[Bored chemist]

Now a similar question for you. An easy one for you. What is the answer to this?    ∂∑∞∫∀∅

Feel free to translate that into clear English- the language of this site.

Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any  artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)

I answered it.

No, you did not.
Show me where you mistakenly thunk you did so.

[Bored chemist]

I worked with RF emissions

Did you fall ill?
Or were you somehow immune - while you were paid to deal with them.

[Bored chemist]

With you in spirit, good buddy, and possibly Skype if the experiment progresses. If it turns out to be really interesting, maybe a trip to SA is called for. Happy to chat with the university guy, whoever. An RF spectrometer should at least give you the relative intensities of everything, and a power meter will give you the absolute total, so you can work out the action spectrum from both records.

Thanks. As I said before, I worked with RF emissions and tests so I know my way around the instrumentation.

I will do a simple first trial which is to sit in the radiation without a box and only the meter. Then see how long it takes for the headache, and how intense it gets with time. I will record the results. Maybe do it twice.

What earthly purpose would this serve?

[CliveG]

Waste of time. If you look at the meter you will get sick.

Strange. The meter was not necessary for me to get sick at other times.

Almost any place in our yard is high radiation. I do not need to look at the meter to know that. Since the towers have battery back-up it is almost a certainty they will be transmitting. All I wanted to do was consciously establish what the onset of symptoms feel like. I have not done that before. I just suddenly realize I have a headache, and that it is a "tower-headache" ie one at the back of my head near the top.

[CliveG]

I worked with RF emissions

Did you fall ill?
Or were you somehow immune - while you were paid to deal with them.

You should do some reading on radiation. Dose is the key factor. Length of exposure and level of exposure. In the case of cell tower radiation the pulsations have to be there.

When we looked for emissions, they were usually very very low because they were from a circuit board that should not be radiating. We used an receiving antenna in a Faraday cage room (one lined with copper) and swept the frequencies. When we checked for susceptibility, we put the device and the transmitting antenna in an absorptive chamber which was also a Faraday cage room and we stayed outside while the frequencies were swept at high power to try to get the circuit to mis-operate. At no time were we exposed.

Your ignorance of such testing is showing. Angels would fear to tread in such an area of expertise, but not you.

[CliveG]

Now a similar question for you. An easy one for you. What is the answer to this?    ∂∑∞∫∀∅

Feel free to translate that into clear English- the language of this site.

Febrile seizures were well documented before there were any  artificial sources of EM radiation (unless you count candles)

I answered it.

No, you did not.
Show me where you mistakenly thunk you did so.

The symbols are randomly chosen and make as much sense as some of your comments.

As for not knowing where I answered you - all I can say is what Charlie Brown would say "Oh, Good Grief."

[Bored chemist]

Your ignorance of such testing is showing.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with it.
And the interesting point about it is that it does not (typically) use high levels of EM radiation.
As such, it is of course irrelevant to the discussion.
So, when you introduced the idea that you worked in RF fields, I thought you meant ones which were important- significant in the context of this thread.
I apologise for assuming that you were not raising irrelevant nonsense. I should have known you better by now.
And I guess, in much the same way, I shouldn't have expected a better answer from you than I would from a f year-old saying "I don't know" to nigh everything.
Anyway, if you don't like being made to look like an idiot, perhaps you should think about stuff before you post it.

[CliveG]

Your ignorance of such testing is showing.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with it.
And the interesting point about it is that it does not (typically) use high levels of EM radiation.
As such, it is of course irrelevant to the discussion.
So, when you introduced the idea that you worked in RF fields, I thought you meant ones which were important- significant in the context of this thread.
I apologise for assuming that you were not raising irrelevant nonsense. I should have known you better by now.
And I guess, in much the same way, I shouldn't have expected a better answer from you than I would from a f year-old saying "I don't know" to nigh everything.
Anyway, if you don't like being made to look like an idiot, perhaps you should think about stuff before you post it.

So tell us where and how you gained your "familiarity" with EMC lab testing?

Check these two sites

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7766/6046db7909c805a556b900a58d19828fc4fe.pdf
Page 29
Based on the previously mentioned ANSI standards used by the TTAC Group for EMC testing, the following specificationswere used to test the camera:•The camera will be exposed to an RF field intensity of 50 V/m•The frequency range will be 30 MHz –2.5 GHz•The frequency range will be 80% amplitude modulated with a 1 kHz sine wave•The frequency will sweep at a 1% change rate of the fundamental frequency•There will be a 3 second dwell time on each individual frequency

slideshare.net/monikakhanna/radiated-susceptibility-analysis-software-rs-analyst-overview
Slide 5 Consumer and Industrial 1 to 30 V/m at 1 or 3 meter test distance 80Mhz to 6 Ghz
Slide 8 Military 6 V/m to 200 V/m   1 meter test distance 10kHz to 40Ghz

1V/m is 2652 uW/sqm.
The power density and the frequencies are similar to what the cell towers put out. They are also modulated.

Explain why you think my experience has nothing to do with the cell tower?

I worked in R&D in City Power in Johannesburg. We had spectrum analysers and tested equipment very roughly for EMC. We soldered on a wire "aerial" of six inches and then held a walkie talkie next to the circuit. We cut the wire shorter and shorter until there was no disruption of the circuit under test. That was at 1 inch.

I know measurements and equipment. I lectured engineers who had applied for entry to get a professional certification. The subject was measurements.

A physics experimenter claimed to have invented a machine that extracted energy from the "ether" - the underlying quantum field. Her machine tested as 100% power in and 110% power out. Even with sophisticated measurements. The University lecturers and Hewlett Packard instrumentation engineers were baffled although they did think it was a measurement problem. I was hired to help her but I refused because I knew the reason for the results - and demonstrated it to a university man. Grounding. Just grounding. Isolate everything and use a common center for the ground point. Especially the instrumentation. Now the true readings came out. 100% in and 95 % out. Experience AND a logical analytical sense. I did not pop her bubble or expose her because her rich father left her a lot of money as long as she pursued this pipe dream.

There you go again. Rushing in....

[Bored chemist]

All that knowledge, and yet you can't follow the  design of a simple experiment.
Get a recording  em field monitor + carry it about with you for a week or so.
Also record if you feel unwell.

Because  21st century life is full of various transmitters- some high power ones- you will be exposed to strong fields.
And if those fields make  you unwell, then there will be a correlation between the two records.

By the way, was the equipment you used for measuring RF susceptibility of such a nature that you could carry it around with you, and have it  automatically record the field strength?
Or was it irrelevant?

[Hayseed]

Hey Clive, have you ever heard of a SDR dongle?  ~ 20 bucks on ebay.  sometimes as low as 10.

This marvelous little gadget will show the lower cell spectrum.  It will give you an idea.  The software is free and you can record, if you have the memory.

And if you like what you see.......they have advanced models.  With more features.

[CliveG]

All that knowledge, and yet you can't follow the  design of a simple experiment.
Get a recording  em field monitor + carry it about with you for a week or so.
Also record if you feel unwell.

Because  21st century life is full of various transmitters- some high power ones- you will be exposed to strong fields.
And if those fields make  you unwell, then there will be a correlation between the two records.

By the way, was the equipment you used for measuring RF susceptibility of such a nature that you could carry it around with you, and have it  automatically record the field strength?
Or was it irrelevant?

GROAAAAN!!!

Do you have a day job?

[CliveG]

Hey Clive, have you ever heard of a SDR dongle?  ~ 20 bucks on ebay.  sometimes as low as 10.

This marvelous little gadget will show the lower cell spectrum.  It will give you an idea.  The software is free and you can record, if you have the memory.

And if you like what you see.......they have advanced models.  With more features.

Now this is a really helpful post. Thanks.

I have been looking at cheap spectrum analyzers and am about to buy one.

The SDRs are really interesting. I see the chip technology can sample up to 6G with direct A2D. Impressive. I will search some more in this area to find one that is suitable. I need to go up to 2.5Ghz. Cell frequencies here are typically 0.8 to 2.5GHz and 3.6Ghz for the 5G that has been rolled out.

[Hayseed]

10-4.

[CliveG]

Here is something that will interest amateur detectives and logical thinkers.

- 12 December 2018 the tower was ordered powered off except for safety.
- 13 December 2018 the tower was powered off including the safety navigation lights.
- 9 January 2019 12h30 I noticed a man behaving suspiciously and entering the tower area.
- 12h45 I had to leave for the afternoon so could not continue to monitor the man.
- 9 January 2019 at 18h30 my meter indicated that the tower was transmitting at full power.
- 10 January 2019 08h00 I sent a letter to Atlas demanding the tower be powered off and saying I had proof.
- 11 January 2019 01h00 tower still on
- 03h00 tower is off
- 12h45 I get letter from Atlas lawyers denying the power was on
- 14h00 I get a call asking if Atlas can conduct a measurement test on 15 January
- 15 January 2019 11h00 Atlas and test company arrive and take power off measurements
- 11h30 Atlas tries to power on and area power goes off
- 12h00 Power is on and measurements are taken
- 12h30 Atlas tell me the power is off and show me cell phone picture of breakers
- 13h00 the transmitters stop.
- 19h00 the navigation lights come on at night (and each night afterward)
- 7 March 2019 in court the metering company submits a graph showing daily consumption
- There are two graphs cumulative consumption in kWhr  and average power in kW
- They show no power consumed on the 9th, 10th and 11th
- For 9 days (2 Dec to 11 Dec) there is a consumption of 10,000kWhrs
- It is not possible to gauge the added consumption for the 15th Jan but it looks like more than 1 typical day
- The average kW for each day is show as 4.5 to 5 kW and 2.7 kW for the day it was switched off.
- The meter company states that their modem was quiet for the period from 12 Dec 2019 to 15 Jan 2019.
- The average kW for the 15th Jan is shown as 5.7 kW
- The meter company states that the 15th was "atypical" because it was a in situ test power on for only an hour.

Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
Explain what went on here.
I will be taking legal action, so any help will be appreciated. Even from Bored Chemist because it will tell me what the tower company may try to use as an explanation.

[alancalverd]

Warning lights are not always required on towers under 200 ft high unless they are close to an airport (for obvious reasons) or charted as official sea or river navigation marks. Is this an exceptionally tall phone mast or in a navigationally busy area? I've had a mobile phone cooked by the weather radar of a 737, so you may need to expand your spectral analysis.

[Bored chemist]

Do you have a day job?

Yes.
My day job is to assess risks.
But Saturday is part of the weekend.

Do you have a day job?

[Bored chemist]

Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
Explain what went on here.
I will be taking legal action, so any help will be appreciated. Even from Bored Chemist because it will tell me what the tower company may try to use as an explanation.

Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?

9 January 2019 12h30 I noticed a man behaving suspiciously and entering the tower area.

I presume you informed the police. Do you have proof? Did you take pictures?
Is the man imaginary?

[CliveG]

Now, the question is. Why did the tower company act in the way it did?
Explain what went on here.
I will be taking legal action, so any help will be appreciated. Even from Bored Chemist because it will tell me what the tower company may try to use as an explanation.

Did it occur to you that they may have been using the tower... because that's what they built it for?

9 January 2019 12h30 I noticed a man behaving suspiciously and entering the tower area.

I presume you informed the police. Do you have proof? Did you take pictures?
Is the man imaginary?

Did you read the part about being under court order to have it turned off?

Suspicious man. I would alert our area security. The police are useless. However, the man used keys to get into the tower enclosure. There is also loitered and was on his cell phone until I had to leave. My instincts as to people behaving suspiciously have usually been right.

[Bored chemist]

Did you read the part about being under court order to have it turned off?

Yes.
Did you read the bit about our Prime Minister not signing a letter to the European Union?

However, the man used keys to get into the tower enclosure.

So, you suspect him of working there?

There is also loitered

Loitering with intent to work, perhaps?

was on his cell phone

Hardly a shock, since he seems likely to work for a phone company.

My instincts as to people behaving suspiciously have usually been right.

I presume you also have no evidence for that.

If you take this to court they will be too busy laughing to even look at your evidence regarding the meter readings.

10 January 2019 08h00 I sent a letter to Atlas demanding the tower be powered off and saying I had proof.

What form did that proof take?
Would it have been a matter of "my meter said...". Do you have independent corroboration?
Do you realise that, in a case where it's one person's word against another, the court finds in favour of the defendant? (and usually you would expect to pay court costs too).

[CliveG]

Did you read the part about being under court order to have it turned off?

Yes.
Did you read the bit about our Prime Minister not signing a letter to the European Union?

However, the man used keys to get into the tower enclosure.

So, you suspect him of working there?

There is also loitered

Loitering with intent to work, perhaps?

was on his cell phone

Hardly a shock, since he seems likely to work for a phone company.

My instincts as to people behaving suspiciously have usually been right.

I presume you also have no evidence for that.

If you take this to court they will be too busy laughing to even look at your evidence regarding the meter readings.

10 January 2019 08h00 I sent a letter to Atlas demanding the tower be powered off and saying I had proof.

What form did that proof take?
Would it have been a matter of "my meter said...". Do you have independent corroboration?
Do you realise that, in a case where it's one person's word against another, the court finds in favour of the defendant? (and usually you would expect to pay court costs too).

A) Disobeying a court order has consequences.
B) The man drove by slowly in a old pickup with no markings while checking the site and our house. He then did a U-turn down the street and parked where we could not see his vehicle.
C) The man open the gated area with keys (the thieves who stole the batteries a few weeks ago used side-shaft to break the fencing and the locks). The man had no work clothes or hard hat, which other employees have. The man walked about slowly while on his phone and looking about. Even for the slow pace of SA workers he was taking his time and not appearing to have an objective.
D) Nearly everyone in SA (poverty stricken or not) has a cell phone.
E) Why do you want evidence that my instincts are good? Are you a bored cynic?
F) Check the meter readings and also use your logic (I know that is a hard ask, but try) and you will find the court will have difficulty rejecting my explanation of the tower companies actions. But that is what I am asking readers to do.

I have a video recording of my meter and my wife showing the radiation was on. But I do not need that for evidence if you read through the steps I laid out.

I have caught people out before in a court case where things did not add up and my cross-examination of the opposing party showed them the truth. First the government lawyer put his head down to hide his smile, then the arbitrator hid his smile behind his hand, and finally the opposing parties lawyer's face dropped as he realized what I was exposing and why he had problems with his own witnesses. The penny took a while to drop with the opposing party. They had a hard time accepting they had been scammed and played for fools. Just like in the movies, after 2 days of a hearing, I had read and re-read the documents until 2 am before a sheet of paper with the security alarm records on it caught my attention. What a sweet moment.