Physics promises wireless power (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Jonathan Fildes
Science and technology reporter, BBC News

US researchers have outlined a relatively simple system that could deliver power to devices such as laptop computers or MP3 players without wires.
***
Although the team has not built and tested a system, computer models and mathematics suggest it will work.
***
To overcome this problem, the team investigated a special class of "non-radiative" objects with so-called "long-lived resonances".

When energy is applied to these objects it remains bound to them, rather than escaping to space. "Tails" of energy, which can be many metres long, flicker over the surface.

"If you bring another resonant object with the same frequency close enough to these tails then it turns out that the energy can tunnel from one object to another," said Professor Soljacic.

1) Power from mains to antenna, which is made of copper
2) Antenna resonates at a frequency of 6.4Mhz, emitting electromagnetic waves
3) 'Tails' of energy from antenna 'tunnel' up to 5m (16.4ft)
4) Electricity picked up by laptop's antenna, which must also be resonating at 6.4Mhz. Energy used to re-charge device
5) Energy not transferred to laptop re-absorbed by source antenna. People/other objects not affected as not resonating at 6.4Mhz

***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6129460.stm

[Fovea]

1. If there is an afterlife

I suspect Tesla is grinning like mad.

[Itchinjim]

2. Didn't Tesla come up with this years ago?

n/t

[stepnw1f]

5. He Claimed Energy was all around us...

the only problem was to figure a way to collect it for use.

[Solon]

92. Are you talking about Zero point energy?

Doesn't it have something to do with trying to extract energy from the quantum foam that the universe is embedded in or something? IANAP(I am NOT a Pysicist), so take this with a molecule of salt.

[eppur_se_muova]

6. Tesla is given a nod in the article. His method was "lossy" -- i.e. energy went everywhere. nt

[rman]

25. only insofar that he invented the basic transformer

This energy-tail business is something quite unusual.

[stepnw1f]

3. That Is Awesome

I hope this works without being radiative.

[sweetheart]

4. "People/other objects not affected as not resonating at 6.4Mhz"

So, it has no electrical effect on living tissue at all?

Then let the inventor sleep on top of it, and i'll wait 50 years
to see if he dies of cancer.

[trotsky]

8. Are you afraid of getting cancer from your microwave? n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

9. I would be if I could run it with the door open!

[trotsky]

10. Well, you wouldn't even then.

Microwaves simply don't have the power necessary to disrupt DNA molecules, to cause mutations or tumors.

Understanding the basics of electromagnetic radiation helps in these kinds of discussions.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. So the fact that they turn off if you open the door is just pointless?

[trotsky]

14. No, they can still heat (and burn) your skin, just like any meat.

They just won't cause cancer.

I read an article a long time ago about a way to save energy in a "house of the future" - heat the house using conventional means to 50 degrees or so, then have microwave magnetrons around the house spitting out microwaves at a very low level to heat human tissues, not enough to cook us, but enough so we "feel" warm.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. See, though, cancer isn't the only concern.

If you cooked part of yourself in a microwave, you wouldn't take much comfort in the fact that it wasn't cancer.

We're talking about large amounts of energy flying around seemingly unconstrained. I'd be little nervous about that. Hopefully, it all works out, but there's nothing silly about a cautious approach.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. We're not talking about that much energy.

Conventional ovens release more energy. And wood stoves release actual carcinogens.

[trotsky]

20. Hey, you're messing up some good old fashioned Luddite FUD.

Electrical power in the air! Aiieeeee!!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

I've gotten EMF all over myself from using this computer.

[Tesha]

32. Actually, thanks to TCO and other regs, you don't! (NT)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. TCO?

Ahh, so your monitor magically protects you from EMF, but the mesh on your microwave door doesn't?

[Tesha]

36. You didn't *KNOW* about TCO and monitors?

You didn't *KNOW* about TCO and monitors? Ahh well,
here's some data for you:

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

Tesha

[Tesha]

24. No, just sterility (in males) and cataracts (in everyone).

> Microwaves simply don't have the power necessary to
> disrupt DNA molecules, to cause mutations or tumors.

No, just sterility (in males due to testicular heating)
and cataracts (in everyone due to cooking the proteins
in the lens of your eyes).

You really don't want large amounts of EM power
streaming around for you to step in the way of.

Tesha

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. testicular heating?

I, myself, have never stuck my testicles in a microwave.

Or my eyeballs, for that matter.

You?

[Tesha]

31. Doesn't matter if you stick 'em in or not.

A watt or two of reasonably focused power will ensure
that you're shooting blanks. Your nuts are hanging out
there because they need to be a couple of degrees cooler
than normal body temperature (an intelligent design, huh?).
That's why briefs (rather than boxers), undescended testicles,
or varicose veins of the testicles often lead to temporary
or permanent sterility in men.

This is a well-documented side-effect of microwave radiation.

Tesha (who's mostly a bystander on matters relating to testicles)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. The thing about microwave ovens is...

you've got to stick items in the microwave if you want to heat them up.

So, again, there's a larger "threat" from conventional ovens, wood stoves, uh... boxers, and I don't know... hottubs.

[Tesha]

35. But we're not discussing microwave ovens; we're discussing power transmission.

> The thing about microwave ovens is you've got to
> stick items in the microwave if you want to heat
> them up.

But we're not discussing microwave ovens; we're
discussing power transmission through free space.
This is deliberately *NOT* shielded to confine
the power within a non-existent cooking cavity.

Look, you can obviously feel free to expose
your balls (and your eyes, etc.) to radiation in
any part of the EM spectrum that you choose, from
ELF to gamma. But you need to know that at least
some portions of that spectrum are not particularly
good for you, and we're not just talking about
the "ionizing radiation" portions.

Tesha

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Yeah, see...

I've never cooked my food or my testicles using power lines either.

[Tesha]

41. How 'bout your laptop?

How 'bout your laptop?

That's the latest way to overheat the old orchs.

Tesha

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Nope.

Sorry.

[Tesha]

64. I'm glad. But please note that it is possible.

I'm glad. But please note that it is possible.

Five seconds on Google revealed 84,400 references that
probably discuss the problem of gentlemen roasting their
chestnuts with laptops.

Here's one of them:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1395183,00.html

Careful, lads, that laptop might burn your genes

By Sam Lister

Scientists have linked portable computers and male infertility
BUSINESSMEN and teenage boys could be risking their fertility by
using laptop computers, research suggests.

The combination of heat generated by the computers and the posture
needed to balance the equipment on the lap leads to raised temperatures
around the scrotum, a study has found. Past research shows that higher
scrotal temperatures can damage sperm and affect fertility. And the
introduction of new technology such as Bluetooth and infrared con-
nections — which provide wireless links to the internet — has
resulted in a growing number of men using the machines on their
thighs rather than at a desk.

To keep the testicles at an ideal temperature — and for greater
comfort — men naturally sit with their legs further apart than
women. When working on a laptop, however, they will adopt a less
natural position in order to balance it on their laps, which
results in a significant rise in body heat between their thighs.

The latest findings, published in the journal Human Reproduction,
give warning that teenagers and young men should consider cutting
the time spent with a computer positioned on their lap because of
the possible long-term damage to their fertility. Researchers from
the State University of New York said their study was the first to
look at the effect of heat from laptop computers on scrotal temperature.

<more>

Ignore it at your peril.

Tesha

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. No wonder Santa and Mrs. Claus don't have kids.

With all those tykes sitting on his lap, Santa's nuts must have been too cooked for them to have kids of their own.

[trotsky]

66. Well, yeah, and so will holding a heating pad on one's nuts for hours.

Direct heat from a source is different than microwave radiation.

[Tesha]

69. You have the most interesting beliefs! All wrong, but interesting. (NT)

[trotsky]

71. Please address post #59.

Thanks.

[trotsky]

37. You need extremely high doses to do those things.

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/microwave.html

But these types of injuries - burns, cataracts, temporary sterility - can only be caused by exposure to large amounts of microwave radiation, much more than the 5mW limit for microwave oven leakage.

Fear-mongering is pretty much a standard MO for the Luddites, isn't it?

[Tesha]

42. We're TALKING ABOUT POWER TRANSMISSION.

Has no one actually read the .0 post?

We're talking about pwer transmission from point to
point in the form of radio waves. If you're planning on
moving any amount of power worth spit, and at any
efficiency worth doing, you'll be talking about a power
density in free space that's way higher than leakage
from a microwave oven.

Or have the laws of physics once again be suspended
to enable easy insults?

Tesha

[trotsky]

45. Yes we are, but you clearly don't understand it one bit.

Not that it stops you from screaming and scrambling and confusing and obfuscating, of course.

Your restatement of this power transmission phenomenon is 100% wrong. Sorry you don't understand it.

[Tesha]

48. I see. perhaps "magic" transmits the power from point A to point B.

Since you understand it so well, please explain how
the power gets from the wireless power transmitter
to the wireless power reciever.

As you do this, please be sure to explain to me the
power density in free space at the various points
along the way.

Tesha

[trotsky]

49. Do you understand the term "quantum tunneling"?

Please explain it first.

[Tesha]

50. Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

> Do you understand the term "quantum tunneling"?

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. The word "quantum" does not
appear in the article. The words "electromagnetic
radiation" do, though:

> Instead of using acoustic vibrations, the team's system
> exploits the resonance of electromagnetic waves. Electro-
> magnetic radiation includes radio waves, infrared and X-rays.

Of course, that's just a direct quote from the article,
so what do I know, ehh?

Tesha

[trotsky]

51. What do you know, indeed?

Just from the part that was quoted in the OP:

When energy is applied to these objects it remains bound to them, rather than escaping to space. "Tails" of energy, which can be many metres long, flicker over the surface.

"If you bring another resonant object with the same frequency close enough to these tails then it turns out that the energy can tunnel from one object to another," said Professor Soljacic.

I simply asked if you understood the term quantum tunneling. Please answer the question - do you?

[Tesha]

52. Yes, I understand quantum tunneling.

> I simply asked if you understood the term quantum tunneling.
> Please answer the question - do you?

Yes, I understand quantum tunneling.

Do *YOU* understand Maxwell's Equations? Or anything
at all about how electromagnetic waves propagate?

Tesha

[trotsky]

53. Why yes, I do.

And I understand this phenomenon is not completely covered by them.

When energy is applied to these objects it remains bound to them, rather than escaping to space.

From the description, this is not an issue of radiating EM waves - there is no power loss unless a receiver of matching frequency is nearby to receive the energy.

Try to understand the issue first rather than scaring people.

[Tesha]

54. Ahh, "magic" again.

> And I understand this phenomenon is not completely
> covered by (Maxwell's Equations).

Ahh, "magic" again.

I don't think you really understand how EM waves propagate.

Tesha

[trotsky]

55. Not magic at all.

I don't think you really understand how EM waves propagate.

And you clearly don't understand that mechanism is not what's being described here.

[Tesha]

56. Just a phenomen you can't explain or even name.

> Not magic at all.

Just a phenomen you can't explain or even name.


> And you clearly don't understand that mechanism is not
> what's being described here.

Funny, I quoted you the section of the article where
they stated it was *EXACTLY* that. And you haven't been
able to describe or even name your alleged phenomenon.

Perhaps I'm not the one who doesn't understand?

Tesha

[trotsky]

57. LOL. This is rich.

You are confused. Here's the phrase from what you quoted:

resonance of electromagnetic waves

Key word: RESONANCE. Not propagation.

[Tesha]

58. "Resonance" requires "propagation". Sorry.

At this moment, our physics and cosmology does not allow
"action at a distance" unless it's mediated by a transfer
mechanism.

There are only four transfer mechanisms available:

o Gravity
o Electromagnetic force
o The Strong Nuclear force
o The Weak Nuclear force.

Choose one.

Note that nowhere on that list is something called "resonance".

Go study some basic physics. Come back when you know what you're
talking about. Here's a place to begin your studies:

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

And feel free to take the last word; I'm done debating with you.

Tesha

[trotsky]

59. Here you go. Another article that pretty much ends this foolishness.

If you accept what those dunderheads at MIT have to say, that is...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/wireless.html

But transferring energy from one point to another through ordinary electromagnetic radiation is typically very inefficient: The waves tend to spread in all directions, so most of the energy is lost to the environment.

trotsky's note: This is what you are confusing with the actual process. Read on.

Soljacic realized that the close-range induction taking place inside a transformer--or something similar to it--could potentially transfer energy over longer distances, say, from one end of a room to the other. Instead of irradiating the environment with electromagnetic waves, a power transmitter would fill the space around it with a "non-radiative" electromagnetic field. Energy would only be picked up by gadgets specially designed to "resonate" with the field. Most of the energy not picked up by a receiver would be reabsorbed by the emitter.

trotsky again: See? It specifically points out that this is NOT radiative like you keep erroneously insisting.

...

While rooted in well-known laws of physics, non-radiative energy transfer is a novel application no one seems to have pursued before. "It certainly was not clear or obvious to us in the beginning how well it could actually work, given the constraints of available materials, extraneous environmental objects, and so on. It was even less clear to us which designs would work best," Soljacic said. He and his colleagues tackled the problem through theoretical calculations and computer simulations.

Yeah, "magic." :eyes:

Shall we continue, or are you going to say you're smarter than the guys at MIT?

[Tesha]

83. You might enjoy reading this patent...

Rather than an article that tries to simplify the
concept, you might enjoy reading this patent:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdes?IDX=US6424820&QPN=US6424820

While not describing power transmission, it does describe
the same basic concept of a "non-radiative electromagnetic
field", but this time being used for information transmission
(to wireless stereophonic headphones, among other applications).
It specifically mentions resonant loop antennas (which seems
to match pretty well with the technology that our MIT power-
transmission folks seem to be talking about).

The transmission method is the maximization of the magnetic
component of the EM field (yes, that same EM field that I've
mentioned to you more than once). The non-radiative aspect
seems to stem from that maximization of the magnetic aspects
of the field rather than the electrostatic aspects of the
field.

It still remains an interesting question as to whether or
not you'd want to *STAND WITHIN* one or more such fields
used for power transmission. (Please note carefully: "non-
radiative" doesn't mean the field doesn't exist, it simply
means that it doesn't tend to couple to things far(ish)
away. It *CERTAINLY* couples from transmitter to receiver,
else what would be the point?)

Tesha

[trotsky]

84. You responded! Hooray!

Too bad your response has nothing to do with the issue, as even you admit.

So you're still wrong.

[Tesha]

86. Actually, my response is *EXACTLY ON POINT*.

And your response is just one more insult.

The scientific ball is well back into your court.

Tesha

[trotsky]

87. ???

Um, your response was addressing something completely different.

But hey, that's obviously the most I'm going to get out of you.

[Tesha]

88. Nope. Exactly the same method.

> Um, your response was addressing something completely different.

Nope. Exactly the same method:

"Non-radiative Electromagnetic Field(s)".

But you still think the .0 article is about magic.
And you still think there's some kind of fifth
fundamental force being discussed here.

There isn't.

Tesha

[trotsky]

89. I'll just let the facts speak for themselves at this point.

The MIT article clearly demonstrates your error.

Please, if you do nothing else, read that patent more closely. In particular, note the discussion of the Faraday cage greatly reducing - but NOT eliminating - the radiative field. (0305)

We can continue this if you'd like, but when you post a link to something that actually further embarrasses yourself, you should probably let it go.

For the record, I never said "magic" was responsible. Nor a fifth fundamental force. Those are the strawman positions you've assigned to me.

[Tesha]

90. That's right -- you've refused to identify how the energy...

That's right -- you've refused to identify how the energy
gets from point A to point B.

Tesha

[trotsky]

91. Um, what?

To re-quote the original and MIT articles? They're right upthread in plain view. Perhaps you should contact the MIT group directly if you still don't understand.

[Tesha]

93. You see, that's it. I understand and can discuss the concepts.

You, on the other hand, can only say "see this reply".

As I said below, you've proven you have no idea what
you're talking about.

Ah well...

Tesha

[trotsky]

94. ...

Your "understanding" is in direct contradiction of the MIT article. I'm not the one pretending to know more than the researchers - you are.

[sweetheart]

12. I do turn off electrics near the bed

I'm sensitive to EMF, and am taking the trouble to enclose all electrics in metal conduit
in a new build which is above the UK code, just to contain electric fields.

It is not uncommon to have EMF sensitivy.
http://www.wave-guide.org/library/basics.html
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/hocking.pdf

Are yo afraid of getting ignorant from your TV?

[trotsky]

15. Being "sensitive" is not the same as getting cancer.

No need to be a fearmonger.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. "It is not uncommon to have EMF sensitivy."

Not outside of peer reviewed science, no.

:rofl:

[sweetheart]

17. Well, ya gotta go with experience

Peer reviewed science just discovered global warming, peer reviewed law is still
figuring out if bush has committed any crimes; obviously the peer review people are stupid,
they are very very slow to pick up on evidence, largely because the peer review junkies
are all corporate bought and paid for to look the other way.

The effects of EMF on tissue are long suspected, given cancer clusters under high power lines
and a long litany of supporting evidence that peer review wankers can't statistically isolate.

Too bad the slow have to wait for their peers to decide for themselves...

When i stand near a high voltage unshielded circuit, i feel sick, maybe some people are
genetically disposed towards getting away from dangerous electric fields, and will pass on
the intelligence gene... naah, natural selection has long stopped, and the ignorance gene
is pervasive. You live in a world where 1 dollar == 1 vote, and of course a new wireless
appliance is a potential market distruptor, big seller, and not a soul will dare hold back
on an idea for the potential it causes lethal sickness.

If it takes 40 years of sitting 6 hours behind that transmitter in your living room,
no UL laboratories will test that before people start dying of the unprovable cancers,
indeed, you chaps behave more like corporate defenders than scientists with a respect
for life and the civil right not to be experimented upon by evil scientists who
are driven by profittttttt.

[trotsky]

21. Actually, peer-reviewed science knew of global warming and climate change

long ago. Why, were psychics warning us of it before them? So you hate peer-reviewed science, what sources were ahead of the curve?

Don't lie about cancer and power lines. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html There are no "cancer clusters," there's no statistical evidence that cancer rates are any higher under power lines at all.

Sorry you have to live in constant (and unwarranted) fear of electric fields.

[sweetheart]

22. Peer reviewed knowledge lies

The approach your pushy attitude encompasses is entirely corporate, pushing a new
technology regardless of its side effects, as the technology is feasible in microcosm.

I don't live in fear, and you would be wise to stop projecting your fear and hatred
on to people who don't worship your peer god.

'EMF sensitivity' has 427,000 hits on google, something if you research, is more than
a coincidence you can dispense with another of your religion-supporting websites.
On the hits, its noticable that the UK and Canada are researching this more than the
US is, probably as public medicine is considering what private american medicine
just leaves out in the gutter and ignores.

Like with mercury which for a long time was not known to be poisonous; but rushed in to
a whole plethora of household products before they realized, 'oh', its not healthy,
the research on the long term health effects of innovations is not done upfront,
leaving the public to die a bit firstup. The same goes with asbestos, flammable
clothing, exploding tyres on SUV's, and a buzillion more things, that when your
very slow religion gets involved, it eventually summarizes that many many died from
"'oops' we were wrong".

But the brazen are too arrogant to be wrong, rather just dredge up a peice
of peer reviewed nonsense to support whatever exploitation of people suits. This wireless power
innovation is not about science, its about pushing untested technology on to the public to see if public
trials of high powered radiation in the house result in cancers. .. and when such research
comes back, you'll be too dead to apologize for being wrong, and the oncologists will
be overjoyed to have more cancers to treat and get rich from.

I don't live in fear, but i am very wary with my common sense of avoiding chemicals
and radiations of all sorts that are still poorly understood in light of the complex
electro-chemical systems in human tissue. Peer reviewed knowledge is very useful at
times, but it is far too slow a vehicle to call truth. It is owned by corprations,
and its worshippers are little more than cynical corporate apologists.

Here's a test for your religion. The peer reviewed 9/11 report can't produce any evidence
that a 757 hit the pentagon, and any serious scientific mind will doubt its conclusions
based on the omission of evidence... but the corporate peers reviewed the lies for
public consumption, and now its probably your religion. You've hitched your wagon to
mammon, not truth, it will betray you at every turn for its corporate political expediency.

[trotsky]

23. LOL

I'll take the facts on my side as all the support I need, thanks.

[rman]

29. the 9/11 report is not peer reviewed,

it is not even a scientific report.

peer-review as used in science is one of the reasons why computers actually work, why asperin works, etc ,etc

[sweetheart]

43. well then it should be

Who paid for a substandard report, the public? Why are we bereft of what you would call a reasonable
standard of peer review'ed ness on such an important report? (maybe the dems should start a public
university to peer review the government)

What peer reviewed the microsoft operating system kernel that runs so many pc's?

So much of life is become corporate, above and beyond peer review, where the concept in academia,
is broken on desert sands of ignorance. I apologize for misinterpreting the peer review, but when
public lies are standing of pure claptrap, the whole house of trust is weakened, and all knowledge
becomes suspect for its owners, patent holders and potential abusers.

The rhetoric of knowledge wears a thin veil if it can't undress humbly before ignorance,
thank you for explaining the term better. I presumed that standards like the bellcore signal system 8
were peer reviewed, that unix was peer reviewed, or is it corporate owned? Knowledge has become so
privatized, that peer reviewed implies knoweldge that people are willing to share to start with.

[rman]

47. you bet it should be

It's why many people want a new investigation.
To bad we can't go back and include forensics in the investigation.

[rman]

26. it's just radio waves, which have been in use for ages

Neither the frequency nor the nature of the waves is anything new.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. I would imagine that the power level would be quite a bit higher

than what a person encounters from current radio broadcasts, though. Otherwise there won't be enough juice to get any real work done.

Radio waves don't power speakers, after all. They just move enough electrons in the antenna so that a receiver can read and amplify the signal (using power from the wall socket -- power which might be enough to kill you if you stuck some kind of conductive material in the holes.)

[rman]

46. it seems this system uses some trick

(the "tunneling") to transfer power more effectively than is the case traditionally.

[FiveGoodMen]

61. Yeah, I'm not against looking into it.

I'm just wondering how that much energy goes flying around without doing any damage. If it really works, that's great, but it sounds like something that would need a lot of careful testing.

[rman]

62. agreed

I'll believe it when i see it.
For now it's just something to keep in the back of my mind.

[Vorta]

7. Does this mean that we'll get phasars soon? I am so tired of the tech lag between sci-fi and reality

[eppur_se_muova]

68. Here ya go ... "PHASAR-based integrated WDM devices"

http://tte.ele.tue.nl/oed/publications/OED%20pubs%202002/Smit%20Phasar%20ODF%202002%20oct%20invited.pdf

[phantom power]

13. Ummm... WTF do they mean by "tunneling?"

This isn't a manifestation of macroscopic quantum effects. Right?

[rman]

30. it sure sounds like macroscopic quantum effects,

which has be kinda baffled.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Hmm.

Photons with long wavelengths still tunnel, right?

[phantom power]

40. Well, their operational distance is only a fraction of the wavelength.

I suppose that makes the tunneling probability plenty high enough.

[Tesha]

60. As of yet, there's no demonstration of macroscopic "tunnelling"

> This isn't a manifestation of macroscopic quantum effects. Right?

As of yet, there's no demonstration of macroscopic "tunnelling".
I think the reporter chose that word unwisely without considering
its true meaning among physicists.

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

"As this is a quantum and non-classical effect, it can
generally only be seen in nanoscopic phenomena — where
the wave behavior of particles is more pronounced."

Tesha

[trotsky]

67. Please read post #59.

Thanks.

[Tesha]

70. You have no idea what you're talking about. (NT)

[trotsky]

72. Post #59 in this thread.

It shows that you actually had no idea what you were talking about.

[Tesha]

73. Look, until you find a FIFTH fundamental force...

Look, until you find a FIFTH fundamental force, even "Post 59"
doesn't mean anything.

Tesha

[trotsky]

77. LOL

Sad. Can't even acknowledge you were wrong.

[Zachstar]

75. Ok trotsky dude chill you are quite rude you know?

Here is a bit of fuel to cook this silly egg of junk.

http://rense.com/general72/cellcook.htm

[trotsky]

76. I answer rudeness with rudeness.

Rense.com? :rofl:

[qazplm]

78. wait

so if I talk on the cell phone for an hour, my brain will be cooked?

Funny how that has never happened.

I'd say any site that talks about NASA airbrushing UFOs is not exactly credible.

[Tesha]

79. The jury is still out. And we thank all of you who are acting as experimental...

The jury is still out on whether cell phones cook your brains. And we
thank all of you who are acting as experimental subjects in one of the
largest research projects ever conducted.

In another few decades, we should know for sure.

Meanwhile, keep dialing ;) !

Tesha

[qazplm]

80. jury hasnt even been convened

much less is out.

There is NO evidence that cell phones will cook anything.

none. zero. nada. zip. zilch.

[Occulus]

81. There is a CORRELATION in the minds of SOME

that cellphone usage can- CAN- cause brain cancer.

Guess what- that blackened chicken you had for lunch? Carcinogenic.

ANY charred meat contains carcinogens.

There are some risks that are not worth avoiding if we wish to remain human. I'm really getting sick of this "live safer = live longer" mentality.

What if I want to live well?

[Tesha]

82. The question remains, scientifically, "open".

The question remains, scientifically, "open".

Real research is still going on. And yes, whether cell phone
users want to think of themselves that way or not, they are
members of the group being studied. There's still plenty of
time for interesting effects to turn up in "the out years".

Digital phones are definitely an improvement as they turn
on the (600 mW) transmitter far less than old continuously-
transmitting AMPS phones, but there's still the question of
whether 600 mW, even when it's pulsed, is safe for you when
you're exposed to it over much of your life.

Please, don't let me stop anyone from dialing -- giant telecom
conglomerates need your monthly fees -- but don't act as though
this is a settled issue; it isn't.

Tesha

[qazplm]

85. lol

it never will be though will it?

40 years from now we will still hear talk about how we still dont know the effects of 70 years of cell phone use.

cell phones have been around since the early 90s. That's almost 20 years and thus far we have seen very little to nothing as far as effects.

And given all of the other things in our environment that have more of an effect on us vis-a-vis cancer and whatnot, it isnt likely at all that cell phones cause cancer.

The well we dont know for sure argument is also used to support those who think global warming could just be the sun varying its "hotness" by the way.

[bananas]

95. No, this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave_coupling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field

[eppur_se_muova]

96. Thanks very much for those links!

I can barely remember anything I learned in Physics 8.03 -- but I remember the mathematics of waveguides was not for me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Doesn't make sense...

"Mathematically, the process is the same as that of quantum tunneling, except with electromagnetic waves instead of quantum-mechanical wavefunctions."

:shrug:

[Orrex]

74. Deadly Orgone!

Did Reich teach us nothing?!?
:tinfoilhat:

(Well, it would be very cool if this worked out...)

[Wickerman]

98. locking

as per OP request.