People Burners -

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.petermooring.nl/blog/

jessop1

No doubt many will scoff at this but the fact is that directed energy and laser technology has existed for around 50 years.

To think that secret services and military would not exploit it as weaponry would be highly naive.

That they could achieve over the course of 50 years of development the levels of capability described in this blog is not only plausible but highly probable.

Mobile phones work on the same basic principle, and they'll cook your brains if you use them too much. Thats basic technology in the public arena.

Could highly focussed highly powerful microwaves be developed with the capability of inducing stroke/heart attack/brain haemhorrage/blood clots/sudden pain/headaches etc when directed to the right area of the body? After 50 years of research and experimentation, I would say thats highly probable.

Who knows how many people could have been covertly tortured and murdered in this way.

And of course its also highly probable that the capability exists to use this technology more sublty for ends like mood/behaviour modification otherwise known as mind control. People perceive this type of thing to be in the realms of science fiction but this is far from the case. A lot is known about how human brainwaves work and how they affect peoples moods and behaviour. Do you think its possible that the technology exists to manipulate human brain waves using directed energy or microwaves?

For me, the only real question remaining is would the nefarious "powers that be" covertly use this technology to further their ends? And the answer to that is obvious.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Mobile phones work on the same basic principle...

What "basic principle" is that? Electromagnetic energy? Seeing works on the same principle, but I don't think anyone's claiming that looks can kill (yet).

jessop1 wrote:

...and they'll cook your brains if you use them too much.

No, they won't. There's not a single documented case - not one, ever - of anyone's brain being cooked by a mobile phone.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

What "basic principle" is that?

Microwave technology

oscarBravo wrote:

Seeing works on the same principle

thats just silly talk. Or more likely you are being deliberately disingenuous.

oscarBravo wrote:

No, they won't. (cook brains) There's not a single documented case - not one, ever - of anyone's brain being cooked by a mobile phone.

Microwave energy (whether from a microwave oven or a mobile phone) is highly dangerous to organic matter - eg a brain...or an egg

Anyway, There is no question over the existence of microwave technology or its dangers, so it appears that your posting is deliberate and disingenuous diversion - You have made no comment on the actual topic so I think your intention here was merely to obfuscate. Oscar you should take take some more "debunking" lessons from your two overstudies. They are far more adept at causing confusion and distortion...:rolleyes:

Oracle

Interesting article, I'm prepared to consider the idea. Although Peter Mooring appears to offer little proof to substantiate his rather dramatic claims. Regarding the photo on his blog, he obviously considers his face to be his best feature, not sure many would agree with him.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Microwave technology

...

thats just silly talk. Or more likely you are being deliberately disingenuous.

Well, you weren't clear. Microwaves form part of the electromagnetic spectrum, of which visible light is another part. Visible light lasers can cut steel - does that make light dangerous?

jessop1 wrote:

Microwave energy (whether from a microwave oven or a mobile phone) is highly dangerous to organic matter - eg a brain...or an egg

You said that mobile phones can cook your brain. That's factually inaccurate. In other words, it's just plain wrong. Incorrect. Completely without basis in reality. Fantasy. Science fiction.

Am I getting my point across?

jessop1 wrote:

Anyway, There is no question over the existence of microwave technology or its dangers, so it appears that your posting is deliberate and disingenuous diversion - You have made no comment on the actual topic so I think your intention here was merely to obfuscate. Oscar you should take take some more "debunking" lessons from your two overstudies. They are far more adept at causing confusion and distortion...:rolleyes:

Are you actually capable of holding a discussion without turning it into a personal attack?

Leaving that aside, yes: microwaves can be dangerous. So can a bicycle if you swing it at someone's head, but that isn't proof that NASA or whoever is researching secret bicycle weaponry. The blog you've linked natters on and on about all the things these alleged microwave weapons are capable of, but without evidence that doesn't make them any more real than my top secret pollen ray gun that can cause fits of sneezing from miles away.

But I've said too much.

oscarBravo

Oh yeah: I've seen that egg story before. I don't believe it. Microwave ovens work at around 2.4GHz (coincidentally the same as WiFi networks), and have a power output of up to 900W, focused on an internal cavity. Mobile phones operate on 900 or 1800MHz, and have a maximum power ouput of 2W, with near-omnidirectional antennas which disperse the power rapidly.

jessop1

Oscar your initial post, as per 100% of all your previous posts to me (and anyone else who posts a conspiracy theory or believes there is some substance to a conspiracy theory) starts on an attacking footing, with your sneering and condescending tone. Can you blame me for being defensive?

Anyhoo, lets not fight anymore.

Lets not derail this thread into an argument over the dangers of mobile phones. The point I'm making is that energy can be remotely directed to a specific coordinate. Just because a mobile phone outputs a (very arguably and in restricted lengths of exposure) "safe" level doesnt mean that higher levels of energy cant be remotely directed. To liken it to your pollen ray gun (btw, I would love to hear more about that ) is again, disingenuous.:(

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Anyhoo, lets not fight anymore.

Okie dokie.

jessop1 wrote:

Lets not derail this thread into an argument over the dangers of mobile phones.

You brought it up.

jessop1 wrote:

The point I'm making is that energy can be remotely directed to a specific coordinate. Just because a mobile phone outputs a (very arguably and in restricted lengths of exposure) "safe" level doesnt mean that higher levels of energy cant be remotely directed. To liken it to your pollen ray gun (btw, I would love to hear more about that ) is again, disingenuous.:(

OK, let me give you an important piece of background information: I make my living from moving information around using microwave energy. I spend my time working around the difficulties involved in successfully transferring microwave radiation from one place to another.

The bottom line is: focussing microwaves is hard. A laser is pretty straightforward: it's just optics, which have been well-understood for centuries. But you can't use the differential refractive indeces of materials to focus microwaves, so you have to rely on antenna gain.

Put it like this: people who protest against mobile phone masts don't understand that they get several orders of magnitude more exposure to EM radiation from their own mobile phone handsets than you do even standing beside a mast - because they haven't clue one about the physics involved, and don't care.

Until you fully understand these issues, it's hard to explain how utterly laughable the crap presented in that blog is.

jessop1

Oscar can I ask what is your job and qualifications?

2ndly, can you tell me what parts of the info in the blog you think is utterly laughable - putting aside that this guy may be a loon a liar or both, what parts of what he's saying about the technology are laughable and why?

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Oscar can I ask what is your job and qualifications?

I'm CEO of a wireless broadband ISP. I don't have any formal qualifications.

Apropos, do you have any idea what Peter Mooring's job and qualifications are? I didn't see this information on the website.

jessop1 wrote:

2ndly, can you tell me what parts of the info in the blog you think is utterly laughable - putting aside that this guy may be a loon a liar or both, what parts of what he's saying about the technology are laughable and why?

He offers no evidence for his claims. There's simply nothing anywhere in his blog that gives any reason whatsoever to take any of it seriously. The claims are simply outlandish, like his claim of a directed microwave beam that can cook meat through a wall: read up on the inverse square law to understand how power density decreases with the square of the distance radiation travels.

jessop1

Oscar, I never said I supported peter mooring.

I Suppose the crux of what I'm asking you is simply this:

Do you believe that the technology exists to focus microwave energy from a distance onto a remote target and cause damage to that target?

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Oscar, I never said I supported peter mooring.

I never said you supported him either.

jessop1 wrote:

I Suppose the crux of what I'm asking you is simply this:

Do you believe that the technology exists to focus microwave energy from a distance onto a remote target and cause damage to that target?

Put like that, probably. I'd be very surprised if various cold war powers hadn't got that type of technology working at least at some rudimentary level. The question is, what type of target, and what type of damage? It wouldn't be that hard to overload a microwave radio receiver, for example, by focussing a high-power microwave beam on it - but it's hard to see it working over much of a distance (inverse square law again, innit).

Do I believe that (a) weaponry exists that can do what Mooring describes, and (b) it's in the type of common use that he's implying? Absolutely not, and he offers not a shred of evidence for either suggestion.

jessop1

while the inverse square law makes it difficult to transmit microwaves over large distances or through walls or steel, clearly its not impossible because isnt that exactly what happens with mobile phone communications (and sattelite communications presumably)? what am I missing here? - fair enough it must be more difficult to increase the power to torturous or lethal levels but why is it impossible?

oscarBravo wrote:

Do I believe that (a) weaponry exists that can do what Mooring describes, and (b) it's in the type of common use that he's implying? Absolutely not, and he offers not a shred of evidence for either suggestion.

a is still very much up for discussion on this thread, as for b - like I said in my original post, if it exists you can bet your ass the nefarious powers that be are using it...sure you've basically admitted it yourself...

jessop1

Even Wikipedia acknowledge its existence ..

Microwave guns powerful enough to injure humans are possible.

Critics cite that although the stated intent of the ADS (Active Denial System) is to be a non-lethal device designed to temporarily incapacitate, easy modifications or incorrect use by the operator could turn the ADS into a torture device that would violate international conventions on warfare.

If this is whats acknowledged to the "sheeple" Its not just feasible but highly probable that capabilities far beyond this could and would have been developed in secret (by those black ops people you mentioned) over the course of the last 50 years with a virtually limitless budget..

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

...
Put it like this: people who protest against mobile phone masts don't understand that they get several orders of magnitude more exposure to EM radiation from their own mobile phone handsets than you do even standing beside a mast - because they haven't clue one about the physics involved, and don't care.

This old chestnut again - it's only true under a limited set of circumstances.

People standing/living/working near a mast can easily be exposed to more & stronger RF on a daily basis than occasional phone users elsewhere, even with people holding the phone up to their head.

jessop1

Peanut wrote:

This old chestnut again - it's only true under a limited set of circumstances.

People standing/living/working near a mast can easily be exposed to more & stronger RF on a daily basis than occasional phone users elsewhere, even with people holding the phone up to their head.

Peanut it seems that there is a hell of a lot of evidence that these things are highly dangerous along with other microwave technologies such as wifi netorks.

heres some links

BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE DANGERS OF EMF’S AND MOBILE PHONE MASTS AND HOW THEY CAN AFFECT OUR HEALTH

03 June 2007: Schools and families are rushing to remove Wi-Fi systems after the Government's chief health protection watchdog voiced concerns over their safety

heaps more examples of schools and cities reviewing/removing wifi

Peanut

Jessop, I agree that there are potential dangers, but unfortunately they are often overblown by the media.

The problem is that people have cried wolf too often, and their credibility has suffered.

There has to be a middle ground between the extremists in both cases.
More research will help with this, but it also needs to be closely monitored, given the disparity between huge industry funding available for one side of the argument, and relatively fewer resources on the other.
(...and I believe it's fairly safe to say that the general idea of studies biased by industry funds is not in fact a fairytale/conspiracy theory and they do, actually happen..)

In relation to wifi networks and mobile handsets - they are really very low in the order of things compared to certain commercial base stations.

Capt'n Midnight

many pubs have mobile phone masts on the roof, which is probably the most common exposure to lots of RF for most people. microwave oven leakage might be up to 1w but it's not continuous like the mobile masts.

what about the Guards , with those masts in the station

for commercial stuff there is a lot of FUD, but look at the use of rubber/plastic bullets/baton rounds in the north. the guide lines say don't fire at people, and you aren't spposed to melt nails or bits of razor blades into them , but people have been killed so it's hard to believe the military users wouldn't abuse them to some extent

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

while the inverse square law makes it difficult to transmit microwaves over large distances or through walls or steel, clearly its not impossible because isnt that exactly what happens with mobile phone communications (and sattelite communications presumably)? what am I missing here?

What you're missing is the incredible sensitivity of the receivers employed in both the mobile phone handset and the base station.

Let me draw an analogy: radio telescopes can detect X-ray emissions from quasars and pulsars hundreds of light years away. How? Because they're insanely sensitive, and they employ huge amounts of antenna gain to "amplify" the received signal as much as possible. Nobody's panicking about X-ray emissions that are so powerful they can reach us from hundreds of light years away.

The microwave radios I work with have a receive sensitivity in the order of -72dBm. That means they can work at full speed if the received signal is at least that strong. -72dBm is 0.00000000063W. (I think that's the right number of zeros, might be give or take one.)

Are you starting to get a picture of just how little power is involved? 1000W to heat your dinner, the tiny little number above to move information around.

jessop1 wrote:

fair enough it must be more difficult to increase the power to torturous or lethal levels but why is it impossible?

Because of the amount by which you'd have to increase it - something like 10^11 or so is the difference in the order of magnitude I've explained above.

oscarBravo

Peanut wrote:

People standing/living/working near a mast can easily be exposed to more & stronger RF on a daily basis than occasional phone users elsewhere, even with people holding the phone up to their head.

...and the levels involved are still so low as to be utterly trivial.

parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

bushy...

Too many wingnuts on wikipedia...
http://www.raytheon.com/products/silent_guardian/

Would've been just the job for riots last year in Dublin

Capt'n Midnight

oscarBravo wrote:

What you're missing is the incredible sensitivity of the receivers employed in both the mobile phone handset and the base station. .

If only it were that simple, most of us have seen the effect on a CRT computer monitor when a phone rings beside it. The effect is because the phone uses FULL power at times. If you have any evidence that base stations use reduced power when phones are close I'd like to hear it.

http://www.meteor.ie/misc/health_science_faq.html

How close can members of the general public get to a base station and not exceed exposure limits?
Exposure can be harmful if people are within 1-2 metres of the antennae for any period of time. Meteor therefore ensures that antennae are high up on roof tops or masts where possible.

Like I said you can often see them on the tops of businesses roofs, including pubs.

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/micrwave/handsets/reduce.asp

Reducing Exposure - using your existing phone

* Where possible, try to only use your phone in areas with the best signal, as this can reduce the emissions by up to 500 times.
* Indoors, use your phone near the window and make sure it is between your body and the window.
* Hold the phone away from your body immediately after dialling, as the phone uses maximum power until the call is answered.
* Where possible, do not hold the phone next to your eyes, breasts, testicles, kidneys, liver or abdomen if pregnant - ideally, keep the phone away from your body (such as in a bag) when it is not in use.
* If you have to keep it next to your body, a location such as rear trouser pocket will help keep it away from major organs, and try to make sure the antenna is on the outer side. and crack the screen LOL
* Using a mobile phone in a car or train traps the fields inside the metal frame of the vehicle, and should be avoided except in an emergency.
* If you are not imminently expecting a phone call, you can greatly reduce your exposure by having the phone switched off when you carry it around instead of just on standby, as your phone contacts the nearest mast every time you move into a different masts coverage, and also checks regularly even when you are stationary - This contact is always made at the phone's full power.

Capt'n Midnight

mobile phone masts down here www.siteviewer.ie
up there http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/frame_NImap.htm
across the pond http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/

lots more non phone transmitters on http://www.comreg.ie/ - can't remember where the link for grid locations for direct links is

important note IIRC comreg do not have equipment to monitor radiation above 2GHz (I'm open to correction here) so not too sure how safe we are, and their record of enforcement ain't the best

peterpm

Hi, I am Peter Mooring, just was google-ing and found your discussion.
A microwave weapon simply is a very powerfull and directed (see Directed Energy Weapons) version of a microwave oven. That means you can cook meat with invisible radiowaves at tens of meters instead just in a small compartment.
I am a victim, like many others, but cannot prove it, how can you prove your body is burned with such weapons? If you know a way, let us know!
These electronic weapons are a real threat to our lives and privacy. It is so easy to 'eliminate' people using these weapons. You only have to imagine that there are very sick people operating these weapons (it took me about a year, just could not believe people so evil). I suggest you read Microwave Mind Control by Tim Rifat http://www.whale.to/b/rifat.html
If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. Peter

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

What you're missing is the incredible sensitivity of the receivers employed in both the mobile phone handset and the base station.....

.......Are you starting to get a picture of just how little power is involved? 1000W to heat your dinner, the tiny little number above to move information around.

Yes I get the picture. Let me ask you this. See that cook and egg with mobile phones experiment - would you be willing to do that except with your head instead of an egg and for 10 or more hours instead of just one? Say if the mobile handsets are far enough away from you so as not to incur radiation from the handset itself (say 3metres or more?) BUT - your head is in the direct path of the signals going to and from both phones - continuously for 10 or more hours. Would you be willing to do that and if not why not?

Peanut

I think some solid details are in order here.

Modern handsets use TPC or transmission power control to change their transmit power to the lowest that will still maintain a 'good line'.

This means that when you're on a call, the power output from the phone is usually far far lower than the maximum of 1-2W. While it's true that the handset does communicate at higher power at the start and end of calls, it only does this for a few seconds.

Actual power output from the phone during a call depends on how difficult it is to communicate with the base station. Numbers are a bit sparse here, but if the report by the German guy (different thread) is accurate, power as low as 7dBm (5mw) at a distance of half a kilometer can be used by the phone. For the sake of argument, let's say the phone is operating at 10dBm (10mw).

Now, the inverse square law, and free space loss..
Let's imagine you are holding your phone up to your head, so the antenna is approx. 1cm away. This gives a loss of ~12dB, so we are left with 10-12 = -2dBm output from your phone (although not exactly the whole story because the rest of your head is in the path of a lot of the signal)
(free space loss at 900mhz)

Mobile base stations - these can output at levels over 30dBW.

This is 1000W EIRP, and the equivalent of an unshielded microwave oven.
Yes, that's effectively like putting an open microwave oven on top of a mast.

You think they don't put 1000W mobile masts in highly populated areas?
Well they do.

Here is a UK T-Mobile planning application for a mast, at the end of the form you can see the stated power is 62 dBm. This is 1500 Watts. If you go to the Ofcom siteviewer, you can see many more (our own siteviewer doesn't show the relevant details unfortunately).

Now, let's say we have a 62dBm mast radiating near us. At 50 meters (the width of O'Connell street), the loss is 65dB. That leaves us with a level of -3dB at 50 metres away - hey presto! pretty much the same as the handset, except for the fact that you are effectively 'on a call' constantly. Nice.


Compare this to a wifi router - your signal level around the hosue is going to be something like -60dBm on average, that is a sh*tload lower than what you can potentially get from a mobile mast.


And as has been pointed out - power levels from FWA masts using technologies such as Navini and WiMax-like smart antenna arrays (higher transmit and receive power in a tighter directional beam) are not even being measured in this country, yet ComReg will still tout their ICNIRP compliance levels which mean absolutely nothing, but are sufficient to mislead people into thinking they are actually doing their job to some extent.

They have constantly tendered out their non-ionising radiation reports to only include GSM frequencies (oh sorry they included some 3g this year:rolleyes: ), even though FWA operators and others, have been using frequencies above this, and therefore not measured, for YEARS.

Capt'n Midnight

To give an idea of what watts are in the real word

While soldering irons are normally around 15 Watts, the variable control ones are frequently 5-40 Watts

http://www.hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-794779.html

for SMD soldering, I use a 1W soldering needle, with a grounded tip

jessop1

Peanut thanks for the info thats some scary stuff.

The main point here is that continued exposure to even the low levels of energy is of course harmful. And of course the levels of energy can be increased and OF COURSE this technology could be and IS being used as covert weaponry.

FAO Peter Mooring, thank you for your posting, I wish you well.

I would advise anyone still doubting the existence of this weaponry to read these links again....If this is whats acknowledged in the public domain you can bet its just scratching the surface of whats possible...

Peanut

jessop1 wrote:

...
The main point here is that continued exposure to even the low levels of energy is of course harmful.

Well, that's in contention.. The international regulatory (ICNIRP) view is that there is no reason to include cumulative exposure when setting limits.

However, this was based on the assumption that the only health risks were those from the heating effects of RF. As time goes by however, it has become increasingly clear that there can be other biological interactions below these levels - known as 'non-thermal effects'.

It's not plausible for industry bodies to deny the existence of these any more - instead what they will do is say something like there is no established evidence
that there are health effects from this. For example, this is a recent blurb from Ericsson about wireless & health.

In it, they claim -

"The health risk due to heating has been known for more
than a century; therefore most research conducted in the
last several decades has been on possible effects that are not
related to heating, so-called non-thermal effects.
From the extensive corpus of research, the only established
health effects have been related to the well-known heating
effects of radio waves. "

Translated from PR speak, this is "We know that there can be biological effects from RF other than that of heating, but we are not prepared to accept that these lead to health risks".

Which is fair enough (apart from the deliberate obfuscation), but...
You have to ask yourself the question though, if there are some degree of poorly understood interactions going on, it follows that there is at least a potential risk of some sort of negative implications, given the lack of knowledge of the mechanisms.

oscarBravo

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

If only it were that simple, most of us have seen the effect on a CRT computer monitor when a phone rings beside it. The effect is because the phone uses FULL power at times. If you have any evidence that base stations use reduced power when phones are close I'd like to hear it.

I don't remember suggesting that they do.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

important note IIRC comreg do not have equipment to monitor radiation above 2GHz (I'm open to correction here) so not too sure how safe we are, and their record of enforcement ain't the best

On the contrary, ComReg recently conducted an exhaustive survey of radio transmission sites around the country (bminish has linked it on other forums), and the only transmitter they found in excess of the guideline limits was the RTE MW transmitter outside Athlone.

jessop1 wrote:

See that cook and egg with mobile phones experiment - would you be willing to do that except with your head instead of an egg and for 10 or more hours instead of just one?

I use mobile phones to an extent that would astonish most people. As a rule I almost always have two phones with me at any given time, and often three (for various complicated reasons that have no relevance to this discussion). Last April I had a six-hour phone conversation on a mobile phone, with the phone held against my ear for the entire duration.

Peanut wrote:

Here is a UK T-Mobile planning application for a mast, at the end of the form you can see the stated power is 62 dBm.

No, it's not. The stated power is 62dBm EIRP - equivalent isotropic radiated power. That means that at the point of maximum antenna gain, the output power is equivalent to the power that would be required to acheive the same signal level assuming a theoretical perfectly omnidirectional (in the spherical sense) antenna.

Peanut wrote:

And as has been pointed out - power levels from FWA masts using technologies such as Navini and WiMax-like smart antenna arrays (higher transmit and receive power in a tighter directional beam) are not even being measured in this country, yet ComReg will still tout their ICNIRP compliance levels which mean absolutely nothing, but are sufficient to mislead people into thinking they are actually doing their job to some extent.

They have constantly tendered out their non-ionising radiation reports to only include GSM frequencies (oh sorry they included some 3g this year ), even though FWA operators and others, have been using frequencies above this, and therefore not measured, for YEARS.

FWA uses much lower power than GSM. Have a look at this document, page 20.

oscarBravo

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

To give an idea of what watts are in the real word

While soldering irons are normally around 15 Watts, the variable control ones are frequently 5-40 Watts

...and they all work by direct conduction of heat, which has no bearing on this discussion, which is about RF radiation.

oscarBravo

peterpm wrote:

I am a victim, like many others...

One simple question, Peter: how do you know?

jessop1

Oscar, your position from the outset has been that it is not possible to focus microwaves as weapons at distant targets
due to the inverse square law and the required increase in order of magnitude

oscarBravo wrote:

Jessop1 wrote:

"fair enough it must be more difficult to increase the power to torturous or lethal levels but why is it impossible?"

Because of the amount by which you'd have to increase it - something like 10^11 or so is the difference in the order of magnitude I've explained above.

This being your position, can you give me your views on the raytheon and active denial system links that were posted?

Quoting Raytheon Silent Guardian Product Data Sheet:

"The system’s antenna emits a focused beam of millimeter
wave energy. The beam travels at the speed of light and
penetrates the skin to a depth of 1/64 of an inch, producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes the targeted individuals to instinctively flee or take cover."

"Range: Greater than 250 meters*"

Why doesnt the inverse square law com into play here?

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

On the contrary, ComReg recently conducted an exhaustive survey of radio transmission sites around the country (bminish has linked it on other forums), and the only transmitter they found in excess of the guideline limits was the RTE MW transmitter outside Athlone.

Have you got a link for this please?

oscarBravo wrote:

No, it's not. The stated power is 62dBm EIRP - equivalent isotropic radiated power. That means that at the point of maximum antenna gain, the output power is equivalent to the power that would be required to acheive the same signal level assuming a theoretical perfectly omnidirectional (in the spherical sense) antenna.

Yes I am aware of this, that's why I wrote "1000W EIRP".
It doesn't change the argument - if you are in the beamwidth of the main lobe, you are exposed to RF equivalent to a theoretical 1000W unshielded radiator.

oscarBravo wrote:

FWA uses much lower power than GSM. Have a look at this document, page 20.

That's pretty amusing. There's a difference between standards, and enforcement of those standards.
By FWA, I also mean non-LOS "broadband" internet services. That paper mainly deals with allocated coverage areas for operators - operators may still be transmitting over the limits but restricting their coverage area by adjusting antenna tilt.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Oscar, your position from the outset has been that it is not possible to focus microwaves as weapons at distant targets
due to the inverse square law and the required increase in order of magnitude

No, it hasn't. I've never described it as "impossible" - you brought that word into the discussion, not me.

jessop1 wrote:

This being your position, can you give me your views on the raytheon and active denial system links that were posted?

Quoting Raytheon Silent Guardian Product Data Sheet:

"The system’s antenna emits a focused beam of millimeter
wave energy. The beam travels at the speed of light and
penetrates the skin to a depth of 1/64 of an inch, producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes the targeted individuals to instinctively flee or take cover."

"Range: Greater than 250 meters*"

Why doesnt the inverse square law com into play here?

It does. Note that it has a range limit. Why is that?

The Raytheon device doesn't share many similarities with Peter Mooring's claims. It certainly can't cook meat through walls. It also consists of a pretty huge antenna mounted on a truck, so I doubt there are very many of them covertly driving around manipulating our minds.

oscarBravo

Peanut wrote:

Have you got a link for this please?

http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/nir.554.444.html

Peanut wrote:

Yes I am aware of this, that's why I wrote "1000W EIRP".
It doesn't change the argument - if you are in the beamwidth of the main lobe, you are exposed to RF equivalent to a theoretical 1000W unshielded radiator.

The antenna is mounted 9.5m above ground level, and the beam is almost horizontal. By design it's aimed over nearby buildings, and it's unlikely that anyone will be directly within the area of maximum gain until you're approaching the limits of the cell's coverage.

Peanut wrote:

That's pretty amusing. There's a difference between standards, and enforcement of those standards.

Yes there is, but unless you have specific evidence that FWA operators are producing power output comparable to mobile phone operators, it's fair to assume that they are operating broadly within the terms of their licences.

Peanut wrote:

By FWA, I also mean non-LOS "broadband" internet services. That paper mainly deals with allocated coverage areas for operators - operators may still be transmitting over the limits but restricting their coverage area by adjusting antenna tilt.

Are you suggesting that they are transmitting at several orders of magnitude over the limits? Got any evidence of this?

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

It does. Note that it has a range limit. Why is that?

Oscar you clearly implied that such weapons were unfeasible due to inverse square law. so you are moving the goalposts now by admitting they are possible but within a range limit. I never claimed there was no range limit. And just because raytheon has a 500m limit doesnt mean longer range ones dont exist.

oscarBravo wrote:

The Raytheon device doesn't share many similarities with Peter Mooring's claims. It certainly can't cook meat through walls.

It can cook skin. (lets not argue over the definition of cook though - it can penetrate skin so prolonged such penetration will result in cooking)

So my honest question is this - why cant the raytheon transmit microwaves through walls if mobile phone masts can do just that? Peanut do you have a view on this?

oscarBravo wrote:

It also consists of a pretty huge antenna mounted on a truck, so I doubt there are very many of them covertly driving around manipulating our minds.

Is it possible the black ops people you mentioned may have developed smaller ones they havent told the public about??

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

Oscar you clearly implied that such weapons were unfeasible due to inverse square law. so you are moving the goalposts now by admitting they are possible but within a range limit.

Don't lose sight of the context for this discussion: Peter Mooring's claims. He's talking about devices that can cook meat through walls; you're talking about a device that can cause physical discomfort at limited range with clear line of sight.

jessop1 wrote:

I never claimed there was no range limit. And just because raytheon has a 500m limit doesnt mean longer range ones dont exist.

Raytheon's device has a 250m limit, not 500m, and if there are longer range devices, why aren't they being marketed? Understand that range is a function of transmit power and antenna gain. To double the range you have to quadruple either the power or the gain, and the antenna gain can only be realistically acheived by increasing the size.

jessop1 wrote:

It can cook skin. (lets not argue over the definition of cook though - it can penetrate skin so prolonged such penetration will result in cooking)

So my honest question is this - why cant the raytheon transmit microwaves through walls if mobile phone masts can do just that?

It's a question of frequencies. Cell phones operate between 0.9 and 2.2GHz. The Raytheon device operates at something like 90GHz. At that frequency it can only penetrate less than half a millimetre of skin - it's certainly not going to be able to get through a solid wall.

jessop1 wrote:

Is it possible the black ops people you mentioned may have developed smaller ones they havent told the public about??

I don't recall mentioning black ops people. As to making them smaller: a smaller antenna means less gain, which means less focusing, which means shorter range. Bear in mind that the Raytheon gadget has a 45 inch antenna, on top of a 95x83x94", 3-ton transmitter unit.

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/nir.554.444.html

My apologies, there are measurements at some sites up to 40Ghz.
I missed these because they are not done for all sites.

However, I know for a fact that at least one site report only has details refering to GSM bands, when in fact it is a mixed use site with many more operators.

oscarBravo wrote:

The antenna is mounted 9.5m above ground level, and the beam is almost horizontal. By design it's aimed over nearby buildings, and it's unlikely that anyone will be directly within the area of maximum gain until you're approaching the limits of the cell's coverage.

30ft above ground in a built-up area isn't exactly very high, and I don't see any mention of the vertical beamwidth or antenna gain, so I don't know where you're getting that the beam is almost horizontal.

Regardless, I'm just giving that antenna site as an example of power levels. Actual coverage areas will of course be dependant on the particular installation.

oscarBravo wrote:

Yes there is, but unless you have specific evidence that FWA operators are producing power output comparable to mobile phone operators, it's fair to assume that they are operating broadly within the terms of their licences. Are you suggesting that they are transmitting at several orders of magnitude over the limits? Got any evidence of this?

I think if the regulatory regime is patchy then there is a strong motivation for some operators not to give a crap. Perhaps you have more faith in big business, sorry but I don't.

oscarBravo

Peanut wrote:

30ft above ground in a built-up area isn't exactly very high, and I don't see any mention of the vertical beamwidth or antenna gain, so I don't know where you're getting that the beam is almost horizontal.

Regardless, I'm just giving that antenna site as an example of power levels. Actual coverage areas will of course be dependant on the particular installation.

True, there's no mention of antenna gain or beamwidth, but as a practical matter, it makes sense to aim the beam almost horizontally, otherwise the coverage from the site will be extremely limited.

Peanut wrote:

I think if the regulatory regime is patchy then there is a strong motivation for some operators not to give a crap. Perhaps you have more faith in big business, sorry but I don't.

It's not a question of faith, it's a question of whether it makes business sense to implement an engineering strategy that could result in having to rebuild your network and/or lose customers, in the event that the regulator does decide to get fussy.

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not a question of faith, it's a question of whether it makes business sense to implement an engineering strategy that could result in having to rebuild your network and/or lose customers, in the event that the regulator does decide to get fussy.

Right, maybe I am paranoid, and after all, this is the conspiracy theories forum

However, threads like this don't exactly inspire confidence that exactly what you mention there, doesn't happen... losing customers, rebuilding the network?

Hey it may not make sense to rational people, doesn't mean that it can't happen.