metal does block fm radio

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

metal does block fm radio

Paul Coffman
Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a portable radio
with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then it was
blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped it around
it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a wire
mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is just so
odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but these same
frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy. Someone
said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that my body
didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From a
scientific pov this is nuts.

--
Paul Coffman


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

BiBrun
The frequencies must be a little different. And FM is not pulsed at all,
the carrier just wiggles its frequency. I don't like to call the pulse
effects
information, although if we knew exactly what transduction systems were
being affected I might feel different about that.

On 10/21/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a portable
> radio
> with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then it was
> blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped it
> around
> it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a wire
> mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is just so
> odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but these
> same
> frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy. Someone
> said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that my body
> didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From a
> scientific pov this is nuts.
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

Paul Coffman
Here's the descriptions from wikipedia of the 2 things they have at the
airport: ILS and VOR. Doesn't anything in these explanations stand out to
you as being particularly problematic, moreso that a normal fm radio wave?
For the ILS, I live near a small regional airport, so the beam is NOT
locallized to allow for a backcourse, which means I am exposed to it:

ILS:

A localizer (LOC, or LLZ in Europe)
antenna<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29>
array <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array> is normally located beyond
the departure end of the runway and generally consists of several pairs of
directional antennas. Two signals are transmitted on a carrier
frequency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_frequency>between
108.10 MHz and 111.975 MHz. One is
modulated<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation>at 90 Hz,
the other at 150 Hz and these are transmitted from separate but
co-located antennas. Each antenna transmits a fairly narrow beam, one
slightly to the left of the runway centerline, the other to the right.

In addition to the previously mentioned navigational signals, the localizer
provides for ILS facility identification by periodically transmitting a 1020
Hz morse code <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code> identification
signal. For example, the ILS for runway 04R at John F. Kennedy International
Airport <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport>transmits
IJFK to identify itself to users whereas runway 04L is known as
IHIQ. This lets users know the facility is operating normally and that they
are tuned to the correct ILS. The glideslope transmits no identification
signal and therefore airborne ILS equipment relies on the localizer for
identification.

Modern localizer antennas are highly
directional<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_antenna>.
However, usage of older, less directional antennas allows a runway to have a
non-precision approach called a localizer back course. This lets aircraft
land using the signal transmitted from the back of the localizer array. This
signal is reverse sensing so a pilot may have to fly opposite the needle
indication (depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft). Highly
directional antennas do not provide a sufficient signal to support a
backcourse. In the United States, backcourse approaches are commonly
associated with Category I systems at smaller airports that do not have an
ILS on both ends of the primary runway.

VOR:

VORs are assigned radio channels between 108.0 MHz (megahertz) and 117.95 MHz
(with 50 kHz spacing); this is in the VHF (very high frequency) range.

The VOR system uses the phase relationship between a reference-phase and a
rotating-phase signal to encode direction. The carrier signal is
omni-directional and contains the amplitude modulated (AM) station Morse
code or voice identifier. The reference 30 Hz signal is frequency modulated
(FM) on a 9960 Hz sub-carrier. A second, amplitude modulated (AM) 30 Hz
signal is derived from the rotation of a directional antenna array 30 times
a second. Although older antennas were mechanically rotated, current
installations are scanned electronically to achieve the same result with no
moving parts. When the signal is received in the aircraft, the FM signal is
decoded from the sub carrier and the frequency extracted. The two 30 Hz
signals are then compared to determine the phase angle between them. The
phase angle is equal to the direction from the station to the airplane, in
degrees from local magnetic north, and is called the "radial."




On 10/21/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The frequencies must be a little different. And FM is not pulsed at all,
> the carrier just wiggles its frequency. I don't like to call the pulse
> effects
> information, although if we knew exactly what transduction systems were
> being affected I might feel different about that.
>
>
> On 10/21/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a portable
> > radio
> > with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then it was
> > blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped it
> > around
> > it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a wire
> > mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is just
> so
> > odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but these
> > same
> > frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy.
> Someone
> > said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that my
> body
> > didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From a
> > scientific pov this is nuts.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Coffman
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Paul Coffman


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

BiBrun
Thanks for the info! In both cases there's AM modulation, and the carrier
is much higher than AM radio.

Do you have info on the power of these signals? (Or the power of the
transmitter and the antenna gain for the directional ones?)

These are frequencies where the human body could be an antenna.
If your body is just the right size for a given frequency, maybe
that's the issue?

Whether or not you are grounded could change your resonant frequency.

Another thing we have not considered is polarization. I assume most
broadcast stuff is vertically polarized. I would guess the same would
be true of these airport signals but perhaps not. If you're lying down
polarization may matter. Try sleeping so your head or feet are toward
the airport, and keeping away metal stuff that will reflect the signal.

Bill

On 10/22/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Here's the descriptions from wikipedia of the 2 things they have at the
> airport: ILS and VOR. Doesn't anything in these explanations stand out to
> you as being particularly problematic, moreso that a normal fm radio wave?
> For the ILS, I live near a small regional airport, so the beam is NOT
> locallized to allow for a backcourse, which means I am exposed to it:
>
> ILS:
>
> A localizer (LOC, or LLZ in Europe)
> antenna<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29>
> array <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array> is normally located
> beyond
> the departure end of the runway and generally consists of several pairs of
> directional antennas. Two signals are transmitted on a carrier
> frequency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_frequency>between
> 108.10 MHz and 111.975 MHz. One is
> modulated<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation>at 90 Hz,
> the other at 150 Hz and these are transmitted from separate but
> co-located antennas. Each antenna transmits a fairly narrow beam, one
> slightly to the left of the runway centerline, the other to the right.
>
> In addition to the previously mentioned navigational signals, the
> localizer
> provides for ILS facility identification by periodically transmitting a
> 1020
> Hz morse code <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code> identification
> signal. For example, the ILS for runway 04R at John F. Kennedy
> International
> Airport <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport
> >transmits
> IJFK to identify itself to users whereas runway 04L is known as
> IHIQ. This lets users know the facility is operating normally and that
> they
> are tuned to the correct ILS. The glideslope transmits no identification
> signal and therefore airborne ILS equipment relies on the localizer for
> identification.
>
> Modern localizer antennas are highly
> directional<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_antenna>.
> However, usage of older, less directional antennas allows a runway to have
> a
> non-precision approach called a localizer back course. This lets aircraft
> land using the signal transmitted from the back of the localizer array.
> This
> signal is reverse sensing so a pilot may have to fly opposite the needle
> indication (depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft). Highly
> directional antennas do not provide a sufficient signal to support a
> backcourse. In the United States, backcourse approaches are commonly
> associated with Category I systems at smaller airports that do not have an
> ILS on both ends of the primary runway.
>
> VOR:
>
> VORs are assigned radio channels between 108.0 MHz (megahertz) and 117.95MHz
> (with 50 kHz spacing); this is in the VHF (very high frequency) range.
>
> The VOR system uses the phase relationship between a reference-phase and a
> rotating-phase signal to encode direction. The carrier signal is
> omni-directional and contains the amplitude modulated (AM) station Morse
> code or voice identifier. The reference 30 Hz signal is frequency
> modulated
> (FM) on a 9960 Hz sub-carrier. A second, amplitude modulated (AM) 30 Hz
> signal is derived from the rotation of a directional antenna array 30
> times
> a second. Although older antennas were mechanically rotated, current
> installations are scanned electronically to achieve the same result with
> no
> moving parts. When the signal is received in the aircraft, the FM signal
> is
> decoded from the sub carrier and the frequency extracted. The two 30 Hz
> signals are then compared to determine the phase angle between them. The
> phase angle is equal to the direction from the station to the airplane, in
> degrees from local magnetic north, and is called the "radial."
>
> On 10/21/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > The frequencies must be a little different. And FM is not pulsed at all,
> > the carrier just wiggles its frequency. I don't like to call the pulse
> > effects
> > information, although if we knew exactly what transduction systems were
> > being affected I might feel different about that.
> >
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a portable
> > > radio
> > > with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then it
> was
> > > blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped it
> > > around
> > > it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a
> wire
> > > mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is just
> > so
> > > odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but
> these
> > > same
> > > frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy.
> > Someone
> > > said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that my
> > body
> > > didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From a
> > > scientific pov this is nuts.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Coffman
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

PUK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

PUK
In reply to this post by Paul Coffman

In a message dated 10/22/2007 8:04:11 PM GMT Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:

ILS:
>
> A localizer (LOC, or LLZ in Europe)
> antenna<_http://en.wikipediahttp://en.http://enhttp://en._ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)) >
> array <_http://en.wikipedia_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array)


I have a scanner and not alot of communication from aircraft I am in a
flight path, does ILS come from the plane as well ?

p uk






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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

BiBrun
In reply to this post by Paul Coffman
I just looked at the Wiki page. One thing that is striking is how the
antenna is low to the ground
and it's important that the signal reflect off the 'ground plane'. In
contrast, an FM antenna
is high up.

I'm thinking that with the ILS etc that a lot more of the signal may travel
through the
ground. Then all your 'grounded' wires (phone, electric, water) may become
antennas.

I'm not sure if this is right, and I haven't yet an idea of what the
consequences would be...

Bill

On 10/22/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Here's the descriptions from wikipedia of the 2 things they have at the
> airport: ILS and VOR. Doesn't anything in these explanations stand out to
> you as being particularly problematic, moreso that a normal fm radio wave?
> For the ILS, I live near a small regional airport, so the beam is NOT
> locallized to allow for a backcourse, which means I am exposed to it:
>
> ILS:
>
> A localizer (LOC, or LLZ in Europe)
> antenna<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29>
> array <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array> is normally located
> beyond
> the departure end of the runway and generally consists of several pairs of
> directional antennas. Two signals are transmitted on a carrier
> frequency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_frequency>between
> 108.10 MHz and 111.975 MHz. One is
> modulated<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation>at 90 Hz,
> the other at 150 Hz and these are transmitted from separate but
> co-located antennas. Each antenna transmits a fairly narrow beam, one
> slightly to the left of the runway centerline, the other to the right.
>
> In addition to the previously mentioned navigational signals, the
> localizer
> provides for ILS facility identification by periodically transmitting a
> 1020
> Hz morse code <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code> identification
> signal. For example, the ILS for runway 04R at John F. Kennedy
> International
> Airport <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport
> >transmits
> IJFK to identify itself to users whereas runway 04L is known as
> IHIQ. This lets users know the facility is operating normally and that
> they
> are tuned to the correct ILS. The glideslope transmits no identification
> signal and therefore airborne ILS equipment relies on the localizer for
> identification.
>
> Modern localizer antennas are highly
> directional<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_antenna>.
> However, usage of older, less directional antennas allows a runway to have
> a
> non-precision approach called a localizer back course. This lets aircraft
> land using the signal transmitted from the back of the localizer array.
> This
> signal is reverse sensing so a pilot may have to fly opposite the needle
> indication (depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft). Highly
> directional antennas do not provide a sufficient signal to support a
> backcourse. In the United States, backcourse approaches are commonly
> associated with Category I systems at smaller airports that do not have an
> ILS on both ends of the primary runway.
>
> VOR:
>
> VORs are assigned radio channels between 108.0 MHz (megahertz) and 117.95MHz
> (with 50 kHz spacing); this is in the VHF (very high frequency) range.
>
> The VOR system uses the phase relationship between a reference-phase and a
> rotating-phase signal to encode direction. The carrier signal is
> omni-directional and contains the amplitude modulated (AM) station Morse
> code or voice identifier. The reference 30 Hz signal is frequency
> modulated
> (FM) on a 9960 Hz sub-carrier. A second, amplitude modulated (AM) 30 Hz
> signal is derived from the rotation of a directional antenna array 30
> times
> a second. Although older antennas were mechanically rotated, current
> installations are scanned electronically to achieve the same result with
> no
> moving parts. When the signal is received in the aircraft, the FM signal
> is
> decoded from the sub carrier and the frequency extracted. The two 30 Hz
> signals are then compared to determine the phase angle between them. The
> phase angle is equal to the direction from the station to the airplane, in
> degrees from local magnetic north, and is called the "radial."
>
> On 10/21/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > The frequencies must be a little different. And FM is not pulsed at all,
> > the carrier just wiggles its frequency. I don't like to call the pulse
> > effects
> > information, although if we knew exactly what transduction systems were
> > being affected I might feel different about that.
> >
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a portable
> > > radio
> > > with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then it
> was
> > > blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped it
> > > around
> > > it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a
> wire
> > > mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is just
> > so
> > > odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but
> these
> > > same
> > > frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy.
> > Someone
> > > said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that my
> > body
> > > didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From a
> > > scientific pov this is nuts.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Coffman
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

Paul Coffman
In reply to this post by BiBrun
The power is pretty low - under 50 watts for both I think. I am 6'4" and
weigh 230 lbs. When I sleep my feet are toward the airport. I have been
doing some more looking and am close to getting the materials for slapping
together a screen enclosure around my bed. Do I really have to block ALL
the rf to get some relief? My understanding is they are individual photons,
and if say 85% of the the photons interact with my screen instead of me then
i'm only getting 15% of the problem. Is my logic correct? Thanks.

On 10/22/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the info! In both cases there's AM modulation, and the
> carrier
> is much higher than AM radio.
>
> Do you have info on the power of these signals? (Or the power of the
> transmitter and the antenna gain for the directional ones?)
>
> These are frequencies where the human body could be an antenna.
> If your body is just the right size for a given frequency, maybe
> that's the issue?
>
> Whether or not you are grounded could change your resonant frequency.
>
> Another thing we have not considered is polarization. I assume most
> broadcast stuff is vertically polarized. I would guess the same would
> be true of these airport signals but perhaps not. If you're lying down
> polarization may matter. Try sleeping so your head or feet are toward
> the airport, and keeping away metal stuff that will reflect the signal.
>
> Bill
>
> On 10/22/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Here's the descriptions from wikipedia of the 2 things they have at the
> > airport: ILS and VOR. Doesn't anything in these explanations stand out
> to
> > you as being particularly problematic, moreso that a normal fm radio
> wave?
> > For the ILS, I live near a small regional airport, so the beam is NOT
> > locallized to allow for a backcourse, which means I am exposed to it:
> >
> > ILS:
> >
> > A localizer (LOC, or LLZ in Europe)
> > antenna<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29>
> > array <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array> is normally located
> > beyond
> > the departure end of the runway and generally consists of several pairs
> of
> > directional antennas. Two signals are transmitted on a carrier
> > frequency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_frequency>between
> > 108.10 MHz and 111.975 MHz. One is
> > modulated<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation>at 90 Hz,
> > the other at 150 Hz and these are transmitted from separate but
> > co-located antennas. Each antenna transmits a fairly narrow beam, one
> > slightly to the left of the runway centerline, the other to the right.
> >
> > In addition to the previously mentioned navigational signals, the
> > localizer
> > provides for ILS facility identification by periodically transmitting a
> > 1020
> > Hz morse code <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code> identification
> > signal. For example, the ILS for runway 04R at John F. Kennedy
> > International
> > Airport <
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport
> > >transmits
> > IJFK to identify itself to users whereas runway 04L is known as
> > IHIQ. This lets users know the facility is operating normally and that
> > they
> > are tuned to the correct ILS. The glideslope transmits no identification
> > signal and therefore airborne ILS equipment relies on the localizer for
> > identification.
> >
> > Modern localizer antennas are highly
> > directional<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_antenna>.
>
> > However, usage of older, less directional antennas allows a runway to
> have
> > a
> > non-precision approach called a localizer back course. This lets
> aircraft
> > land using the signal transmitted from the back of the localizer array.
> > This
> > signal is reverse sensing so a pilot may have to fly opposite the needle
> > indication (depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft).
> Highly
> > directional antennas do not provide a sufficient signal to support a
> > backcourse. In the United States, backcourse approaches are commonly
> > associated with Category I systems at smaller airports that do not have
> an
> > ILS on both ends of the primary runway.
> >
> > VOR:
> >
> > VORs are assigned radio channels between 108.0 MHz (megahertz) and
> 117.95MHz
> > (with 50 kHz spacing); this is in the VHF (very high frequency) range.
> >
> > The VOR system uses the phase relationship between a reference-phase and
> a
> > rotating-phase signal to encode direction. The carrier signal is
> > omni-directional and contains the amplitude modulated (AM) station Morse
> > code or voice identifier. The reference 30 Hz signal is frequency
> > modulated
> > (FM) on a 9960 Hz sub-carrier. A second, amplitude modulated (AM) 30 Hz
> > signal is derived from the rotation of a directional antenna array 30
> > times
> > a second. Although older antennas were mechanically rotated, current
> > installations are scanned electronically to achieve the same result with
> > no
> > moving parts. When the signal is received in the aircraft, the FM signal
> > is
> > decoded from the sub carrier and the frequency extracted. The two 30 Hz
> > signals are then compared to determine the phase angle between them. The
> > phase angle is equal to the direction from the station to the airplane,
> in
> > degrees from local magnetic north, and is called the "radial."
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com><wbruno%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > The frequencies must be a little different. And FM is not pulsed at
> all,
> > > the carrier just wiggles its frequency. I don't like to call the pulse
> > > effects
> > > information, although if we knew exactly what transduction systems
> were
> > > being affected I might feel different about that.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/21/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%
> 40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a portable
> > > > radio
> > > > with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then it
> > was
> > > > blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped it
> > > > around
> > > > it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a
> > wire
> > > > mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is
> just
> > > so
> > > > odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but
> > these
> > > > same
> > > > frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy.
> > > Someone
> > > > said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that
> my
> > > body
> > > > didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From a
> > > > scientific pov this is nuts.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Paul Coffman
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Coffman
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Paul Coffman


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

PUK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

PUK
In reply to this post by Paul Coffman

In a message dated 10/22/2007 10:53:14 PM GMT Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

The power is pretty low - under 50 watts for both I think. I am 6'4" and
weigh 230 lbs. When I sleep my feet are toward the airport. I have been
doing some more looking and am close to getting the materials for slapping
together a screen enclosure around my bed. Do I really have to block ALL
the rf to get some relief? My understanding is they are individual photons,
and if say 85% of the the photons interact with my screen instead of me then
i'm only getting 15% of the problem. Is my logic correct? Thanks.



iI have noticed that if I attempt to use an FM radio within 2-3mtrs of my
Dell laptop it jams the signal, yet another example of problems with getting
far enough away from the screnn and pc, which is largely impracticable, you get
bad eyesight and a cricked neck to comliment your ES, plus the ES thing will
no doubt effect the rate at which you repair from these problems so they can
then set in as chronice - Oh what a vey visious circle - excuse spelling

Paul UK






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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Extreme EMF - England

m.a.norman
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
PUK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Extreme EMF - England

PUK
This post was updated on .




Perhaps you should look to the skies !






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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: metal does block fm radio

BiBrun
In reply to this post by Paul Coffman
It's highly unlikely anyone can ever screen every photon.
But 85% reduction in signal is unlikely to mean 85% relief,
although it would be nice if that were true.

Frey's experiments suggest a nonlinear threshold, and it
seems to be true in practice. 85% might mean a slightly
longer delay before symptoms start, but that's not much help.
If 85% happens to bring it below your threshold, then it will be
great.

Think of the sound of an annoying siren. Any reduction in volume
might be welcome at first, but unless it's down to where you really
can't hear it, it's still annoying. So one has to shoot for at least
99% or 99.9% improvement, or better, and hope that does it, and
hope you really shielded the right thing.

Bill

On 10/22/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The power is pretty low - under 50 watts for both I think. I am 6'4" and
> weigh 230 lbs. When I sleep my feet are toward the airport. I have been
> doing some more looking and am close to getting the materials for slapping
> together a screen enclosure around my bed. Do I really have to block ALL
> the rf to get some relief? My understanding is they are individual
> photons,
> and if say 85% of the the photons interact with my screen instead of me
> then
> i'm only getting 15% of the problem. Is my logic correct? Thanks.
>
> On 10/22/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the info! In both cases there's AM modulation, and the
> > carrier
> > is much higher than AM radio.
> >
> > Do you have info on the power of these signals? (Or the power of the
> > transmitter and the antenna gain for the directional ones?)
> >
> > These are frequencies where the human body could be an antenna.
> > If your body is just the right size for a given frequency, maybe
> > that's the issue?
> >
> > Whether or not you are grounded could change your resonant frequency.
> >
> > Another thing we have not considered is polarization. I assume most
> > broadcast stuff is vertically polarized. I would guess the same would
> > be true of these airport signals but perhaps not. If you're lying down
> > polarization may matter. Try sleeping so your head or feet are toward
> > the airport, and keeping away metal stuff that will reflect the signal.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the descriptions from wikipedia of the 2 things they have at
> the
> > > airport: ILS and VOR. Doesn't anything in these explanations stand out
> > to
> > > you as being particularly problematic, moreso that a normal fm radio
> > wave?
> > > For the ILS, I live near a small regional airport, so the beam is NOT
> > > locallized to allow for a backcourse, which means I am exposed to it:
> > >
> > > ILS:
> > >
> > > A localizer (LOC, or LLZ in Europe)
> > > antenna<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29>
> > > array <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array> is normally located
> > > beyond
> > > the departure end of the runway and generally consists of several
> pairs
> > of
> > > directional antennas. Two signals are transmitted on a carrier
> > > frequency<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_frequency>between
> > > 108.10 MHz and 111.975 MHz. One is
> > > modulated<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_modulation>at 90 Hz,
> > > the other at 150 Hz and these are transmitted from separate but
> > > co-located antennas. Each antenna transmits a fairly narrow beam, one
> > > slightly to the left of the runway centerline, the other to the right.
> > >
> > > In addition to the previously mentioned navigational signals, the
> > > localizer
> > > provides for ILS facility identification by periodically transmitting
> a
> > > 1020
> > > Hz morse code <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code> identification
> > > signal. For example, the ILS for runway 04R at John F. Kennedy
> > > International
> > > Airport <
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport
> > > >transmits
> > > IJFK to identify itself to users whereas runway 04L is known as
> > > IHIQ. This lets users know the facility is operating normally and that
> > > they
> > > are tuned to the correct ILS. The glideslope transmits no
> identification
> > > signal and therefore airborne ILS equipment relies on the localizer
> for
> > > identification.
> > >
> > > Modern localizer antennas are highly
> > > directional<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_antenna>.
> >
> > > However, usage of older, less directional antennas allows a runway to
> > have
> > > a
> > > non-precision approach called a localizer back course. This lets
> > aircraft
> > > land using the signal transmitted from the back of the localizer
> array.
> > > This
> > > signal is reverse sensing so a pilot may have to fly opposite the
> needle
> > > indication (depending on the equipment installed in the aircraft).
> > Highly
> > > directional antennas do not provide a sufficient signal to support a
> > > backcourse. In the United States, backcourse approaches are commonly
> > > associated with Category I systems at smaller airports that do not
> have
> > an
> > > ILS on both ends of the primary runway.
> > >
> > > VOR:
> > >
> > > VORs are assigned radio channels between 108.0 MHz (megahertz) and
> > 117.95MHz
> > > (with 50 kHz spacing); this is in the VHF (very high frequency) range.
> > >
> > > The VOR system uses the phase relationship between a reference-phase
> and
> > a
> > > rotating-phase signal to encode direction. The carrier signal is
> > > omni-directional and contains the amplitude modulated (AM) station
> Morse
> > > code or voice identifier. The reference 30 Hz signal is frequency
> > > modulated
> > > (FM) on a 9960 Hz sub-carrier. A second, amplitude modulated (AM) 30
> Hz
> > > signal is derived from the rotation of a directional antenna array 30
> > > times
> > > a second. Although older antennas were mechanically rotated, current
> > > installations are scanned electronically to achieve the same result
> with
> > > no
> > > moving parts. When the signal is received in the aircraft, the FM
> signal
> > > is
> > > decoded from the sub carrier and the frequency extracted. The two 30
> Hz
> > > signals are then compared to determine the phase angle between them.
> The
> > > phase angle is equal to the direction from the station to the
> airplane,
> > in
> > > degrees from local magnetic north, and is called the "radial."
> > >
> > > On 10/21/07, Bill Bruno <[hidden email] <wbruno%40gmail.com><wbruno%40gmail.com><wbruno%
> 40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The frequencies must be a little different. And FM is not pulsed at
> > all,
> > > > the carrier just wiggles its frequency. I don't like to call the
> pulse
> > > > effects
> > > > information, although if we knew exactly what transduction systems
> > were
> > > > being affected I might feel different about that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/21/07, Paul Coffman <[hidden email] <pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%40gmail.com><pkcoff%
> 40gmail.com><pkcoff%
> > 40gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I wasn't testing this thing properly - I was using a
> portable
> > > > > radio
> > > > > with headphones, and when I put the headphone in the pot too then
> it
> > > was
> > > > > blocked. I also bought some aluminim screen wire mesh and wrapped
> it
> > > > > around
> > > > > it and it had the same effect. So then hypothetically if I build a
> > > wire
> > > > > mesh enclosure for my bed it should have the same effect. This is
> > just
> > > > so
> > > > > odd - if I drive up to FM radio towers i'm not bothered much, but
> > > these
> > > > > same
> > > > > frequenecies at much lower power from the airport drive me crazy.
> > > > Someone
> > > > > said (Charles?) that is was the INFORMATION in the radio wave that
> > my
> > > > body
> > > > > didnt' like - that's the only explanation I can come up with. From
> a
> > > > > scientific pov this is nuts.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Paul Coffman
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Coffman
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Coffman
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Extreme EMF - England

m.a.norman
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by PUK
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Extreme EMF - England

pete robinson
This post was updated on .
and why you think it is emf causing it

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <paulpjc@aol.com>
> To: <eSens@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Extreme EMF - England
>
> >
> > In a message dated 10/23/2007 5:48:10 PM GMT Daylight Time,
> > m.a.norman@ntlworld.com writes:
> >
> > My hedge at the front of my home that is dying from the high levels
> of
> emf
> > is now worse than ever and at this rate will soon be dead.
> >
> > The effects of what is being done here is visible to all.
> >
> > Maureen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you should look to the skies !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date:
> 22/10/07
> 10:35
> >
> >
>
>  
>    

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Extreme EMF - England

m.a.norman
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Extreme EMF - England

pete robinson
This post was updated on .
where do you live maureen
pete

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pete robinson" <robbo@bulldoghome.com>
> To: <eSens@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [eSens] Extreme EMF - England
>
> > and why you think it is emf causing it
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <paulpjc@aol.com>
> > > To: <eSens@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [eSens] Extreme EMF - England
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you should look to the skies !

PUK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Extreme EMF - England

PUK
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by m.a.norman
The utility co may have cut the roots ? re the sky, sattelite hot spot
interacting with other ground based emissions radar, cell towers, sorry I was
implying that it all seems spooky really.

P uk