerate anything - phones, TVs, computers, sounds... I still do not like being on phones - any phone, but cells are worst. I cannot be on computers, so do nearly everything from my cellphone - except talk!